Marketing Observations on the World Cup
We are nearing the 2026 World Cup finals. The month-long event has been a remarkable sporting extravaganza, with 104 matches and more than 11.5 billion cumulative viewers.
Here are six marketing observations.
The Hydration Break Miracle
Soccer has always suffered from a marketing problem: there were limited opportunities for advertisements.
Structurally, the NFL is a perfect marketing model. In an American football game, there are a few plays and then a break in the action. Then a few more plays and another break. This provides so many opportunities for advertisements. The breaks are relatively brief, so people often continue watching.
Soccer had a basic problem: there were no breaks in the action and as a result fewer opportunities for advertising. Companies could run ads before and after the match, and during halftime. But those opportunities were limited because people wouldn’t stick with it. At halftime, people need to change the fluids. After the game, people quickly moved on to celebrating or commiserating.
The addition of hydration breaks is a game changer for FIFA. All of a sudden, like magic, there are many more advertising opportunities.
The hydration breaks haven’t been popular with traditional soccer fans. So, will FIFA abandon them going forward? I suspect there is virtually zero chance this will happen.
The Power of Nike and Adidas
Two brands dominated the World Cup: Nike and Adidas. From the sneakers on the field (many of them pink) to the jerseys to the advertising, Nike and Adidas both stand out. Adidas in particular ran an extraordinary amount of advertising.
One of the facts of marketing is that it takes resources. The World Cup shows precisely why strong brands like Adidas and Nike have such power. They have vast resources and are willing to spend. While both brands have stumbled in recent years, I expect both will endure as category leaders.
The Split Economy
The global economy is facing challenges. Energy costs are up, inflation has been running high, real estate is increasingly unaffordable and incomes are stagnant.
Nonetheless, people are willing to spend money on special experiences.
That is the learning from the World Cup. Ticket prices were astonishing, with people spending thousands of dollars on a ticket. Many traveled to the matches, paying high airfares. Food and drinks were expensive.
With all that, there was no regret. People didn’t go on Tik Tok lamenting the reckless spending. There was joy in the experience. The only regret I’ve noticed is from people who didn’t go to a match.
There are two economic distinctions that are important to watch. First, the gap between the wealthy and the less affluent. Second, the gap between special things and everyday things. Selling special things is the place to be, especially to wealthy. Selling everyday things to the less affluent is a difficult place.
Successful brands need to deliver special experiences. In a difficult world, people will spend on a select group of memorable and important things.
Claude’s Inconsistent Marketing
It is hard to be consistently good when it comes to marketing. Firms that pull it off deserve enormous credit.
An example of the challenge: Anthropic’s Claude.
In the Super Bowl this year, Claude ran one of the top spots, a captivating ad about the risk of advertising in AI. The strategy was rock solid: the goal was to differentiate Claude from other platforms in a credible way. The execution was tremendous. The entire spot was summarized in the line, “What’s the difference between you and me?”
For the World Cub, Anthropic is back with another Claude execution. Does Claude maintain the momentum? No. Claude’s World Cup spot is a huge miss. The ads gets attention with striking visuals. But the creative is then just a series of random questions about AI. It isn’t clear how this connects to Claude; linkage is weak. There isn’t a benefit or a clear positioning. The branding is late.
Claude should have built on its Super Bowl spot instead of overthinking things.
The Strangest Spot: Kalshi
Every once in a while you see an ad that makes you wonder what the company was thinking. The World Cup spot from prediction market firm Kalshi falls into this category.
The spot features a dentist doing a procedure on actor Timothée Chalamet. Chalamet repeatedly says Kalshi, which doesn’t make any sense to the dentist. It doesn’t make any sense to me, either. Maybe Kalshi is just trying to build brand awareness. But brand awareness without any context isn’t useful.
If you don’t know what Kalshi is, this ad makes no sense at all. Is Kalshi a pain medication? A dental product? A taxi service? A friend?
If you do know what Kalshi is, the ad also makes no sense. What is the point of this?
My Top Spot
Who had the best spot this year? I’m going with Visa for its terrific ad featuring Jason Sudeikis of Ted Lasso fame. The casting is perfect. The set up: a hairdresser asks Sudekis, “You’re going back home for the games?” and Sudeikis replies, “Oh I wish.” But he realizes he can tap in with his Visa card. After a long journey, he taps all the way to a World Cup match.
The spot grabs attention and delivers a benefit. The best part is that the Visa brand is completely integrated into the action. He achieves his dreams by tapping his Visa card.
The clear message: we can all achieve our dreams with Visa.
Excellent, as usual. I agree that Nike is of course a strong/formidable brand. I’d love your perspective on whether this is enduringly so.