The recently concluded FIFA Club World Cup in the United States, featuring an ambitious expansion to 32 teams, was billed as a landmark event and, perhaps more importantly, a critical dry run for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. While proponents pointed to moments of genuine on-field competition, the tournament ultimately proved to be a complex mix of sporting promise and significant operational hurdles, raising pertinent questions about FIFA`s readiness and the realities of hosting major football events in the challenging U.S. summer environment.
The On-Field Narrative: More Competitive Than Expected?
One key objective for the expanded Club World Cup was to introduce greater sporting merit and global diversity. While European clubs like Chelsea and Paris Saint-Germain ultimately contested the final (with Chelsea securing the trophy), the journey there offered some unexpected turns. South American teams, particularly those from Brazil, defied expectations, showcasing a level of competitiveness that challenged the perceived dominance of European football. Their success in navigating the group stages and securing victories against European opposition demonstrated that the gap, at least on certain days and pitches, might be narrower than often assumed.
Moments like Manchester City`s early exit at the hands of Saudi Arabia`s Al-Hilal added layers of surprise, suggesting that the $1 billion prize fund and the prestige of a new global tournament were sufficient motivators for teams across confederations. Player motivation appeared high, with many embracing the challenge despite a crowded football calendar. This aspect – the quality and competitiveness of the matches themselves – offered FIFA some validation for the tournament`s concept.
Off-Pitch Realities: Empty Seats and Environmental Extremes
However, the narrative shifted considerably when examining the off-field execution. The decision to host matches in large NFL stadiums, while perhaps strategically linked to the 2026 World Cup venues, frequently resulted in swathes of empty seats. Even at prominent venues like MetLife Stadium during early rounds, attendance figures were often less than half capacity. Arguments were made that some participating clubs lacked sufficient global drawing power in the U.S. market, leading to ticket price reductions and a notable lack of atmosphere compared to soccer-specific stadiums that might have been a better fit for certain fixtures.
Compounding the attendance issues were the environmental conditions. The tournament unfolded during the peak of the U.S. summer, exposing players and fans to extreme heat and humidity. Accounts of players experiencing dizziness and describing conditions as “dangerous” were frequent. The heat demonstrably impacted gameplay, affecting high-speed running and influencing tactical approaches, particularly in midday fixtures. While weather delays are unpredictable, the persistent challenge of high temperatures in July and August serves as a stark warning for the significantly larger 2026 World Cup. FIFA officials acknowledging this as a “future problem” offers little immediate comfort to those who endured the conditions.
The Bumpy Road to 2026: Testing Pitches and Logistics
The Club World Cup was inevitably viewed through the lens of 2026 World Cup preparation. Testing stadium infrastructure, particularly the playing surfaces in venues primarily designed for American football, was crucial. FIFA implemented a process for growing and installing specific Bermudagrass pitches over existing turf bases. Player feedback on these surfaces was mixed, ranging from descriptions of them being “dry” or “slow” to less charitable assessments like the ball bouncing “like a rabbit.” These inconsistencies, particularly in venues earmarked for the World Cup final, highlight that perfecting the playing surface in these multi-purpose stadiums remains a significant technical challenge.
While the CWC organizing committee was distinct from the 2026 host committees, the presence of the tournament in World Cup cities did offer opportunities for local operational dry runs. Efforts were made to test transport links and security protocols, providing some logistical insights, even if demand was lower than anticipated for the World Cup itself.
Beyond the Whistle: Spectacle and Sidetracks
The tournament`s final, despite featuring a major upset win by Chelsea over PSG, seemed at times overshadowed by the attempts at creating a grand spectacle and by off-field political theatre. Over-the-top pre-match and halftime shows, including performances staged in bizarre locations within the stadium, felt like manufactured distractions. Furthermore, the visible interactions between FIFA leadership and political figures, culminating in a particularly awkward appearance during the trophy ceremony, added a layer of surrealism that detracted from the sporting achievement. These elements contributed to the feeling that the tournament was perhaps more about optics and testing the limits of spectacle than establishing itself as a prestigious competitive event.
Conclusion: A Trial Run with Mixed Signals
The expanded FIFA Club World Cup in the USA delivered some competitive matches and showcased talent from across the globe, partly fulfilling FIFA`s stated aim of sporting merit. However, its execution was significantly hampered by fundamental logistical issues inherent in the chosen venues and timing – namely, poor attendance figures in oversized stadiums and the relentless challenge of extreme summer weather on player welfare and gameplay. These operational difficulties, combined with the tournament`s occasionally bizarre spectacle and political undercurrents, left a lingering sense of skepticism. While the tournament provided valuable testing grounds for critical aspects of the 2026 World Cup, it also exposed significant vulnerabilities. Whether the lessons learned can adequately address these fundamental challenges before the world descends on the U.S. again in two years remains an open and pressing question.
Adrian Whitmore