The 2025 FIFA Club World Cup has officially ended, with Chelsea taking the crown. The international tournament, which FIFA president Gianni Infantino expected to be the “big bang” moment in the history of soccer, put all the best and worst aspects of the modern game on display.
Equal parts fun and disappointing, the Club World Cup is the latest and greatest example of FIFA weaponizing public passion for its corporate priorities, the biggest of which being money. Parts of the tournament are fan-friendly, which were heavily used as selling points. But the way it’s been done is headscratching at best, and the most recent of many examples of FIFA’s seemingly incurable corruption.
The Good
There was some inevitable good that came from this tournament, which was bound to happen. Most of the reason the bad is so bad is because it takes advantage of the good.
Fun Matchups
One of the main features of the FIFA video games that will always have some appeal is the opportunity to play a game between two teams from most of the world. The Club World Cup is the closest thing we have to that feature in real life.
The opportunity to see some of the best teams from different continents compete against each other, outside of any other variables, is a dream for so many fans across the globe. I mean, the regular World Cup is the most popular sporting event in the world. It only makes sense that the same form factor with club teams, which fans invest more time in, would be a major draw.
We saw several incredible matches, with a handful of results shocking some and vindicating others.
The spectacles that were these matches gave fans several reasons to keep this Club World Cup as a big part of their soccer memories. Even for the more seasoned ball-knowers, some of these match ups delivered far beyond expected, perhaps opening new perspectives on the global club scene.
Good Exposure
This tournament provided an opportunity to bring several different things into several different lights, with some being genuinely positive and/or helpful. It created a bigger stage for teams that may be lesser known to casual fans to increase their global reach.
For example, Egypt’s Al Ahly made a splash in their short lived Group A experience. On either side of a 2-0 loss to Palmeiras, the Egyptian side played out two equally exciting draws with vastly different results.
As the most successful club in Africa, Al Ahly has frequented the previous version of the tournament for years, even finishing in third place in 2022. This revamped, albeit ultra-commercialized Club World Cup gave more opportunities for unfamiliar fans to learn about the storied club.
DAZN, the broadcast company that we’ll get into later, enjoyed its own bout of exposure by streaming all the games for free through their app and website. This at least provided a decent avenue of accessibility for fans who may not have been able to attend any matches.
Though this might not present as the most positive, this tournament exposed a number of holes FIFA need to address before next summer’s World Cup in the U.S. Most of the issues will be addressed in the next two sections, but hopefully FIFA will be able to look upon their mistakes this summer, learn from them, and make WC ‘26 better for the players and the fans. Hopefully.
International Passion
This could easily fall under good exposure, but my favorite thing to come out of this tournament was the sheer display of international passion from fans throughout the month. The South American fans stood out, but the other continents also held impressive showings in support of their clubs.
Likewise, the presence of so many strong passionate fan bases paved the way to interactions between groups of people who may not have had the opportunity otherwise. The tournament bore some instances of the fun side of competitive rivalry, which is often found at the core of the enjoyment of sport.
It’s easy to fall down a comparison rabbit hole here, and claim that certain types of exhibiting passion are truer or more pure than others. While there’s some value in dissecting the nuance of how passion for the game differs from place to place, there’s far more value in learning about it and building community through knowledge than by enforcing separation and inviting hierarchical hostility.
The Bad
A bunch of things went wrong, which isn’t to be unexpected. This was the first time this format took place, and it took place in the U.S. But in some instances they felt avoidable.
Attendance
The only game that was fully, officially sold out was the final between Chelsea and PSG. Otherwise, attendance was fine at best, but frustratingly sparse in more than a couple instances.
People started noticing the lack of attendance as soon as the group stages started. Even games with teams considered to be bigger draws by the FIFA marketing department were failing to completely fill stadiums, which happened for a couple of reasons.
FIFA introduced dynamic pricing for the tickets to the Club World Cup games this summer, which were meant to fluctuate based on demand. However, it seemed they still had a higher initial value on these tickets, pricing out many fans who wanted to go see their favorite teams.
Likewise, the pricing became a supplemental factor when having to face the schedule. The group stage held games at Noon, 3pm, 6pm, and 9 pm, pretty much every day of the first two weeks. During the weekdays, three of those times can be incredibly difficult to accommodate for people who work regularly. Plus, if people could just stream it for free, it wouldn’t be worth both the hassle and the cost.
These are big issues that don’t seem to be on the priority list for FIFA yet, with less than a year to go before the World Cup.
Player Safety
One of the most discussed issues with the tournament in the lead up to it was the risk it posed to players of these teams. The tournament took on an identity of being the stage where all the world’s champions met to compete, teams that have likely already played 50 to 60 games.
Over the past few years, top teams have been playing more and more games per year as the suits of the game seek to take advantage of as many money making opportunities as possible. It’s been a topic players have spoken out about before, and this summer was no exception. In fact, we had teams from different continents one up each other for the number of games they had to play.
Unfortunately, the concerns of the players and coaches were realized. Several players sustained injuries of varying degree, with Jamal Musiala potentially coming off the worst for wear.
With more and more tournaments and competitions being forced upon the top players these risks only continue to rise. However, yet again, it seems this falls down the FIFA priority board.
“Problem” Persists
Under Gianni Infantino, FIFA has leant hard into the strategy of hyper commercializing and commodifying games between big teams from mostly Europe and sometimes South America. This was done under the guise of needing to reach young people as their demographics were seemingly not watching soccer as much.
This hardly seems like an actual problem in the first place. Soccer has been, is, and will continue to be a major cultural focal point across the globe. Even Americans are getting more into it, in different ways.
That being said, even if there was this problem, this strategy is not a sustainable one for long term growth and retention. Focusing on pumping out so many games with the same few teams gets pricey and stale, making it a less appealing investment and a boring spectacle over time. Injecting more investment into a wider network of local teams with affordable access gives a tangible connection to more fans and potential fans, building up passions that are more likely to drive people to want to go see those special big games when they happen.
There are a few feelings like that of discussing your hometown club, and giving more people that opportunity creates a clear avenue to grow passion and community rapidly.
The Ugly
These aren’t simply mistakes. These are decisions that were made at costly expense. These are the types of things that ultimately hurt the game more than it helps, and diminishes the spirit of the game that helps people fall in love with it in the first place.
ICE
In the lead up to the tournament, President Donald Trump and his administration rapidly increased immigration enforcement across the entire country. The most prevalent example of this has been the militarization of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which has taken the form of groups of masked men using immense force to seize people accused of being illegal and shipping them to mass detention centers within or out of the country.
Among the places where ICE raids have taken place are work places, parks, courthouses, farms and restaurants. Days before the Club World Cup was set to kick off, reports suggested that the stadiums hosting tournament games would be targeted. U.S. Customs and Border Protection even sent out a since-deleted social media message reinforcing the intent to establish a strong ICE presence at the first round of matches.
While there were no recorded enforcement incidents at any matches, it still remains unclear whether ICE was present at matches throughout the tournament. What was clear, however, was Infantino’s support for using ICE to bolster security.
Outside of the ugliness of ICE raids in general, it was irresponsible of FIFA to not provide more clarity on the role and relationship it would have with the agency during the tournament. The World Cup, in any form, as an event foundationally represents people all over the world gathering to connect over the cultural denominator that is soccer. The lack of clarity and the suggested alignment with ICE’s actions betrays the principle purpose of the World Cup and makes FIFA’s prioritization of executive profits clear as day.
DAZN
When DAZN revealed it would stream every game for free, it felt almost too good to be true. It’s rare in this day and age for a major corporation to do things for consumers for free. As it turns out, there seems to be quite a few strings attached, some of which have already come to fruition.
On December 4, 2024, FIFA announced that DAZN would have exclusive rights to stream all of the Club World Cup games for free. One week later, FIFA announced that Saudi Arabia would be the hosts of the men’s World Cup in 2034. So, what do these things have to do with each other?
In January of 2025, reports revealed that DAZN suffered over $1 billion in pre-tax losses during 2023. A month later, DAZN announced a $1 billion dollar investment for 10% of the company from Surj Sports Investment, the sports investment group within Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund (PIF).
Corruption is unfortunately not a new concept to the top brass of the soccer world, though this instance stands out as a fairly blatant example. The use of a positive thing for fans, free streaming, as the wool pulled over our eyes to try and shade these backroom dealings is a microcosm of the general approach FIFA has taken up in recent years: dangling good things (that they could easily just do the right way) for fans to lap up while lining their own pockets at the expense of integrity.
Moral Neutrality
This could apply to the above, and is honestly a generous description given the decisions made. However, there are a handful of other incidents that fit together in one section to tie up this recap.
The first came just as the tournament began. Adam Crofton of The Athletic reported during the group stage that FIFA was dropping its anti-racism and anti-discrimination messages, which have had strong presences in most recent FIFA events, for the tournament.
As expected, this caused widespread backlash. So much so that FIFA reversed their decision the next day, displaying some anti-racism messaging during a match between Manchester City and Wydad Casablanca. The wavering in constitution on these issues calls the entirety of FIFA’s efforts into question, pushing the association far past performative into outright hypocritical. But profits are always the priority, which FIFA was rewarded for by having the mega-rich European giants Chelsea and PSG face off in the final.
The final is where we cap off our review, though it could be and was for others an entire morality article on its own. Chelsea enjoyed a surprisingly dominant 3-0 win over the European champions, wrapping up the game within 41 minutes. The team was jubilant, celebrating on the stage at Metlife Stadium in Harrison, New Jersey. Smack dab in the middle of the celebrations stood Trump, who did not leave even as captain Reece James lifted the trophy.
The President also scored himself a winner’s medal, and according to reports, made the decision to keep the real trophy in the Oval Office and give Chelsea a replica. The stage antics even seemed to shock Infantino, though he seemed to remember that he scored tickets to Trump’s second inauguration so did little to intervene.
There’s something here about the irony of Trump using an event meant to put global diversity through soccer as another way to shower himself in gold. But the main point, as was meant to be the consistent through line thesis here, is how disappointing it is that FIFA and Infantino drift whichever way the money fans wind blows them. If there’s anything that’s chipping away at interest in the game, it’s the lack of interest that the governing body has for the fans of the sport it’s meant to represent, all while never really learning any lessons.
