Probing the Impact of the Club World Cup Challenge
Were the difficulties faced during the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup genuine challenges or simply artificial obstacles?
During a media briefing in New York City, Jurgen Klinsmann remarked, “No tournament will be perfect.” This statement was reflective of the experiences during the Club World Cup, which recently featured its inaugural 32-team format, culminating in a final where Chelsea triumphed over Paris Saint-Germain with a score of 3-0.
Evaluating the tournament in its new guise is complex, as triumphs and grievances surfaced in equal measure over the course of four weeks. The format provided a unique perspective on the elements that enhance the spectator experience, highlighting FIFA’s ventures that either succeeded or faltered during this event. Questions emerged as to what constituted genuine adversity versus manufactured challenges.
Despite the tournament now concluded, many uncertainties linger, raising existential questions regarding Gianni Infantino’s first significant venture during his tenure as FIFA president and the organization’s ability to actualize its ambitious vision.
FIFA had promoted the revamped Club World Cup as fulfilling a sporting necessity while concerns were raised about a potential European dominance in the competition. The final did little to alleviate such worries, particularly with PSG being favored as the reigning UEFA Champions League champions. However, the Club World Cup succeeded in delivering numerous thrilling moments and unexpected outcomes on the field.
Brazilian clubs proved to be formidable competitors, remaining undefeated in six of their 12 encounters against European teams, dispelling assumptions about a substantial gap between the two regions. Teams such as Fluminense managed to reach the semifinals, resulting in prize earnings exceeding $60 million, a significant boost considering it accounts for over 80% of their annual revenue. The six South American squads showcased their skills and intent upon entering the U.S., with many fulfilling their aspirations.
Fluminense’s manager, Renato Gaucho, commented, “[Brazilian teams have] done a great campaign in the Club World Cup.” He added a note of caution regarding their financial limitations compared to clubs able to attract star players.
In another surprising turn, Manchester City’s exit during the round of 16 against Saudi Arabia’s Al-Hilal stood out as a major upset in the tournament, underscoring the competitiveness observed throughout, even outshining the flashy pre-match ceremonies that American sporting events tend to emphasize.
The $1 billion prize pool motivated teams despite claims of fatigue, particularly among Europeans, who sometimes inaccurately stated that they felt more exhausted than others. Nevertheless, players like Niko Kovac, Chelsea’s captain, noted the challenge presented by the unique conditions of their environment, stating that acclimation to the heat experienced was part of the process.
Though FIFA’s aims for an attainable competitive balance appeared to succeed, the organization did not fully capitalize on the potential of U.S. venues to host the expanded tournament. Attendance faltered at many locations, such as MetLife Stadium, achieving merely a 44.9% capacity during the group stage. New Jersey governor Phil Murphy suggested that the relative obscurity of some teams contributed to lower turnout.
As we look to the future, especially with the 2026 World Cup on the horizon, it is clear that much will be learned from the challenges presented at the Club World Cup, especially regarding environment adaptations and venue choices. FIFA’s upcoming tasks include how to improve player welfare and tackle the upcoming hurdles of hosting a globe-spanning event.
