With the row over the number of games elite-level footballers play reaching a fever pitch over the last week or so, why are FIFA still so determined to press ahead with the revamped Club World Cup?

As reported by The Athletic, last Friday there was an emergency meeting helmed by FIFA President Gianni Infantino himself, where he spoke with global television executives to try to stir up interest in the 32-team Club World Cup, set to take place in June and July 2025. 

With no sponsors, broadcast partners or venues announced nine months out from the proposed start of the competition, it’s fair to say it’s been a… less-than-ideal start. With more established competitions like Wimbledon overlapping the end of the tournament, alongside the lack of participation of clubs like Manchester United, Liverpool, and Barcelona, it makes sense that there is a hesitation to put up the kind of money FIFA are hoping for, both from sponsors and broadcast partners alike.

For context, according to The Athletic, one US Media company estimated the North American rights for the Club World Cup to be around $30M, whereas Paramount are paying UEFA $250M/year to broadcast their European club competitions on CBS. Of course CBS are broadcasting more matches, but nonetheless it illustrates the discrepancy between the perceived value of the competitions.

Additionally, players are unhappy. With high-profile footballers like Rodri, Alisson, and Son Heung-min all expressing their displeasure with the mounting fixture list, and legal action being taken against FIFA by bodies like FIFPro and the PFA, the new Club World Cup seems to be more trouble than it’s worth. 

But when you compare FIFA’s revenue to a governing body like UEFA’s, their attempt to launch this new version of the Club World Cup makes sense. Outside of World Cup years (such as 2018 and 2022), FIFA’s revenue drops significantly. Without regular high-profile events, they are an incredibly seasonal organisation from a revenue perspective. With a 32-team competition like the Club World Cup, they hope to alleviate this issue by having another, Champions-League-style event to monetise during their 4-year cycles.

Furthermore, even with outsized European participation (partially driven by a desire to generate interest), by involving more teams from various regions, Infantino hopes to strengthen his grip on FIFA’s Presidency by engendering support globally.

And in reality, FIFA isn't football’s only governing body trying to increase their share of the pie. Indeed, UEFA’s newly formatted European competitions are also exacerbating the issue. With the combination of the Nations League and the larger, Swiss model Champions League, Europa League and Conference League, one could argue both bodies are guilty of trying to find out just how close football can get to the line before overstepping it. After all, great athletes the players may be, they aren’t machines. 

In fact, not only is the increase in high-level football furthering the risk of injury, with fatigue a long-known risk factor, they are, ironically, harming the product they are increasingly keen to sell. Speaking to The Athletic, Maheta Molango, chief executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association, the players’ trade union in England, stated that some players tell him they “are managing [their effort in] games.” He goes on to state that, “They don’t play 100 per cent, they try and play maybe 60 or 70 per cent and manage. Yet the fans pay full price.” 

With FIFPro defining a player’s workload as  “excessive” after 55+ games per season, it’s easy to see how these expanded competitions, many of them requiring international travel, are causing serious concern. With legal cases pending, and players talking up the threat of strike action, it feels like football is at an inflexion point. Hopefully all concerned are paying attention.