With the FIFA World Club Cup now underway, and the final scheduled for 13 July, the questions regarding the point of the competition continue to increase.
The Cup features 32 clubs from around the world, an increase from the seven that previously contested, playing group games and then knockout games in a dress rehearsal for the World Cup also being held in the USA next year.
But the competition has been under scrutiny since it was first proposed, with questions being raised about the qualifying criteria, the venues and the format, all leading to the single biggest question – what is the point?
Clearly the main point, as always in football, is about generating money, although that appears to be going less well than anticipated. The opening match, conveniently featuring Lional Messi’s Inter Miami versus Egyptian Club Al Alhy, struggled to sell tickets despite featuring many people’s choice as the world’s greatest player. When ticket sales for the match opened last December, the cheapest ticket was £257 – 24 hours before kickoff tickets were being offered officially for £48 with some reportedly being transferred for £25. The ensuing 0-0 draw seemed to indicate that the open market got its price point spot on.
Group C’s opening match, played in Cincinnati in front of a crowd of 21,000 (incidentally the capacity of Swansea City’s stadium) featured European giants Bayern Munich against the part-timers of Auckland City. To nobody’s surprise, the match was completely one-sided, with Bayern running out 10-0 winners. But this was only to be expected. The Auckland club has as self-imposed salary cap for its players of 150 New Zealand dollars a week (around £66). Bayern’s top scorer, England captain Harry Kane, is reported to be on a salary of £400,000 a week. Mismatches like this are usually reserved for pre-season friendlies, not for FIFA’s shiny new competition who’s billing as featuring the best clubs in the world felt a little hollow from the beginning.
The current domestic champions of three of the world’s strongest leagues (England, Spain and Italy) did not qualify for the tournament. The powerhouses of Liverpool, Barcelona and Napoli miss out as FIFA’s qualifying criteria was designed to reflect the strength of the clubs over the previous four years. However, this same criteria was watered down by FIFA when a place was suddenly found for Inter Miami, which boasts box office star Messi among its playing staff. Inter Miami are one of three Major Soccer League (MSL) clubs in the cup, although current MSL champions Los Angeles Galaxy are not among them!
Innovation is required in any sport to keep things fresh and fans interested and engaged. The concept of a World Cup for clubs, featuring the best clubs in the world, is a strong one that does captivate fans. The main issue for FIFA with the concept is the dichotomy of hosting a worldwide competition with the best clubs. The best clubs in the world are from Europe and South America – since the first FIFA Club World Championship took place in Brazil in 2000 every winner has come from one of those two continents. But, to make it a truly worldwide event FIFA includes representatives from each of its Conferences. Auckland City have won the Oceania Champions League for the past four seasons, so have qualified by right. But the fact that Opta’s Power Rankings have the club as the 5,074th strongest club in the world makes a mockery of the format and leads to the result that we saw in Cincinnati.
For England’s Premier League, the implications for next season are already being debated. The two English teams who qualified for the Cup, Chelsea and Manchester City, are already being discussed as having a major disadvantage for next season through the additional workload their players will have playing in the Cup while their opponents get some well-deserved rest and recuperation. Liverpool Manager Arne Slott is certainly not fussed by missing out on the tournament, stating that he does not think it’s healthy for players to have only one week off in the summer before starting the next premier league season. We will see just how unhealthy it is next May in the relative league positions of Liverpool and Arsenal compared to Chelsea and Manchester City.
Ultimately, it is crystal clear that the format for the new Cup, and the existence of the competition at all, is down to financial considerations rather than the ‘good’ of the game, or the health of the players. This is perfectly illustrated by the new match award, where the Man of the Match has been replaced by the ‘Superior Player of the Match’ award. This innovation, however, has not come as part of a push towards gender equality. The ‘Superior Player’ award has been introduced as a sop to one of the Club World Cup’s sponsors, Michelob ULTRA – the American beer brand carries the tagline ‘Superior Light Beer’!
And with that I rest my case.
David Little is a Partner at Bishop & Sewell in our expert Sports Law and Corporate & Commercial teams.
If you would like to contact him, please call on either 07968 027343 or 020 7631 4141 or email: company@bishopandsewell.co.uk.
The above is accurate as at 17 June 2025.
The information above may be subject to change. The content of this note should not be considered legal advice, and each matter should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
