Jumpers for goalposts. Bagpipes leading out an army of Scottish fans. The exitement of kids across the UK lobbying their parents for 2am bedtimes on a school night. 

In a social media ecosystem in which consumers increasingly find themselves alone but together, it is all too easy to romanticise the togetherness of a World Cup. 

For while AI has ushered in a new era of personalisation at scale in marketing, it is arguably that sense of togetherness and shared experience which sits at the heart of the cultural currency so many brands are chasing.

Yet, scratch the surface and arguably the togetherness of the most polarising tournament in history is wafer thin. With this in mind we asked marketing leaders in the age of experience, is the World Cup losing its marketing muscle?

Football is still the biggest sport in the world and the FIFA World Cup is the tournament that truly touches most people on the planet, whether they’re an avid football fan or casual observer. It’s on the pitch, on TV, in the shops and in the bars and restaurants in most corners of the globe. There are so many brands that feel that their product or service can tap into this global excitement and position themselves as part of the big game ritual. Whether that’s directly, like sports brands or broadcasters, or indirectly like alcohol, snacks or fast-food deliveries. Marketing has become more and more personalised and targeted but the shared appointment to view is still a huge media opportunity. We’ve seen controversy in recent years in the choice of tournament locations such as Russia and Qatar and the less-than-clean reputation of FIFA but as soon as the tournament kicks off, the excitement and national pride take over. There are official sponsors who’ve paid a fortune for the rights and then there are all the other brands trying to get involved without contravening copyright or rights agreements. The FIFA World Cup is still the event every brand wants to get hold of.

The World Cup isn’t losing its marketing muscle. It’s exposing who knows how to use it. With record sponsorship revenue and an expanded 48-team format, 2026 will be the most commercially ambitious tournament yet. In a fragmented media landscape, traditional broadcast reach no longer guarantees impact. Owning the rights is not the win. Building something worth experiencing is.

As demand for real-world connection grows, the advantage shifts to brands that design experiences fans can enter, engage with, and share. Rising ticket and travel costs also mean many of the most passionate global audiences won’t be inside stadiums. The winners will be those who move beyond logos to live culture through fan festivals, local activations, and shared spaces that meet fans where they are. That is where attention lives now and where brands earn their place. Experiential strategy is what turns visibility into real brand impact.

I'd disagree - The World Cup's value isn't defined by experience. It's defined by its status as a global cultural event.

Scarcity creates anticipation: The four-year cycle runs counter in a world of always-on content and constant tournaments. Its scarcity doesn't dilute attention, it intensifies it - from qualification, to anticipation, to 90 mins, extra-time, pens - it's tradition, behaving more like a cultural event than a sporting event.

Anticipation creates attention: Nothing else reliably brings together a truly global audience at the same moment. The Olympics comes closest, but football's combination of local tribalism x global reach gives the tournament a deeper emotional resonance. It's referred to as The World Cup for a reason.

Attention reinforces institutional importance: The bidding for hosting rights begins 7-10 years in advance. Players prioritise the World Cup cycles within their careers. Clubs carefully manage assets around it. These are all signals that its status remains embedded at the top of the sporting hierarchy.

Experiences aren't competing: New experiences create additional ways to engage, rather than replicating what makes the World Cup valuable. The reluctance of broadcasters such as the BBC and ITV to cover half-time shows highlights a fundamental difference in how the World Cup generates value. Most experiences are opt-in - the World Cup is opt-out, as it's part of global conversation whether you're seeking it out or not.

The World Cup doesn't compete with experiences, it transcends them. Its value comes from being one of the few moments capable of creating shared excitement at a genuinely global scale.

For years, marketers have chased personalisation. AI promises to make that dream a reality, delivering increasingly relevant experiences at unprecedented scale.

At the same time, we're told culture is fragmenting. That mass audiences are disappearing and consumers are retreating into personalised feeds and niche communities.

Which raises an interesting question: in the age of experience, is the World Cup losing its marketing muscle?

I'm not so sure.

In fact, I wonder if the opposite is true.

As our feeds become more personalised and our content increasingly synthetic, shared experiences are becoming scarce. And scarcity creates value.

The World Cup was built for the broadcast age, but perhaps its real value belongs to the AI age.

Because while technology can create almost anything, it can't recreate the feeling of millions of people experiencing the same moment together. Cities stopping. Families gathering. Countries collectively holding their breath.

This isn't an argument against AI. Quite the opposite. AI will help brands create more relevant experiences than ever before. But relevance without culture risks becoming optimisation without meaning.

Perhaps the most valuable media channel of the next decade won't be AI.

It will be reality.

Because in a world where everything can be created, edited and personalised, shared human experiences may become the scarcest commodity of all.

And perhaps that's why the World Cup isn't losing its marketing muscle.

In a word, no. 

Because the World Cup is an experience. One with such broad appeal that entire nations get swept up in it.

You know the drill. If you love football, the excitement starts before the squad is announced. If you don’t, you begin by saying “I probably won’t watch it”, only to find yourself in a sweepstake, the office is closing early so everyone can watch the game, and you’re chewing off what’s left of your fingernails during a penalty shootout or embracing a total stranger in the pub because of a last-minute equaliser.

That’s what makes the World Cup different. It isn’t just watched; it’s experienced collectively. The scale of that shared experience doesn't just attract attention; it changes behaviour, driving spending across hospitality, food and drink, travel, sportswear and entertainment. That's why brands are expected to invest around £10.5bn in the 2026 tournament.

Far from losing its marketing muscle, the World Cup remains one of the few events capable of turning a nation’s attention into consumer spending.

Football clubs have become incredibly good at creating belonging. They build communities, identities and emotional connections that people live week after week. National teams, meanwhile, seem to be losing some of that connection with their audiences.

Part of the reason could be that clubs are increasingly built around choice. People gravitate towards clubs that reflect their values, aspirations or sense of identity. National teams, by contrast, are largely inherited.

The World Cup still captures global attention, but attention alone is no longer enough. People want to feel part of something, not just watch it. They are drawn to experiences that are emotional, participatory and culturally meaningful.

The opportunity remains enormous. National teams are effectively the clubs with the largest possible fan base. But federations need to learn from clubs how to build relevance, belonging and excitement between tournaments.

The question is simple: if given the choice, would you rather watch your national team or your city derby?