AFCON: the five highest-grossing editions in African football history

From Gabon to Morocco, AFCON revenue has nearly tripled, how the move to 24 teams changed the competition’s economics

Special Reports Today at 14:00

Add Foot Africa on Google

AFCON: the five highest-grossing editions in African football history

The Africa Cup of Nations has evolved into a major commercial property. Its recent revenue figures tell a story of rapid growth, but turnover, tournament profit and the host nation’s economic impact are not interchangeable.

The Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) has changed financially as well as on the pitch. Broadcast rights, sponsorships, ticket sales and international expansion have taken the competition from approximately $67 million in revenue in Gabon in 2017 to a projected $192.6 million for Morocco 2025 — nearly three times as much.

The five highest-grossing AFCON tournaments

This ranking uses competition revenue earned by CAF, not net profit or the host country’s infrastructure spending. All figures are in US dollars. Crucially, Morocco 2025 is shown at its budgeted level rather than as a final audited result.

Morocco 2025: $192.6 million in projected revenue, with an expected tournament profit of roughly $113.8 million.
Côte d’Ivoire 2023: $105.6 million in revenue and approximately $72 million in profit.
Egypt 2019: $83 million, the first edition with 24 teams.
Cameroon 2021: $79.7 million. Although officially called AFCON 2021, the tournament took place in early 2022; CAF reported a profit of around $5 million.
Gabon 2017: $67 million, the last 16-team edition.

The figures did not rise with every edition: Egypt 2019 generated more revenue than the subsequent tournament in Cameroon. Commercial contracts, event circumstances and operational decisions also shape the outcome.

The 2019 revolution: 24 teams and 52 matches

The biggest structural change came in 2019, when AFCON grew from 16 to 24 national teams. Eight more countries joined the finals, the group stage expanded from four groups to six, and the tournament rose from 32 games to 52. That is 20 extra fixtures — a 62.5% increase — creating more broadcast inventory, advertising opportunities and ways to reach supporters across the continent.

Extra matches, however, are not free. Accommodation, transport, security and event management expenses grow too. A larger format creates commercial potential; turning that potential into profit depends on the value of rights deals and cost control.

Côte d’Ivoire and Morocco take AFCON into another league

Côte d’Ivoire 2023, staged in January and February 2024, marked a major breakthrough: $105.6 million in revenue and about $72 million in tournament profit. CAF’s annual report cited a television audience of 1.4 billion across 175 countries, 2.2 billion digital video views and an 800% rise in ticketing revenue compared with AFCON 2021. Commercial sponsors rose from 10 to 17, according to that report.

Morocco 2025 pushed the commercial story further. CAF said competition-related commercial revenue increased by more than 90% over the previous edition, while the sponsor count reached 23. Expanding media distribution into markets such as China and Japan contributed to the growth. The $192.6 million figure, though, is a 2025–26 budget projection, not a final audited tournament result.

Revenue, profit and economic impact: three different figures

A final distinction matters. CAF revenue measures money flowing to the governing body; tournament profit is what remains after relevant costs; and host-country economic impact includes wider activity such as tourism spending and infrastructure investment. Those numbers should not be combined into a single financial ranking.

Expanding to 24 teams helped AFCON reach more viewers and stage more games, but smarter rights sales, sponsorship growth and international distribution explain much of its recent leap. The next test is whether that commercial success can translate into lasting investment in African clubs, national teams and youth development.

This article follows our newsroom’s editorial standards. To learn more about how we create and fact-check our content, see our Editorial Policy .