Skip to content

Commit 0380ef1

Browse files
olaywayolayway
committed
Use frontmatter metadata for data stories
1 parent bde25a6 commit 0380ef1

3 files changed

Lines changed: 40 additions & 23 deletions

File tree

  • datasets
    • 42-million-to-win-9-million-to-show-up-and-a-4x-gender-gap
    • an-11-000-final-ticket-how-the-2026-world-cup-priced-out-its-own-fans
    • each-world-cups-carbon-footprint-and-why-2026-breaks-the-chart

‎datasets/42-million-to-win-9-million-to-show-up-and-a-4x-gender-gap/README.md‎

Lines changed: 23 additions & 17 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1,8 +1,13 @@
1-
# $42 Million to Win, $9 Million to Show Up — and a 4x Gender Gap
1+
---
2+
title: "$42 Million to Win, $9 Million to Show Up — and a 4x Gender Gap"
3+
description: FIFA World Cup prize money by team and edition (2010–2026), with a side-by-side look at the 4× gender gap between the men's and women's prize pools.
4+
date: 2026-06-05
5+
---
26

37
The `worldcup` dataset tells you who won. This one tells you what it paid.
48

59
## What 2022 paid, team by team
10+
611
Ranked by prize money, Qatar 2022 ran from **Argentina's $42M** for lifting the trophy
712
down to **$9M** for each of the 16 teams knocked out in the group stage. Those 32 payouts
813
sum to exactly the **$440M** published pool.
@@ -11,15 +16,15 @@ sum to exactly the **$440M** published pool.
1116

1217
FIFA splits the World Cup prize pool by how far you go. At **Qatar 2022**, that meant:
1318

14-
| Finish | Teams | Each earned |
15-
|---|---:|---:|
16-
| Winner | 1 | **$42M** |
17-
| Runner-up | 1 | $30M |
18-
| Third place | 1 | $27M |
19-
| Fourth place | 1 | $25M |
20-
| Quarter-finals (5th–8th) | 4 | $17M |
21-
| Round of 16 (9th–16th) | 8 | $13M |
22-
| Group stage (17th–32nd) | 16 | $9M |
19+
| Finish | Teams | Each earned |
20+
| ------------------------ | ----: | ----------: |
21+
| Winner | 1 | **$42M** |
22+
| Runner-up | 1 | $30M |
23+
| Third place | 1 | $27M |
24+
| Fourth place | 1 | $25M |
25+
| Quarter-finals (5th–8th) | 4 | $17M |
26+
| Round of 16 (9th–16th) | 8 | $13M |
27+
| Group stage (17th–32nd) | 16 | $9M |
2328

2429
Argentina's $42M down to $9M for each of the 16 teams that went home after the group
2530
stage. **Those 32 cheques add up to exactly $440 million** — the published prize pool.
@@ -28,13 +33,13 @@ Every edition's per-team payouts sum to the official pool to the dollar (2010 $3
2833

2934
## The winner's cheque keeps growing
3035

31-
| Edition | Winner gets | Total pool |
32-
|---|---:|---:|
33-
| 2010 South Africa | $30M | $348M |
34-
| 2014 Brazil | $35M | $358M |
35-
| 2018 Russia | $38M | $400M |
36-
| 2022 Qatar | $42M | $440M |
37-
| 2026 USA/CAN/MEX | **$50M** | $655M |
36+
| Edition | Winner gets | Total pool |
37+
| ----------------- | ----------: | ---------: |
38+
| 2010 South Africa | $30M | $348M |
39+
| 2014 Brazil | $35M | $358M |
40+
| 2018 Russia | $38M | $400M |
41+
| 2022 Qatar | $42M | $440M |
42+
| 2026 USA/CAN/MEX | **$50M** | $655M |
3843

3944
2026 is the big jump — a 48-team field, a $655M pool, and a brand-new **Round-of-32**
4045
payout band. Each schedule sums to its pool too:
@@ -51,6 +56,7 @@ Put the men's and women's prize pools side by side and the story is stark:
5156
row is a placeholder (target announced, figure to be confirmed).
5257

5358
## Sources
59+
5460
- **FIFA announcements** — the per-position payout schedules for each edition (compiled via topendsports and contemporaneous reporting).
5561
- **FIFA final standings** — top-four placements.
5662
- **Fjelstul World Cup Database** — each team's furthest stage, used to place it in a payout band.

‎datasets/an-11-000-final-ticket-how-the-2026-world-cup-priced-out-its-own-fans/README.md‎

Lines changed: 7 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1,14 +1,19 @@
1-
# An $11,000 final ticket: how the 2026 World Cup priced out its own fans
2-
*For three decades a World Cup final seat ran in the hundreds to low thousands. In 2026 it hit five figures — and two attorneys general want to know why.*
1+
---
2+
title: "An $11,000 final ticket: how the 2026 World Cup priced out its own fans"
3+
description: "For three decades a World Cup final seat ran in the hundreds to low thousands. In 2026 it hit five figures — and two attorneys general want to know why."
4+
date: 2026-06-05
5+
---
36

47
**The insight:** The most expensive (Category-1) **2026 final** ticket is **$10,990 face value** — **6.8× the 2022 price ($1,607)** and far beyond any prior edition. Resale listings peaked near **$32,970**; the cheapest "Supporter Entry" seat is **$60** (a small allotment). On **May 27 2026**, the New York & New Jersey attorneys general **subpoenaed FIFA** over variable (dynamic) pricing after **>90 of 104 matches** rose by an **average 34%**.
58

69
**Why now:** the AG subpoena is days old (May 27 2026) and the tournament kicks off June 11 — the story is live.
710

811
## Each edition, with its gaps shown
12+
913
Tracked across editions, the most expensive (Category-1) final ticket — face value, nominal USD — was flat in the hundreds-to-low-thousands range for decades before spiking in 2026. Two editions are genuine gaps with no reliable primary source (**1998** and **2006**), and they are left as gaps rather than interpolated. **2014's** widely-cited ~$6,000 figure is disputed (likely a resale price) and is excluded from the trend. The clean, low-inflation comparison is **2018 → 2022 → 2026**, and that is where the jump to $10,990 stands out.
1014

1115
## Sources
16+
1217
- [SI.com](https://www.si.com/soccer/how-outrageous-ticket-prices-for-2026-world-cup-final-compare-to-past-years) — per-edition prices (cites Statista + FIFA).
1318
- [NY/NJ AG press release](https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/attorney-general-james-and-attorney-general-davenport-subpoena-fifa-over-world) — the FIFA subpoena over dynamic pricing.
1419
- [FIFA](https://inside.fifa.com/news/world-cup-2026-new-ticket-pricing-tier-fans-qualified-teams) — the $60 Supporter Entry tier.

‎datasets/each-world-cups-carbon-footprint-and-why-2026-breaks-the-chart/README.md‎

Lines changed: 10 additions & 4 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1,19 +1,25 @@
1-
# Each World Cup's carbon footprint — and why 2026 breaks the chart
2-
*The 2026 finals are projected at ~9 million tonnes of CO₂ — and the data shows why: a continent-sized, three-nation tournament runs on flights.*
1+
---
2+
title: "Each World Cup's carbon footprint — and why 2026 breaks the chart"
3+
descritption: "The 2026 finals are projected at ~9 million tonnes of CO₂ — and the data shows why: a continent-sized, three-nation tournament runs on flights."
4+
date: 2026-06-05
5+
---
36

47
**The insight:** On a like-for-like basis, 2026 is projected at **9.0 Mt CO₂e — about +92% above the recalculated 2010–2022 average (4.71 Mt)** — and **~86% of it (7.72 Mt) is air travel**. It tops even the expanded 2030 (6.1 Mt) and 2034 (8.6 Mt) editions.
58

69
**Why now:** kicks off **June 11, 2026** across the US, Canada and Mexico — the first 48-team, 104-match, three-nation finals.
710

811
## Reading the data — two sources, one honest comparison
12+
913
Two different measurements sit behind this story, and they are **not** on the same scale:
14+
1015
- **2010–2022 (each host's own report):** South Africa **2.75**, Brazil **2.27**, Russia **2.16**, Qatar **3.63** Mt. These use FIFA's narrower accounting boundary.
1116
- **2026–2034 (SGR's independent projections):** computed on a **fuller** scope — and SGR recalculates the 2010–22 average at **4.71 Mt** on that same scope.
1217

13-
So the honest comparison is **2026 (9.0) vs the recalculated 4.71 average — both on the fuller scope → +92%.** Comparing the 2026 projection straight to the older self-reported figures would *overstate* the jump, because those self-reports undercount (SGR's central argument: FIFA self-reports leave out most aviation — which is exactly why the historical figures sit *below* the recalculated average).
18+
So the honest comparison is **2026 (9.0) vs the recalculated 4.71 average — both on the fuller scope → +92%.** Comparing the 2026 projection straight to the older self-reported figures would _overstate_ the jump, because those self-reports undercount (SGR's central argument: FIFA self-reports leave out most aviation — which is exactly why the historical figures sit _below_ the recalculated average).
1419

1520
Put plainly: the per-edition figures span South Africa 2010 through the projected 2034 tournament. The earlier editions reflect each host's own FIFA-scope report; the 2026–2034 editions reflect SGR's fuller-scope projections. The two scopes are not directly comparable — read the 2026 figure against the recalculated 4.71 Mt average, not against the older bars.
1621

1722
## Sources
18-
- [SGR / New Weather Institute, *FIFA's Climate Blind Spot* (2025)](https://www.sgr.org.uk/publications/fifa-s-climate-blind-spot-men-s-world-cup-warming-world) — the only independent projection for the 3-nation 2026 tournament.
23+
24+
- [SGR / New Weather Institute, _FIFA's Climate Blind Spot_ (2025)](https://www.sgr.org.uk/publications/fifa-s-climate-blind-spot-men-s-world-cup-warming-world) — the only independent projection for the 3-nation 2026 tournament.
1925
- [FIFA host sustainability audits via Play the Game](https://www.playthegame.org/themes/sport-and-climate-change/understanding-sports-carbon-emissions/) — the per-edition history.

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)