The Brief

Last October, I had a decision to make. Did I want to spend around $775 on World Cup tickets? For the first time since 1994, the men's World Cup is being held in the U.S., as well as in Mexico and Canada. I had just hours to decide.

At this point, I also began to question the economic logic of FIFA's approach to World Cup tickets. Was FIFA, as soccer's governing body and the guardian of the beautiful game, bungling the ticket sales?

For millions of soccer fans, buying World Cup tickets has been an ordeal. My friends and I had signed up for updates from soccer's governing body, FIFA, and their emails about how to buy tickets felt a bit like receiving the fine print of an insurance policy in monthly digests.

First there was a presale—but it was sponsored by Visa and only for people with Visa cards, and it was a lottery. Winning the lottery didn't get you a ticket, though. You won the chance to buy a ticket. If you missed the presale, more lotteries followed. Winning one earned you the right to buy tickets. Another involved submitting an application for certain types of matches and then having your credit card charged automatically (how much exactly?) if you won and if your application was accepted. (Accepted?)

You could just browse and buy tickets on the FIFA website, but only expensive "hospitality packages" that included VIP perks. Or you could buy "special digital assets" (NFTs? really?) that resembled trading cards and could potentially earn you the right to buy tickets to certain matches.

I had won one of the first lotteries. Huzzah! I could buy tickets. But tickets weren't cheap. A package of three matches for $775 was among the cheapest I saw, and not for Team USA or elite matchups like Brazil vs Morocco. If buying a ticket to a single group-stage game was an option, I didn't see it. Plus I had to coordinate with friends and look up the cost of flights and hotels in cities hosting matches—all before an imminent deadline. I decided not to buy myself a ticket.

The best moments of World Cup soccer bring joy to millions. But for most fans not wealthy enough to buy VIP ticket packages, catching a glimpse in-person required navigating a complicated and convoluted system just for the chance to pay high prices.

Still, I have some sympathy for the challenge FIFA faced. And if I squint, their system almost resembles a smart and fair approach to ticket sales.

That's because I've spent the past two years writing a book about how economic thinking can improve our lives. (It's called Planet Money: A Guide To The Economic Forces That Shape Your Life. You can order it now!) During that time, I talked to economists about when high prices mean that something has gone wrong (perhaps due to a monopoly) vs when high prices are a smart method for allocating scarce resources. And about cases when prices alone fail to achieve fair or efficient outcomes.

Based on these conversations, I suspect that me staying home is a good outcome for society. I could have afforded the World Cup tickets, but I'm a bandwagon fan. So the high price nudged me toward instead spending my time and money on something I'd enjoy more. That's good!

But selling tickets to unique, uber-popular events like the World Cup is a profound economic challenge—it's one of those exceptions to the otherwise incredible ability of prices to coordinate economic activity.

World Cup tickets are incredibly popular and in short supply, so they should be expensive. But World Cup tickets shouldn't just be for rich people, so they should be affordable. How do you square that circle?

We at Planet Money have a modest proposal: FIFA should learn from other organizations that have faced this dilemma and triumphed. Among others, the team behind Hamilton the musical, the National Park system, and the NYC Marathon have developed clever ways to fairly distribute tickets, hiking permits, and marathon bibs despite overwhelming demand.

The case for high prices

What would have happened if FIFA sold every World Cup ticket for just $20?

In some ways, this would be more "fair" and pro-fan. But low prices can backfire. Instead of tickets going to true fans, they'd get scooped up by resellers—or by bots and whoever happens to have enough schedule flexibility to buy tickets the second that sales start.

Plus, if tickets were only $20, some people with only mild interest in soccer would buy tickets. You could end up with empty seats at a Brazil–Argentina match because they saw rain in the forecast and skipped the game.

Alternatively, FIFA could sell every ticket for $20, but only to superfans. But how do you identify the superfans? Or the working-class octogenarian whose last wish is to see a World Cup game?

Do you make everyone write a personal essay? Ask people to rate their obsession with soccer from 1 to 10—and hope they don't lie?

Figuring out who most values World Cup tickets, or any scarce resource, is a hard problem, and high prices are often an elegant solution. Want World Cup tickets? Then prove how much you value them by paying the high ticket price.

This system works perfectly if everyone has the same amount of money. And it works well for goods that can be mass produced, like smartphones, or that only some people need or want, like Pokemon cards or Aspirin. But we live in a world where mildly interested millionaires can pay more for World Cup tickets than working-class families that live for soccer. That's probably why FIFA announced in December that it would sell some additional tickets for just $60—a move likely prompted by complaints from soccer fans.

So what should FIFA do instead?

A masterclass in fairness 

FIFA could learn from another huge sporting event that we at Planet Money consider a master class in fairness: the New York City Marathon.

Watching the Marathon is free, but more people want to run than the course can accommodate. So New York Road Runners, the nonprofit that organizes the Marathon, has to sell or allocate spots.

In fact, NYRR faces a similar mismatch of supply and demand. In December, FIFA announced that demand for World Cup tickets—in terms of the number of people entering its drawings—outstripped supply 30 to 1. In 2025, meanwhile, NYRR reported that around 200,000 hopeful runners entered a drawing for ~6,000 spots. That's also a ratio of around 30 to 1!

NYRR could simply charge high prices and maximize their profits. But it's a nonprofit that relies on the goodwill of New Yorkers—the race shuts down dozens of busy streets across all five boroughs of New York.

The same is true of FIFA. It is, officially, a nonprofit—a FIFA spokesperson stressed to us that "the revenue FIFA generates from the World Cup is reinvested to fuel the growth of the game (men, women, youth)." And FIFA relies on the goodwill of the host country or countries, which shoulder the cost of building soccer stadiums and endure extra noise and traffic.

So what's a fair way to decide who should get to run the NYC Marathon? (Or attend the World Cup?) Fairness is subjective and debatable. But the genius of the NYC Marathon is that NYRR's system uses four main methods to allocate spots, each of which optimizes for a different form of fairness:

1. Luck. As the marathon's popularity grew, the first tool NYRR reached for was a lottery, or random drawing. Aspiring marathoners mailed in a postcard with their name on it, and staff picked lucky winners who got to run 26.2 miles. Eventually an online form replaced the postcards. It's brute-force fairness: straightforward and perfectly egalitarian.
   
2. Merit. If NYRR distributed every spot by luck of the draw, the Marathon would not be an elite athletic event. That's why NYRR directly invites elite runners and Olympic-level marathoners to participate, and nonprofessionals can earn a spot by running another marathon or half-marathon extremely fast. (Qualifying times vary by age and gender.)
   
3. Prices. NYRR effectively allocates some spots through high prices. If you spend $5,000 or $10,000 a year for a charitable NYRR membership, rather than the standard $60, you're guaranteed a Marathon bib. Or international runners can buy marathon packages that include a bib, hotel stay, and flights. (NYRR gives spots to tour operators to attract more international runners, support the city's economy, and expand the Marathon's TV audience.)
   
4. Effort. Another approach to fair allocation is to give marathon spots to people who value them highly, but measured in ways other than money. NYRR has developed a clever metric: People prove their enthusiasm by running nine of NYRR's qualifying local races and volunteering at another. They effectively pay in time and effort for a Marathon spot. This 9+1 program helps local New Yorkers qualify and filters out wealthy people who have minimal free time—or can spend their free time on expensive diversions—all while helping new runners train and stay motivated. Or runners can earn a spot by fundraising for pre-approved charities.

The NYC Marathon offers a smattering of other ways to earn a spot. But most race bibs are allocated through these methods. Each method has ways they feel fair and unfair. Each method has flaws and leaves people out. Taken together, though, they give just about everyone a shot at running the Marathon.

With this framework in mind, you can spot organizations around the world allocating extremely popular tickets and permits using a portfolio of fair methods. Yosemite National Park, which only allows 300 hikers per day up to the summit of Half Dome, distributes permits via one main lottery and smaller, daily lotteries (that favor locals). Many popular musicians offer discounted tickets to their followers during presales. The team behind Hamilton generated plenty of revenue by selling expensive tickets, but also ran lotteries for $10 tickets and partnered with local public schools so students could see $10 matinees.

Scoring FIFA

Tickets to the World Cup are frustratingly expensive, and the system for buying FIFA's mostly expensive tickets is complicated and exasperating. But there's some method there. With the NYC Marathon's example in mind, we can see FIFA using allocation methods that map to the four kinds of fairness:

1. Luck. FIFA's random drawings allow them to sell tickets for less than the market-clearing price, but give everyone (or everyone with a Visa card, in the case of the presale) an equal shot at buying tickets that cost less than ticket reseller prices.
   
2. Merit. FIFA gives 16% of each match's tickets to the competing country's Member Associations. That way, the Canadian Soccer Association or Egyptian Football Association can come up with an application process or criteria to reward loyal fans with tickets. According to FIFA, 50% of the tickets sold by Member Associations are in the "most affordable range," although only 10% are those budget, $60 tickets.
   
3. Prices. FIFA's "hospitality packages" that cost thousands of dollars and include VIP perks allow people to claim a ticket via high prices. And the far-from-inexpensive prices for lottery winners mean prices still play an allocation role in the random drawings.
   
4. Effort. If I interpret FIFA's digital collectibles program generously, I can see an attempt to allow fans to get access to tickets through the effort of figuring out the rules and collecting the right cards. A less generous interpretation is that it was a cash grab. Last year, The Athletic reported that FIFA made more than $10 million from the collectibles before ticket sales had even started, and collectors at best won the right to buy tickets at prices that had not yet been announced.

That said, FIFA could make its World Cup ticket sales much simpler. Complexity itself is a way to restrict access, and if not done with intention, it usually rewards those with more resources and time to navigate it. So why not have just one lottery? Or at least not have an extra lottery just for people with Visa cards?

And FIFA could make its ticket sales more fair in multiple senses.

FIFA's random drawings introduce some fairness via luck, but since most winners still have to pay hundreds of dollars, it's far from the shining example of Hamilton's $10 lottery tickets. When we asked FIFA about $10 lottery tickets and fan criticism of FIFA's high prices, they pointed to their $60 tickets, and also said, tellingly, "The pricing model adopted for FIFA World Cup 2026 reflects the existing market practice for major entertainment and sporting events within our hosts on a daily basis."

FIFA could also offer would-be attendees a real path to earning tickets through effort. FIFA's digital collectibles involve effort, but fans had to buy them just to pay again for a ticket. It was not a way to pay in time (instead of money) in exchange for discounted tickets.

The genius of NYRR's 9+1 and fundraising programs is that marathoners pay for a spot with effort and time. But unlike standing in line or filling out tons of paperwork—which economists call "ordeals," because they filter people out by forcing them to waste their time—the marathoners do useful things: train for the big race or raise money for charity.

For FIFA, a comparable approach could be partnering with host countries' schools and soccer clubs, especially in low-income neighborhoods, to offer discount tickets to students who never miss a practice. Or rewarding fans who contribute to the growth of the game by coaching youth soccer or supporting women's soccer clubs in countries where the women's game is underfunded.

World Cup tickets are wildly popular, and there are only so many seats and matches. Not everyone will be able to see a World Cup match. Any approach to ticket sales, no matter how well-designed, will leave some fans disappointed.

But the incredible popularity of the tournament and people's passion for soccer and its stars mean FIFA could choose to model fairness and thoughtfulness, too.

The story of how the NYC Marathon became a masterclass in fairness comes straight from our new book: Planet Money: A Guide To The Economic Forces That Shape Your Life. Each chapter asks questions like: What's the deal with credit card points? Or: Why does my bank seem so eager to give me free stuff? And the book is filled with illuminating stories, like the time the president of Argentina tried to use tariffs to boost manufacturing—and force BlackBerry to manufacture smartphones on a remote island near Antarctica.

The Planet Money book comes out on April 7. You can pre-order it now and get a free poster. Or join us in April at any of our live events across the country. We've got a free tote bag to go with event ticket purchases while supplies last. Find tickets and details at planetmoneybook.com
Copyright 2026 NPR

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.