Club World Cup Shapes Football’s Future

The Money Game: How FIFA’s New Super-Tournament Threatens to Break Football

In a quiet corner of northern Argentina, a story of pure football joy unfolded. In late 2023, in Santiago del Estero, a city in Argentina's north, Platense secured a 1-0 victory over Huracán to capture the Copa de la Liga Profesional title. The winning goal was a moment of magic from Guido Mainero, whose perfectly struck dipping volley sealed the club's first major trophy in its long history. The emotional outpouring that followed was a testament to the power of communal sporting achievement. Such moments define the soul of football, built on local identity, shared memory, and unexpected glory.

This triumph was a moment for deep reflection, a chance to remember companions and relatives who had long passed but would have revelled in the victory. Favio Orsi, one of the team's joint managers, spoke of his father, acknowledging that his entire connection to the sport was owed to him. He expressed profound gratitude for the life they shared. When sceptics question football's relevance, it is precisely this capacity to unite communities, stir nostalgia, and foster a sense of belonging that provides the most compelling answer. It is the unscripted drama of the underdog that fuels the sport's global appeal.

A Villain’s Grand Design

Imagine a fictional antagonist, seated in a high-tech mountain fortress, plotting world domination. This character has no interest in the sentimental purity of sporting fairytales. Instead, power and control are the only objectives. The charm that smaller teams and their unlikely triumphs create is seen not as a virtue but as an impediment to a grander scheme. To achieve this vision, the most effective strategy would be to destabilise the existing order. This involves creating a new class of super-clubs, enriched to a degree that makes their domestic competitions a mere formality, inexorably pulling them towards a worldwide premier division.

To be clear, no one is making a direct accusation that this is FIFA's stated objective. Such a plan would imply a level of organisational coherence not consistently visible in the organisation's activities. However, if such a supervillain were to devise a plan to reshape global football, it is difficult to see how it would look substantially different from the recently enlarged Club World Cup. The tournament’s structure and financial incentives appear tailor-made to accelerate the very trends that are already placing immense strain on the sport’s traditional ecosystem. The outcome, intended or not, seems to point in a single, worrying direction.

The New Frontier: A 32-Team Behemoth

FIFA's Club World Cup will soon transform from a minor annual event into a quadrennial 32-team extravaganza, hosted in the United States in the summer of 2025. This new format mirrors the international World Cup, with eight groups of four teams competing in a round-robin stage before a knockout phase. The tournament represents a monumental shift in club football, promising unprecedented global exposure. Gianni Infantino, FIFA's president, has hailed the competition as a moment that is "writing history," bringing the 32 best clubs in the world together to crown a definitive champion.

This ambitious project, however, has been met with significant controversy from its inception. The tournament will be played from mid-June to mid-July, a period traditionally reserved for player rest and recovery. With a USD $1 billion prize fund, the financial stakes are enormous, promising a windfall for participating clubs. Yet, this new addition to an already congested calendar has ignited a firestorm of criticism from player unions, leagues, and managers who fear its far-reaching consequences for player welfare and the competitive balance of the sport.

The Unbridgeable Financial Chasm

The financial disparity within the sport is a growing issue. Across Europe, a handful of dominant clubs have become the norm during the last ten years. The enlarged Club World Cup threatens to pour fuel on this fire. With a total prize pot of USD $1 billion, the sums on offer are staggering. Winners could earn up to USD $125 million, an amount that dwarfs the revenues of most clubs over a whole year of play. Even simple participation guarantees a massive payout, creating a financial gulf that domestic rivals will find impossible to bridge.

With its massive television contracts, the Premier League may be robust enough to absorb the shock of one of its clubs receiving a sudden £100 million injection. For other leagues, however, the impact will be seismic. Consider the contrast between different confederations. A club like Auckland City, from New Zealand's amateur Northern League, will receive millions just for participating. Their players, who balance football with full-time jobs and take unpaid leave to compete, exist in a different universe from the stars of Real Madrid or Manchester City. This financial distortion risks turning many national leagues into foregone conclusions.

A Tale of Two Worlds

The disparity is stark when viewed through the lens of smaller footballing nations. Take Platense, whose historic title in Argentina earned them prize money of approximately £370,000. In stark contrast, the Argentinian teams participating in the Club World Cup, River Plate and Boca Juniors, are guaranteed at least £11.25 million each merely for showing up. This amount is more than thirty times what the domestic champions receive. One win during the initial phase would add another £1.5 million to their coffers.

This sudden influx of cash is designed to be self-perpetuating. For most clubs outside the absolute elite, entry into the Club World Cup would provide a financial advantage so immense that it would almost guarantee their continued domestic dominance and, therefore, future qualification. The result could be a closed circle of a few dozen super-clubs, immeasurably more affluent than their local rivals. The new president of the European Leagues, Claudius Schafer, has openly stated he "fears for the future" of national competitions due to this distortion.

Image Credit - Daily Sports

The Case of Auckland City

The story of Auckland City perfectly illustrates the tournament's paradoxical nature. As an amateur club, their players work jobs as sales representatives and teachers. Their home ground hosts crowds numbering in the hundreds. Yet, they will share a pitch with global giants like Bayern Munich. The club is guaranteed a participation fee of around £2.64 million, a sum that is transformative in their environment, where the cap on player expenses is approximately £70 each week.

For Auckland's players, competing in the United States will be the highlight of their careers. For the sport, however, their presence highlights the absurdity of the financial environment that FIFA is creating. While the romance of their journey is undeniable, the structural impact of such financial disparity is profound. The amateurs from Auckland already dominate their region; this windfall will entrench their position further, potentially stifling competition in Oceania for years to come. Their story is both a fairytale and a cautionary tale.

Player Welfare at Breaking Point

The most immediate and vocal opposition to the new tournament has centred on player welfare. The global players' union, FIFPRO, has been scathing in its criticism, arguing the football calendar is now "beyond saturation." Players are being pushed to their physical and mental limits, with the addition of a month-long summer tournament effectively eliminating any chance for a meaningful off-season break. Some top-level players could face seasons with over 80 matches, a workload that experts deem unsustainable and dangerous.

FIFPRO has highlighted the cases of players like Real Madrid's Federico Valverde, who played nearly 6,000 minutes for his club and country in the season leading up to the tournament. The union has called for mandatory rest periods, including a four-week off-season break and a mid-season break, to protect players' health. Maheta Molango, chief executive of England's Professional Footballers' Association (PFA), warned that players are being treated like "commodities" and that burnout could lead to shortened careers. The relentless schedule, he argued, threatens the very athletes the game relies on.

A Rebellion Brewing

The discontent has moved beyond strongly worded statements. FIFPRO and the World Leagues Association (WLA), which represents leagues such as the Premier League, have threatened FIFA with legal action. They have filed a formal complaint with the European Commission, accusing FIFA of abusing its dominant market position and making unilateral decisions that harm national leagues and endanger players. The lawsuit argues that FIFA’s dual role as a regulator and a commercial enterprise creates a fundamental conflict of interest.

This growing rebellion found a prominent, if brief, voice in Carlo Ancelotti. The Real Madrid manager was quoted in an Italian newspaper stating his club would "refuse the invitation" to the tournament, citing the inadequate financial compensation offered by FIFA. Although Ancelotti and the club quickly retracted the comments, the initial outburst revealed deep-seated tensions even among the sport's elite. It underscored a growing sentiment that FIFA's expansionist agenda is being pursued without proper consultation or concern for its members.

The Saudi Connection

The financial underpinnings of the new Club World Cup reveal a deepening relationship between FIFA and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) was lately declared a formal backer of the competition. This move adds another layer to Saudi Arabia's rapidly expanding influence in global sport, with the PIF already owning Newcastle United and funding the LIV Golf tour. The partnership was announced with familiar rhetoric about fostering youth participation, though specifics remain vague.

The PIF's involvement is not limited to direct sponsorship. Saudi state money is also heavily linked to the tournament's broadcast rights. DAZN, the streaming platform that acquired the worldwide rights, received a reported $1 billion investment from a PIF subsidiary. This intricate web of financial interests has led to accusations that FIFA is prioritising revenue and strategic alliances over the health of the sport. With Saudi Arabia also set to host the 2034 World Cup, the partnership cements the kingdom's central role in the future of football governance.

A Conflict of Interest?

The arrangement for sponsorship with the Public Investment Fund (PIF) raises immediate questions about conflicts of interest. The PIF is the majority owner of Al-Hilal, one of the 32 clubs competing in the tournament. This means a primary sponsor of the event also owns one of its participants, a situation that blurs the lines between commercial partnership and competitive integrity. This arrangement further cements the perception that FIFA’s decisions are increasingly driven by opaque financial deals rather than transparent governance.

Additionally, Qatar Airways was announced as a key backer just days before the PIF announcement, highlighting a pattern of last-minute, high-value deals with state-linked entities. This influx of capital from the Gulf ensures the tournament’s financial viability, but it also ties FIFA’s flagship club event to powerful geopolitical actors. Critics argue these partnerships compromise FIFA's independence and prioritise commercial interests above all else, creating a system where a select few nations can exert disproportionate influence over the global game.

Infantino’s Global Vision

The enlarged Club World Cup is a cornerstone of Gianni Infantino's broader strategy to reshape global football and contest the authority of UEFA and its lucrative Champions League. This vision extends beyond a single tournament. Infantino has also been a key supporter of an African Super League, a project that, similar to the Club World Cup, promises huge financial returns but risks destabilising local football ecosystems. The initial plan for a 24-team league was eventually scaled back to an eight-team inaugural event, but the ambition remains.

Infantino has promoted these initiatives as tools for making football "truly global," arguing they will distribute wealth and opportunity more widely. However, critics see a different motive: a power play to centralise control and revenue under FIFA's direct authority. By creating new, highly lucrative competitions, FIFA can bypass established continental confederations and forge direct relationships with the world's biggest clubs, fundamentally altering the sport's traditional power structures. The African Football League, despite its scaled-down launch, remains a key part of this strategic puzzle.

The African Super League Experiment

First announced by Gianni Infantino in 2019, the African Super League was presented as a revolutionary project to transform club football on the continent. With a promised prize fund of $100 million, the competition aimed to provide African clubs with the financial resources to retain top talent and compete on a global scale. The project received the full backing of the Confederation of African Football (CAF) and was framed as a vehicle for widespread development, benefiting everything from academies to infrastructure.

However, the project has been fraught with challenges and controversy. Many observers raised concerns about its impact on existing domestic and continental competitions, fearing it would create a privileged elite and siphon resources away from the remainder of the football structure. After several delays and a name change to the African Football League—to distance it from the failed European Super League—a scaled-back version was launched in 2023. Its future remains uncertain, serving as a test case for FIFA's broader ambitions.

Undermining Domestic Competitions

A primary concern is the possibility that the Club World Cup will devalue and damage domestic league competitions. The huge financial rewards on offer create an incentive structure that could lead clubs to prioritise the new global tournament over their traditional national obligations. La Liga's president, Javier Tebas, has been an outspoken critic, stating the model directly "affects the ecosystem of national leagues." The influx of money risks creating a permanent two-tier system within each country, where two or three globetrotting super-teams dominate indefinitely.

This dynamic also creates perverse advantages for those not participating. As one manager noted, clubs like Liverpool and Arsenal could gain a significant advantage in the Premier League because their players rest during the summer while their rivals are competing in the United States. Furthermore, the tournament’s scheduling directly clashes with other established competitions, such as the CONCACAF Gold Cup, forcing players, fans, and broadcasters to choose and inevitably diminishing the prestige of long-standing regional tournaments.

A Future Pre-Written?

The long-term consequences of this path seem clear. Should the Club World Cup turn into a regular event, participation will likely become self-perpetuating for a select group of clubs. The financial windfall from one tournament will provide the resources to ensure qualification for the next, creating a virtuous cycle for the few and a vicious one for the many. This could entrench the influence of a worldwide elite of perhaps two dozen teams, making them virtually untouchable in their home countries. The romance of the underdog, embodied by teams like Platense, would become a relic of a bygone era.

This trajectory points towards the inevitable creation of an effective worldwide premier division, a concept that has already been met with fierce opposition from fans. Whether this is FIFA's deliberate plan or simply the logical outcome of its commercial strategy, the result is the same: a game reconfigured around the interests of a handful of powerful entities. A competent worldwide governing authority ought to be a protector against this kind of imbalance. Instead, FIFA appears to be its primary architect, actively engineering a future that serves its own commercial and political ambitions. The very essence of the sport is at stake.