One year until the Club World Cup in the United States – what’s going on?

We are just under a year out from FIFA’s first expanded men’s Club World Cup, billed as a contest between the world’s best 32 club sides and being hosted by the United States.

Yet football’s world governing body, FIFA, is yet to announce a media rights partner, host cities or venues for Mundial de Clubes FIFA 25, to use its trademarked name. It has not made clear the monetary value to clubs involved, and sponsorship agreements remain a work in progress, too.

FIFA said in a statement it is “fully confident and convinced of the commercial and sporting success of the new competition” but, as official details remain scant, The Athletic made a lot of phone calls to work out what exactly is happening with the Club World Cup, which was announced by FIFA president Gianni Infantino in Qatar in the final week of the men’s World Cup in December 2022.

In doing so, we uncovered some fresh clues as to where exactly the tournament will take place, how the final host country team will be allocated a place in the competition, the challenge FIFA has experienced in attracting a broadcast partner, why it has been at odds with some of its most famous sponsors, and why FIFA is now stepping onto a hornet’s nest as it wrestles with a competition taking place in the middle of the summer transfer window.

How to follow Euro 2024 and Copa America on The Athletic…

Who will be playing at the Club World Cup? 

Twenty-nine of the 32 spots have been decided. There are 12 club teams from UEFA (the European confederation), six from CONMEBOL (South America), four apiece from CAF (Africa) and AFC (Asia), and one to the OFC (Oceania). CONCACAF (North America, Central America and the Caribbean) has four places plus an additional slot for a team from the U.S., as hosts.

Fifteen places have been secured by winning a confederation’s premier club competition between 2021 and 2024. Chelsea, Manchester City and Real Madrid all gained places because they won the UEFA Champions League in that period, similar to CONCACAF Champions League sides Monterrey, Pachuca and Leon (all from Mexico) and MLS’ Seattle Sounders.

In Africa, Egypt’s Al Ahly and Moroccan side Wydad have taken places by winning the CAF Champions League. In Asia, Japan’s Urawa Red Diamonds and the UAE’s Al Ain won the AFC Champions League, as well as Saudi team Al Hilal, who have star names including Neymar, Aleksandar Mitrovic, Ruben Neves and Kalidou Koulibaly on their books. The South American premier club competition is the Copa Libertadores and Fluminense, Flamengo and Palmeiras have won this trophy in the past three years, and will be joined next summer by the 2024 winner, still to be decided later this year.

There is another way to qualify, via the confederations ranking pathway, which awards points based on performances over a multiple-year period. This is how Paris Saint-Germain, Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, Inter Milan, Juventus, Porto, Benfica, Atletico Madrid and Red Bull Salzburg earned their places.

Some of Europe’s most famous teams were ineligible to compete because FIFA placed a two-club limit on teams from a single country (with the exception of more than two clubs from the same country winning the Champions League, as has happened in Brazil and Mexico). Teams such as Liverpool, Barcelona, Napoli and AC Milan were all ranked higher than Salzburg but did not qualify owing to the two-team rule.

Other big-name omissions from the tournament include Manchester United and Arsenal. Cristiano Ronaldo’s Al Nassr also failed to make the cut. The other teams to qualify via their rankings outside Europe are Ulsan (South Korea), Mamelodi Sundowns (South Africa), ES Tunis (Tunisia), River Plate (Argentina) and Auckland City (New Zealand).

Who might be playing at the Club World Cup?

The three remaining places will go to the winner of the Copa Libertadores in November, another South American club determined by ranking in November and a team in the U.S.

Will Lionel Messi and Inter Miami be involved next summer? (Minas Panagiotakis/Getty Images)

FIFA has not yet disclosed how this final U.S. place will be allocated but sources familiar with the process, who spoke anonymously because conversations over these matters are confidential, have indicated that two proposals are under consideration.

The most likely option is to give the place to the MLS Cup winners (the team who win the MLS play-offs final). The more radical proposal is to have the winner of the Supporters’ Shield (the team who has the best record in MLS during the 2024 regular season) face off against the winner of the MLS Cup, creating a one-off money-spinning spectacle of jeopardy. If the same team win the Supporters’ Shield and the MLS Cup, they would automatically advance.

There are some logistical reasons as to why the more sober option of the MLS Cup winners earning qualification may be preferred. There is uncertainty over when the special play-off would be played — could it be squeezed in after the MLS Cup in the autumn, or would it need to be during the 2025 pre-season? If the latter option was taken, we would not know the full line-up when the Club World Cup draw is made — likely in December.

This would make planning, marketing and sponsorship sales more complicated and could be particularly precarious if Lionel Messi’s Inter Miami are in a 50-50 tussle to qualify, leaving FIFA, just months out from the tournament, needing to plan for scenarios with and without one of the most famous athletes on the planet.

Where will matches be played?

The tournament will mostly take place on the east coast — partially to benefit television audiences in Europe, which is home to many of the most famous teams competing in the competition.

The CONCACAF Gold Cup is also taking place simultaneously in the U.S. and an agreement has been reached between FIFA and CONCACAF to stage it on the west coast. There are also ongoing conversations to avoid kick-off clashes and the two competitions cannibalising one another’s potential U.S. television audience.

There is one major exception, however, because MLS side Seattle Sounders are expected to play at least one Club World Cup game at Lumen Field, a 68,000-seater stadium that is home to NFL team Seattle Seahawks, the Sounders and Seattle Reign of the NWSL. It would be counter-productive to deprive the Sounders of a sell-out fixture when support would diminish on the east coast.

Seattle Sounders won the CONCACAF Champions League in May 2022 (Jeff Halstead/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)

More broadly, the expectation is that New York/New Jersey’s MetLife stadium, which will host the men’s FIFA World Cup final in 2026, will be a host venue, as will Miami Dolphins’ 65,000-seater Hard Rock Stadium, which will host this summer’s Copa America final.

Contracts are yet to be exchanged as the parties thrash out of the terms of revenue sharing between host cities, stadium owners and FIFA. This was a painful aspect of FIFA’s attempts to negotiate with U.S. stadiums for the World Cup, and host cities and venues are likely to be less forgiving for the Club World Cup, which comes with less guarantee of success. Those close to the New York/New Jersey host city committee indicated they are excited at the prospect of being involved but stopped short of saying an agreement has been reached and referred The Athletic to MetLife Stadium, which did not respond to queries.

Boston is one city on the east coast that will not be involved. The Gillette Stadium in Foxborough is hosting seven matches during the World Cup but Martha Sheridan, the CEO of Meet Boston and a member of Boston’s World Cup organising committee, told The Athletic at a recent conference in Los Angeles that she did not believe the stadium would be available to host the Club World Cup. She added it will be put forward as a potential host venue for the joint U.S.-Mexico bid to host the Women’s World Cup in 2031.

FIFA is likely to use a mix of NFL and MLS stadiums during the Club World Cup, with venues in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Nashville and Cincinnati under consideration. In Texas, Houston and Dallas will be granted access to the Gold Cup or Club World Cup.

In Washington DC, which missed out on World Cup host status, the 20,000-seater Audi Field is also under consideration. Theresa Belpulsi, the city’s vice-president for tourism, told The Athletic that DC is also targeting host status for the Women’s World Cup in 2031, adding that DC would happily provide venues for preparation games or act as training bases for teams during either the Club World Cup in 2025 or men’s World Cup in 2026.

Where can I watch the Club World Cup?

The billion-dollar question. In April, the New York Times reported Apple was close to a broadcast agreement with FIFA and an announcement may be made that same month. However, it is now June and the FIFA Congress has also passed without a formal announcement.

People in the broadcast industry have indicated Apple remains the likely destination for the Club World Cup, in a deal that would give the Apple TV+ streaming service global rights to broadcast the tournament. The New York Times reported the deal may be less than $1billion (£800 million), which it claimed represented a quarter of the initial target set by FIFA.

Those familiar with the process suggest FIFA struggled to tempt traditional broadcasters to part with vast sums to show the Club World Cup. It is a new, expanded event and the piecemeal nature of teams securing qualification means it has not been clear which clubs and star names will actually be present, while the late announcement of venues has also not helped matters.

A person familiar with the broadcast industry said one major U.S. media company was so unconvinced about the merits of the competition that it estimated the North American rights to be worth around $30million. NBC, which shows the English Premier League, is not competing for the rights but Jon Miller, the network’s president of acquisitions and partnerships, told The Athletic that NBC had looked at the possibility of acquiring Spanish language rights for its Telemundo platform. Fox Sports, which broadcasts the FIFA World Cup, is also not in the race.

Apple TV advertising is prominent during a Leagues Cup match in 2023 (Scott Wachter-USA TODAY Sports)

When venturing into live sport, Apple has prioritised global access to media rights, when the pattern of sport is to often fragment rights across numerous markets. The Premier League, for example, sold broadcast rights to 40 companies across 97 different countries from 2022 to 2025, whereas in 2022 Apple committed a minimum of $2.5billion over a decade to secure exclusive global access to MLS.

For Apple, therefore, there is sense to the move, as it could again test out the extent to which live football can move the needle for a company valued at $3 trillion. This could also be an Apple de facto title sponsorship of the tournament if promotion of the event globally will see news providers and marketeers compelled to say that the tournament will only be available on its platform.

The idea attracted criticism on X from Ricardo Fort, a former head of global sponsorships at Visa, who are a FIFA partner. He said: “A global sporting event behind a paywall will be a disaster for sponsors looking for visibility. Rich countries’ fans might be able to afford a new subscription, but that is not the reality of most countries. For the success of this event, there must be a free to air alternative.”

Speaking to The Athletic, Fort added: “For a global event, a great new tournament where they should be thinking about how to build interest and awareness around the world, a subscription-based product is not ideal, assuming the only access is by paying Apple.

“We don’t know yet for sure how that will play out. Maybe Apple opens up the service and that’s a different thing. But with what we know today, if you expect people in Latin America, Africa, lots of places in Asia to subscribe to a new service in order to have access to a new tournament, it is a problem. And that’s then going to be a challenge to charge the high fees for sponsors.”

What about sponsors?

If FIFA’s broadcast revenue is $3billion below original estimates, as the New York Times suggested, then sponsorship revenue is surely a priority.

Multiple people familiar with the process said FIFA had targeted up to 10 sponsors for the tournament, with targets of more than $100million per sponsor, and is struggling to attract these numbers.

The absences of Barcelona, AC Milan and major Premier League sides have made it even harder to sell the tournament. Mexico’s Club America, the most-watched football team on U.S. television, will also be missing. There are plenty of star names but Ronaldo will not be there and Messi’s involvement remains in the balance.

Fort says: “If we’re talking about maybe $15million and you are a U.S.-based company, then you’re going to get tickets and you can do hospitality, and it might work. But assuming that very few people will watch this event internationally, you’re not going to see the boards and the signage. Global brands will think twice before sponsoring.

“Luckily, the U.S. has a lot of big domestic companies that can afford sponsorship fees but $100million is a lot more than a domestic brand will pay for an NFL sponsorship and certainly a lot more than NBA (for the timeframe). That’s the competition FIFA is facing. They are looking at this and thinking, ‘It’s going to be really hard to sell all the sponsorships, so let’s maximise and get as much as we can from media rights’.”

Why has FIFA had issues with major sponsors including Coca-Cola and Adidas? 

FIFA not only has to tempt new sponsors but also manage existing relationships. Contracts for FIFA partners have included a clause entitling them to sponsorship access to the World Cup and other FIFA events. FIFA officials have sought to argue that the revamped Club World Cup is a tournament of such scope and potential that it merits an entirely new set of sponsorship deals, meaning they would like existing partners to renegotiate their terms to be involved, yet brands such as Coca-Cola and Adidas are arguing they already have partnership rights. People familiar with the discussions have suggested that some existing partners may pay a little extra to maintain long-term relationships but it will be a fraction of the money FIFA has been seeking through sponsorship to fund the tournament.

An Adidas spokesperson said: “As a long-standing partner of FIFA for all their tournaments, we continue our work and planning for a successful Mundial de Clubes FIFA 25.”

A Coca-Cola spokesperson said: “As one of the longest-standing corporate partners of FIFA, we value our relationship and remain focused on continuing our successful partnership together.”

Should FIFA’s World Cup sponsors enjoy access to the club tournament too? (Alex Morton/Getty Images)

FIFA did not address the dispute when approached by The Athletic, but said it is in “regular and productive dialogue with the key counterparties involved including prospective venues, media and commercial partners.”

It insisted the “scale of this opportunity has meant a level of demand in the new FIFA Club World Cup such that there are many interested parties when it comes to media and commercial partnerships” but did not provide any examples.

Revenue — specifically, the money shared and awarded to the clubs competing at the Club World Cup — will decide whether this tournament can rival the UEFA Champions League or simply be a souped-up version of a pre-season tour in the United States. FIFA has not yet disclosed to confederations or clubs how much will be awarded for participation or success in the competition.

Yet some of Europe’s biggest clubs have been lured in by the prospect of vast sums in revenue, in some cases as much as $100million, and FIFA has secured the backing of the European Club Association (ECA, a lobbying organisation that represents the interests of clubs who regularly compete in UEFA club competitions).

Chelsea, for example, recently factored in the importance of the Club World Cup next summer when deliberating over the future of head coach Mauricio Pochettino, whose contract had been set to expire at the end of June 2025 in the middle of the tournament. Chelsea were looking ahead to what they see as a double season, with two full campaigns sitting either side of the inaugural expanded FIFA Club World Cup in the summer of 2025.

The ECA and the large European clubs are negotiating hard with FIFA over how exactly revenue should be shared, with UEFA’s biggest clubs arguing they will be the drivers of ticket sales and eyeballs, so merit a larger slice of the pie. The big differentiator is likely to be based on performance within the tournament, and it is likely that Europe’s largest clubs (given their wage bills) will advance to the latter stages, therefore securing greater prize money.

Yet if the European clubs are not sufficiently engaged, it will be curious to see whether they field their biggest stars, particularly with a crowded match calendar.

The question is where FIFA will find the money to drive the growth and expected revenues from the tournament should media rights and sponsorship fail to hit targets. There will also be costs to lease stadiums and training centres during the tournament and FIFA is already late going to market to maximise revenue from hospitality packages.

Will FIFA, which is projecting $11billion in revenue for the cycle through to the World Cup in 2026, be prepared to self-fund prize money to drive the growth of the Club World Cup? One option may be to host the 2029 edition of the tournament in the U.S. again to provide continuity but that remains a theory.

What do players think about it all? Isn’t there a transfer window in the middle of all this?

FIFA has recently been threatened with legal action by FIFPro and the World Leagues Association (the bodies representing professional players and leagues) if it did not reschedule the 2025 Club World Cup, which promises 63 matches over a month. One member of Real Madrid’s coaching staff, for example, recently told The Athletic they had major concerns about the physical challenge of next season, when their players will be coming back from Euro 2024 and the Copa America, to then compete in a gruelling season which will include competing in the Intercontinental Cup in the winter and Club World Cup next summer.

The two organisations wrote a joint letter to FIFA, seen by The Athletic, to raise concerns over the governing body’s expanding international match calendar and the impact this is having on player welfare and the organisation of domestic leagues. It stated that if the governing body cannot commit to a resolution, their members will be informed of their options, including legal action, and the bodies have already sought external advice.

In a written response, also seen by The Athletic, FIFA said the accusations made in the joint letter are “not supported by facts” and the Club World Cup schedule has been aligned with the international match calendar to allow sufficient time between the tournament final and the start of the new season in domestic leagues across the globe to ensure player welfare is safeguarded.

The European summer transfer window will also open during the tournament, adding another headache for players who might be on the move. FIFA says it will seek to protect the integrity of its competition and the expectation is that players will not be allowed to represent more than one club during the tournament, should they transfer in the middle of the competition.

And how will FIFA handle the fact that many contracts for European-based footballers tend to expire on June 30, which could mean players exit their clubs midway through the tournament? Would FIFA introduce a special ruling that enables clubs and players to mutually agree to a short term extension until the end of the competition in mid-July? FIFA declined to comment.

Does FIFA have anything else to worry about?

Well, yes. FIFA may also need to enter the thorny area of multi-club ownership, a matter that increasingly befuddling UEFA, its European equivalent.

City Football Group, for example, could have a conflict if New York City FC take the final host place for North America, as Manchester City have also qualified. The same challenge may impact the Red Bull group if the New York Red Bulls qualify along with Red Bull Salzburg.

Such an outcome is unlikely but FIFA already has a clear-cut case to examine because two of the Mexican qualifiers — Leon and Pachuca — are owned by the same proprietor, Grupo Pachuca. The Mexican Football Federation and Liga MX have recently signalled their intention to eradicate multi-club ownership within Mexico by 2027. Armando Martinez, the president of Pachuca and the brother of Leon president Jesus Martinez, recently said the family has made a commitment to no longer have majority control of both clubs by 2027, but they may be controlling both clubs during the Club World Cup in 2025.

This year, UEFA relaxed its rules on multi-club ownership groups. From the 2024-25 campaign, clubs under common ownership are prevented from playing in the same UEFA club competition but will be allowed to play in different UEFA competitions — ie, the Champions League and the Europa League.

FIFA, in deciding on a global competition, could inadvertently create a precedent that may have significant ramifications for football’s future.

FIFA said in a statement: “Regarding elements of regulation of the competition, including participation, all appropriate measures will be taken within the regulatory framework which will be put in place to ensure the integrity of the competition, as has always been the case for all of FIFA’s competitions.”

(Design: Eamonn Dalton/Top photo: Lars Baron/FIFA via Getty Images)