With the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup underway, we’ve already seen several one-sided performances that have left fans questioning the tournament’s new format. The disparity in quality between some of the teams has raised concerns about whether the competition is truly designed to showcase the best clubs in the world, or if FIFA has prioritised global representation over competitive balance by including clubs from significantly weaker leagues.
This imbalance might also help explain why the Club World Cup is struggling to generate the level of excitement and attention expected from a tournament of its stature. Despite FIFA slashing ticket prices, many stadiums remain half-empty, indicating that fans may not be buying into the current format.
Let’s take a look at the revised format of the Club World Cup, compare it to the old format, and consider whether it’s turning out to be a failure.
The new format
As per the new format, the Club World Cup will be held every four years, featuring 32 teams from across the world, with eight groups of four teams each making up the group stage. The top two teams from each group will qualify for the round of 16.
The knockout stage will feature three rounds (round of 16, quarter-finals, and semi-finals) before the final. Usual rules will be observed in the knockout-stage games: if the scores are level after normal time, extra time will be played, and if a winner is not decided after extra time, penalties will determine the outcome.
This year, the CWC is featuring 12 European sides, including heavyweights such as Real Madrid and Atlético Madrid from Spain, Inter Milan and Juventus from Italy, Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund from Germany, Manchester City and Chelsea from England, and Paris Saint-Germain from France. Eleven sides represent the Americas, including big names such as Boca Juniors, River Plate, Flamengo, Fluminense, Palmeiras, Botafogo, Pachuca, and Inter Miami, while four sides each are representing Asia and Africa, and one amateur side from Oceania.
The old format
The previous CWC format was used between 2000 and 2023. Man City were the last winners of the old format, which has since been rebranded as the Intercontinental Cup, the first edition of which was won by Real Madrid in December last year.
The previous CWC format featured champions from six continental federations as well as the league winners of the host nation. It had a knockout format with preliminary and quarter-final rounds, followed by semi-finals and the final. The tournament was held every year.
The old format featured fewer teams, was of a much shorter duration, and ensured that the teams participating were clubs with huge followings, quality squads, and the capability to compete with the best more feasibly, as compared to the latest format.
While the new format includes more teams from across the globe, which is good for the popularity of the game, it doesn’t take into account the huge gulf in quality on paper across the board, due to the comparative lack of popularity, finances, and the quality of football these sides are used to.
Pros and Cons
While the new format features 32 teams from all across the globe, there is a huge gulf in quality among the clubs. It’s almost impossible for the likes of Wydad, Ulsan, and Auckland City to compete with the might of Real Madrid, Man City, Bayern Munich, and PSG.
The Bayern Munich–Auckland City game ended in a humiliating 10–0 scoreline in favour of the Bavarian giants. Pitting an amateur side against a European heavyweight might seem like a romantic notion, but it made little sense from a competitive standpoint.
Many fans are also raising questions about whether the best teams are, in fact, playing in the competition, with current league winners like Barcelona of LaLiga and Liverpool of the Premier League missing.
Chelsea’s inclusion in the Club World Cup despite abysmal performances in 2022/23 and 2023/24 is also an eye-raiser. The current Blues side is completely different in terms of coach and squad from the one that won the UEFA Champions League in 2021.
Another factor to be considered is the valuation of squads from Europe compared to those from the rest of the world. According to Transfermarkt, PSG’s and Real Madrid’s squad values are €1.06 billion and €1.33 billion, respectively, in comparison to Palmeiras and Botafogo, who are valued at €252.55 million and €163.2 million, respectively.
In the old format, with fewer teams involved, there was a slim chance for the South American teams to beat them. However, in the new format, it’s a case of many Davids against a few Goliaths.
Even though it’s early days into the tournament, this financial reality is already visible. With a severe lack of interest in the tournament due to a lot of top sides not playing, FIFA has had to slash ticket prices, and yet fans aren’t turning up for the games.
The tournament simply hasn’t generated the kind of buzz the world football–governing body had expected, which could also affect FIFA’s potential earnings from the tournament.
The only positive for the smaller clubs here is a share of the prize money on offer, which totals US$1 billion. Competing in this tournament could aid them financially and help them become more competitive in the long run.
Conclusion
In my opinion, there are more cons than pros when it comes to the new Club World Cup format — it has been designed to favour the bigger clubs even more than its previous guise and is bound to end with a European club winning the title, with barely a handful of upsets to spice things up.
In addition, a packed schedule featuring this many games could lead to more fatigue and injuries for players before the start of a new campaign, in turn affecting their performances next season.
The lack of competition is also making for underwhelming viewing. Football fans expect the Club World Cup to showcase the highest level of football — with the best teams and top players battling it out for the biggest prize. When that standard is missing, the tournament will lose its magic. It feels like FIFA took a major gamble, and right now, it looks like it’s not paying off.
Leave a Reply