Hey folks!

This is the first weekend of FIFA 2026, and there’s no shortage of reasons why this World Cup already feels different. And no, it’s not because an actual billionaire is playing on the field (CR7, we see you!), or because tickets have become eye-wateringly expensive (that even the US President wouldn’t pay for it), or because Mexico City’s stadium is about to become the first in the world to host three different World Cups.

The real “wow” actually starts somewhere you probably wouldn’t expect: geography.

For the first time in the 96-year history of the FIFA World Cup, the tournament is being hosted by not one, not two, but three countries: the United States, Canada and Mexico.

So how did we get here exactly?

Well, until recently, the World Cup followed a fairly simple formula. One host country, 32 teams and 64 matches. Sometimes there were two hosts, like Japan and South Korea in 2002. But three had never happened.

The reason comes down to one big decision FIFA made in 2017. That year, FIFA decided to expand the World Cup from 32 teams to 48 teams. The idea was to give more countries, especially from Africa, Asia and smaller footballing nations, a chance to play on the world’s biggest stage.

And while that sounded great in theory, there was one problem. More teams meant way more matches, more stadiums, more hotels, airports, transport, the works. And suddenly, hosting a World Cup became too massive a task for most countries to pull off alone.

At the time, the US, Canada and Mexico were all quietly exploring bids of their own. But somewhere along the way, they realised something. Instead of competing against each other, why not team up?

And so, the “United Bid” was born. In 2018, FIFA voted in favour of the three-country proposal. One big reason being that much of the infrastructure already existed, especially giant stadiums in the US that regularly host NFL games with tens of thousands of fans.

Timing was also on their side. FIFA generally avoids giving consecutive World Cups to countries from the same region. Since Europe hosted in 2018 and Asia in 2022, North America had a clear runway.

And that’s how we ended up here.

If this summer works out well, don’t be surprised if this stops feeling unusual and starts becoming the new normal. Either way, the kickoff has already happened. So let the games begin!

Here’s a soundtrack to put you in the mood…

Ajitha Hare by Gowry Lekshmi

You can thank our reader Arjun for this soothing rec.

What caught our eye this week…..

How did popcorn become synonymous with movies?

When you think of movie theatres, what’s the one thing that pops into your head almost automatically, without anyone needing to remind you of it?

We’re guessing it’s popcorn.

But have you ever wondered how movies and popcorn became inseparable in the first place?

Well, the answer lies in a bit of history. Back in the late 19th century, a chap called Charles Cretors invented the first commercial steam popcorn machine. That made popcorn popular simply because it was quick, cheap and easy to make.

But despite its popularity, popcorn vendors weren’t allowed anywhere near movie theatres. Theatres saw themselves as classy places. Popcorn, on the other hand, was street food. It was messy and if someone spilled it, it ruined the whole fancy vibe theatres were trying to create.

Then came the Great Depression. People lost incomes, savings disappeared and life got hard. But movies became one of the few affordable escapes from reality. In fact, cinema had just become more exciting with the arrival of sound. So for a small price, people could forget their troubles for a few hours.

And if they were going to the movies, they wanted something cheap to munch on too. Enter the humble 10-cent bag of popcorn.

That gave theatres an idea, “Why let someone else make money from hungry moviegoers when we can sell popcorn ourselves?”

And by the mid-1940s, they did exactly that.

Soon, popcorn became so popular that it wasn’t just associated with movie theatres, it became one of their biggest money-makers, generating nearly 40% of theatre profits in the US.

That’s when theatres realised they had to figure out how to make even more money from this.

So what they did next was pretty interesting. They used a behavioural economics trick called the decoy effect.

To explain how this works, let’s imagine you walk into a PVR INOX today and see something like this at the counter:

Small popcorn: ₹200

Medium popcorn: ₹370

Large popcorn: ₹420

You think, “Huh, for just ₹50 more, I get the large?” And just like that, you grab the large and head to the screen.

But while you thought you tricked the system, it’s actually the other way around. That medium popcorn was never really meant to be bought. It exists for one reason only: to make the large look like a steal.

Because without the medium, you’d compare the small with the large. ₹200 versus ₹420 feels expensive. That’s more than double for popcorn you probably don’t even need. And many people would simply settle for the small.

But once a medium priced at ₹370 shows up, your brain shifts the comparison. Suddenly, you’re no longer comparing the small with the large. You’re comparing the medium with the large. And paying just ₹50 extra for way more popcorn suddenly feels like a no-brainer.

The medium is the bait. And most of us take it.

Which also makes sense because theatres make surprisingly little from ticket sales since studios often take around 80% of the box office revenue, especially in the opening weeks. That’s why popcorn isn’t just a snack at the lobby but actually a very important part of the business model.

And here’s the unsettling bit. The decoy effect works even when you know it exists.

As behavioural economist Dan Ariely once said while explaining his famous experiment on subscription pricing, “Most people don’t know what they want unless they see it in context.”

And in this case, that context was designed to influence your choice by an industry that’s been perfecting the trick for decades.

Readers Recommend

This week, our reader Gargi recommends One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

Thank you for the recommendation!

That’s it from us this week. We’ll see you next Sunday!

Until then, send us your book, music, business movies, documentaries, or podcast recommendations. We’ll feature them in the newsletter! Also, don’t forget to tell us what you thought of today's edition. Just hit reply to this email (or if you’re reading this on the web, drop us a message at morning@finshots.in).

Don’t forget to share this edition on WhatsApp, LinkedIn and X.