With the confetti settled and Chelsea lifting the trophy after defeating Paris Saint-Germain 3-0 in the final, the first-ever expanded 32-team FIFA Club World Cup in the United States has concluded. Touted by FIFA as a significant step forward and a vital test for the upcoming 2026 World Cup, the tournament delivered a complex mix of surprising on-field competitiveness and undeniable logistical headaches. As one technical study group member pragmatically noted, `No tournament will be perfect,` a sentiment that proved remarkably prescient for this inaugural event.
The four-week spectacle was an exercise in contradictions, simultaneously showcasing football`s global reach and highlighting significant challenges when transplanting a massive international competition into a demanding environment. Did it truly matter in the grand scheme of football prestige, or was it merely a lucrative, slightly chaotic trial run?
Competitive Spirit Shines Despite the Format
One of the tournament`s genuine successes was the level of play and the element of surprise it delivered. Despite initial concerns that European dominance would make the outcome predictable, non-European teams demonstrated impressive resilience and quality. South American clubs, in particular, punched above their weight, remaining undefeated in a significant number of matches against European opposition. The Brazilian teams were revelations, with all four advancing from their groups, notably sending European heavyweights like Atletico Madrid and FC Porto packing. Fluminense`s run to the semifinals, securing a substantial financial boost, underscored the real stakes involved for many participants.
As Fluminense`s manager Renato Gaucho commented, highlighting the financial disparities, “Fluminense`s finances don`t make 10% of the finances of these other clubs. They are in a position to hire all these major players, and obviously, when you have all these major players in a single team, your chances of winning are much higher.” Yet, the pitch proved to be a great equalizer at times.
Perhaps the biggest shockwave came from Saudi Arabia`s Al-Hilal eliminating Manchester City in the round of 16. This result, among others, offered compelling evidence that the gap between continents might be narrowing, or at least that motivation and smart tactics can overcome perceived hierarchical differences. Even seasoned football minds, like FIFA`s chief of global football development Arsene Wenger, expressed surprise at the intensity. “I was highly surprised. Everybody inside the camp was very, very highly motivated,” Wenger stated, noting teams were visibly disappointed upon elimination. The eye-watering $1 billion prize fund likely provided ample incentive, regardless of perceived fatigue or enthusiasm levels.
While some European voices perhaps understandably focused on fixture congestion, players from other continents and even some European teams embraced the competition. Borussia Dortmund`s Niko Kovac captured this positive mindset, urging his players to view it “like you play in a World Cup with the national team… you must take it serious and positive.” This competitive spirit, amplified by passionate fans who traveled in large numbers from South America and Africa to fill some of the vacant seats, served as a timely reminder that a Euro-centric perspective on global football is increasingly outdated.
Empty Seats and Sweltering Heat: A Reality Check
If the on-field action offered positive takeaways, the off-field realities painted a more challenging picture, particularly concerning the choice of venue and timing. Hosting matches in massive NFL stadiums, designed for American football crowds, frequently resulted in swathes of empty seats. MetLife Stadium, the venue for the final, saw less than half capacity for early matches. While New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy attributed this to teams not being “household names,” it highlighted a fundamental mismatch between the tournament`s draw and the capacity of the chosen venues. The atmosphere, often lacking the intensity of a packed football-specific stadium, undoubtedly suffered, and headlines about slashed ticket prices did little for FIFA`s image.
The attendance figures also sparked debate about the Club World Cup`s appeal compared to the national team World Cup. Organizers remain confident that the 2026 World Cup, building on the legacy of 1994 (which still holds the attendance record despite fewer teams), will be a different beast entirely. “The World Cup is in a category of one,” Murphy insisted, but the Club World Cup attendance suggested that for this specific event, the “soccer-specific stadium” argument had merit.
Compounding the attendance woes were the brutal summer conditions. Players and fans alike endured heat waves and disruptive weather delays. Real Madrid`s Aurelien Tchouameni suggested players gradually adapted, but Chelsea`s Enzo Fernandez candidly described feeling dizzy and deemed the heat “dangerous.” The impact on play was evident, with tactical adjustments made to cope with temperatures exceeding 35 degrees Celsius (95°F), which, as FIFA`s technical analysis noted, significantly reduced high-speed running. Two-hour delays were met with frustration by some managers, while others attempted innovative tactics like mass substitutions to introduce fresh legs.
While FIFA cannot control the climate, player welfare is within its purview. The tournament served as a stark, sweaty reminder that climate change is a pressing issue for global sports. Wenger acknowledged this, noting similar heat conditions in Europe and calling it a “future problem for everybody.” However, deferring the issue to the future provides little comfort to players competing in dangerous heat *today*. The legacy of this tournament might unfortunately be tied to the images of players struggling under the scorching sun.
A Flawed Dress Rehearsal for 2026?
The Club World Cup was widely seen as a critical test event for certain aspects of the 2026 World Cup, particularly concerning venues and pitches. While the hot and humid conditions are indeed a potential preview for the next World Cup, other logistical elements proved inconsistent. Complaints about pitch quality varied, with surfaces described as anything from “dry” to “slow,” and one manager even commented that the “ball bounced like a rabbit.”
Many venues, including MetLife Stadium, used specially grown bermudagrass (Tahoma 31) layered over existing turf, a process planned for 2026. The stadium pitch managers are taking player feedback into account for the year-long process of preparing World Cup surfaces. However, the Club World Cup results suggest achieving uniform, high-quality pitches across disparate NFL stadiums remains a significant challenge for the World Cup organizers.
Beyond the grass, the tournament offered a limited logistical trial run. While the official 2026 host committees weren`t directly involved, cities hosting both events used the opportunity to test infrastructure like transportation and security command centers. These localized efforts, however, were a far cry from a full-scale World Cup dry run.
Adding a layer of political theater, the tournament also provided FIFA President Gianni Infantino with opportunities to engage with U.S. political figures, notably former President Donald Trump. FIFA`s decision to establish a secondary U.S. office in Trump Tower, marked by a photo-op friendly ceremony, raised eyebrows among some football officials. The final itself featured Trump`s somewhat awkward appearance, greeted by boos before inserting himself into the trophy presentation – a moment that arguably overshadowed the football itself and added a bizarre footnote to the tournament`s narrative.
Did It Matter?
In the end, the expanded Club World Cup in the USA was a mixed bag. It proved that clubs outside Europe possess the quality and motivation to compete and deliver exciting matches. The prize money was undoubtedly significant for the participating teams. It also offered valuable, albeit sometimes harsh, lessons regarding logistics – the challenges of filling vast stadiums for less globally renowned teams, the critical issue of player welfare in extreme heat, and the complexities of preparing consistent, high-quality pitches in multi-purpose venues. For the six cities hosting both events, it was a useful, albeit limited, opportunity to test operational elements.
Yet, the tournament struggled to establish a sense of undeniable prestige. The final, despite Chelsea`s compelling upset win, felt secondary to the surrounding spectacle and logistical dramas. FIFA executives declared it “the world`s most successful club competition,” but the skepticism that surrounded its inception never truly dissipated throughout the four weeks. Whether this new format will genuinely capture the imagination of fans globally and become a coveted title like the Champions League or the World Cup remains an open question. For now, it feels less like a resounding success and more like a necessary, slightly messy, learning experience on the long road to 2026.
Dominic Ashworth