The Club World Cup bonanza

The Club World Cup has certainly been controversial.  Thanks to the generosity of streaming platform DAZN, who paid a thumping great $1 bn for a TV rights deal, even though other broadcasters had shown little interest, FIFA were able to create a massive prize pot for the event of the same amount.

Some cynical observers have noted that shortly after the agreement was signed, the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund (PIF) bought a 10% minority stake in DAZN for, you guessed it, $1 bln.  A week later, FIFA confirmed that Saudi Arabia would be the hosts of the 2034 men’s World Cup, though to be fair they were the only bidders.

To place this into perspective, the FIFA Club World Cup’s €857m ($1 bn) revenue is around 40% of the UEFA Champion League’s €2.5 bn, but is more than the Europa League €565m and Europa Conference €285m combined.

The prize money would have been even higher in terms of Euros if the Dollar had not tanked in the last few months. For example, using the January high, the $1 bln prize pot would have been worth around €975m.   I wonder if the guy presenting the trophies and medals had anything to do with that?

The big earners

At the tournament’s conclusion, the two finalists have earned more than $100m, which is a pretty good return for a month’s work, as winners Chelsea got a chunky $115m, which will no doubt go towards their transfer war chest, while runners-up Paris Saint-Germain received $107m.

Six of the top eight earnings went to European clubs, including Real Madrid €83m, Bayern Munich €58m, Borussia Dortmund €52m and Manchester City €52m.

Brazilian clubs also did very well with their four representatives all finishing in the top 13 clubs by income: Fluminense €61m, Palmeiras €40m, Flamengo €28m and Botafogo €27m.

The lion’s share of the revenue was snapped up by European clubs, who received €623m, followed by South America $191m. These two confederations account for more than 80% of the $1 bln on offer.

Five countries took more than $100m with England $166m and Brazil $155m being comfortably the highest, followed by Germany $110m, France $107m, and Spain $104m. They account for nearly two-thirds of the total income.

The $115m (£77m) that the Blues earned will undoubtedly help the club with its PSR challenges, especially with UEFA’s more stringent regulations, which do not allow any benefit from asset sales to be included in the calculation.

Manchester City went out at the last 16 stage, but still received $52m (£38m) for their efforts. This was boosted by winning all three of their group games, with City being the only club to manage this feat.  Chelsea therefore earned more than twice as much as City with a difference of $63m (£46m). Going three rounds further was worth an additional $74m, partly offset by City getting $2m more for one more group win, as well as a $9m higher participation fee.

The winning team in the Club World Cup only has to play seven games to secure this prize, while it would have to play 15 games for the Champions League income, including eight in the expanded league phase.  That means that the maximum earnings in the Club World Cup are worth €15.4m a game, compared to only €10.5m in the Champions League. Not too shabby for a month’s work.

Although there is no doubt that FIFA would have preferred to have had higher crowds, not least because the organisation receives the match day income (shared with the venues), as opposed to the clubs themselves, this has not been the feared total disaster, with the average attendance for the tournament coming in at just under 40,0000.

The downsides

The physical workload being placed on players at the leading clubs is already at a ridiculously high level, especially after the expansion in the Champions League, with the Club World Cup only adding to the congested calendar.  The tournament has understandably been criticised for this reason by the top European leagues and FIFPRO, a global union of professional players, who said that the schedule demonstrated “a lack of consideration for the mental and physical health of participating players”.

The fear is that this factor will hand an advantage to opponents in the domestic league, as players will either have to be rested for the early games next season or will have to play fatigued.

Although the Club World Cup is a major financial positive for the participants, it will only increase the competitive imbalance in the football world, adding to the distorting effect of the Champions League, especially in the smaller leagues.

While it’s difficult to agree with Gianni Infantino that the expanded Club World Cup has been “a huge, huge, huge success”, in fairness it has probably turned out better than many fans had anticipated, featuring some decent games, played by seemingly motivated teams.

FIFA will argue that the Club World Cup is boosting the global game, but it’s difficult to look at the tournament as anything other than the latest way in which the rich clubs get richer.  Lack of competitive balance is already one of the most important challenges facing the game, so the huge amounts of money awarded to the participants has only made things worse. This might not be what FIFA intended, but it’s certainly one of the consequences.