Two summers ago in Paris, the advertising industry ran an experiment in public. The 2024 Olympics became the first Programmatic Games, and the results settled a debate that had been dragging on for a decade.
Paris proved the mechanics: Premium live sports could be transacted programmatically, programmatic access could widen the buyer pool, and reach could be delivered with more precision and efficiency than the old model allowed. Programmatic for premium live sports had fully arrived.
The 2026 World Cup tests something harder: the economics. It will show whether that spend holds up when CPMs rise, budgets fragment and performance teams have credible alternatives for activating around the same cultural moment.
The omnichannel context
The numbers out of the Paris Olympics proved that programmatic has enough reach to meet advertiser demand for live sports.
NBCUniversal committed roughly $1.2 billion in ad revenue. About $350 million of that came from buyers advertising in the Olympics for the first time, which were likely heavily indexed toward programmatic.
Around 70% of advertisers on Peacock were new to the Games, with the total advertiser count beating the Tokyo and Rio Olympics combined. Two of the top programmatic advertisers saw incremental reach in the range of 94% to 96% versus other ad-supported streaming. And NBCUniversal reported reaching 40% more of intended households, 28% more efficiently.
But the World Cup is testing what all that reach is worth.
With streaming CPMs between $60 and $120, and the (controversial) hydration-break ad placements estimated at $65 to $100, “it is a huge audience” is no longer a sufficient business case. Advertisers need to know what the reach is doing, how it contributes to the rest of the plan and whether the surrounding spend is being placed where it can produce measurable value.
Most brands are not buying the World Cup as a single live inventory play. They’re using the tournament as the centerpiece of a larger media plan. Linear and premium streaming deliver broad attention, while mobile, web, retail media, social and programmatic channels carry that attention into the rest of the journey.
That is where the planning challenge gets harder. A viewer may see a brand during a match, search later from a phone, encounter the brand again in a retail media environment and convert through a website or app days after the original exposure. The value of the live impression does not always appear in the first click or the first day. It often shows up through a sequence of signals that have to be connected before they can be understood.
This is why the World Cup cannot be judged by reach alone. Reach still matters because attention starts somewhere. The issue is whether advertisers can see how that attention moves. If the live buy is creating demand that later appears in mobile, web, retail media or app activity, then the measurement plan has to be able to connect those pieces. Otherwise, the most important part of the investment may look disconnected from the result it helped create.
Pregame with the right measurement strategy
Making this work requires disciplined measurement from the start. Outcomes measurement is moving from a side activity for performance teams to a core business standard. For a World Cup campaign, measurement cannot be a report card after the fact. It has to shape the plan before the money is spent.
That means getting five things right.
1. Define the job of each channel before the buy. The live match may be there to deliver reach, presence and cultural relevance. Retail media may be there to connect tournament attention to shopping behavior. Mobile and web may be where the response shows up. If those roles are not defined upfront, every channel gets judged against the wrong standard.
2. Use the right measurement method for each decision. Media mix modeling can help determine how the budget should be allocated. Incrementality testing can show whether the spend created causal lift. Attribution can help optimize while the campaign is live. Brand lift still matters, but as one input into the model rather than the final grade.
3. Decide the incrementality design before the campaign starts. Geo holdouts and PSA tests can work for live sports, but only if they are built in from day one. Once the tournament is over, the campaign may still produce reporting, but the cleanest read on lift is usually gone.
4. Give CTV and livestreaming enough time to work. A 24-hour, last-click window is too narrow for a World Cup buy. The response may appear days after the match, especially when the path runs through mobile, web, retail media or an app. A 72-hour window will give marketers a more useful read, while the 24-hour view can still serve as an early signal.
5. Connect exposure to action across screens. The most important journey may not happen in one place. A viewer can see the brand during a match, search from a phone, encounter the brand again in a retail media environment and convert later through a website or app. If the measurement cannot connect those moments, the live buy will look isolated. The channels closer to conversion will get too much credit.
The goal is to build the model, rather than only the recap. The World Cup is too expensive and too visible to be treated as a one-time media moment. It should help advertisers understand how premium reach creates value across the rest of the journey and how the next dollar should be spent after the tournament is over.
“On TV & Video” is a column exploring opportunities and challenges in advanced TV and video.
Follow AppsFlyer and AdExchanger on LinkedIn.
For more articles featuring Alex Yip, click here.
