2022 round of 16 · Brazil 4–1 South Korea · full match, 1:44

Every Brazil goal had a different sponsor behind it

In Brazil's 4–1 win, no brand owned the goals. Each of the five went to a different set of boards: QatarEnergy, Ooredoo and QNB, Budweiser and Hisense, Visa, and Hyundai. The two Qatari brands, Ooredoo and QNB, were 1.3% of all sponsor screen time but 21% of goal-moment seconds, nearly all from one stoppage before the second goal.

Goal by goal

Which brand ended up in the shot depended on where the camera was pointing when the ball went in.

  • Second goal: the camera held on the goal-line boards for about 20 seconds before the goal. Ooredoo and QNB, brands from Qatar that are not in FIFA's sponsor tiers, filled the shot. We checked these frames by eye.
  • Last goal, Korea's: 23 of 24 brand-seconds were Hyundai. Hyundai is a South Korean company, and its boards were in view for almost the whole window.
  • Qatar Airways: 487 seconds on screen, the 4th most of any brand, and 2 seconds during goals.
GoalAtBrand-seconds in the windowWho had them
1-09:2538QatarEnergy 14, Visa 7, Wanda 4
2-015:0244Ooredoo 18, QNB 15, McDonald's 11
3-030:5928Budweiser 15, Hisense 12, Alrosa 1
4-038:3024Visa 20, Crypto.com 1, Wanda 1
4-185:2224Hyundai 23, Vivo 1
Share of all sponsor screen timeShare of goal-moment seconds
Brands with at least 8 seconds of live play on screen. Each goal window runs from 15 s before the on-screen score changes to 30 s after, which covers the build-up, goal, celebration and replays. 225 seconds of the match are in a goal window.

Every sponsor, second by second

5,985 seconds of live play, with at least one sponsor board visible in 4,065 of them. 39 brands were detected.

Click any tick, row or goal window in the chart below to jump the video to that second.

FIFA PartnerWorld Cup SponsorRegional supporterNot in our sponsor listGoal window
One tick per second in which the brand was detected during live play. Brands seen for fewer than 3 seconds are left out of the chart.

How well did the tools see this match?

We hand-labelled 30 frames of live play (26 boards) and checked a random 150 detections by eye. Both methods ran on the whole match. Apple Vision took about 22 minutes per hour of video on four workers; Video Intelligence took about 95 minutes of Google processing for the 104-minute match.

Good: ≥ 0.80 (precision ≥ 0.95)Fair: 0.50–0.79 (0.85–0.94)Weak: below that
MethodBoards foundLargeSmallDetections that were real
Apple Vision (on-device text reading)20 of 26 (0.77)18 of 22 (0.82)2 of 4 (0.50)120 of 130 (0.92)
Google Video Intelligence (logos)16 of 26 (0.62)15 of 22 (0.68)1 of 4 (0.25)72 of 84 (0.86)
Both combined22 of 26 (0.85)19 of 22 (0.86)3 of 4 (0.75)131 of 150 (0.87)

One match, five goals, and a goal-moment share built from 158 brand-seconds. The 26-board recall sample gives wide ranges (Apple Vision 0.77, 95% range 0.58 to 0.89). The 150-detection precision sample was checked before a few brand terms were added to the list, so some brands may be slightly off. Brands in grey are ones we did not place in a sponsor tier, which includes real host-country boards such as Ooredoo and QNB and some that may be misreads; none of the claims above rest on a misread. Replays sit inside live play and are counted.