Frank Christian
FIFA is attempting to enhance global club football with an expanded Club World Cup, set to launch its revamped edition in June 2025.
This tournament, hosted in the year prior to the World Cup, will evolve from an annual competition featuring seven teams to a quadrennial event with 32 teams participating.
The inaugural expanded tournament will take place in the United States this weekend, just a year ahead of the 2026 World Cup.
Although excitement runs high for this major event featuring elite clubs globally, it has faced considerable backlash.
The Sporting News sheds light on the controversy surrounding the upcoming Club World Cup and explains the mixed reactions it has garnered.
What makes the 2025 Club World Cup contentious?
Critics have highlighted several concerns regarding the 2025 Club World Cup. Primarily, these issues revolve around the heightened demands on an already crowded football calendar, alongside other identified challenges.
Increased fixture congestion from Club World Cup
The loudest critics of the 2025 Club World Cup have pointed to the month-long nature of the tournament as a major disruption to the already busy schedules of top clubs and national teams.
Even before the redesign of the tournament, fixture overload and the exertion on players have become hot topics in global football.
The global player union FIFPRO has addressed this issue, releasing an in-depth report in 2023 about the “disproportionate match calendar.”
With a full football season consuming nearly the entire year, summer usually provides the only opportunity for professional players to rest. However, those involved in international play often find this time further reduced due to summer national competitions, designed to avoid clashing with club commitments.
The addition of a month-long club tournament in the summer effectively takes away the already minimal rest time players have.
Spanning from mid-June to mid-July, the tournament also requires consideration of pre-season preparations crucial to preventing early-season injuries. Given that European club seasons wrap up around mid-May, there’s practically no off-season left.
Critics label Club World Cup as a “money grab”
FIFA’s quick and disjointed organization of the 2025 Club World Cup has faced backlash for appearing more focused on profit rather than addressing logistical challenges.
American journalist Henry Bushnell from Yahoo Sports referred to the tournament as “FIFA’s strategy to capitalize on soccer’s top clubs and talents,” stating critics view it as a “money-focused approach;” a struggle for power between Gianni Infantino and UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin.
Kevin de Bruyne, who recently concluded his career at Manchester City, pointed out that the revamped Club World Cup indicates “financial interests outweigh players’ concerns.”
De Bruyne mentioned, “There will only be three weeks from the Club World Cup final to the start of the Premier League,” emphasizing the aforementioned issue of fixture congestion. “That leaves just three weeks to rest and gear up for another 80 matches.”
Club World Cup falls short of financial assurances
Supporting the view that FIFA’s primary intention with the Club World Cup is financial gain, the organization has failed to deliver on promises to participating clubs for significant monetary returns to promote the sport globally.
FIFA indicated (not directly boasting, but through various statements) that each club would earn around $50 million for participating in the 2025 Club World Cup.
However, this claim does not align with the actual distribution of a $1 billion prize pool. The tournament winner may receive as much as $125 million, while early exit teams will earn much less, and the distribution will not be equal across the board.
The amounts awarded will depend on various sporting and commercial criteria, with European teams set to earn more than those from other regions. The top European clubs could secure $38.19 million, while lower-ranked teams might receive $12.81 million.
In contrast, South American teams are guaranteed $15.21 million, but clubs from other regions will earn even less than the lowest-ranked European team. Participants from CONCACAF, CAF, and AFC are each assured a payout of $9.55 million, while Auckland City, representing OFC, will receive $3.58 million.
These sums will be supplemented by performance-related earnings.
- Group stage: $2 million for a win/$1 million for a draw per club
- Round of 16: $7.5 million
- Quarterfinal: $13.125 million
- Semifinal: $21 million
- Finalist: $30 million
- Winner: $40 million
Ultimately, it is expected that the twelve participating European clubs will claim approximately 70% of the shared revenue, while the remaining 22 teams will split the remaining 30%. This scenario once again favors the wealthier clubs.
A striking example of FIFA’s miscalculations is the challenge in securing a television partner for the event. In the United States, where interest is likely to be significant, the long-time World Cup partner Fox reportedly offered a mere $10 million for the rights.
FIFA ultimately opted for a global streaming partnership with DAZN, making every match available for free worldwide. Although FIFA has touted the deal as “valued” at $2 billion, the reality suggests it might be closer to $1 billion. It’s speculated that this high valuation is linked to DAZN’s collaboration with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is set to host the 2034 World Cup.
Former FIFA chief commercial officer Simon Thomas mentioned to Tariq Panja of The New York Times that FIFA would “need to think outside the box” to achieve its financial objectives.
