Most brand values are never meant to be tested.
They’re written to sound reassuring. They sit comfortably on websites and in annual reports. They’re agreed in workshops where alignment matters more than friction. In good times, they do their job. They signal intent. They create a sense of shared belief.
But that’s not when values matter.
Values only matter when they collide with something else you want.
Money. Speed. Growth. Control.
That’s why I’ve long been sceptical of what I call McValues. Generic, interchangeable words like integrity, respect, innovation, or people first. They’re easy to agree on precisely because they don’t force difficult choices. They create the illusion of principle without the inconvenience of consequence.
When pressure arrives, they tend to fold.
I’ve been following the news around the backlash to the 2026 World Cup, particularly the reaction to ticket pricing and access. And the more I read, the more it’s reminded me of work I’ve written about before around brand values and how quickly they unravel when they’re put under pressure.
It’s such a clean example because the tension is so obvious.
FIFA talks endlessly about football being “the world’s game”. Inclusive. For everyone. A unifying force that belongs to ordinary fans as much as it does to sponsors and institutions. But as the next World Cup approaches, those values are being tested in the most tangible way possible: who actually gets to be there.
Early ticket pricing reportedly pushed towards eye-watering levels. Lower-priced tickets exist, but in limited numbers. Sponsors and corporates are prioritised. The commercial logic is clear, maximise revenue, protect partners, hit ambitious financial targets.
The implication is just as clear.
This World Cup is not for everyone. It’s for those who can afford it.
None of this should surprise us. FIFA is a commercial organisation and the World Cup is big business. But that’s exactly why it’s such a useful example. This is the moment when values are supposed to stop being words and start shaping decisions.
This is where most organisations get branding wrong.
They define values that are easy to agree on because they never force a difficult conversation. Words like integrity, respect, or putting people first feel solid and uncontroversial. Everyone around the table can nod along. The session ends with a sense of progress and alignment.
But the real test of a value doesn’t come in a workshop. It comes later, when two things you want can’t both be true.
- What happens when fairness comes at the expense of profit?
- When access reduces margin?
- When doing the “right” thing slows growth or upsets a powerful partner?
Unless values have been defined with these tensions in mind, they offer no guidance. They don’t tell you what to protect, what to prioritise, or what you’re willing to give up. So when pressure hits, they go quiet.
At that point, decisions don’t stop being made. They just default to whatever is clearest and most enforceable. Revenue targets. Timelines. Commercial influence. Control.
Not because anyone explicitly rejects the values, but because nothing in those values helps resolve the conflict in front of them. So the organisation does what it always does. It chooses the option that feels safest, fastest, or most financially certain.
That’s how values step aside. Not with a bang, but with a shrug.
The problem here isn’t hypocrisy. It’s design.
Most values aren’t built to survive contact with reality. They’re written to describe how an organisation would like to see itself, not how it intends to behave when trade-offs emerge. When they’re finally tested, they don’t break rules. They simply reveal that there were no rules to begin with.
The lesson isn’t about football. FIFA is just the evidence.
If you want values to mean something, they have to be designed to make decisions harder, not easier. They must force trade-offs. They must occasionally cost you something. Otherwise, they’re just slogans that work when times are good.
And the real risk for organisations isn’t that the outside world spots the contradiction. It’s that internally, everyone already knows.