That revenue came from broadcasting, sponsorship, licencing and ticketing, all controlled centrally by FIFA, meaning the organisation captured the upside while leaving host cities to absorb most of the costs, according to researchers who study the economics of the tournament. It was a structural feature of how modern World Cups are financed, not a one-off quirk of 2026.

Gains for broadcasters
Broadcasters had a good tournament too, though the picture was uneven. Fox paid an estimated USD 485 million for US English-language rights, a sum several industry analysts reckoned was two to three times below what the rights should have commanded in an open market.

That discount translated into outsized returns: strong ratings, including the most-watched English-language soccer broadcast in US history for a USA last-32 tie, left Fox on course for close to USD 1 billion in advertising revenue from the tournament alone.

T-Mobile’s new AI tool will not let smartphones hang at FIFA World Cup

Telemundo, which held Spanish-language rights, had sold 90% of its inventory before a ball was kicked, with Anheuser-Busch, Bank of America and Coca-Cola among the buyers.

FIFA’s decision to introduce mandatory in-game hydration breaks, framed as a player-welfare measure given the summer heat across host cities, doubled as a lucrative piece of advertising real estate.

Fox alone was expected to generate around USD 250 million from the breaks, with 30-second spots during the early rounds fetching USD 200,000 to USD 300,000, and premium knockout-stage inventory rising to USD 750,000.

British broadcasters took a different path: the advertising-free BBC and the heavily regulated ITV declined to commercialise the pauses, even as ITV reported it had sold out its regular inventory and delivered record World Cup revenues regardless.

Tournament sponsors
Sponsorship followed a similar trajectory. Analysts at Ampere put 2026 sponsorship revenue at around USD 2.4 billion, up more than a third on Qatar, while the top tier of official FIFA partners paid between USD 65 million and USD 95 million for the rights to use tournament branding. The United States, as host, dominated the sponsor roster, accounting for 14 of the 26 commercial backers on FIFA’s books.

Gambling firms were another clear beneficiary. With more than 100 matches on the calendar, up from 64 in 2022, financial services firm Macquarie estimated roughly USD 50 billion was wagered globally, or about USD 500 million a match, making it the largest betting event ever recorded. Flutter Entertainment, owner of Paddy Power, Betfair and Sky Bet, reported a corresponding jump in stakes placed through its platforms.

Impact on host cities
The picture looked rather different at street level. FIFA’s own projections, produced with the World Trade Organization, put the global GDP impact of the tournament at USD 40.9 billion, with the US capturing USD 17 billion of that and roughly 185,000 jobs created, concentrated in hospitality and accommodation.

Set against annual US output, though, that gain amounted to a rounding error: Saxo Bank calculated it at less than 0.1% of GDP, hardly the growth driver host-city officials sometimes implied it would be.

Sports economist Victor Matheson of the College of the Holy Cross put it plainly to ABC News before a ball was kicked: Cities should expect a mix of winners and losers, not a uniform windfall. That call held up.

Philadelphia, for example, had anticipated around USD 770 million in local economic impact, among the largest of the eleven US host cities, but the spending clustered tightly around stadiums and tourist districts rather than spreading through the wider local economy.

Canadian host cities illustrated the cost side starkly. Hotel rates in Toronto and Vancouver rose 200% to 300% during match weeks, pushing a typical $200 room past $600. Airbnb had offered Toronto homeowners cash incentives to list their properties for the tournament, a move tenant advocates warned would accelerate displacement of long-term renters.

Transit systems absorbed costs FIFA didn’t cover: New Jersey’s transit authority faced a USD 48 million bill to move fans to and from matches, while Boston raised its game-day rail fare to the stadium to USD 80.

Post-tournament scenario
History suggested some of the enthusiasm would cool once the tournament ended, and the data bore that out. Laboure had pointed to France 1998, when post-tournament demand fell well short of pre-event hype.

By April, around 80% of US hotel operators were already reporting bookings running below forecast; two-thirds of New York hoteliers said the same; and in Seattle, almost eight in 10 hotels described the tournament as something close to a non-event commercially. Final numbers, host cities say, did little to change that verdict.

FIFA World Cup 2034 to bring positive momentum to Saudi stock market: Report

Alexander Budzier, a fellow in management practice at Oxford University and chief executive of Oxford Global Projects, was blunter still, arguing that the long-term economic benefits claimed for hosting major sporting events routinely fail to materialise once independent researchers examine the data afterwards, rather than the inflated projections issued beforehand.

And, the winner is…
None of that troubled FIFA’s finances. Between broadcasting fees, sponsorship and ticketing, the organisation’s revenue streams stayed largely insulated from whether individual host cities saw a lasting boost or a temporary sugar rush.

For Fox, Telemundo and the major sponsors, the tournament delivered handsomely. For the taxpayers of Toronto, Boston and a dozen other host cities left holding transit bills and watching hotel booking curves undershoot, the reckoning looks set to take rather longer to arrive, if it arrives in a form they can see on a balance sheet at all.

The post FIFA World Cup 2026: Who got the cash, and who was left with the bill appeared first on International Finance.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the 94-year-old billionaire disclosed that almost all of his remaining assets would go to a new charitable trust. Having been “planning for decades” for the changeover, Howard Buffett has made sure that his three children—Susie, Howard, and Peter—will oversee the new trust rather than receive the majority of his wealth. The three will be in charge of USD 140 billion in Berkshire stocks allocated to charitable causes.

“He is getting it because he’s my son. I’m very, very, very lucky in the fact that I trust all three of my children,” Buffett said when discussing his choice of Howie as his successor.

Howie, who has been a director on the Berkshire board for more than 30 years, stated that he is prepared to assume the position.

“I feel I’m prepared for it because he prepared me. That’s a lot of years of influence and a lot of years of teaching,” he told The Wall Street Journal.

Early Life And Career Of Howie Buffett

According to a WSJ article, Howie Buffett faltered during his college years but eventually found his footing with his father’s help. Howie relocated to Los Angeles to work at Berkshire Hathaway’s See’s Candies in order to gain real-world business experience, per Warren Buffett’s advice. Before switching to farming, he later launched his own excavation company.

According to the WSJ, Warren Buffett bought a farm for Howie, who rented it from his father at market rates. With an emphasis on soil preservation and sustainable farming methods, Howie developed into a fervent supporter of no-till farming.

Howie Buffett joined the county board of commissioners in 1989. He then joined the Nebraska Ethanol Board, eventually rising to the position of chairman.

After serving as an auxiliary deputy, he was elected sheriff of Macon County, Illinois, from 2017 to 2018. Howie Buffett has been a director on the boards of numerous well-known businesses since 1993, including GSI Group, a manufacturer of agricultural equipment, Lindsay Corporation, Sloan Implement, ConAgra Foods, Berkshire Hathaway, and Coca-Cola Enterprises.

Howie Buffett founded a nonprofit organisation that prioritises conservation and other charitable endeavours. In addition, he is the author of eight books about wildlife, conservation, and related subjects. Howard Warren Buffett is the son of Howie Buffett and Devon Morse. Additionally, he has four stepdaughters from his union with Morse.

Buffett’s Long-term Success

Meanwhile, according to reports, Howard Buffett’s investments have benefited over the long term from the American stock market’s incredible bull run, which has lasted for more than two years. As of January 8, Buffett has managed a 5,477,866% total return on his company’s Class A shares, according to a report by The Motley Fool.

Both Buffett and stock market investors, including those with close ties to his company Berkshire Hathaway, have benefited from his sharp mind and long-term philosophy. His passion for dividend stocks has also been widely apparent, and Berkshire Hathaway holds a large number of dividend stocks in its portfolio. This includes companies like Occidental Petroleum, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, and many others.

Intriguingly, Coca-Cola has been one of Berkshire Hathaway’s oldest holdings and has yielded significant long-term benefits for the business. As per The Motley Fool’s report, the company is also among Buffett’s top dividend payers.

In 1965, as Warren Buffett took the reins at Berkshire Hathaway, he transformed the American multinational conglomerate into a financial powerhouse with a staggering USD 290 billion investment portfolio and an astonishing cash reserve of USD 325 billion. If one had invested USD 1,000 in Berkshire back then, it would, in 2025, be worth an extraordinary USD 42.5 million.

Talking about 2024, Wall Street has seen significant changes in Berkshire’s approach. He made surprising decisions, such as the notable reduction in his company’s investments. Notably, Berkshire slashed its Apple holdings, which once dominated its portfolio at over USD 170 billion but now account for just 24.5% of its value. The tech giant’s high price-to-earnings ratio, according to analysts, may have influenced this choice, as Buffett seeks to optimise returns for shareholders.

Along with Apple, Berkshire trimmed its stakes in several other companies, including Bank of America and Chevron. Buffett, however, refrained from his usual practice of buying back Berkshire stock. This strategic pause points to the investment behemoth’s caution about an increasingly expensive market, currently trading at a price-to-earnings ratio of 24.8—significantly above its historical average.

“As Berkshire sits on this enormous cash hoard, the investment community watches closely. With market fluctuations possibly on the horizon, Buffett may be positioning the company to seize new opportunities when prices drop. For now, the financial world awaits what may happen next,” Jomfruland.net reported.

The post Business Leader of the Week: Howie Buffett prepares for Berkshire Hathaway challenge appeared first on International Finance.

The psychology of colour is complex, and many studies have attempted to explain how colour affects consumer choices. Colour opinions depend on an individual’s background, tastes, and upbringing.

Red: Young energy or danger? Is it a passion colour? Pink is a feminine colour in the West, yet in Japan, pink cherry blossoms symbolise dead soldiers. Much relies on context, positioning, and past colour experiences.

Colour perceptions can reveal crucial signalling patterns, yet it’s not as easy as pigeonholing colours to evoke emotions.

Colour Builds Brand Recognition

Colour has made some of the world’s most successful brands instantly recognised. You would assume Coca-Cola trademarked red. The company’s use of red in branding has been so effective that Coca-Cola renamed Santa Claus to wear red!

We favour instantly recognisable brands, and powerful branding activates our brains, according to research. Colour choice is crucial to brand identity at its core.

While there is no “right” colour option for any company identity, consumer responses to colour appropriateness are crucial. Does a brand’s colour scheme match its products? The apparent appropriateness of colour can instantly boost a brand.

There are many resources and theories to help you choose brand colours, but you know your customers best. Only you can pick which colours consumers think fit your brand.

Viewer Response Depends On Vibrancy And Contrast

The tone and intensity of colours can affect how viewers react to your brand. Vibrant hues energise and stimulate. They elicit stronger reactions from spectators. McDonald’s famously uses bright red and yellow to suggest energy, fun, and excitement.

However, softer, darker, and neutral tones soothe viewers. These less vivid colours help viewers process more information, making them perfect for information-heavy products and websites.

High-contrast colours attract consumers. So “SALE” signs generally use the instantly recognisable white writing on a bright red background. High-contrast colours and patterns can motivate consumers. For instance, red calls to action increase website conversions.

Men And Women Like Various Hues

Generally, certain genders prefer certain hues. Understanding gender colour preferences is helpful whether you’re addressing an all-male or all-female audience.

Blue is the most favoured colour for guys. Men like black and green, while women prefer purple, red, and green. The least popular colours for men are brown, yellow, and white, and for women are grey, white, yellow, and brown.

Knowing Colour Trends Is Powerful

Colours can convey numerous messages, yet prominent brands have established colour trends. Knowing these trends might help your brand express a clear message by following colour messaging or stand out by defying them.

Some instantly recognisable Western branding colour trends are:

Blue: symbolises trust and commitment. Think PayPal or online banking.

Black: Hotel Chocolat, Burberry, and Rolls-Royce employ black to convey elegance and quality.

White: White gives brands space, clarity, and simplicity. That may explain why tech companies utilise white so much in their branding. Apple is most famous for this.

Environmentalism commonly uses green because of its natural connections. Companies that aim to show their environmental responsibilities use green branding. United Kingdom-based OVO Energy takes this too far.

The post How brands use colour to shape consumer perceptions & drive purchases appeared first on International Finance.

Pelliconi increased the production of energy-intensive semi-finished items, invested in solar panels, and commissioned a prototype of a new digital printer for metal sheets that did not use gas ovens. Pelliconi produces 35 billion bottle tops annually, primarily in Italy but also in Egypt and China.

Pelliconi has seen expenses for electricity and gas more than treble in relation to revenue this year, adding to the challenges caused by higher steel prices. Pelliconi is one of many Italian companies dealing with the energy crisis brought on by the conflict in Ukraine.

In certain situations, it has been able to pass on nearly two-thirds of the cost hikes to its clients, and it aims to raise prices even more over the course of the following year.

Italy recorded a 16.2% increase in manufacturing turnover in July on a calendar-adjusted basis due to higher prices, while volumes also grew by 1.7%. This roughly compares to a decline of 0.8% per year in Germany.

Intesa Sanpaolo economist Paolo Mameli said, traditionally the laggard among the biggest eurozone economies, Italy has experienced a more vigorous post-pandemic rebound in terms of industrial output than France and Germany. The government now anticipates that the Italian economy will contract in the third quarter after growth exceeded estimates in the first half, with the downturn expected to extend until mid-2023.

The post Energy crisis puts Italian firm Pelliconi’s resiliency to test appeared first on International Finance.

The parent company, which owns 66.5% of the Coca-Cola Beverages Africa (CCBA), had announced that the African entity will be listed in Euronext Amsterdam as part of the primary listing and in Johannesburg as a secondary listing. The other 33.5% is owned by Gutsche Family Investments.

According to reports, CCBA contributes to 40% of all Coco-Cola products sold in the continent and operates in 14 countries with a staff strength of 20,000.

The countries include South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Namibia, Mayotte, Comoros, Ghana, Botswana, Zambia, Eswatini, and Lesotho. The company operates 39 bottling plants and caters to 600,000 outlets across the African landmass.

The parent company is confident about Africa being a key geography for growth and is banking on the separate listing of CCBA to form a wider base of investors required for the further expansion of the business.

According to the company, the African segment is witnessing the maximum growth in the last few years compared to any other market across the globe. The company in recent years has seen a growth in sales of energy drinks in the continent and has a partnership with Monster.

Standard Bank Group, Morgan Stanely, and Bank of America Corporation are poised to be the advisors for the IPO.

Prior to the IPO, the company had held a virtual capital markets day overseen by Bank of America.

According to a South African daily, the listing will be the first of a beverage major since the delisting of SABMiller in 2016. The report said that CCBA is likely to be a hit following the trend of its predecessors in segments like Suncrush, Cadbury-Schweppes, and Amalgamated Beverage Industries (ABI).

The post Coca-cola eyes $8.1 bn valuations as its African arm set for IPO appeared first on International Finance.

Some of the most eye-catching deals include Coca-Cola’s £3.9bn acquisition of Costa Coffee and the tussle between 21st Century Fox and Comcast over the Sky takeover. It has also been reported that Apple, the world’s most valuable company, is looking to spend some of its $250 billion cash reserve on acquisitions.

Although this trend shows no signs of abating, mergers and acquisitions are not a guaranteed route to company growth. In fact, according to the Harvard Business Review, somewhere between 70-90% of mergers and acquisitions result in failure. With so much at stake, what role does brand play, and how can companies retain and build brand value more effectively after a merger? With more than 25 years’ experience of guiding national and multinational organisations through post-merger brand management and implementation, we recommend that you consider these points before undertaking that all-important brand investment.

IS REBRANDING ALWAYS THE BEST CHOICE?
A new acquisition or merger can be an exciting opportunity for a brand owner, but it can also be a confusing time for employees and customers as familiar brand touch points evolve or change completely. Any form of brand investment needs to be carefully considered, however in our experience brand owners tend to underestimate the ‘butterfly effect’ of even a small change. This decision shouldn’t be taken lightly, as it can be the difference between success and failure!

Your starting point should be an objective assessment of your brand touch points and performance, retaining focus on your overall brand architecture throughout this process. Firstly, audit all existing brand assets and trademarks and then assess the current brand equity in order to highlight the risks and rewards of change. Market research should follow, determining current market share and the existing credibility of the brand. You’ll also need to run a check for any local legal complexities. Finally, look into each company’s internal culture to assess the risks of a full integration.

I would suggest that a rebrand is required if the acquired company is failing, has a poor reputation, is relatively small, or if you plan to make sweeping changes. On the other hand, a rebrand may be a bad idea if the acquired company has a long-standing and loyal consumer base, has unique brand strength, or if it’s the undisputed leader within its marketplace.

PREPARING TO IMPLEMENT A NEW BRAND POSITION
The values and attributes that define an organisation are all embodied in its brand, so even small changes can be jarring for loyal consumers. Likewise, changes to company culture and beliefs can quickly alienate your internal stakeholders and create reputational damage if this becomes public.

This underlines the importance of careful consideration: post-merger brand conversion can impact every branded asset, from stationery and employee name tags to content marketing materials. It’s vital that these changes occur consistently and in line with your brand values.

Depending on the complexity and feasibility of the brand migration, you might take one of three approaches:

1. Direct and aggressive: with a short planning phase of 3-6 months, this is a demanding and complex approach that requires high investment, but it can also provide greater impact.
2. Phase-in/phase-out: with a mid-length planning phase of 6-12 months, this involves an initial phase of brand co-existence (phase-in) followed by removal of the old brand (phase-out).
3. Performance KPIs: on a flexible basis of 12-24 months, this approach gives consumers and trade more time to adjust, but the old brand will still need to be removed eventually.

ENGAGE INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
From planning to implementation, it’s vital that you engage the entire organisation in this change – not just the marketing, communications or brand management teams. Collaboration between departments is crucial for a coherent brand experience across all brand touch points.

Your internal stakeholders should be your original and most passionate brand advocates for these changes. Adequate communication before, during and after brand conversion is crucial to the success of the changes, and this process should be led by senior management.

An internal kick-off event can be a great way to create maximum impact for your brand change, while also creating a sense of shared community between the merged organisations. Investing in an intuitive digital brand portal will also give employees the tools they need to communicate your brand coherently.

REINFORCING THE SWITCH
Post-merger brand conversion shouldn’t be considered a snapshot moment – it’s an ongoing process of improvement. Securing return on investment from the rebrand will require suitable KPIs, constant monitoring and an openness to refine and adjust as new insight becomes available. shouldn’t be considered a snapshot moment – it’s an ongoing process of improvement. Securing return on investment from the rebrand will require suitable KPIs, constant monitoring and an openness to refine and adjust as new insight becomes available.

A long-term view will also be essential. Although a new logo and company restructure may bring short-term growth, this can quicklydissipate if your brand values and identities do not align with long-term business objectives. At best, this results in missed opportunities to maximise brand power, at worst this can set the rebrand up for failure. Adopting a long-term view to brand implementation and management can help ensure that the brand remains strong and future-proof in this rapidly changing technological world.

Anybody who has worked through a company merger, acquisition or restructure will know that it can be equally unsettling and exciting. To avoid an identity crisis, consider the impact of each change in detail, engage your employees every step of the way, and be prepared to compromise!

JO DAVIES is the Managing Director of VIM Group—
a leading global brand management and brand implementation company. VIM Group helps businesses to manage brand change and enhance the performance of their brands across local and international markets. In most cases, it’s wise to invest in a post-merger rebrand or repositioning. This should be considered as an opportunity to assess what the organisation says about itself, how it behaves and how it wants to be perceived.

The post Retaining brand value after a merger appeared first on International Finance.

“We’re encouraged with our performance year-to-date as we continue our evolution as a consumer-centric, total beverage company,” said James Quincey, President and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company. “We have the right strategies in place and remain focused on achieving our full year guidance.”

The company is also driving an acceleration in the sparkling soft drinks category through investment and innovation, with five percent retail value growth in its sparkling portfolio during the quarter. These efforts, balanced with disciplined growth, have resulted in transaction growth of four percent year-to-date, outpacing unit case volume growth of three percent.

The post The Coca-Cola Company reports continued strong results in second quarter 2018 appeared first on International Finance.

220 jobs from Milton Keynes and 54 jobs from a distribution centre in Northampton will be slashed. The closures will be done in 2019. The company has stated it has discussed the matter with employees in the past two months. Production and warehousing will be moved to other sites in Great Britain.

“We want to stress that this is not a reflection on the performance or professionalism of our colleagues at these sites,” a spokesperson for Coca-Cola European Partners said.

The company, which considers the closures will help in stimulating efficiency, said it will help the affected employees with ‘training and development opportunities’. To help the employees, the company will also create 121 jobs in other sites and transfer some of the affected employees there.

The post Coca-Cola to slash around 300 jobs from two of its UK sites appeared first on International Finance.

The company is also reiterating its long-term targets of mid single-digit organic revenue growth (non-GAAP) and high single-digit comparable currency neutral EPS growth (non-GAAP). The company is now targeting comparable currency neutral operating income growth (non-GAAP) of 6 to 8 percent. In addition, the company is introducing a new long-term target of 95 to 100 percent for adjusted free cash flow conversion ratio (non-GAAP).

The company has set a target for comparable currency neutral operating margin (non-GAAP) of at least 35 percent by 2020. The company is also providing a near-term expectation for 2018 capital expenditures of $1.9 billion and a long-term expectation for capital expenditures of 4.5 to 5 percent of net revenues.

2017 outlook
The 2017 outlook for organic revenues, comparable income before income taxes, comparable currency neutral income before income taxes (structurally adjusted) and comparable EPS are non-GAAP financial measures that exclude or have otherwise been adjusted for items impacting comparability, the impact of changes in foreign currency exchange rates, acquisitions and divestitures, and the impact of structural items, as applicable. The company is not able to reconcile its full year 2017 projected organic revenues (non-GAAP) to its full year 2017 projected reported net revenues, the full year 2017 projected comparable currency neutral income before income taxes (structurally adjusted) (non-GAAP) to their full year 2017 projected reported income before income taxes, or their full year 2017 projected comparable EPS (non-GAAP) to their full year 2017 projected reported EPS without unreasonable efforts because they are unable to predict with a reasonable degree of certainty the actual impact of items impacting comparability, changes in foreign currency exchange rates and the exact timing of acquisitions, divestitures and/or structural changes that may occur during the remainder of 2017. The unavailable information could have a significant impact on their full year 2017 GAAP financial results.

Long-term targets
The long-term targets for organic revenue growth, comparable currency neutral operating income growth, comparable currency neutral operating margin, comparable currency neutral EPS growth, and adjusted free cash flow conversion ratio are based on non-GAAP financial measures that exclude or have otherwise been adjusted for items impacting comparability, the impact of changes in foreign currency exchange rates, acquisitions and divestitures, and the impact of structural items, as applicable. The company is not able to reconcile its long-term targets for organic revenue growth (non-GAAP), comparable currency neutral operating income growth (non-GAAP), comparable currency neutral operating margin (non-GAAP), comparable currency neutral EPS growth (non-GAAP), and adjusted free cash flow conversion ratio (non-GAAP) to its long-term projections for reported net revenue growth, reported operating income growth, reported operating margin, reported EPS growth, and reported cash flow conversion ratio, respectively, without unreasonable efforts because they are unable to predict with a reasonable degree of certainty the actual impact of items impacting comparability, changes in foreign currency exchange rates and the exact timing of acquisitions, divestitures and/or structural changes that may occur in future periods. The unavailable information could have a significant impact on our GAAP financial results for future periods.

The company defines adjusted free cash flow conversion ratio (non-GAAP) as free cash flow adjusted for certain cash payments for pension plan contributions (non-GAAP) divided by net income attributable to shareowners of The Coca-ColaCompany adjusted for non-cash items impacting comparability (non-GAAP). The company defines free cash flow (non-GAAP) as net cash provided by operating activities less purchases of property, plant and equipment.

The post Coca-Cola hosts investor day discussing long-term targets appeared first on International Finance.

The Company continued to make progress on its multi-faceted transformation, including a fast-tracked evolution to build an even more consumer-centric brand portfolio. Continued outperformance in zero-sugar sparkling soft drinks was led by recent launches, such as Coca-Cola Zero Sugar in the United States. Important expansions were also made in category clusters beyond sparkling soft drinks, such as the recent acquisition of the Topo Chico premium sparkling mineral water brand in the United States.

The Company continued to advance toward its destination of a capital-light organization. Progress was made in its North America bottler refranchising plan during the quarter. The Company also completed a key ownership transition of bottling assets in Africa in early October, temporarily acquiring majority ownership of Coca-Cola Beverages Africa until it is refranchised.

“I am encouraged with our progress and results in the quarter,” said James Quincey, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Coca-Cola Company. “Our performance reflects the strength of an organization that is focused on delivering against its financial commitments while also making substantial structural and cultural changes.”

Quarterly Performance

• Revenues: Net revenues declined 15% to $9.1 billion, impacted by an 18% headwind from the ongoing refranchising of bottling territories. Organic revenues (non-GAAP) grew 4%, driven by price/mix growth of 3% and concentrate sales growth of 1%. Core business organic revenues (non-GAAP) also grew 4% with price/mix growth of 3%. The solid organic revenue (non-GAAP) performance was supported by growth in each of the operating segments.
  
  
• Volume: Total unit case volume was even. Despite continued macroeconomic challenges in certain Latin American markets, emerging and developing markets saw improving trends, achieving slightly positive unit case volume growth. This was offset by the performance in developed markets, which was negatively impacted by weather and the cycling of strong results from the prior year.
  
  
• Margin: Operating margin, which included items impacting comparability, grew 200 basis points. Comparable operating margin (non-GAAP) expanded 400 basis points, driven by divestitures of lower- margin bottling businesses through refranchising and continued operating expense management associated with the Company’s ongoing productivity efforts.
  
  
• Market Share: The Company gained value share in total nonalcoholic ready-to-drink (“NARTD”) beverages. The value share growth outpaced volume share, reflecting the Company’s continued shift in focus from volume growth to value growth. The Company gained or maintained value share in sparkling soft drinks, juices, sports drinks, and ready-to-drink (“RTD”) tea.
  
  
• Cash Flow: Year-to-date cash from operations was $5.9 billion, down 12%. This decrease was primarily driven by the ongoing refranchising of North America bottling territories. Year-to-date free cash flow (non- GAAP) was $4.7 billion, down 8%. This decrease was primarily driven by the ongoing refranchising of North America bottling territories, partially offset by lower capital expenditures.
  
  
• Share Repurchases: Year-to-date purchases of stock for treasury were $3.1 billion. Year-to-date net share repurchases (non-GAAP) totaled $1.7 billion.

Company Updates

• Taking a more innovative approach to sparkling soft drinks: The Company continues to find ways to reduce the amount of added sugar in many beverages around the world and remains on track to reformulate more than 500 products this year. Coca-Cola Zero Sugar continued to perform well, growing unit case volume high single digits during the quarter. The new recipe was successfully introduced in the United States midway through the quarter, doubling its unit case volume growth rate versus the prior quarter. By the first quarter of 2018, the Company plans to introduce this innovation in all key markets around the world.
• Portfolio diversification beyond sparkling soft drinks: In early October, the Company acquired the Topo Chico premium sparkling mineral water brand in the United States. Topo Chico is a fast-growing brand in parts of the United States, especially Texas. Through the Venturing & Emerging Brands unit, the Company plans to expand U.S. distribution while preserving the heritage of the brand. In the U.S. RTD coffee category, the Company launched a line of Dunkin’ Donuts branded iced coffee beverages earlier this year, and performance is exceeding expectations. McDonald’s also announced a new RTD frappé coffee line in partnership with the Company, which is expected to be available in the United States early next year. In Europe, innocent juices and smoothies continued to expand across the continent. The brand, which is the #1 chilled juice brand in Western Europe, can be found in 15 markets across Europe and has grown net revenues double digits year-to-date.
• Reshaping the global bottling network: With the progress made since the last quarter, nearly 80% of Coca-Cola Refreshments’ (“CCR”) U.S. volume has now been transitioned to new ownership. The Company expects to complete the refranchising of CCR in the United States within the coming weeks. In Africa, a key transition of bottling assets was completed in early October, which resulted in the Company obtaining a majority interest in Coca-Cola Beverages Africa (“CCBA”). The Company will temporarily hold this controlling interest until CCBA is refranchised, which is expected to be completed in 2018. The Company will account for CCBA as a discontinued operation.
• Shared value as a growth driver: The Coca-Cola system in India and its fruit industry partners recently announced plans for a “fruit circular economy” initiative. The planned economic contribution of $1.7 billion to India’s agriculture ecosystem over the next five years is expected to benefit approximately 200,000 Indian fruit farmers. This initiative includes adding Indian fruit juices to existing sparkling brands, launching new juice drinks based on Indian fruit flavors, and exploring new beverage categories. The program supported the launch of Minute Maid Pulpy Mosambi, which helped the Minute Maid Pulpy brand grow triple digits in India during the quarter.
  
  
• Leadership transition: Earlier this week, the Company announced that J. Alexander “Sandy” Douglas Jr. will retire as President of Coca-Cola North America (“CCNA”). He will be succeeded by James L. “Jim” Dinkins, who currently serves as President of the Minute Maid business unit and Chief Retail Sales Officer for CCNA. Jim begins his new duties Jan. 1, 2018, and Sandy will retire from the Company March 1, 2018. The Company thanks Sandy for his leadership and dedicated service to the global Coca-Cola system over the past 30 years.

The post The Coca-Cola Company reports solid operating results in third quarter 2017 appeared first on International Finance.