Behind the Free World Cup Broadcasts

Every time the World Cup is held, one question always arises: who will broadcast the matches and how will the public be able to access them. The puzzle has finally been answered. Television of the Republic of Indonesia (TVRI) has officially secured the broadcasting rights for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. With plans to broadcast the matches free to air, TVRI has become a savior in the era of paid over-the-top broadcasts (Kompas, 10/1/2026).

TVRI's decision to broadcast the 2026 FIFA World Cup for free was enthusiastically welcomed by the public. Amidst the high cost of subscription services, free access to global sporting spectacles is indeed encouraging. TVRI itself stated that this demonstrates the state's presence in providing entertainment for the people, as well as affirming its role as a public broadcaster.

The efforts of public institutions in providing free and equitable access are certainly commendable. However, behind the repeatedly emphasized term "free," there are issues that need to be understood more clearly. In public policy, the term "free" almost never truly means without cost. What occurs is not "no payment at all," but rather the absence of direct payment by citizens at the time of enjoying the services.

This understanding becomes relevant when linked to the realities of the broadcasting industry. The FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights are known to be one of the most expensive products in the global media industry. Emtek, the broadcasting rights holder in Indonesia, reportedly paid IDR 636 billion for 64 matches of the 2022 FIFA World Cup plus several other FIFA tournaments. In Southeast Asia, similar fees were paid by other broadcasters: The Sports Authority of Thailand paid US$33 million, or around IDR 518.1 billion, while VTV (Vietnam's national television) paid US$15 million, or around IDR 235.5 billion at the then-current exchange rate (Detik Finance, November 30, 2022).

How much are the broadcasting rights for the 2026 FIFA World Cup? As of this writing, there has been no official explanation from TVRI management. For business reasons, media rights holders often keep the value of these contracts secret. However, the big picture can be seen from cases in other countries. According to a report by Broadband TV News, Radiotelevision Espanola (RTVE), a public service broadcaster owned by the Spanish government, acquired the broadcasting rights for the 2026 World Cup for 55 million euros, equivalent to Rp 1.078 trillion (broadbandtvnews.com, 3/19/2025).

When a public broadcasting institution—which, according to Law No. 32/2002, is non-commercial and restricted in its advertising coverage—acquires the broadcasting rights, the costs incurred are impossible to fully cover through market mechanisms. Therefore, the use of state funds is inevitable. TVRI itself admits that the high cost of broadcasting rights for the 2026 FIFA World Cup is not an obstacle because it has received approval from the government and the House of Representatives to use the state budget. This means that the so-called "free" World Cup broadcasts are actually funded by the public.

At this point, the issue becomes more fundamental. Financing from the public budget is not only about whether the state can bear the costs, but also about how the decision is made and explained to the public. Does the purchase of World Cup broadcasting rights strengthen the mandate of public service as a whole, or does it instead siphon resources that should be allocated for other needs, such as improving content quality and expanding broadcast reach in underserved areas?

The argument that the World Cup serves as entertainment for the people is often presented as justification for the decision to make such a purchase. Football indeed has a broad appeal and is frequently regarded as a "people's game." However, the popularity of a spectacle does not automatically make it a state obligation. Serving the public interest does not always mean catering to the majority's tastes, but rather weighing benefits, impacts, and priorities in a more balanced manner.

As a public broadcasting institution, TVRI is neither a commercial television station catering to the market nor a government mouthpiece. Its mandate is to serve the public interest by providing quality information, education, and entertainment with equal access. Therefore, every strategic decision—including the purchase of World Cup broadcasting rights—must be framed within a framework of public accountability.

Every financing for public interests is always based on political decisions. The state budget is limited, so the decision to fund one service means reducing the allocation for another service. The issue is not about being for or against the World Cup broadcast, but rather how such fiscal policies are explained and accounted for transparently.

Policies labeled as "free for the people" often generate significant euphoria. When a program is presented as a delightful gift, the public's critical capacity may weaken. Questions regarding the amount of public funds used, the decision-making mechanisms, or the impact on other public services are often seen as disturbing the excitement. In fact, precisely because these services are funded by the public, such questions are entirely legitimate.

The way the state and public institutions communicate policies also influences how citizens interpret their relationship with the state. The words "free" and "assistance" have the potential to shift the position of citizens from budget owners to beneficiaries. In the long term, this shift can disrupt public reasoning: programs labeled as "free" are perceived as acts of kindness, rather than policies open to evaluation. Criticism then becomes easily stigmatized—"why protest when it has already been given."

Enjoying the World Cup broadcast while questioning the policies behind it, why not? The public can celebrate more inclusive access to entertainment while keeping the discussion space open. The state may provide entertainment, and citizens have the right to enjoy it. However, when a policy program is labeled as "free," the public must also realize that there is always a price to be paid.

Hysa Ardiyanto Doctoral Student in Sports Education, Indonesian University of Education