The curtains have closed on FIFA`s expanded 32-team Club World Cup, a tournament presented as a bold step forward for club football and a crucial testing ground for the United States ahead of the 2026 World Cup. As officials offer carefully optimistic assessments, the reality on the ground – or rather, in the often sparse stands and sweltering heat – paints a more complex picture. Was this global club showcase a resounding success, or merely a dress rehearsal that exposed significant organizational and environmental challenges?
On-Field Surprises Amidst Off-Field Struggles
From a purely sporting perspective, the tournament delivered some genuinely compelling moments. Despite pre-tournament predictions of European dominance, teams from South America proved surprisingly competitive. Brazilian clubs, in particular, defied financial disparities to challenge their wealthier counterparts, showcasing that the competitive gap isn`t as vast as often perceived. Unexpected results, such as Al-Hilal eliminating Manchester City, added genuine intrigue, catching even seasoned observers like Arsène Wenger by surprise. The hefty prize money undoubtedly provided motivation, proving that even for Europe`s elite, there was incentive to compete seriously.
However, the quality of football sometimes felt overshadowed by the logistical backdrop. While players and coaches generally adopted a professional mindset, determined to make the most of the opportunity, the tournament`s setting presented significant obstacles.
The GEO Test: Empty Seats and Extreme Conditions
The decision to host matches in vast American NFL stadiums, while offering capacity for a future World Cup, often resulted in swathes of empty seats for the Club World Cup. Venues like MetLife Stadium saw attendance figures hovering below half capacity for some early games. Local officials suggested this was due to unfamiliar teams, but critics argued that selecting smaller, soccer-specific venues could have fostered a better atmosphere and spared FIFA the visual embarrassment of vast, empty lower bowls. This highlighted a key difference: the World Cup is a global phenomenon that transcends national borders, whereas the Club World Cup, even expanded, relies on pre-existing club loyalties, which proved insufficient to fill cavernous arenas for many fixtures. It served as a sober reminder that “build it and they will come” isn`t always true, especially when “it” is a tournament trying to establish its footing.
Adding to the discomfort were the environmental conditions inherent to hosting in the USA during summer. Players and fans alike endured intense heat waves and humidity, leading to visible fatigue, tactical adjustments (like teams becoming more defensive in midday games), and even weather delays. The impact on high-speed running was noted by technical analysts. While some players claimed adaptation was possible, others described the heat as “dangerous,” experiencing dizziness on the field. FIFA officials, while acknowledging the issue, appeared somewhat resigned, pointing out that heat is also affecting parts of Europe – a rather passive stance on player welfare for conditions directly tied to their chosen tournament timing and location.
Furthermore, the playing surfaces received mixed reviews. Tasked with installing temporary grass pitches in NFL venues, the process for creating uniform, high-quality surfaces for 26 needed a test run. Player feedback ranged from “dry” and “slow” to complaints about unpredictable bounces, underscoring that converting American football fields into world-class soccer pitches is a technical challenge requiring significant refinement before 2026.
Beyond the Pitch: Politics and Spectacle
Away from the sporting and operational hurdles, the tournament also offered glimpses into the political undercurrents surrounding global football events. FIFA President Gianni Infantino`s interactions, including establishing a secondary office in Trump Tower and controversial photo opportunities, added a peculiar layer to the narrative, culminating in a bizarre appearance by former President Donald Trump during the final`s trophy lift, met with a chorus of boos before inserting himself into the ceremony.
The final itself, while offering a potentially compelling upset storyline with Chelsea defeating Paris Saint-Germain, was partially overshadowed by attempts at American-style entertainment spectacle – from bland pre-match anthems to a halftime show performed bizarrely in the stadium`s upper tier to protect the already questionable pitch. It highlighted FIFA`s struggle to balance sporting tradition with new forms of entertainment, sometimes resulting in jarring, almost dystopian, scenes.
Conclusion: A Flawed Rehearsal
Ultimately, the expanded Club World Cup in the USA was a mixed bag. It proved that there is appetite and competitive depth beyond Europe, particularly in South America. The motivation offered by the prize money seemed effective. However, as a trial run for the 2026 World Cup in the same GEO and many of the same venues, it exposed significant vulnerabilities directly tied to the location and timing: the challenge of filling massive stadiums for less globally renowned teams, the brutal impact of the summer climate on player welfare and game quality, and the technical difficulties in ensuring consistent, high-quality playing surfaces across diverse venues.
FIFA executives may declare it a resounding success, but the enduring images of empty seats, heat-stricken players, and peculiar off-field spectacles tell a different story. The tournament provided valuable lessons for 2026, but many were stark warnings about challenges that are far from trivial. Whether these lessons can be effectively addressed in the coming years, or if the organizational and environmental hurdles will cast a shadow over the main event, remains to be seen. Only time will tell if this inaugural expanded Club World Cup was a meaningful step forward for the competition itself, or primarily a cautionary tale for the World Cup to come.
Percy Harlow