On the ball

The GIST: Yesterday, FIFA confirmed the hosts for the 2031 and 2035 Women’s World Cup (WWC) tournaments in 2031 and 2035 as the U.S. and the UK, respectively. While these nations were the only ones to submit valid bids by the deadline, the confirmation is still a significant milestone for both burgeoning women’s soccer markets. Score.

The precedent: Australia saw several significant wins as host of the last WWC, including an attendance record of 1.9M and $570M in revenue, which allowed the WWC to break even for the first time. Plus, 7.13M Aussies tuned in for the England vs. Australia semifinal.

• In addition to boosting national pride and personal interest among citizens, the tourney generated $867.5M in economic impact for Australia, $1.82B in media value for the Matildas, and is reported to have contributed to a $212.5M decrease in national healthcare thanks to more inspired and active citizens. Good on ya.

The U.S. scene: The U.S. previously hosted the tournament in 1999 and 2003, but that was before the NWSL existed, which now boasts a $1.46B value for its 14 active clubs. Thanks to this thriving pro soccer landscape, an ideal broadcasting window, and the country’s surging soccer fandom, hosting the tournament in the U.S should print money.

The UK scene: While the UK has never hosted the WWC before, it did host the 2022 Women’s Euro and saw a total tournament attendance of over 574K. Plus, a record 17.4M UK viewers and 87,192 in-person fans watched the Lionesses take the title.

• The UK has leveraged that national interest into growing its domestic league, the WSL, which just underwent a restructuring and is quickly becoming more profitable. The league inked a multiyear broadcast deal with BBC and Sky Sports, and DAZN is now streaming WSL games internationally.

Final thoughts: With these bids out, companies should immediately start thinking about how they can sponsor the competitions. Brands that activated early leading up to the 2023 WWC — especially those newer to the space like Cadbury, CommBank, Qantas, Priceline, and Subway — reaped the rewards of teaming up with Australia’s most marketable sports team.

• The Australian government found that every $1 spent by sponsors of elite women’s sports translates to $7.29 in customer value. When combined with the consumer loyalty and brand awareness of women’s sports fans, now’s the time to come off the bench.

The GIST: On Wednesday, data insights platform SponsorUnited released its 2024–2025 NIL Endorsements Report, which affirms what we already know: Women athletes, especially basketball players, are consistent winners in terms of engagement, hence their skyrocketing NIL deals. Let’s jump in.

📈 The number of deals grew 1% YoY, but growth in specific industries indicated major strategic shifts. Technology deals saw a 29% YoY boost, while deals for non-alcoholic beverages — an industry expected to double in value by 2034 — grew 19% YoY.

• Despite having the most total deals, retail and apparel deals are decreasing. Brands are also choosing long-term, athlete-driven deals over short ones, especially with women’s stars now bringing their clout to the WNBA.

🏀 Seven of the top 10 most-endorsed athletes play basketball, with the most-endorsed players boasting 127 total deals. UNC’s RJ Davis leads the pack with 25, while USC’s JuJu Watkins leads women athletes with 20. UConn star Paige Bueckers only has 16, but she enjoyed the most social growth of any athlete and generated the highest engagement on branded posts. Easy buckets.

📱 While Instagram is the most popular platform for college athletes, TikTok content saw outsized interactions. And once again, women athletes garner the most engagement: Women created 75% of the top 150 most engaging posts.

Zooming out: While savvy companies like Raising Cane’s and Nintendo are leveling up by recruiting women athletes to lead personalized campaigns, 1% deal growth YoY isn’t enough. There’s more room for brands to team up with popular women athletes, and as previous data showed, there’s ample opportunity and ROI outside of women’s hoops. Time for a full-court press.

The GIST: The impacts of President Trump’s U.S. trade policy have officially gone from bad to worse. On Wednesday, Trump announced that the U.S. will apply a 10% baseline tariff on all imports, with a higher rate for nations that the U.S. considers to be unfair trade partners. Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” proposal has created enough worrisome sentiment to spook the stock market.

• If Trump does impose the outsized tariffs as described, this will drastically raise the prices of goods imported from countries like Vietnam, which manufactures a significant amount of sports apparel from brands such as Nike, Adidas, On, and Lululemon. A rock in their shoe.

The context: Under the newly-proposed policy, goods from Vietnam would be subject to a 46% tariff. This is a substantial blow to manufacturers who have shifted production to Vietnam to avoid Trump’s extensive tariffs against Chinese goods during his first presidential term.

The retail impact: Trump’s announcement has already sent shockwaves through the market, with stocks plummeting in a matter of hours. Nike’s shares fell 14% yesterday, while On — which makes 90% of its shoes in Vietnam — saw shares tumble 16%. Both Lululemon and Adidas, which count the country as their top product supplier, watched shares drop about 10%.

The spending impact: These tariffs would most likely be passed on as higher prices for U.S. consumers who will probably still spend money on these top brands, but may be less willing (or able) to buy products as frequently.

• While this policy will cut into revenue and market valuations, it could also drastically reshape the landscape of leading apparel brands in the U.S. — perhaps boosting New Balance’s “Made In USA” line. Watch this space.

Big moves are happening in sports and entertainment — are you keeping up? Boardroom’s newsletters bring you the latest on media deals, athlete investments, and industry-shifting trends in just 3 minutes a day. Get in the know — subscribe now.