As the dust settles on the inaugural expanded FIFA Club World Cup in the United States, the verdict remains decidedly mixed. Pitched as a groundbreaking new fixture on the global football calendar and a crucial dry run for the 2026 World Cup, the tournament delivered moments of unexpected sporting drama but was frequently overshadowed by significant logistical and environmental challenges. While FIFA executives championed its success, the reality on the ground offered a stark preview of potential hurdles for future mega-events held under similar conditions.
Competitive Spirit Shines Despite Skepticism
One clear positive emerged from the four weeks of competition: the football itself proved more compelling than some anticipated. Despite concerns that European powerhouses might dominate or treat the event as a burden, unexpected results punctuated the group stages. South American teams, in particular, defied expectations, with all four Brazilian sides advancing and Fluminense making a deep run, demonstrating that the gap between continents may be narrowing, at least for clubs arriving with determination and tactical discipline. The standout upset, Manchester City`s early exit to Saudi Arabia`s Al-Hilal, further underlined the tournament`s competitive potential.
Players and coaches from various confederations approached the tournament with surprising seriousness. While European voices occasionally hinted at fatigue, others, like Borussia Dortmund`s Niko Kovac, emphasized the positive mindset required, framing it akin to a national team World Cup experience. The substantial prize money likely served as a powerful motivator, ensuring that teams were not merely going through the motions. Arsene Wenger, FIFA`s chief of global football development, noted the high motivation levels within team camps, even expressing surprise at the intensity of the competition.
Logistical Headwinds: Empty Seats and Scorching Heat
However, the on-field competitiveness struggled to mask glaring issues off the pitch. FIFA`s choice to host most matches in vast NFL stadiums designed for different sports and larger typical crowds led to swathes of empty seats, particularly during group stage matches not featuring the most globally renowned clubs. Venues like MetLife Stadium saw significant portions unfilled, sparking debate about whether smaller, soccer-specific stadiums might have provided a better atmosphere and optics, rather than relying on ticket price reductions to fill cavernous arenas. This raised questions about the market appeal of the Club World Cup format in the US compared to the undeniable draw of the national team World Cup.
Perhaps the most significant and troubling challenge was the extreme summer heat and humidity. Players openly voiced concerns, with some reporting dizziness and describing conditions as “dangerous.” The technical study group noted that temperatures exceeding 35°C (95°F) negatively impacted high-speed running, a crucial element of modern football. Matches scheduled during the hottest parts of the day visibly affected teams` tactical approaches and physical output. Weather delays further disrupted the flow, forcing coaches to improvise and raising questions about scheduling decisions in challenging climates.
Adding to the players` woes were inconsistent pitch conditions. While some venues received praise, others were criticized for being dry, slow, or having an erratic bounce. The experimental bermudagrass grown specifically for the tournament on top of NFL stadium foundations yielded mixed results, highlighting the complexities and risks involved in preparing surfaces for high-level football in multi-purpose venues – a direct concern for the 2026 World Cup, which will use many of the same stadiums and grass installation processes.
Beyond the Football: Spectacle and Side Shows
The tournament also featured peculiar off-field elements, from a somewhat bland new official anthem debut to a dystopian halftime show staged bizarrely high in the stadium stands to avoid damaging the pitch. The presence and involvement of figures like former US President Donald Trump, culminating in awkward photo opportunities and his insertion into the trophy lift, added layers of surrealism that sometimes overshadowed the sporting narrative itself. Even the announcement of FIFA establishing a secondary US office at Trump Tower seemed like a strange, politically charged subplot rather than a technical football development.
Lessons for 2026?
Ultimately, the Club World Cup served as a chaotic, hot, and logistically bumpy trial run for the 2026 World Cup in the US, Mexico, and Canada. While it proved that competitive football can exist in the US summer heat, it also underlined critical issues related to venue selection, climate impact on player welfare and performance, and the demanding process of preparing world-class pitches in NFL stadiums. The attendance figures, while perhaps not directly analogous to the World Cup`s unique appeal, still suggest potential challenges in filling immense venues consistently.
Despite FIFA`s optimistic declarations, labeling the tournament the “world`s most successful club competition,” the lingering skepticism following its buildup never truly dissipated. The tournament`s legacy may less be about the football played and more about the glaring operational lessons learned (or needing to be learned) under duress. Whether FIFA can address the heat, pitch quality, and potentially other logistical quirks on the grander stage of the 48-team World Cup remains the critical question. The Club World Cup mattered as a test, perhaps, but whether it was a successful one is open for debate, leaving much to ponder as 2026 approaches.
