FIFA Club World Cup 2025: Triumph or Trial?

From June 14 to July 13, 2025, the United States hosted the inaugural expanded FIFA Club World Cup, featuring 32 teams instead of the traditional seven. Spanning 11 cities and 12 venues, including NFL-style stadiums, the tournament showcased competitors from six different confederations. Chelsea ultimately triumphed over Paris Saint-Germain with a score of 3-0 in the final, held at MetLife Stadium in front of a crowd exceeding 81,000.

Fueled by a staggering $1 billion in broadcast deals and a substantial prize pool, the event aimed to globalise club football and serve as a dress rehearsal for the FIFA World Cup in the USA in 2026, which will be the largest international football tournament in the world.

The tournament sparked intense debate: supporters praised its global showcase and financial benefits, while critics pointed to overcrowded schedules and possible impacts on player welfare. Did it succeed? Let's explore.

Positive Aspects of Tournament

Truly Global Competition & Fan Engagement

For the first time, clubs from Africa, Asia, and North America faced elite teams from Europe and South America in official matches. Exciting encounters, such as Botafogo vs. PSG, Fluminense vs. Al Hilal, and Auckland City vs. Boca Juniors, highlighted the new format's ability to foster genuine global matchups. ESPN noted that smaller clubs “gave spectators a reason to believe” in their competitiveness.

Financial Gains for Clubs

With structured prize distribution and a broadcasting deal through DAZN (backed by $1 billion), even quarter-finalists like Bayern Munich earned around €50 million. The winners, Chelsea, received up to $125 million, while European teams were guaranteed revenue ranging from $12 million to $38 million. This influx of revenue particularly benefited smaller clubs.

Rehearsal for 2026

For U.S. cities preparing for their 2026 World Cup responsibilities, the Club World Cup provided invaluable lessons. Cities like Philadelphia, Orlando, and Dallas gained insights into crowd management, security, transportation logistics, and stadium cooling technologies necessary for managing summer heat.

Negative Aspects

Crushing Heat & Weather Disruption

The U.S. summer proved to be brutally hot, with midday matches in Orlando and Atlanta causing players and fans to struggle under high temperatures and humidity, despite the inclusion of hydration breaks. Thunderstorms delayed six matches by up to two hours, notably interrupting the game between Chelsea and Benfica, raising concerns ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

Player Fatigue and Schedule Overload

Many players, especially those from Europe, arrived after their domestic seasons were visibly fatigued. Jürgen Klopp criticised the tournament as "pointless" and "the worst idea ever," citing the risks of injury and exhaustion. Bayern's Jamal Musiala suffered a serious injury, underscoring the physical toll of the competition. While Arséne Wenger defended the format, concerns about player welfare persisted.

Uneven Attendance & Spectacle Over Sport

Although marquee matches attracted large crowds, several group-stage games held at MLS or smaller U.S. venues drew fewer than 20,000 fans. Critics pointed out the excessive NFL-style theatrics, such as individual stadium walks, half-time concerts, and political involvement, most notably Donald Trump’s presence alongside trophy presenters, which were seen as unnecessary or off-putting.

Conclusion

Overall, the tournament was more successful than it was flawed. It delivered thrilling underdog stories, introduced new intercontinental rivalries, and demonstrated commercial viability, ranking among football's richest club events. Fans affirmed in FIFA’s survey that "unique match-ups" were a key attraction, highlighting the tournament's global appeal.

However, it also raised several red flags: extreme weather, player welfare concerns, low attendance in some matches, logistical challenges, and political theatrics surfaced during the event. The challenge now is for FIFA and host nations to address heat mitigation, align match timings, rationalise the spectacle, and respect the essence of the game.

As Wenger stated, the first edition was “fantastic,” and ESPN labelled it a “largely positive first edition,” while emphasising that refinements are necessary. The 2025 expanded Club World Cup was ambitious, provocative, and at times polarising. It reshaped global club competition, delivering world-class drama and billions in revenue while also revealing crucial flaws that need to be addressed.

Moving forward, the future of the tournament hinges on whether FIFA learns from these challenges and adapts its scheduling, enhances player safety, weatherproofs events, and tones down the flashiness in favour of substance. If done correctly, the Club World Cup can evolve into a credible global showcase, a celebration of the world’s best clubs every four years. But if not, it risks being remembered as a grand spectacle that is ultimately unsustainable.

See more news content from BetinIreland.