Investors are judging Adidas’s World Cup spend too soon

Any self-respecting football fan knows you can’t call the result before the referee blows the final whistle. In a similar vein, it’s far too early to judge the effectiveness of the additional £181m Adidas spent on marketing in its second quarter versus last year.

This 30% year-on-year uplift, intended to capitalize on the Fifa World Cup, spooked investors, with shares falling a record 19%. This is despite Adidas raising its annual sales outlook and quarterly sales: it generated around £1.3bn in World Cup-related sales, including 18m replica shirts sold by the Adidas Apparel division, a 35% spike.

The official line from Adidas chief executive Bjørn Gulden is that the company won’t be bullied by investors into changing its marketing strategy “just to impress certain people.” It’s an admirable stance that reaffirms the role of marketing in a business.

The rhetoric around the lack of return is shortsighted and fails to account for how a marketing investment of this scale works over the long term to build brand demand. Its impact and associated returns can’t possibly be known just a few weeks after Spain lifted the World Cup trophy.

The disappointment from the market risks being used as a proxy for failure, and as justification to avoid future risk, before longer-term evidence of its return on investment exists. While some immediate benefits are already being reported, the full value of some of the most important metrics – customer acquisition, increased consideration, deeper loyalty and engagement, a stronger competitive position against Nike, greater affinity with football and pricing power – can’t be captured in a single quarterly profit figure.

That does not mean the investment should be exempt from accountability. It’s the job of investors to scrutinize big strategic investments and marketing’s job to drive commercial outcomes. Future marketing strategy also needs to factor relevant feedback into subsequent global investments at scale. But it’s misguided to judge a campaign’s long-term business objectives solely against immediate financial outcomes.

The Adidas World Cup campaign and the company’s recent results shine a none-too-flattering spotlight on the disconnect between marketing and finance in the boardroom. Investors punish the expenditure required to create sustainable growth around events like the World Cup when it reduces immediate profits. Yet it’s worth remembering that brands don’t build category leadership by waiting for rare global events like the World Cup to become cheaper to sponsor.

Adidas used the global cultural moment of the World Cup – and its sponsorship of 14 teams, including both finalists – to narrow the gap with Nike and strengthen its credentials in football and North America. The strategic question is what failing to invest would have cost in relevance, market share and future demand.

These results do not categorically prove that Adidas was right to invest so much in the World Cup, and one quarter’s miss does not prove that it was wrong. Marketing on this level is a game of two halves: making the case for the initial investment, then having the patience, conviction and measures to show how it translates into future business impact. The short-term demands of investors risk discouraging the long-term brand-building efforts that are critical for sustainable growth, a tension CMOs are reporting across industries, geographies, and company type.

This is an evergreen challenge for CMOs. 

Our CMO Outlook 2026 Report found that marketers face pressure to meet short-term targets and demonstrate immediate attributable impact. Yet they believe their teams should prioritize long-term sustainable growth. Nearly 80% of CMOs say bureaucracy regularly interferes with decision-making and 84% say aligning leadership around a shared marketing vision is difficult. Adidas exemplifies why marketers need the confidence and internal language to defend long-term investment without asking stakeholders to accept vague promises.

Investors are acting as if Adidas is five goals down after 89 minutes. In reality, there is an entire second half – and maybe even extra time – before Adidas knows whether its World Cup investment is paying off.

This article originally appeared in The Drum.