As the 2026 FIFA World Cup unfolds with 48 teams and more than a hundred matches capturing global attention, renewed interest has emerged around one long-running question in finance: what happens if fans invest in the clubs they love?

Across Europe, a small number of football clubs are publicly listed, allowing supporters and investors to buy shares in teams that dominate weekend loyalties. But long-term data suggests that passion has not translated into profit.

Aegon Asset Management’s so-called “Pelé Index”, which tracks every listed European football club since 1998, offers one of the clearest measurements yet of that gap between emotional attachment and financial return.

Over the 2025/26 season, the index delivered a modest gain of just 0.4%, sharply underperforming global equities, which rose about 27% over the same period. European stock markets also outpaced it, returning around 17%.

The longer-term picture is even more striking. Since 1998, the Pelé Index has recorded a total decline of roughly 11%, while global equities surged approximately 678% over the same period. In practical terms, €1,000 invested in the football index nearly three decades ago would now be worth about €892, compared with roughly €7,784 if invested in global stocks.

The index currently includes 18 publicly traded football clubs across nine European leagues, with a combined market value of around €7.1 billion. Manchester United remains the largest component, accounting for about a quarter of the index, followed by Juventus and Fenerbahçe SK. Other constituents include Borussia Dortmund, Benfica, Porto, Celtic, Olympique Lyonnais, and several smaller Danish clubs.

Spain is notably absent from the list, as no LaLiga clubs are publicly traded despite the league featuring some of the world’s most valuable teams.

According to Jordy Hermanns, portfolio manager and investment strategist at Aegon Asset Management, the consistent underperformance is rooted in the fundamental structure of football clubs rather than short-term sporting outcomes.

Unlike typical listed companies, which prioritize shareholder value, football clubs operate with competing objectives focused on sporting success. That often means spending heavily on transfers, wages, and infrastructure in pursuit of trophies rather than financial efficiency.

“These objectives are not only different, they are often in conflict,” Hermanns said.

He added that this structural tension explains why even globally recognized clubs have struggled to generate long-term shareholder returns.

Juventus provides a notable example. Shares in the Italian club surged above €10 following Cristiano Ronaldo’s arrival in 2018 amid expectations of commercial growth and sporting dominance. However, the stock has since fallen below €2 and is down 35% this season following a sixth-place league finish.

Hermanns argues that reversing this trend would require a fundamental shift in governance and incentives, but acknowledges that fan expectations and competitive pressure make such a change unlikely.

“The beautiful game deserves your heart, but your investment portfolio deserves your reason,” he said.

Nearly three decades of data suggest a consistent conclusion: while football clubs may inspire loyalty and emotion, they have rarely rewarded investors financially.

The long-awaited stock market debut of Elon Musk’s space and artificial intelligence company SpaceX is poised to reshape the financial future of thousands of employees, from senior engineers to factory-floor workers such as welders and cooks.

The initial public offering, expected to launch on Friday, could create an estimated 4,000 new millionaires across the company’s global workforce, according to figures reported by multiple media outlets, though the total has not been independently verified. What makes the listing unusual is the breadth of equity distribution, which appears to extend far deeper into lower-paid roles than is typical for major technology firms.

At the heart of the windfall is Starbase, SpaceX’s launch and manufacturing facility near Brownsville, Texas, where more than 3,000 employees work in a region long considered one of the most economically challenged in the United States. Financial advisers in the area say even non-technical staff were granted stock options as part of compensation packages.

“SpaceX has been very friendly with options at various levels, from top to bottom,” said Brownsville-based financial planner Michael Limas, describing the structure as unusual for the region.

One widely cited example illustrates the scale of the surge in value: a welder who reportedly received $10,000 in equity could now see holdings worth close to $880,000 ahead of the IPO, based on secondary market estimates.

The offering includes a staggered lock-up structure rather than the traditional six-month restriction, with early access triggers tied to share performance. If the stock trades 30% above its IPO price for five out of ten consecutive sessions, some employees could gain earlier access to their shares.

The potential wealth creation comes as Brownsville continues to adjust to rapid change. SpaceX has operated in the area for roughly a decade, drawing an influx of high-skilled workers and driving up housing demand. Local data suggests home prices in the wider metro area have risen about 25% since 2020.

That growth has brought both opportunity and strain. Long-time residents face higher living costs, while employees navigating sudden paper wealth are seeking financial guidance. Reports indicate more than 100 workers have pooled resources to negotiate lower advisory fees with wealth managers, reflecting concern over taxes and timing decisions.

Brownsville Mayor John Cowen has welcomed the investment, describing it as a turning point for the city’s economic identity. Additional projects have followed SpaceX’s expansion, including energy and infrastructure developments in the region.

Still, uncertainty remains over how broadly the IPO’s gains will be distributed and whether they will translate into lasting economic improvement for a city long marked by inequality.

Workers across Europe face significant differences in their weekly working hours, with a gap of nearly eight hours between countries at the top and bottom of the scale, according to new figures from Eurostat that highlight how labour structures, unions and economic models shape working life across the continent.

The data shows that the average working week in the European Union stands at 35.9 hours for people aged 20 to 64 in their main job. However, national averages vary widely, reflecting deep structural differences between labour markets.

At the upper end of the scale, Turkey records the longest average working week at 42.4 hours among EU candidate and EFTA countries, followed by Bosnia and Herzegovina at 40.9 hours and Serbia at 40.6 hours. Within the EU itself, Greece leads with 39.6 hours, followed closely by North Macedonia at 39.5 hours and Bulgaria at 38.7 hours. These are the only countries where average working hours exceed 40 hours per week.

Experts say weaker bargaining power and lower productivity levels may contribute to longer hours in these regions. Professor David Spencer of the University of Leeds noted that workers rarely choose their hours freely, pointing instead to employer-driven norms and structural labour conditions.

Jorge Cabrita, senior research manager at Eurofound, said differences in working-time regulations and labour market systems also play a major role in shaping national averages.

At the opposite end, the Netherlands records the shortest working week in Europe at 31.9 hours. Nearly 43% of employment in the country is part-time, a far higher proportion than anywhere else in the EU, which significantly reduces the overall average.

Germany, Norway and Denmark follow with an average of 33.9 hours, while Austria, Belgium and Finland also report relatively short weeks below 35 hours. In these countries, the typical working day is under seven hours across a standard five-day week.

Among Europe’s largest economies, Germany has the shortest working week at 33.9 hours, followed by France at 35.6 hours and Italy at 36.1 hours. Spain records the longest among the four major economies at 36.3 hours. Spencer said Germany’s shorter hours reflect stronger unions and more effective collective bargaining systems.

The Eurostat figures also show clear regional patterns, with Northern and Western Europe generally working fewer hours than Central and Eastern Europe. Economists link this to differences in employment structures, union strength and sectoral composition.

Part-time work is a key factor behind shorter averages, particularly in countries like the Netherlands. By contrast, self-employed workers tend to work longer hours, often due to greater autonomy and business demands.

Sectoral differences are also significant. Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers average 42 hours per week, while managers work 40.6 hours and armed forces personnel 39.4 hours. In contrast, workers in elementary occupations average 31.8 hours, followed by clerical and service roles at just above 34 hours.

The data underscores how working time across Europe is shaped not only by economic output but also by labour protections, industry mix and national employment traditions.