Ethics CasesSport

Cases · FIFA · 2022–2026

Earmarked but Not Guaranteed: FIFA's Women's World Cup Player Payments

Before the 2023 Women's World Cup, more than 150 players from 25 national teams, backed by the union FIFPRO, asked FIFA for equal conditions, a fair share of prize money for players and a path to equal prize money. FIFA raised the prize pool to $110 million, about a quarter of the men's 2022 total, and earmarked payments for every player, from $30,000 to $270,000 for each champion. But on the eve of the tournament, FIFA President Gianni Infantino said the payments would go through national associations. With the 2027 tournament approaching, FIFA's pledge of equal prize money remains unmet. The case asks who is responsible for making sure money reaches athletes.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. More than 150 players from 25 national teams, with FIFPRO, write to FIFA calling for equal conditions and fair prize money.
  2. At its Congress, FIFA announces a $152 million package for 2023 and an ambition of equal prize money in 2026-27.
  3. FIFA announces a payment model earmarking $30,000 to $270,000 for each player, endorsed by FIFPRO.
  4. Infantino says FIFA's payments go through member associations, which then pay players.
  5. The tournament final is played in Sydney.
  6. FIFA's Bureau of the Council approves higher 2027 distributions, including $2.5 million in preparation money per team.
  7. Reports say FIFA plans $220 million in 2027 prize money, below the $655 million for the 2026 men's tournament.

The ethical issues

  • Gender pay equity at the sport's biggest events.
  • Whether money earmarked for players actually reaches them.
  • Collective action by athletes across national teams.
  • The gap between public pledges and binding commitments.
  • The role of national federations as intermediaries.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Women's national team playersFair and reliable pay for their work.
FIFAGrowth of women's football and its own finances and reputation.
National associationsFunding for development and control of distributions.
FIFPRO and national unionsBinding protections for players.
ClubsCompensation for releasing players.
Fans and broadcastersA high-quality, credible tournament.

The case

In June 2023, FIFA announced what it called a “ground-breaking” payment model for the Women’s World Cup in Australia and New Zealand. Every player would receive guaranteed pay for her performance, rising to $270,000 for each member of the winning squad.[1] Six weeks later, on the eve of the tournament, FIFA President Gianni Infantino explained how the money would move: “Whatever payments we do, we do through the associations. And then the associations make the relevant payments to their players.”[6] The players’ union FIFPRO had pushed hard for the change and welcomed it. Even so, the model left open who was responsible for making sure the money arrived. With the 2027 tournament in Brazil approaching, FIFA’s stated goal of equal prize money for men and women has not been met.[7]

Background

FIFA’s World Cup prize money is paid to national associations according to how far their teams progress. Associations decide how much reaches players.[5] In October 2022, FIFPRO, its member unions and more than 150 players from 25 national teams sent Infantino a letter. FIFPRO called it “the largest piece of collective action ever undertaken by women’s football players.” It asked for equal regulations and conditions, fair redistribution of prize money to players, and a path to equal prize money, protected by an agreement.[3][4]

In March 2023 FIFA announced a total package of $152 million for the tournament. FIFPRO said this was three times the 2019 figure. FIFA also promised that travel, accommodation and team services would match those provided to the men in 2022.[3] Professional Footballers Australia (PFA), the Australian players’ union, warned against misleading comparisons. It explained that the $152 million included preparation funding and payments to clubs. The like-for-like prize money figure was $110 million, about 25% of the $440 million in prize money at the 2022 men’s World Cup.[5] The PFA also noted that preparation funding per team was lower than for the men, which it said contradicted the claim of “equal conditions.”[5] Infantino described equal prize money for the 2026 men’s and 2027 women’s tournaments as “the objective that we set for ourselves.” The PFA pointed out that this was hedged and not in writing.[5]

What happened

On 8 June 2023 FIFA announced its distribution model. Associations would receive record payments based on performance, and a “financial contribution specifically earmarked” for players. Each player would get $30,000 for the group stage, rising stage by stage, with each of the 23 champions receiving $270,000.[1] Infantino said the global average salary of women’s professional footballers was about $14,000 a year, so the payments would “have a real and meaningful impact.”[1] FIFPRO’s president said the model was “universally applied, and it is fair.”[1] FIFPRO called the reforms a “clear success” of collective action.[4]

At a news conference in Auckland on 19 July 2023, Infantino was asked about pay disparity. He said he wanted to focus on positives during the tournament and that federations were responsible for passing on FIFA’s payments. “But we are in touch with the associations,” he added.[6] The BBC noted that Australia’s squad had publicly criticized the prize money gap.[6]

The rules and governance

FIFA pays associations, not players. The 2023 model set amounts per player, but associations distributed the money.[1][6] FIFPRO had sought a binding global agreement to protect the commitments.[4] The PFA argued the promised path to equality was not written down.[5]

Aftermath

On 22 October 2026, FIFA’s Bureau of the Council agreed principles for the 2027 Women’s World Cup. Preparation money will be $2.5 million per team, “on par” with the 2026 men’s World Cup. Players will have the same service levels as the men, and any surplus will go to associations “with a specific amount ring-fenced for players.” It also approved enhanced minimum guaranteed player payments, with details due at a Council meeting in December 2026.[2] A week later, citing Sky News, Anadolu reported that FIFA planned 2027 prize money of $220 million, double 2023, but far below the $655 million paid to teams at the 2026 men’s World Cup.[7]

The core dilemma

If FIFA earmarks money for players but pays it through national associations, who is responsible if players are not paid? And having promised a path to equal prize money, what does FIFA owe women players when it falls short?

Competing values

Equality stands against revenue-based pay. Federation autonomy stands against direct protection of players. Public pledges stand against binding commitments.

Strongest arguments

For FIFA’s approach: The 2023 model was a first, guaranteeing amounts for every player and winning FIFPRO’s endorsement.[1][4] Paying through associations respects existing structures and supports development. The women’s tournament generates less revenue, and FIFA’s investment rose sharply.[1][7]

For players’ critics: Earmarking without direct payment leaves players dependent on federations to pass the money on.[6] The headline figures blended different payments.[5] The equal-prize-money pledge was not met.[7]

Applying the frameworks

Justice

Distributive justice asks whether rewards match contributions and whether gaps are justified. Revenue differences may justify some disparity, but conditions such as preparation funding and travel affect performance and fairness directly.[5]

Kantian ethics

A Kantian view focuses on promises. If FIFA tells players money is guaranteed, it takes on a duty to ensure it arrives. Treating players as ends means not relying on intermediaries without oversight.[1][6]

Ethics of care

Care ethics attends to vulnerability. Many women players earn modest salaries, so a delayed or diverted payment matters greatly to them.[1] Care favors mechanisms that protect the most exposed.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. What are the facts? FIFA earmarked $30,000 to $270,000 per player in 2023 but paid through associations; 2027 prize money is reported at $220 million against $655 million for the men in 2026.[1][6][7]
  2. Who are the stakeholders? Players, FIFA, associations, unions, clubs and fans.
  3. What are the options? Pay players directly; require associations to certify payment; or keep the current model.
  4. Which values are in conflict? Equality against revenue logic; federation autonomy against player protection.
  5. What do the frameworks suggest? Justice and care support stronger protection; Kantian ethics stresses keeping promises.
  6. What would you decide and why? Decide as FIFA Council for 2027. Set out how you would ensure payments reach players.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: The 2023 amounts, the payment route through associations, and the 2027 preparation money.[1][2][6]

Contested: Whether equal prize money is achievable or fair given revenue, how to compare figures, and whether FIFA should pay players directly.[5][7]

Why this case matters

The case links national equal-pay fights such as the USWNT lawsuit and the Matildas’ agreement to global prize money set by FIFA. It shows how money can be promised to athletes yet still pass through institutions they do not control.

Key terms

Distributive justice
Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.
Principal–agent problem
When those acting on others’ behalf (agents such as executives, officials or agents) have interests that diverge from the people they serve.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Trust
The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.
Agency
An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Should FIFA pay players directly rather than through federations?
  2. Is prize money tied to revenue fair, or should it be equal?
  3. What does FIFA owe players after promising a path to equal pay?
  4. Should federations that fail to pass on payments be sanctioned?
  5. How should comparisons between men's and women's prize money be made?

Sources

  1. New payment model guarantees support for every FIFA Women's World Cup 2023 team and player — FIFA
  2. Bureau of the Council approvals to elevate women's football competitions and stakeholders — FIFA
  3. How FIFPRO helped make the 2023 Women's World Cup more professional and equitable for players — FIFPRO
  4. Collective action: FIFPRO celebrates players' improved Women's World Cup pay and conditions — FIFPRO
  5. PFA Post: Women's World Cup Prize Money Explained — Professional Footballers Australia
  6. Women's World Cup 2023: Fifa president Gianni Infantino jokes about Qatar speech — BBC Sport
  7. FIFA plans to double 2027 Women's World Cup prize money to $220M: Report — Anadolu Agency