The first edition of the new-look FIFA men’s Club World Cup ended with English Premier League giants Chelsea lifting the trophy alongside an immovable US President Donald Trump, who placed himself front and center of the celebrations.
Those scenes, along with clips of Trump pocketing a winner's medal for himself, closed out one of the most polarising soccer tournaments in recent history, with many left questioning its value in the already jam-packed soccer calendar.
Go deeper with GlobalData
While the premise of the tournament – 32 teams representing six continents battling across the US for a piece of the colossal $1 billion prize pot – sounded straightforward, the commercial side to it was anything but.
From the start, the CWC faced hostility from players' unions and domestic leagues over imposing yet another tournament on already tired legs, while public indifference was on show in the early stages of the tournament.
Reports of organisers struggling to secure sponsors and broadcasters threatened to overshadow the tournament entirely as detractors moved to dismiss the tournament as nothing more than a vanity project.
However, in its wake, FIFA President Gianni Infantino has made several claims about the tournament, including that it has become “already the most successful club competition in the world” and that it has generated more than $2 billion – a figure he has equated to “$33 million per match.”
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataThe tournament’s critics have not been shy in voicing their scepticism over Infantino’s claims, but what is the commercial reality of the CWC?
What happened?
Just hours before the final, FIFA announced that it had finally sold out the tournament’s sponsorship programme after adding collectables giant Panini and car manufacturer Jeep as its final partners.
The 11th-hour announcement confirmed what had long been suspected – that the tournament did not exactly enthuse brands due to the lack of information early on, as well as the sight of empty stadiums during the event’s early stages.
However, with 20 companies listed as either tournament partners or suppliers, in the end, FIFA was able to lean on existing partners to fill the gaps, including big hitters Adidas, AB InBev, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, Hisense, Lenovo, Qatar Airways, and Visa.
FIFA had targeted more than $100 million per sponsor, and while the organization has not released its figures, it said the partnership programme had “set new revenue benchmarks” and represents “the largest sponsorship revenue ever achieved for a new event in the sport and entertainment industry.”
Most notably, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) swooped in to save Infantino and FIFA’s blushes by becoming the first major sponsor as other brands shied away.
Conrad Wiacek, Head of GlobalData’s Sports Analysis, said: “Late partnerships give neither brand the opportunity to maximise the partnership, which would suggest that the deal has been signed at a massive discount or has been done as a ‘favour’ to FIFA with a view to establishing a presence with the governing body.
“This, along with Saudi Arabia basically funnelling money to FIFA via DAZN for the media rights to the Club World Cup, in essence laundering the money through the streaming service to give Infantino the ability to say that the rights were sold in the open market.
“These paint a picture of commercial desperation as opposed to the commercial success that Infantino is claiming.”
The wider picture
The PIF, eventually, through some creative accountancy, has managed to bankroll the entire event via sports streaming platform DAZN’s broadcasting deal.
After struggling to find any broadcaster to pay to show the tournament, the PIF, via its sports-focused Surj investment fund, invested $1 billion into sports streaming platform DAZN, which then used the cash to buy the unwanted global rights to the competition.
The $1 billion given to FIFA by DAZN was then used to create the prize pot for the tournament, and so the flow of cash came full circle.
In the build-up to the tournament, the broadcaster did manage to secure various sub-licensing deals, but not always with the biggest broadcaster in key markets, and probably for less fees than they wanted.
Overall, it’s hard to imagine that the broadcaster has recouped the money it paid, but since it wasn’t theirs to begin with, it is doubtful the company’s executives will see this as anything but a success for its brand.
Attendances, meanwhile, were a mixed bag. The early stages saw some of the biggest teams playing in near-empty stadiums as FIFA struggled to sell tickets.
The opening game between Inter Miami and Al Ahly at Hard Rock Stadium saw a crowd of 60,827, largely due to FIFA offering complimentary tickets and reducing ticket prices to ensure seats were filled.
PSG's opening match against Atletico Madrid drew 80,619 fans at the Rose Bowl Stadium, while Chelsea’s clash with Los Angeles FC at the 71,000-seater Mercedes Benz Stadium was watched by only 22,137.
FIFA has since said the tournament finished with an average attendance of 39,557 across its 65 matches, with total attendance coming to 2.49 million. That’s the equivalent of FIFA filling 62% of the seats available throughout the tournament.
What next?
The clubs that participated will likely not have much of an issue about taking part in FIFA’s latest competition, as even small and amateur clubs were rewarded, sometimes handsomely, for their appearance.
With a prize pot of $1 billion, Auckland City received $4.6 million, while the likes of England’s Manchester City and Germany’s Borussia Dortmund took home $51.7 million and $52.3 million, respectively.
Brazil’s Fluminense, who played in the semi-finals, added $60.8 million to their accounts.
With such earning potential for the participating clubs, there's no doubt that the next group of clubs that qualify for the next edition in four years will jump at the chance to effectively cover some of their summer transfer spending with the spoils they gain.
Supporters of the tournament will point to this as a sign that the CWC has been a success, while FIFA has used the tournament to forge stronger links with both the US ahead of next year’s World Cup and cash-rich Saudi Arabia, as it also prepares to host the World Cup in the years to come.
Both are powerful nations in the current political climate, and advocates will say Infantino has found a perfect way to curry favour with them.
However, most sceptics have remained unmoved by the protestations of the FIFA PR machine, with Sergio Marchi, the president of FIFPRO, going as far as to describe Infantino’s statements as “nothing more than a fiction.”
Infantino means for the tournament to eclipse the elite UEFA Champions League, but due to the vast gulf in ability between the European clubs and the rest of the world, it is hard to imagine the quality living up to a similar standard.
FIFA seems to be backing the tournament to continue, with the next edition to be staged in 2029. No host has been announced yet, but the governing body has even hinted at expanding the tournament further to 48 teams.
Whatever the true figures, the tournament seems set to stay.
