“Perfection will elude every competition.”
A sense of realism permeated Jurgen Klinsmann’s statement as he and his fellow members of the FIFA technical study group assessed the Club World Cup during a press conference in New York City on Thursday. However, this observation resonated deeply with the nature of this competition, particularly given it was the inaugural 32-team Club World Cup, which culminated in Sunday’s showdown between Chelsea and Paris Saint-Germain at MetLife Stadium, where the Blues emerged victorious with a 3-0 scoreline.
Synthesizing the essence of the Club World Cup in its revamped structure proves challenging, as conventional benchmarks of triumph intertwined with expressions of dissatisfaction throughout its four-week duration. It served as a distinctive platform to evaluate both the tangible and intangible elements that contribute to the overall experience, while also gauging the efficacy of FIFA’s strategic decisions, prompting adaptations to the unfamiliar. While challenges are inherent in sporting events, this particular iteration raised pertinent questions about the extent to which these challenges stemmed from inherent adversities or artificially induced complications.
Even with the bulk of the tournament concluded, a lingering sense of uncertainty persists, prompting fundamental inquiries regarding Gianni Infantino’s landmark undertaking during his decade-long tenure as FIFA president – and the organization’s capabilities to actualize its envisioned objectives.
Validation of the on-field concept
FIFA promoted the expanded Club World Cup as a competition addressing a void in terms of sporting significance, yet skepticism lingered regarding the potential for European dominance. While the final did little to dispel these reservations, particularly with reigning UEFA Champions League victors Paris Saint-Germain entering as favorites, the Club World Cup’s primary achievement lies in its provision of numerous captivating on-field moments and notable surprises.
South American teams maintained an unbeaten record in six of their twelve encounters against European counterparts, suggesting that the disparity between clubs from the two continents may not be as pronounced as some anticipated. Brazilian teams emerged as the true revelations – all four advanced from their respective groups, relegating European sides like Atletico Madrid and FC Porto to an early exit. Fluminense distinguished themselves with a semifinal appearance, securing a financial windfall exceeding $60 million, constituting over 80% of their previous year’s revenue and serving as a substantial consolation prize. Each of the six South American teams arrived in the U.S. with a determination to prove their mettle, and many succeeded in doing so.
“[Brazilian teams] have executed a commendable campaign in the Club World Cup,” remarked Fluminense manager Renato Gaucho on Monday, preceding their semifinal clash against Chelsea. “When I characterized us as an unpretentious competitor, with due respect to all other clubs, I alluded to our financial limitations, which is undeniable. Fluminense’s financial resources pale in comparison to those of these other clubs, representing less than 10%. They possess the capacity to acquire all these prominent players, and naturally, a team comprising such talent enjoys significantly enhanced prospects of victory.”
Manchester City’s elimination in the round of 16 against Saudi Arabia’s Al-Hilal stands as the Club World Cup’s most significant upset, with the totality of matches underscoring a level of competitiveness conducive to an engaging spectacle – eclipsing the fanfare of American sports-inspired pre-match rituals, which failed to augment the excitement surrounding any of the matches. A sense of gravitas permeated the event, even surprising Arsene Wenger, FIFA’s chief of global football development.
“I visited numerous clubs and … it was remarkably positive,” Wenger commented on Thursday. “I was genuinely surprised. Every individual within the camps displayed exceptional motivation. I engaged with some teams who, upon elimination, expressed profound disappointment.”
The $1 billion prize pool appeared to offer ample motivation to any team potentially lacking it, particularly among the European contingent, who sometimes inaccurately asserted their greater susceptibility to fatigue. Some may have also resigned themselves to the realization that opting out of the competition was not a viable option, opting to make the most of an imperfect scenario.
“From my perspective, this is analogous to competing in a World Cup with the national team, so I believe that while discussions regarding the players’ demanding schedules are warranted, my players relish the opportunity to participate here,” Dortmund’s Niko Kovac remarked during the group stage. “We should refrain from dwelling on concerns about excessive playing time. Such negativity is detrimental to our mindset and unwarranted. Approaching the tournament with such reservations undermines the potential for success, whereas adopting a serious and positive outlook is essential. My players exhibit a consistently positive demeanor, and we have meticulously prepared to excel in this tournament.”
While a spirit of tolerance characterized the European teams at the Club World Cup, others found avenues to bridge the gap. Similar to the South American teams on the field, their supporters compensated for deficiencies even in sparsely populated stadiums, a sentiment echoed by a contingent of African teams who traveled in substantial numbers. The Club World Cup’s singular redeeming quality lies in its reminder that a Euro-centric perspective on the world’s most popular sport is intrinsically limiting, both on and off the field, though it failed to compensate for the tournament’s deficiencies.
Elevated temperatures, unoccupied seating
Getty Images
While FIFA’s investment in competitive value yielded returns, their gamble on the U.S. as an ideal host venue for the inaugural expanded Club World Cup fell short of expectations. The overall outcomes were mixed, presenting a depiction of the American soccer landscape that may have surprised outsiders but failed to startle those intimately familiar with the scene.
The expansive NFL stadiums selected by FIFA to host the majority of Club World Cup matches were frequently less than half-filled during the group stage, including MetLife Stadium, which operated at 44.9% capacity through five opening-round matches. New Jersey governor Phil Murphy attributed the low attendance figures to the participating teams, asserting that “not all are household names.” Certain Club World Cup participants consistently attracted sizable crowds – Real Madrid, having cultivated a global brand over decades, and Boca Juniors, whose substantial U.S. fanbase rivals the fervor of their Argentine counterparts, were among them. However, the competition primarily comprised teams capable of drawing only modest crowds, lending credence to the argument that soccer-specific stadiums may have been a more judicious choice. The atmosphere would have undoubtedly benefited from such venues, while FIFA may have averted the embarrassment of incessant headlines highlighting ticket price reductions aimed at attracting larger audiences.
The attendance figures also serve as a reminder that the Club World Cup and the forthcoming World Cup are not entirely comparable – Murphy posits that the novelty of the former proved to be a hindrance for fans, while the latter’s status as the world’s preeminent sporting event will resonate profoundly with Americans.
“We demonstrated this conclusively in 1994 with only 24 teams participating in the tournament,” Murphy asserted. “We established the all-time attendance record, which remains unbroken to this day, despite the subsequent expansion to 32 teams. Next year will feature 48 teams … The World Cup occupies a unique position relative to any other sporting event, irrespective of the sport, and we are poised to reaffirm this assertion next year.”
Players and fans alike contended with the USA’s extreme summertime climate, encountering heat waves and weather-related delays with a frequency unfamiliar to many. While some players, such as Real Madrid’s Aurelien Tchouameni, acknowledged that players “gradually acclimate,” others, including Chelsea’s Enzo Fernandez, reported experiencing dizziness during Tuesday’s semifinal and characterized the heat as “hazardous.” These oppressive conditions are poised to be the Club World Cup’s most enduring legacy, though not a particularly favorable one.
The weather significantly impacted gameplay. The typically attack-oriented Palmeiras adopted a more defensive posture in their 2-0 victory over Al Ahly in the group stage, with the match commencing at 12 p.m., the heat impeding their passing precision and dynamism in the attacking third. Wenger disclosed that the technical study group determined that “temperatures exceeding 35 degrees [Celsius, 95 degrees Fahrenheit] adversely affected high-speed running, specifically sprints, as opposed to overall distance,” while weather delays introduced an additional variable. While Chelsea manager Enzo Maresca dismissed a two-hour delay during their round of 16 triumph over Benfica as “a farce,” it also stimulated novel tactical approaches from others – Al Ahly’s Jose Riviero, for instance, opted for a quadruple substitution in the hope of injecting renewed vigor into his team against Palmeiras, though the Brazilian side successfully defended their 2-0 lead.
While climate may lie beyond FIFA’s jurisdiction, player welfare does not, and the conditions at the Club World Cup serve as a stark reminder of the potential need for innovative measures from world soccer’s governing body. Wenger noted that the retractable roofs at select World Cup venues next year will offer respite and that the U.S. is not unique in experiencing such temperatures – the Women’s Euro commenced last week in Switzerland with temperatures surpassing 90 degrees Fahrenheit, while Wimbledon experienced its hottest day on record shortly thereafter. Less encouraging, however, is Wenger’s seeming reluctance to address an issue that currently affects players and fans.
“It appears that concurrent weather conditions are prevalent in Europe,” he stated. “This will undoubtedly pose a future challenge for all.”
An imperfect rehearsal for 2026
Preparations for Sunday’s match conveyed the impression that some players had endured considerable adversity en route to the final, diminishing the allure of a weeks-long display of form that, in theory, should enhance the reputations of the teams and players involved.
“I believe the most significant challenge stems from the circumstances in which we are competing – the extensive travel and the uneven quality of the pitches,” Chelsea captain Reece James remarked on Friday. “The climate is exceedingly hot. Few individuals in Europe are accustomed to this level of heat, and competing at 3 o’clock, during the hottest part of the day, presents considerable adaptation challenges for us.”
While the hot and humid conditions have been a consistent presence, potentially previewing the experiences of numerous Club World Cup players likely to participate in next year’s World Cup, the inconsistencies in pitch quality have posed another hardship for players. The limited number of soccer-specific stadiums utilized for the Club World Cup have garnered commendation, but they will not feature in next year’s event; FIFA will host World Cup matches in 11 NFL stadiums in 2026, making it an ideal proving ground for their grass cultivation and installation methodologies. The outcomes have been mixed – complaints have ranged from “dry” to “slow,” while PSG manager Luis Enrique remarked that the “ball bounced erratically” at Seattle’s Lumen Field.
Many of the Club World Cup venues, including MetLife Stadium, employed a Tahoma 31 bermudagrass specifically cultivated for the tournament, a procedure that will be replicated for next year’s World Cup. At MetLife, which hosted Sunday’s final as well as the 2026 World Cup final, the freshly grown grass is layered atop the turf that NFL teams typically utilize. While that resides at the bottom, the layers above encompass “an aluminum floor, then there’s permavoid, which facilitates drainage, then there’s a geotextile layer, succeeded by the stabilized Bermuda T31 turf,” according to venue pitch manager Blair Christiansen.
Christiansen acknowledged prior to the tournament’s commencement that player feedback would be incorporated as they initiate the cultivation of next year’s World Cup pitches, a year-long undertaking for each venue. However, the endeavor to ensure uniform surface conditions across all stadiums appears to have fallen short of expectations, placing added pressure on those tasked with ensuring the success of next year’s pitches.
These were not the only logistical matters that organizers had the opportunity to address during the Club World Cup. Though the 2026 World Cup host committees were not involved in orchestrating this year’s tournament, the six host cities that will participate in both events capitalized on this summer’s opportunity to ensure their preparedness; in New Jersey specifically, they augmented bus and train services despite limited demand and established a command center to facilitate collaboration between local and federal authorities on safety and security matters.
The Club World Cup also presented FIFA president Infantino with yet another contrived avenue to cultivate favor with U.S. president Donald Trump, primarily through photo opportunities but also through some official engagements. FIFA will establish a supplementary U.S. office at Trump Tower, a brief ceremony on Monday affording Infantino another opportunity to ingratiate himself within the Trump family’s sphere of influence, a maneuver that has been met with disapproval by other high-ranking soccer officials in the past. Monday’s event merely served as a platform for the primary parties involved to leverage whatever soft power they wield in accordance with their respective agendas – Infantino consistently maintains that his networking endeavors are in the best interests of the sport, while Eric Trump utilized his time before a microphone to bolster the family name, reiterating talking points that he and his relatives have disseminated thousands of times before, regardless of their relevance to the Club World Cup.
The final itself encapsulated the essence of an imperfect tournament, with the on-field outcome providing an entertaining surprise amidst a day characterized by excessive spectacle. A pre-match performance by Robbie Williams and Laura Pausini of FIFA’s new official anthem, “Desire,” was suitably unremarkable, overshadowed by the inflatable replica of the Club World Cup trophy. The inaugural halftime show featuring Doja Cat, J Balvin, Tems, and a surprise appearance from Coldplay, was dystopian – rather than further degrading the already compromised pitch at halftime, they instead performed on a stage constructed in the upper tier of MetLife Stadium. The surreal scenes, however, were incomplete without Donald Trump’s involvement, with the president greeted by several rounds of boos on Sunday before inserting himself into Chelsea’s trophy presentation, leaving players and onlookers alike stunned in one of the most peculiar occurrences in the history of professional sporting events.
Chelsea’s unexpected victory over PSG possessed the narrative elements that should have commanded attention in their own right, but it was overshadowed by the chaos that could prove more memorable than the actual outcome. The on-field displays, while entertaining, seemed secondary by the time the confetti descended at MetLife Stadium – and arguably even beforehand. As the final approached, the tournament’s primary talking points centered on logistical considerations, with Infantino declaring it “the world’s most successful club competition” and Wenger asserting that 100% of participants would affirm “they would want to do it again,” FIFA’s executives allocating considerable time to making claims that are difficult to substantiate. With the tournament concluded, it is apparent that the skepticism that accompanied the Club World Cup in its lead-up never fully dissipated. A sense of prestige never truly supplanted it, even with Chelsea and PSG exhibiting their utmost motivation on Sunday, the well-established routines of professional sports taking effect. The prize money holds significance for the clubs that received it, and the semblance of a trial run for a segment of the World Cup host cities proved beneficial to those that needed it, but these factors do not constitute a successful tournament. Four weeks and over 60 games later, it remains uncertain whether the Club World Cup truly mattered to anyone from a competitive standpoint, the quintessential indicator of sporting success, and only time will reveal whether it ever will.
