Expert comment: World Cup boost or economic own goal? The hidden impact of football fever

Dr Tony Syme, macroeconomic expert at the University of Salford, comments: “The economics of mega sporting events is built on eye-catching numbers, including a predicted £3.8 billion total spending linked to the World Cup. Those numbers are real, but the more interesting economics sits in the behaviour underneath.

“The familiar fear is that football spending just comes at the cost of the rest of the economy. Behavioural economics suggests otherwise: people treat a major tournament as a one-off occasion and set aside a "World Cup pot" they would never dip into in a normal week. Much of the boost to supermarket and off-licence sales is therefore extra spending, not money pulled from elsewhere.

“The late North American kick-off times add a twist. They squeeze demand into a few synchronised hours rather than spreading it across the week, so pubs and shops hit their limits and prices rise faster than real activity. The late nights carry a cost the next morning too: forecasts put lost productivity at more than £1.4 billion as fatigue takes its toll.

“But a less obvious effect also shows up in financial markets. A study in the Journal of Finance showed that a nation's stock market dips the day after its team is knocked out of a major tournament, and the effect is lopsided: defeat drags markets down more than victory lifts them. A World Cup is not just a spending event, it is a mood shock that feeds into how confident households and investors feel. For the UK, the genuine economic risk is not a quiet group stage, it is an early exit.

“Put together, the picture is more muted than the headline numbers suggest. Much of the extra spending is real, but higher prices absorb part of it and lost productivity pulls the other way, so the net effect on GDP is probably modest. The net effect on national mood, and through it on the confidence that drives spending and investment, may prove considerably larger.”

University of Salford macroeconomist, Dr Charles Nimoh, adds: “The 2026 World Cup presents an unusual economic picture for the UK. While major tournaments are typically associated with packed pubs, bustling city centres and all-day spending, the North American time difference means many of England's matches will kick off much later in the evening, often 9pm or 10pm UK time. At first glance, that appears to be a challenge for businesses hoping to cash in on football fever. In reality, it is more likely to change where and when money is spent rather than eliminate spending altogether.

“For hospitality businesses, the timing is a double-edged sword. A late kick-off takes away the classic “after-work rush” and much of the traditional pre-match trade generated by supporters leaving work early and heading straight to the pub. However, the government's decision to relax licensing rules for key matches, that is, allowing pubs to stay open until 2am, creates an opportunity to catch the late wave rather than the early crowd. The British Beer and Pub Association estimate each pub could sell an extra 1,240 pints per England match, rising to 55 million extra pints if England reaches the final. Therefore, hospitality is forecast to take £898 million during the tournament, nearly double the 2022 figure.

“The beneficiaries may ultimately be different from those seen during previous tournaments. Instead of packed city-centre pubs, the action may shift into kitchens, living rooms and delivery apps. Supermarkets, convenience stores and food delivery platforms are likely to enjoy stronger demand as many supporters opt for the “watch at home” experience. Total consumer spending across retail and hospitality is projected to reach £3.8 billion, with retail alone accounting for £2.9 billion, an 81% increase on 2022. In short, the party does not stop; it just moves indoors.

“Productivity concerns are mixed. With most live viewing outside of working hours, employers face less disruption from early departures. However, late finishes still carry a cost: analysis suggests up to 3.6 million sick days could be taken, amounting to an estimated £94 million in sick pay.

“The biggest variable remains England's performance. A deep tournament run historically generates a feel-good factor that encourages discretionary spending. The World Cup's economic impact is therefore unlikely to be absent; it will simply look different, arriving later, flowing through different sectors, and concentrated in fewer, bigger moments.

“The economy does not miss the World Cup; it just turns up at a different hour.”