FIFA Club World Cup - Discussion Thread | First Season - 2025 | 32 Clubs |

[KEVINAA 97]

 

 

[KEVINAA 97]

@FIFACWC official account on X

 

 

Edited September 4 by KEVINAA

[KEVINAA 97]

https://www.fifa.com/en/tournaments/mens/club-world-cup/usa-2025

https://inside.fifa.com/about-fifa/organisation/media-releases/fifa-unveils-emblem-and-announces-audio-signature-for-the-new-fifa-club-world-cup

[ggyes 1]

It's peculiar how some Europeans perceive this trophy. As a Palmeiras fan, if Palmeiras had beaten Chelsea, it would have been by far the best day of my life. What I celebrated when we drew... We get mocked EVERY SINGLE DAY for not having this trophy. No kidding. Since Chelsea lost to our biggest rival, we've been mocked day and night for not having it. We're by far the biggest Brazilian champion, the Brazilian record holder in the Libertadores, one of the biggest Copa do Brasil champions, but except for our fans, few respect us for not having the CWC.

 

[Vesper 28,801]

5 hours ago, ggyes said:

It's peculiar how some Europeans perceive this trophy. As a Palmeiras fan, if Palmeiras had beaten Chelsea, it would have been by far the best day of my life. What I celebrated when we drew... We get mocked EVERY SINGLE DAY for not having this trophy. No kidding. Since Chelsea lost to our biggest rival, we've been mocked day and night for not having it. We're by far the biggest Brazilian champion, the Brazilian record holder in the Libertadores, one of the biggest Copa do Brasil champions, but except for our fans, few respect us for not having the CWC.

 

no old Intercotinental Cup either

you did win the first Copa Rio (only 2 were played, 1951 and 1952)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Rio_(international_tournament)

The Copa Rio (English: Rio Cup) was the first international club football tournament with teams from Europe and South America, having been held on two occasions, in 1951 and 1952, in Brazil. Both editions were organised and endorsed by the Brazilian Sports Confederation (Confederação Brasileira de Desportos), the then Brazilian FA and sports main body. The tournament is often regarded in Brazil as an official tournament, at least as far as the Brazilian clubs are concerned (since 1955, FIFA Statutes do not regard international club competitions endorsed uniquely by national football associations as being official).^{[1][2][note 1][note 2][note 3]} The name Copa Rio, Portuguese for Rio Cup, was a homage to Rio de Janeiro City. The 1951 edition of the competition was also hailed as "Club World Cup" or "World Champions Cup" by the Brazilian FA and press. Though some previous club competitions (Football World Championship, Sir Thomas Lipton Trophy, Coupe des Nations) may have been hailed as "the club world contest", Copa Rio was the first attempt at creating a Club World Cup with intercontinental reach.

Two editions of the Copa Rio were held, in 1951 and 1952. Brazilian club Palmeiras won the 1951 tournament, and Fluminense, also from Brazil and co-organizer of the 1952 edition, won the competition in 1952 (CBD, the Brazilian FA, entitled Fluminense to organise the 1952 tournament as part of its 50th anniversary celebrations- the second edition of the tournament was originally scheduled to 1953, but was advanced to 1952 for the aforementioned anniversary celebrations). In 1951 and 1952, Copa Rio suffered the concurrence of the Latin Cup, as some European clubs declined to participate in the former in order to participate in the latter; in 1952, Copa Rio suffered the concurrence of the 1952 Small Club World Cup, as Millonarios and Real Madrid declined to participate in the former in order to participate in the latter. The 1951-1952 Copa Rio was succeeded by another intercontinental club cup organised by the Brazilian FA, the 1953 Torneio Octogonal Rivadavia Correa Meyer, which was then often referred to also as Copa Rio by the European press, which was won by Vasco da Gama from Brazil. In 1953, the Uruguayan FA launched their own intercontinental club cup, based on Copa Rio, and named Copa Montevideo, having been played in Uruguay in 1953 and 1954, won respectively by Nacional and Peñarol. The last attempt of the Brazilian FA to create an intercontinental club cup occurred in 1955, with the Charles Miller Trophy won by Corinthians,the same year the European Cup emerged and became the main international priority of the European football clubs. In 1960, the International Soccer League rose in the USA as another attempt at creating a "Club World Cup" along the lines of Copa Rio, but, as a "world-champions honour", it was overshadowed in importance by the Intercontinental Cup.

[Vesper 28,801]

6 hours ago, ggyes said:

It's peculiar how some Europeans perceive this trophy. As a Palmeiras fan, if Palmeiras had beaten Chelsea, it would have been by far the best day of my life. What I celebrated when we drew... We get mocked EVERY SINGLE DAY for not having this trophy. No kidding. Since Chelsea lost to our biggest rival, we've been mocked day and night for not having it. We're by far the biggest Brazilian champion, the Brazilian record holder in the Libertadores, one of the biggest Copa do Brasil champions, but except for our fans, few respect us for not having the CWC.

 

from February 2022:

biggest Cup final in the Roman era other than the 3 CL's and the 2 Europa Leagues

so much pressure after blowing the 2012 FWCC

I am so fucking nervous due to Palmeiras quality and thirst for the world championship

they want it more than any other club on planet

the only giant SA and Euro clubs (who have won the CL or Copa Libertadores. so Citeh and PSG do not count) who have never won either the Intercontinental Cup or the FWCC and played in the FWCC era are

Chelsea
Palmeiras (lost both the IC and FWCC)

Vasco da Gama (sort of make the list due to 2 Brasil teams (and 2 UEFA clubs, Real Madrid and Manure, the only 2 Euro clubs to not make the final game, Manure did not even medal, Real lost the 3rd place game) in the 2000 FWCC, they made it (and lost the final to Corinthians) as they won the Copa Libertadores in 1998 and were invited to the initial FWCC, after losing the Intercontinental Cup in 1998)

 

If you go back to historically huge clubs (pre FWCC era) and who played in the Intercontinental Cup and never won it then you can include

Portugal Benfica    —    2    —    1961, 1962
Brazil Cruzeiro    —    2    —    1976, 1997
Germany Borussia Mönchengladbach    —    1    —    1977
England Nottingham Forest    —    1    —    1980
England Aston Villa    —    1    —    1982
Germany Hamburger SV    —    1    —    1983
PSV Eindhoven    —    1    —    1988

 

6 of the big 7 Argentinian teams have won the IC (Boca Juniors, Independiente, Estudiantes, River Plate, Racing Club, Vélez Sarsfield) San Lorenzo never did, they never played in it, but they did play in the FWCC (and lost, in 2014) Argentian were the dominat nation in the IC, but have lost the FWCC all 5 times they had teams in it

Both big Uruguay (Penerol and Nacional) won the IC multiple times, Nacional won all 3 times they made it

England were fucking HORRID 1 lone win (Manure 1999), 5 losses (Pool 2, Manure, Aston Villa, and Forest once)

[Vesper 28,801]

6 hours ago, ggyes said:

We get mocked EVERY SINGLE DAY for not having this trophy.

“Palmeiras não tem Mundial”

We (Chelsea) also got big stick, as we were the only European club to lose the FWCC (2012 v Corinthians with Rafa the FSW bollocksing up the game) since the era of the 'stacked' Brasilian teams ended in 2006 (Brasilian sides won the first 3).

By 2007 and onward there were no longer any truly great Brasilian club sides, due to most of the best Brasilian players leaving for UEFA teams (something that had been already happening, but had really kicked in by 2007).

Post 2006, for the next 10 FWCC's, only TWO Brasilian sides even made the final (2011, when Santos was destroyed 4 nil by that insane Pep Barca side, and of course 20212 where we choked against Corinthians)

 

From 2007, non stop through the most recent one, in 2023 (Citeh won), we were the ONLY UEFA team to play in the FWCC and did not win it.

 

[ggyes 1]

3 hours ago, Vesper said:

“Palmeiras não tem Mundial”

We (Chelsea) also got big stick, as we were the only European club to lose the FWCC (2012 v Corinthians with Rafa the FSW bollocksing up the game) since the era of the 'stacked' Brasilian teams ended in 2006 (Brasilian sides won the first 3).

By 2007 and onward there were no longer any truly great Brasilian club sides, due to most of the best Brasilian players leaving for UEFA teams (something that had been already happening, but had really kicked in by 2007).

Post 2006, for the next 10 FWCC's, only TWO Brasilian sides even made the final (2011, when Santos was destroyed 4 nil by that insane Pep Barca side, and of course 20212 where we choked against Corinthians)

 

From 2007, non stop through the most recent one, in 2023 (Citeh won), we were the ONLY UEFA team to play in the FWCC and did not win it.

 

“Palmeiras não tem Mundial”

No, we don't. This phrase...

It feels good to know that this victory was important for Chelsea, unlike United’s victory in '99 United.

Anyway, It must be incredible to break ‘curses’ like this, but for now I can only imagine. In '99 when we lost to United, besides losing the biggest final in the club’s history (along with the final against Chelsea), we still had to hear Beckham say, ‘I’m happy for the victory, but it doesn’t feel like a title. After all, it’s just a match, not a championship.’ And then their former coach, who was a player at the time, Ole Gunnar Solskjær, said he knew how important this game is for South Americans and they ‘just knew they had to make a trip to Japan.’”

 

Ole Gunnar Solskjaer gave an interview to DAZN Brasil this week. However, despite being seen as the Manchester United manager for the past few years, he spoke a lot about his playing days.

 

 

Solskjaer talked about the International Cup of 1999, which is still much remembered by Brazilians. Manchester United travelled to Yokohama to face Palmeiras, who’d just won the Copa Libertadores, and beat them 1-0.

The former striker admitted that the game wasn’t very important for an English club, but claims to be glad to have helped Roy Keane score the winner.

“I remember… as you say, we didn’t look at it as that important,” Solskjaer told DAZN Brasil’s Renato Senise.

“I think the team selection from Sir Alex shows that. But I feel… I remember my wife’s words. That ‘you wouldn’t have won 1-0 without your run’. Because I made a run towards the near post, I brought some defenders with me, and we scored the goal. I think it was Roy Keane who scored that goal. And I created that space for him.

“The manager took me off at half time. I remember that one. But I still felt I played a big part in that goal. Almost as big as in the 99 final.

“And the Palmeiras team, I remember Brazilian players, they were strong and fit. And of course they always have the quality. But we won, so… It’s strange thing. Because I know how big that is for South American teams. But for us, it was just we had to travel to Japan to play a game.”

[Vesper 28,801]

7 minutes ago, ggyes said:

“Palmeiras não tem Mundial”

No, we don't. This phrase...

It feels good to know that this victory was important for Chelsea, unlike United’s victory in '99 United.

Anyway, It must be incredible to break ‘curses’ like this, but for now I can only imagine. In '99 when we lost to United, besides losing the biggest final in the club’s history (along with the final against Chelsea), we still had to hear Beckham say, ‘I’m happy for the victory, but it doesn’t feel like a title. After all, it’s just a match, not a championship.’ And then their former coach, who was a player at the time, Ole Gunnar Solskjær, said he knew how important this game is for South Americans and they ‘just knew they had to make a trip to Japan.’”

 

Ole Gunnar Solskjaer gave an interview to DAZN Brasil this week. However, despite being seen as the Manchester United manager for the past few years, he spoke a lot about his playing days.

 

 

Solskjaer talked about the International Cup of 1999, which is still much remembered by Brazilians. Manchester United travelled to Yokohama to face Palmeiras, who’d just won the Copa Libertadores, and beat them 1-0.

The former striker admitted that the game wasn’t very important for an English club, but claims to be glad to have helped Roy Keane score the winner.

“I remember… as you say, we didn’t look at it as that important,” Solskjaer told DAZN Brasil’s Renato Senise.

“I think the team selection from Sir Alex shows that. But I feel… I remember my wife’s words. That ‘you wouldn’t have won 1-0 without your run’. Because I made a run towards the near post, I brought some defenders with me, and we scored the goal. I think it was Roy Keane who scored that goal. And I created that space for him.

“The manager took me off at half time. I remember that one. But I still felt I played a big part in that goal. Almost as big as in the 99 final.

“And the Palmeiras team, I remember Brazilian players, they were strong and fit. And of course they always have the quality. But we won, so… It’s strange thing. Because I know how big that is for South American teams. But for us, it was just we had to travel to Japan to play a game.”

Manure ownership and Sir Alex cared about the Intercontinental Cup more than those players.

IF (and I so wish Palmeiras had beaten Manure) the Mancs had not won then, English teams would have have NEVER won the Intercontinetal Cup. English teams lost all 5 times before Manure won.

In fact (and to show the above is true) Manure did not defend their FA Cup trophy in order to compete in the inaugural FIFA Club World Championship in Brazil.

They cared about global trophies.

 

BTW, post 1983 (so the last 21 Intercontinental Cups) Brasilian teams only won it twice (those superb early 1990s Sao Paulo sides won it back to back in 1992 and 1993).

[ggyes 1]

On 18/09/2024 at 23:25, Vesper said:

Manure ownership and Sir Alex cared about the Intercontinental Cup more than those players.

IF (and I so wish Palmeiras had beaten Manure) the Mancs had not won then, English teams would have have NEVER won the Intercontinetal Cup. English teams lost all 5 times before Manure won.

In fact (and to show the above is true) Manure did not defend their FA Cup trophy in order to compete in the inaugural FIFA Club World Championship in Brazil.

They cared about global trophies.

 

BTW, post 1983 (so the last 21 Intercontinental Cups) Brasilian teams only won it twice (those superb early 1990s Sao Paulo sides won it back to back in 1992 and 1993).

Brazil is almost like a continent, so rivalries are divided by states. To compare, England has about 56 million inhabitants, while the state of São Paulo alone has 48 million. We have four big teams in the state: São Paulo, Corinthians, Palmeiras, and Santos. Besides Flamengo, which is from Rio de Janeiro but has the largest fanbase in Brazil. However, in the state of Rio de Janeiro, only Flamengo won the Intercontinental Cup in 1981, when Liverpool fielded a team that later admitted to drinking alcohol on the way to the game. So, for Flamengo's direct rivals, not having an Intercontinental or Club World Cup doesn't weigh as heavily.

I don't know what the biggest trophy an English team can win is, whether it's the Premier League or the Champions League, but in South America, there's no doubt—it's the Club World Cup. I believe Palmeiras not having a CWC is like all other Big Six teams in England having a PL or CL, except for one. And because of that, it was the biggest dream I had.

 That's why I said our match against Manchester United was the second biggest game in our history, only behind the game against Chelsea. 

Now, with 32 teams, the chances of a South American team winning are zero. And at the end of the year, the Intercontinental Cup will return, but now South American teams will have to play three games instead of two, while the European teams play only the final. If it was difficult for a South American team to win before, now, realistically, it's over.

[Vesper 28,801]

The FIFA Club World Cup has venues at last – but so many questions still remain

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5802442/2024/09/29/fifa-club-world-cup-questions/

The controversial Club World Cup is coming closer to fruition.

FIFA on Saturday night chose the annual, star-studded Global Citizen Festival in Central Park to announce the 12 cities and venues that will host the inaugural tournament, with president Gianni Infantino, who did not seem unhappy at sharing a stage with Hugh Jackman, talking excitedly of fans recreating the festival’s “buzz” between June 15 and July 13 next year.

The update by FIFA — including that the final will be played at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium, which will also host the final of the men’s World Cup almost exactly one year later — was certainly welcome, given how little has been shared about the tournament. It signalled to the world, and those potentially investing in the competition, that FIFA is still ploughing on with the 32-team competition, despite speculation to the contrary.

However, significant steps must still be taken over the next 259 days.

There remains no media rights partner for the tournament, sponsorship agreements are pending and, because of this, the monetary value for participating clubs remains a giant question mark.

Infantino last week went as far as calling an emergency meeting with broadcasters in hopes of persuading them of the merits of the tournament, as pressures behind the scenes mount for FIFA to make good on its hopes for billions in TV revenues to help fund the prize money for competing clubs. The FIFA head promised global broadcasters in the video call that venues would be announced before the end of the month, a promise he successfully kept.

It seems FIFA is, in some ways, leveraging the success of their men’s World Cup to draw interest for the Club World Cup. On Saturday, FIFA also announced it had teamed up with Global Citizen for the first World Cup final half-time show in 2026 — a foreign concept in global football, but a beloved tradition in American football.

Gianni Infantino (left), Hugh Jackman and Gayle King at the Global Citizen Festival in New York (Noam Galai/Getty Images for Global Citizen)

Next year’s Club World Cup is also important for FIFA to course-correct the U.S. market after last summer’s Copa America, especially in the run-up to the World Cup in 2026. Though CONMEBOL runs the South American tournament, many critics questioned if the U.S. was ready for a World Cup after security failings and less-than-stellar crowds, even for matches featuring the U.S. men’s national team. Though a World Cup is likely to draw sellouts simply by being the world’s most popular sporting event, a Club World Cup, like the South American tournament, will be a much harder sell for American fans.

The Club World Cup has already faced serious opposition, notably around player welfare. There have been growing concerns that players could go on strike over the number of games they are being asked to play in, with the Club World Cup adding to an already-congested global match calendar, and in the middle of a summer transfer window.

Some have pointed to the recent season-ending injury of Spanish footballer Rodri as an example of what can happen if this level of congestion is not taken seriously. The Manchester City midfielder, who spoke out to say players were “close” to going on strike, suffered the injury just one week after expressing his concerns about workload. It’s worth noting that City face an 11-month-long campaign if they reach the final of the Club World Cup.

Javier Tebas, the head of La Liga in Spain, recently said at a press conference that he would welcome a strike if it wiped the Club World Cup off the agenda but the controversy isn’t just brewing in the court of public opinion. Three of Europe’s biggest players unions also recently filed legal action against FIFA over the saturated calendar, calling the new tournament a “tipping point”.

The English Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA), the Italian players union (AIC) and their French counterparts (UNFP) say the rights of players are being violated under EU laws after FIFA added the Club World Cup to the end of the 2024-25 season. FIFPro, the global footballers union, is supporting the case, with the ultimate goal of challenging the legality of FIFA’s ability to “unilaterally” set the international match calendar.

Despite the pushback, FIFA is committing to the men’s Club World Cup, although mystery still surrounds the women’s event. No details have been announced for that competition, which FIFA had originally said would be staged in January 2026 and feature 16 teams. Even the host country remains unknown.

It was largely expected the men’s competition would overwhelmingly be an East Coast affair, with at least one match set for Seattle because Major League Soccer’s Seattle Sounders are in the competition. Since the CONCACAF Gold Cup is taking place in the U.S. simultaneously, FIFA and CONCACAF had come to a previous agreement to host matches on opposite sides of the country to avoid any overlap.

The Club World Cup is proposed to be held every four years, with some describing it as Infantino’s prized possession. It will act as a primer for the expanded men’s World Cup in the U.S. held that following summer, with five World Cup 2026 venues, including MetLife, also slated to host Club World Cup games next year.

Now, as the world awaits sponsorship and media rights deals for the men’s Club World Cup, and any information at all about the women’s event, the next expected update will be in December, when the tournament’s draw will take place.

Future details for the draw, FIFA said on Saturday, will be released “in due course” — but the clock is ticking.

[Vesper 28,801]

FIFA announces 2025 Club World Cup stadiums and cities

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5798811/2024/09/28/club-world-cup-2025-venues/

FIFA has confirmed the 12 stadiums that will stage the inaugural Club World Cup in the United States next summer.

The Athletic reported last week that FIFA president Gianni Infantino had promised global broadcasters that the Club World Cup venues would be announced by the end of September. FIFA has not announced a broadcast partner for the tournament.

Infantino confirmed the full list of venues on Saturday evening at the Global Citizen Festival in Central Park, New York.

“Football is the most popular sport on the planet, and in 2025 a new era for club football will kick off when FIFA stages the greatest, most inclusive and merit-based global club competition right here in the United States,” Infantino said in a FIFA press release.

Lumen Field and the Rose Bowl are the only west-coast venues selected for next summer’s tournament. Lumen Field is the 68,000-capacity home of MLS side Seattle Sounders, NWSL club Seattle Reign and NFL franchise the Seattle Seahawks. The Sounders are one of the teams competing at the 2025 competition and are expected to play at least one game at Lumen Field.

There are only two west-coast stadiums selected for the Club World Cup in part due to the 2025 CONCACAF men’s Gold Cup — the international tournament between teams from North America, Central America and the Caribbean — taking place at the same time in the U.S and Canada, one year out from the nations co-hosting the World Cup with Mexico. The 14 locations selected for the 2025 Gold Cup were announced earlier this week and include the following 2026 World Cup venues: Arlington’s AT&T Stadium, Los Angeles’ SoFi Stadium, San Francisco’s Levi Stadium, Houston’s NRG Stadium and Vancouver’s BC Place.

Training bases, sponsors and broadcasters, meanwhile, are yet to be announced for the Club World Cup. In April, the New York Times reported that a global streaming deal with Apple was close but that did not come to fruition. FIFA then launched a media rights tender in July for both the 2025 and 2029 editions of the tournament in the hope it would raise interest and competition. The deadline for submissions was August 24.

In January, FIFA confirmed that it was planning to stage the first women’s Club World Cup at the start of 2026, with further editions to follow every four years. No details have yet been announced on the host nation or how clubs will qualify for the inaugural 16-team tournament.

GO DEEPER

Infantino calls emergency meeting with broadcasters over lack of FIFA Club World Cup deal

2025 Club World Cup stadiums: Full list

• MetLife Stadium (East Rutherford, N.J.)*
• Meredes-Benz Stadium (Atlanta)
• Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte)
• TQL Stadium (Cincinnati)
• Rose Bowl Stadium (Los Angeles)
• Hard Rock Stadium (Miami)
• GEODIS Park (Nashville)
• Camping World Stadium (Orlando)
• Inter&Co Stadium (Orlando)
• Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia)
• Lumen Field (Seattle)
• Audi Field (Washington, D.C.)

*denotes 2026 World Cup final venue

What to make of the crowded 2025 calendar

So it’s official. FIFA will hold its controversial Club World Cup for the first time next summer in the U.S. A number of high-profile players have recently pushed back on the tournament’s concept amid an increasingly crowded football calendar.

Manchester City midfielder Rodri suggested recently that players could strike if their schedules continue to be overcrowded with various competitions. “I think it’s the general opinion of the players,” Rodri told reporters on Sept. 17. “And if it keeps this way, there will be a moment where we have no other option.”

In the meantime, the show will go on. The majority of matches will be played on the U.S. east coast with kickoff times that will suit European audiences. The CONCACAF Gold Cup will be played simultaneously (mainly on the West Coast) with the final set for July 13.

Overlap is expected but The Athletic reported in January that CONCACAF and FIFA officials were discussing creating “smart schedules” to allow fans to enjoy both tournaments. Still, it’s difficult to predict how successful this tournament will be.

Will it captivate American audiences beyond the highly-engaged English Premier League market in the States? Will fans from around the world travel to support their clubs and positively impact overall attendance numbers? While players and pundits debate the tournament’s importance, FIFA remains bullish. — Felipe Cardenas, senior soccer writer

Which clubs will compete at the 2025 Club World Cup?

UEFA

• Chelsea (2021 Champions League winners)
• Real Madrid (2022, 2024 Champions League winners)
• Manchester City (2023 Champions League winners)
• Bayern Munich (ranking)
• Paris Saint-Germain (ranking)
• Inter Milan (ranking)
• Porto (ranking)
• Benfica (ranking)
• Borussia Dortmund (ranking)
• Juventus (ranking)
• Atletico Madrid (ranking)
• Red Bull Salzburg (ranking)

Despite their high UEFA ranking, Liverpool and AC Milan have missed out on a place due to FIFA’s rule that a maximum of two teams per nation can compete at the tournament (Photo: Pier Marco Tacca / Getty Images)

CONCACAF

• Monterrey (2021 Champions League winners)
• Seattle Sounders (2022 Champions League winners)
• Leon (2023 Champions League winners)
• Pachuca (2024 Champions League winners)

GO DEEPER

One year until the Club World Cup in the United States - what's going on?

AFC

• Al Hilal (2021 Champions League winners)
• Urawa Red Diamonds (2022 Champions League winners)
• Al Ain (2024 Champions League winners)
• Ulsan HD (ranking)

CAF

• Al Ahly (2021, 2023, 2024 Champions League winners)
• Wydad AC (2022 Champions League winners)
• Esperance de Tunis (ranking)
• Mamelodi Sundowns (ranking)

CONMEBOL

• Palmeiras (2021 Copa Libertadores winners)
• Flamengo (2022 Copa Libertadores winners)
• Fluminense (2023 Copa Libertadores winners)
• River Plate (ranking or 2024 Copa Libertadores winners)
• Boca Juniors (ranking)

OFC

• Auckland City (best OFC Champions League winners in four-year period)

There are three spots still left to be decided for the 2025 Club World Cup. Two clubs will come from CONCACAF, with one of those going to the winner of the 2024 Copa Libertadores. Argentinian giants River Plate are guaranteed to be one of the two teams from South America due to their high ranking but could also win the Libertadores in November. If they do, the final CONMEBOL place will go to Paraguayan side Olimpia.

The final spot will be a team from the U.S. as the hosts. FIFA has not yet announced how this place will be determined.

GO DEEPER

Explained: Why players' unions are taking FIFA to court over the Club World Cup

So, what is the FIFA Intercontinental Cup?

The proposal for an annual Intercontinental Cup was approved at a FIFA Council meeting in March.

In the first round of the tournament, on an alternating basis, the AFC Champions League winners or the CAF Champions League winners will play at home against the OFC Champions League winners. The victor of this round will go on to play either the AFC Champions League winners or the CAF Champions League winners in the next round.

Meanwhile, CONCACAF Champions Cup winners will play the Copa Libertadores winners in a single-leg game, with the host to alternate every year.

The winners of those two paths will face each other in a play-off at a neutral venue a few days before the final. The play-off winner will then face the UEFA Champions League winner at the same neutral venue.

The Intercontinental Cup will take place for the first time this year, with the play-off on December 14 and the final on December 18.

Real Madrid, European champions, will compete in the final, with Al Ain, Auckland City, Al Ahly, Pachuca and the Copa Libertadores winners all competing in earlier rounds. The location of the inaugural edition is to be determined.

What about player welfare concerns?

FIFA have said that “the expanded (Club World Cup) competition will undercut the rest and recovery time of these players at the end of the 2024-25 season, and further disrupt national employment markets by changing the balance between national and international competitions”. FIFPRO adds that the match calendar has again been enlarged without “appropriate safeguards” or “any say” from players.

The union has also called for FIFA to “facilitate discussions with all football stakeholders about the introduction of a basic set of player health and safety regulations to support the welfare”.

In March, the FIFA Council “unanimously approved the establishment of a dedicated task force on player welfare to ensure the smooth implementation of player welfare principles such as mandatory rest periods”. FIFPRO says there “has (been) no follow-up and requests by FIFPRO to launch this process have gone unanswered”. FIFA did not directly respond when asked by The Athletic about the task force.

GO DEEPER

How can we ensure footballers get more rest? Is a player strike the only way?

FIFPRO, at a minimum, believes that players should have an off-season break of 28 days.

The new Club World Cup, though, is likely to end only a month before the start of the 2025-26 seasons. The last six Premier League campaigns (not including the 2020-21 COVID-impacted season) have begun on August 16 (2024), August 11 (2023), August 5 (2022), August 13 (2021), August 9 (2019) and August 10 (2018), for example, leaving little time for a break and pre-season before domestic football resumes.

The end of the 2025 Club World Cup is not dissimilar to when a European Championship, Copa America or World Cup might end, all of which also usually take place over June and July. It means, though, that prominent European players may only have one summer off in a four-year cycle, with the Club World Cup now coming in the year between a Euros and a World Cup.

In its workload research paper about men’s football, published earlier this year, FIFPRO also called for an in-season break of 14 days and says players should have at least one day off per week.

FIFPRO also wants guidelines introduced to limit the amount of successive back-to-back games, where players have two games or more per week.

To address player welfare concerns regarding the 2025 Club World Cup, FIFA says teams will have at least three days’ rest between fixtures. FIFA also points out that the International Match Calendar, which includes the 2025 reworked Club World Cup, was approved with a memorandum of understanding by the European Club Association (ECA) earlier this year.

The World Leagues Forum (WLF), the lobby group for the top national divisions, has also voiced its concerns over the expanded Club World Cup. It has written a letter to FIFA lodging in which it complains about the governing body overloading the match calendar and refusing to consider the interests of national competitions.

[Vesper 28,801]

1 minute ago, Vesper said:

MetLife Stadium (East Rutherford, N.J.)*

site of the final

one of the ugliest, most generic huge stadiums built in the last 20 years

🤮

[Vesper 28,801]

7 minutes ago, Vesper said:

• Porto (ranking)
• Benfica (ranking)

8 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Red Bull Salzburg (ranking)

crazy that those 3 teams make it

but  Barca, Pool, and AC Milan do not

plus 4 of these 8 should NEVER be in it (each of these 2 regions should get 2 teams)

plus the US gets a SECOND team (as hosts, BUT they already have on in, the Seattle Sounders, via winning their Champions League, so they do not count that and will give them ANOTHER team in as well, which is just silly)

 

[ZAPHOD2319 4,477]

 

[NikkiCFC 7,950]

On 30/09/2024 at 00:05, Vesper said:

 

plus the US gets a SECOND team (as hosts, BUT they already have on in, the Seattle Sounders, via winning their Champions League, so they do not count that and will give them ANOTHER team in as well, which is just silly)

 

They added Inter Miami. Tbh it's nice to have Messi on tournament. 

[Vesper 28,801]

FIFA Unveils ‘Innovative’ New Trophy for Club World Cup