Infantino’s new Club World Cup in the US could turn into FIFA’s worst nightmare

Confetti descends. Music blares. Fireworks shoot into the New Jersey sky. A custom trophy made by Tiffany & Co. (unlockable with a key to move components) is presented to the winning captain as crowds of fans, sponsors and a huge global audience watch the victors celebrate.

Somewhere Gianni Infantino is shining: his vision for a global tournament featuring the best club teams in the world is complete – a rousing success that is earning him plaudits and plaudits as the new Club World Cup format goes off without a hitch.

At least that's the dream. The reality could be even harsher by the time that trophy is held aloft on July 13 of this freshly minted new year.

The draw for the tournament took place last month in Miami. A video message from President-elect Donald Trump greeted the crowd, which included the 45th president's daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law Jared Kushner — who is believed to have played a role in helping organize the event. Even the couple's son, Theodore, had the honor of drawing the tournament's first team.

But long before a ball is kicked in anger, a whole host of issues and concerns have arisen around this tournament. Sponsorships are scarce, a television rights deal took forever to be agreed, and dynamic pricing will see fans paying more than they would hope for tickets to attend games.

Issues over money 'promised' to clubs, scheduling issues for some teams, controversies over the inclusion of a certain squad and fears over the safety and health of players could ruin any future edition of this tournament. With just a few months to go before the Club World Cup kicks off, FIFA has plenty of things to put right – otherwise a lot will go wrong.

Let's start with the issue of money, which seems to be the biggest reason why this tournament was expanded in the first place from its original ten-day, six-team format.

One of the biggest draws of the Club World Cup, from a team perspective, is that participating clubs have been promised €50 million (down from $52 million or £41.4 million). For clubs like Manchester City and PSG that is a healthy chunk of change, but not life-changing. Meanwhile, teams like New Zealand's Auckland City or Tunisia's Esperance could benefit enormously from that price.

But it seems less and less likely that this will happen. Spanish outlet Marca called the pledge a “pipe dream” and suggested the prize money distribution would not be linear. That probably depends most on the results of the tournament, but the media is also suggesting that European clubs would 'take the biggest piece of the pie'.

Then there is the question of how the prize money – likely in the billions of dollars – will be raised by FIFA.

Outside of ticket sales (more on that later), revenue streams would focus on sponsorship money and payments for television rights. Both sources of income already have problems.

In terms of sponsorship, a lack of interested companies could be a cause for concern for FIFA. During the 2022 FIFA World Cup, football's governing body attracted seven 'FIFA World Cup Sponsors' in addition to their seven 'FIFA Partners' – as well as multiple regional sponsorship companies around the world.

The 2025 Club World Cup has only three 'Club World Cup sponsors': Hisense, Bank of America and AB InBev (via Michelob Ultra brand). According to The Athletic, FIFA wants ten sponsors for the tournament, which means Infantino & Co. still have a lot of work to do.

In addition, two of the seven 'FIFA partners' – Coca-Cola and Adidas – are currently in separate legal battles with FIFA over their sponsorship deals. According to The Guardian, the two companies are 'less than enthusiastic' after FIFA tried to negotiate new contracts with them. Both companies signed agreements through 2030, reportedly worth $70 million for each four-year cycle.

Then there's the TV rights deal, which was only completed last month after no broadcaster was willing to come up with the rumored $4 billion that FIFA had asked for the rights.

Ultimately, British streaming company DAZN was announced as the broadcaster for the tournament – ​​at a price tag of just $1 billion.

The two benefits of the DAZN deal are 1) the company was willing to air its broadcasts of all matches for free and 2) they have the ability to sublicense the matches to free broadcasters.

Whether that's an indicator of the streamer hoping to make money from those sublicenses or whether people are worried that people won't be willing to pay the platform (which isn't well known in the US) to watch this tournament remains to be seen to be seen.

Apart from the sponsorship and television issues, the poor attendance at last summer's Copa America in the US is likely to be on the minds of FIFA officials.

But apparently these concerns aren't enough for the governing body to abandon the biggest barrier to filling American stadiums: dynamic pricing.

The practice of dynamic pricing is when a company that sells tickets fluctuates prices based on demand.

Sometimes it makes sense. But as seen last summer, the excessive prices imposed by CONMEBOL did not meet fan demand as stadiums across the country were rarely full.

Recognizing the problem, FIFA decided to choose four smaller venues – Orlando's Inter&Co Stadium, Nashville's Geodis Park, Cincinnati's TQL Stadium and Washington's Audi Field – but did not abandon the practice that made those larger venues appear understaffed.

Even in smaller stadiums, dynamic pricing could lead to low attendance numbers. The biggest matches of the group stage (PSG-Atletico Madrid in Los Angeles, Bayern Munich-Boca Juniors in Miami) should have no problem selling tickets.

The same cannot be said for the trio of games in Nashville (Club Leon-Esperance, Auckland City-Boca Juniors, Al Hilal-Pachuca) or Washington, DC (Al Ain-Juventus, Salzburg-Al Hilal, Wydad-Al Ain).

Aside from finances, disruptions to the global football calendar will force some teams to abandon matches in their respective leagues. Of the 32 clubs involved in the tournament, ten clubs will have their seasons interrupted.

This includes the tournament's most controversial inclusion: Inter Miami CF of the MLS. According to FIFA, Inter Miami was selected because the host country of the Club World Cup gets one place in the tournament.

However, the mechanism for Miami's absorption has been intensively investigated. Since its inception, the MLS has determined the league's champion through a knockout tournament: the MLS Cup. The LA Galaxy won the 2024 MLS Cup, beating the New York Red Bulls.

Instead of giving the Galaxy the spot, Inter Miami was included for the stated reason of winning the Supporters' Shield – a trophy awarded to the team that finishes with the best regular season record. In any other competition in the world, the Shield winners would be crowned champions.

But the Supporters' Shield was invented in the fourth season of MLS, is an award given by a foundation of supporters (not the league itself), and has been largely ignored by the league in terms of its legitimacy in crowning of a champion.

But FIFA, definitely needing a way to ensure Lionel Messi would participate in its new tournament, decided to give Inter Miami the host spot long before the MLS Cup Playoffs reached their conclusion. It was a decision that drew fierce criticism from American soccer fans and media.

Finally, we come to the players themselves. This was done on purpose, as the athletes' concerns seem to be the last thing FIFA cares about.

For those competing, competing in the Club World Cup means losing crucial vacation and recovery time after months of seemingly endless training and competition. A FIFA spokesperson told the BBC: “The FIFA Club World Cup is not responsible for overcrowded schedules,” while adding that the governing body “looks after the welfare of the players.”

But several players – including Liverpool's Alisson Becker and Manchester City's Rodri – have expressed concerns about staging the tournament at the end of a long and grueling club season.

FIFPRO – the players' union for footballers – has previously expressed concerns about the saturation of the global football calendar. Man City midfielder Kevin de Bruyne commented: 'It seems money speaks louder than the voices of the players.'

Players are not the only ones worried: City manager Pep Guardiola already called for a late start to the Premier League season. Real Madrid manager Carlo Ancelotti said they could 'forget' his side's participation and that it was not just a money issue. Those comments were later addressed by Los Blancos, who insisted they would participate.

As much as FIFA believes it is not responsible for the calendar, playing in the Club World Cup puts players under intense pressure in a season where footballers can play more than 60 matches.

It also gives clubs not participating in the tournament a clear competitive advantage.

Take the Premier League for example: while Manchester City and Chelsea compete, other top clubs such as Liverpool and Arsenal will be able to fully rest their players, allowing them to take a holiday and recover before returning to match fitness in the summer. Meanwhile, there are just three weeks between the Club World Cup final and the current start of the Premier League season.

Despite the concerns raised, there is no indication that the tournament will be suspended if the first edition of the Club World Cup goes wrong. In fact, according to The Athletic, FIFA is already considering granting the United States hosting rights again when the tournament is scheduled for a 2029 edition.

Maybe by then these problems will be a thing of the past. Perhaps by then the Club World Cup will have proven to be a spectacle worth rooting for. Perhaps by then, Gianni Infantino's dream will be seen as a global benefit to the beautiful game.

But that's for then, and this is now. A ball will roll in six months' time to kick off the tournament in its new incarnation, with the aim of crowning a world club champion.

There is still so much work to do. FIFA has a duty to meet – and even exceed – expectations for this tournament to prove the doubters wrong.

If not, it will be seen as what so many already think it is: a shameless money grab that endangers the athletes who play the game and that no one will want to participate in in four years.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *