The World Cup has 1,400 players. How many have over $80 million in net worth?
June 10, 2026
From 4,000 to 6,000,000: the Tim Payne case and the questions nobody’s answering
July 6, 2026
By Martín Litwak
Every time a World Cup comes around, attention goes where it always does: the stadiums, the sponsors, the squads, the stars, the broadcast rights, and the ball. But behind that global spectacle, there’s another match being played, far less televised, in tax offices, international treaties, double taxation agreements, and local regulations.
That’s the tax match.
The 2026 World Cup, currently being played across the United States, Mexico, and Canada, sends a clear signal to those of us who have been watching this space for years: governments are no longer as willing to let the wealth generated within their borders go untaxed, even when that wealth arrives on the back of the most popular sporting event on the planet.
The deal that no longer exists: tax exemptions at major events
For a long time, major international events operated under a particular logic. To attract them, host countries agreed to offer exemptions, benefits, and special tax treatment. In many cases, those conditions were part of the package demanded by the organizers. The reasoning was straightforward: the event brought tourism, consumption, international visibility, infrastructure investment, and a reputational upside that justified giving up some tax revenue.
That model is changing.
What’s happening with player taxes at the 2026 World Cup
For the 2026 World Cup, available information suggests that foreign players competing in matches held in Mexico and the United States are not necessarily covered by an automatic personal exemption.
In Mexico, tax regulations provide that non-resident players are liable for tax on the portion of income attributable to matches played, or for which they were called up, on Mexican territory. In the United States, the IRS has made clear that non-residents participating in the tournament may have tax obligations on U.S.-source income, regardless of what applicable tax treaties may establish.
In other words: this isn’t about a player being taxed simply for setting foot on the pitch. The issue is more precise than that, and precisely for that reason, more consequential: if a person generates income attributable to an activity carried out in a given country, that country may seek to tax that portion of the income.
The pitch may be neutral from a sporting standpoint. From a tax standpoint, it isn’t.
Elite footballers: among the most globally exposed taxpayers in the world
Elite footballers earn salaries in one country, receive bonuses from a national federation, hold image contracts with international brands, live in one jurisdiction, invest in another, and compete across many more. That’s why wealth planning for them isn’t a luxury; it’s a first-order necessity. Particularly now, when tax authorities are watching more closely than ever.
None of this is entirely new. Many countries have long had rules to tax non-resident athletes, artists, and performers on income earned from local appearances, competitions, or events. What’s changed isn’t necessarily the existence of those rules, but the way they’re now being applied to events of global scale, with coordination between tax administrations and increasingly sophisticated criteria for allocating income across jurisdictions.
The questions almost nobody asks in time
That’s where the real conversation starts.
How is it determined which portion of a player’s income corresponds to a match played in Mexico, the United States, or Canada? What happens if the bonus is paid by the player’s home federation? How does that interact with the player’s tax residency? What if a double taxation treaty applies? Who withholds? Who reports? Who credits the tax paid abroad?
These questions sound technical. Their practical consequences are enormous. Because in tax matters, form matters, but substance matters even more. And the substance here is clear: players are generating economic value in countries that intend to exercise tax authority over that value.
Why this case matters beyond football
This example is relevant for two reasons.
The first is symbolic. The World Cup is arguably the clearest expression of globalization: national teams, players competing in foreign leagues, multinational brands, global audiences, and money moving around the entire planet. The fact that even in this context governments still maintain that a share of that income should be taxed within their borders shows that globalization did not erase fiscal borders.
The second reason is practical, and perhaps more important. Many athletes, artists, and content creators still believe that international tax planning is something that can be figured out later, as if it were a paperwork issue. It isn’t.
Planning has to happen before, with structure, substance, and a comprehensive view. The goal isn’t to avoid taxes; it’s to avoid contingencies, double taxation, surprises, and poorly designed structures.
In a world where tax authorities cooperate more, share more information, and have better tools to detect cross-border income, improvisation is becoming increasingly costly. And the value of proper wealth planning is becoming increasingly clear.
A signal worth reading
The 2026 World Cup will be remembered for its matches, its stadiums, its players, and for being the first edition with 48 teams. But it may also stand as another example of something we’ve been observing for years: when money crosses borders, taxes don’t disappear.
Because even when the world is watching the ball, tax authorities are watching the spreadsheet.
In football, as in wealth planning, playing well isn’t enough. You also have to know the rules of the field you’re playing on.
Interested in understanding how a professional athlete’s wealth should be properly structured? At EVOLVE, we work with athletes and sports institutions operating across multiple jurisdictions.