Figure 1: Club World Cup Trophy
When FIFA unveiled its plans to expand the Club World Cup into a 32-team summer blockbuster, it was billed as the tournament that would finally give club football a truly global championship. This year’s new edition in the United States was a bold experiment – but was it a success? To answer that, we need to assess three things: the sport, the fans, and the finances.
The Sport: Quality Meets Logistics
On the pitch, the expanded tournament largely delivered. The old seven-team format often felt like a glorified exhibition with predictable outcomes. This time, the larger field produced genuine variety and a few shocks. Botafogo’s win over PSG and Inter Miami’s fightback against Porto showed that non-European clubs could compete. European giants still dominated late on — Chelsea ultimately beating PSG 3–0 in front of over 81,000 fans at MetLife Stadium — but the storylines felt richer and more meaningful.
Importantly, clubs took the competition seriously. Managers fielded strong line-ups and fans got the elite clashes they’d been promised. From a sporting perspective, this was a tournament worth watching.
Yet, the logistics weren’t perfect. Group-stage matches were often played in cavernous NFL stadiums that appeared half-empty. The average crowd across the group stage was around 34,700 — filling only 56.7% of available capacity. Some matches attracted just a few thousand spectators, giving the TV pictures an underwhelming backdrop. In contrast, later rounds drew large crowds, culminating in the 81,118-strong final.
Heat and scheduling also loomed large. Summer afternoons in American cities left players and fans sweltering. FIFPRO, the global players’ union, voiced concerns about welfare and fixture congestion, urging FIFA to rethink match timings and rest periods.
The football itself was entertaining, but the event’s optics and organisation lagged behind. The competition proved it can be compelling; now it needs a format that flatters the spectacle at every stage.
The Fans: Reach Without Resonance?
Figure 2: Chelsea's opening game met with empty seats in Atlanta's Mercedes-Benz Stadium
From a global perspective, FIFA’s numbers look extremely impressive and to onlookers would pose this year’s edition a resounding success, but when you look deeper, you will uncover what the numbers don’t show. The governing body claims that around 2.5 million people attended matches across 11 host cities and that the tournament reached a worldwide audience of 2.7 billion across broadcast and digital platforms. DAZN, a free worldwide football streaming platform, broadcast all 63 games globally, while social media engagement spiked around marquee fixtures.
But numbers only tell part of the story. In practice, the fan experience was uneven. While later rounds produced packed stadiums and a genuine buzz, many early games struggled to create atmosphere. Television audiences saw swathes of empty seats, particularly in weekday or midday kickoffs, which saw extreme lows as four games had less than 10,000 fans present in stadiums whose capacities were much higher. With the tournament being in the summer, this meant competing with the already saturated domestic sport calendar in the US dominated.
Pricing added to frustrations. FIFA initially pushed dynamic pricing, with tickets for some matches topping $400. As games failed to sell, those prices were slashed to as little as $13 just days before kickoff — leaving early buyers aggrieved and exposing the challenges of filling giant stadiums for less glamorous fixtures.
Critics also pointed out that local promotion was inconsistent. In some host cities, residents barely realised a world tournament was happening. Meanwhile, the crowded U.S. summer sports calendar — MLS, the Gold Cup, baseball — left the Club World Cup competing for attention.
Verdict (Fans): Global engagement was massive, and big matches felt like global events. But on the ground, the inconsistent atmosphere, pricing strategy, and scheduling issues revealed a tournament still learning how to connect meaningfully with its in-stadium audience.
The Financials: Big Money, Big Questions
Figure 3: USA President Donald Trump, FIFA President Gianni Infantino and the Club World Cup trophy in the Oval office
Financially, the Club World Cup represented a major step change. FIFA secured a whopping $1bn global broadcast deal with DAZN, ensuring global distribution and a significant revenue stream. Prize money was similarly unprecedented: a $1bn pool was split between clubs, with winners Chelsea earning up to $125 million. Even smaller clubs benefited handsomely — just qualifying meant pocketing millions.
For many non-European sides, those sums represent transformative windfalls. For the likes of Auckland City or Mamelodi Sundowns, participation alone was worth years of domestic revenue. Even for Europe’s elite, $100m+ is a serious payday, especially when you factor in the rise of financial regulations in the Premier League and UEFA competitions such as PSR (Profit & Sustainability Rules) and FFP (Financial Fair Play) that has changed the way clubs not only spend their money but also justify their revenue. According to ABC News, almost $500 million was made available to clubs through pure competition with $2 million paid for winning group stage games, $7.5 million for playing in the round of 16 and $40 million to the team that wins the final at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.
Yet questions remain. Some sponsors were reportedly hesitant to commit, and filling stadiums at the right price proved difficult in a nation where the sport is still on the rise. While the headline numbers are huge, the long-term commercial model may depend heavily on ensuring consistent demand outside the glamour fixtures and European heavy hitters. There’s also the broader debate – can FIFA realistically add another mega-tournament to an already congested football calendar without alienating leagues, clubs, and players?
By top-line metrics, FIFA can call this edition a financial success for the clubs, the hosting nation and the sport as a whole. However, whether it’s sustainable as a new quadrennial football tournament – that may still be expanded to have more teams – is still an open question, and one that needs to be explored further.
The Final Word: Success in Progress
So, was the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup a success? The answer is complicated.
-
Sporting credibility? Established. The expanded field delivered competitive football, surprising results, and a worthy champion.
-
Fan engagement? Impressive at scale but inconsistent in practice, with empty seats and pricing missteps undermining the spectacle.
-
Financially? FIFA secured the big deals it wanted, but whether sponsors, broadcasters, and fans will maintain enthusiasm in the long term is unclear.
The inaugural expanded Club World Cup was less a finished product than a pilot episode — flashy, ambitious, but with rough edges. FIFA achieved its goal of putting the tournament on the map. The challenge now is refinement: smaller venues for early rounds, better scheduling, more fan-friendly pricing, and clearer welfare safeguards for players.
If FIFA gets that balance right, the Club World Cup could yet grow into the global club spectacle it aspires to be. If not, it risks being remembered as a bloated add-on to an already overloaded calendar.
Article Written by Midz MB (Midz_MB)
Leave a comment