Kofi Adams Defends Ghana’s 2026 World Cup Spending, Cites GH₵55m Outlay Against GH₵66m in 2022

Ghana’s Minister for Sports and Recreation, Kofi Iddie Adams, has defended the government’s expenditure on the Black Stars’ 2026 FIFA World Cup campaign, arguing that the GH₵55.08 million spent represents more prudent financial management than the amount reportedly spent at the 2022 tournament in Qatar.

Adams, speaking in an interview on October 11, 2026, disclosed that Ghana spent a total of GH₵55,079,487 on its 2026 World Cup campaign, despite the team advancing beyond the group stage and remaining at the tournament for an additional week.

He contrasted the figure with the more than GH₵66 million he said Ghana spent during the group stage of the 2022 World Cup, where the Black Stars failed to progress to the knockout rounds.

“Between a government that spent over GH₵66 million on just the group stage of the 2022 World Cup and one that spent GH₵55 million despite progressing beyond the group stage, who was prudent?” Adams asked.

The Minister maintained that the figures demonstrated greater spending discipline during Ghana’s 2026 campaign, even as the team enjoyed a longer stay at the competition.

Adams says 2026 expenditure was below 2022 appearance fee

In defending the expenditure, Adams highlighted the appearance fees paid during the 2022 tournament, arguing that the amount alone exceeded the total reported spending for the 2026 campaign.

“If you look at how much we spent in its totality, this World Cup, the total expenditure was 55 million 79 thousand 487 Ghana cedis. That was how much we spent. Look, in 2022 at Qatar, appearance fee alone was 59 million 150 thousand. So just appearance fee alone was more than all the money we spent [in 2026],” he stated.

Adams also pointed to the additional costs associated with Ghana’s progression beyond the group stage at the 2026 tournament.

According to the Minister, the Black Stars completed their final group-stage match on June 27 but remained at the tournament until July 3 for their Round of 32 encounter against Colombia in Kansas City.

He said the extended stay resulted in additional daily allowances, including per diems of US$1,000 per day, yet the overall expenditure remained below the amount reportedly spent in Qatar four years earlier.

The comparison formed the basis of Adams’ argument that the 2026 campaign was managed more economically despite the team’s longer participation.

What Adams told Parliament about the 2026 budget

On September 17, 2026, Adams appeared before Parliament’s Select Committee on Youth and Sports, where he discussed the government’s budgetary provision and expenditure for the World Cup.

He told the committee that the government had made a provision of GH₵150 million for the campaign, but GH₵58.9 million was released.

According to his account, approximately US$326,662 remained unspent from the funds released.

The expenditure covered several aspects of the Black Stars’ participation, including player appearance fees, daily allowances, technical team honoraria and ticket purchases.

The reported allocations included US$100,000 in appearance fees for each of the 26 players and approximately US$1.26 million for 2,922 match tickets.

The tickets were reportedly distributed across Ghana’s three group-stage matches against Panama, England and Croatia, with 948 allocated for the Panama game, 1,000 for the England fixture and 974 for the Croatia encounter.

The expenditure figures have become a subject of public scrutiny as Parliament examines the financial arrangements surrounding the national team’s participation in the tournament.

Minority demands detailed breakdown of expenditure

Despite Adams’ defence, the Parliamentary Minority, led by Old Tafo MP Vincent Ekow Assafuah, has called for a comprehensive, line-by-line breakdown of the World Cup expenditure.

The Minority is seeking detailed information on flights, accommodation, internal transportation, catering, security and laundry costs, among other expenses.

It has also raised questions about a reported GH₵115 million generated through corporate and private fundraising, demanding clarification on the amount raised, how the funds were managed and how they were applied to the World Cup campaign.

The demand for further documentation suggests that the debate is not limited to the headline expenditure figure but also concerns transparency, the source of funding and the use of public and privately raised resources.

Adams’ comparison with the 2022 tournament addresses the overall cost of the two campaigns, but the Minority’s demands focus on the detailed records needed to assess individual expenditure items.

Revisiting Ghana’s 2022 World Cup expenditure

The debate has also revived questions about Ghana’s spending at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

In December 2022, then Sports Minister Mustapha Ussif told Parliament that Ghana had budgeted US$8.1 million for the tournament but spent US$5,171,840 before exiting at the group stage.

Separately, reports by journalist Fentuo Tahiru put appearance-fee payments at approximately US$5.4 million, with US$100,000 reportedly paid to each of 54 individuals. The reported recipients included members of the playing squad and technical delegation, while coach Otto Addo’s personal assistant was reported to have received US$20,000.

These figures have featured in comparisons of Ghana’s spending across the two World Cup campaigns. However, the amounts cited in the different accounts should be assessed against their respective expenditure categories and supporting records.

Adams argues that the reported GH₵55.08 million expenditure in 2026 compares favourably with the cost of Ghana’s group-stage campaign in Qatar, particularly given the Black Stars’ progression to the knockout stage.

Spending debate continues despite improved progression

The dispute over Ghana’s World Cup expenditure highlights the competing questions of cost control, sporting performance and financial accountability.

For Adams, spending GH₵55.08 million while advancing beyond the group stage demonstrates that the 2026 campaign was managed more prudently than the 2022 edition.

For the Minority, however, a broader assessment requires a detailed explanation of how the funds were spent, how the various funding sources were handled and whether the individual expenditure items can be substantiated.

The comparison between the two tournaments is likely to remain central to the debate, but establishing which campaign represented better value will require consistent accounting figures and a clear breakdown of the costs involved.

For now, Adams maintains that the 2026 World Cup expenditure reflects greater prudence, while calls for detailed financial disclosures continue.