The selling point was obvious. Foreign supporters are widely viewed as the high-value audience at major tournaments, staying longer and spending more freely than domestic fans.
None of that means there was no money flowing. The same update says visitor spending still rose, even if the headline number for arrivals appears to have disappointed.
If there were clear commercial winners, they appear to have been broadcasters and major hotel groups rather than the broader inbound tourism sector.
Alan Fyall’s verdict was blunt: "Foi um excelente torneio de TV." That cuts to the heart of it. The World Cup may have been a massive screen event, with host cities packed by atmosphere and premium demand, without delivering the tourism spike many had anticipated.
Jan Freitag was even sharper: "O dado é claro. Foi um evento de preço de quarto, não de ocupação." In other words, hotels seem to have benefited more from higher room rates than from a flood of extra foreign visitors.
That does not diminish the tournament itself. Football still delivered the images, the audience and the commercial pull sponsors crave. But it is a reminder that mega-events do not always reshape travel patterns as neatly as bid documents promise.
The next storyline is bigger than one summer: whether the World Cup’s visibility can still produce repeat visits later on, and whether future hosts can turn football’s global spotlight into more than a short, expensive boom.