News: 2025 FIFA Club World Cup: General [Multiple Rs]

Imagine that, Club America doesn’t want the “Leagues Cup” treatment for the CWC playoff and seeks a neutral venue:
https://espndeportes.espn.com/futbo...a-vs-lafc-mundial-clubes-sede-estadio-partido

 

'There’s been widespread abandonment' - Club Leon's president calls out Liga MX and Mexican Football Federation for lack of support following Club World Cup expulsion:
https://www.goal.com/en-ae/lists/cl...ulsion/blt5cd734f8363ac638#cs92614ca77626af8e

 

Aren't all MLS clubs owned by one entity?

 

It is a little different since MLS clubs have different investors who operate each team within the single entity set up.

Pachuca and Leon are both owned by essentially one business man who is majority stakeholder.

 

I'm not trying to be controversial but aren't a lot of Saudi's big guns also majority owned by the government / Public Investment Fund? I'm admittedly no expert on this stuff and as there's only 1 club Saudi club in this tournament not really relevant. However, I'm wondering if it later becomes and issue given Al Ahli have already qualified for next editions and given the Saudi clubs dominance this season, good chance we'll have more teams in the 2029 edition.

 

Slowly but surely we went from
"This tournament will see hundreds of millions of $$$ infiltrate to the game's grass roots"
to
"the Saudi government gets richer".

 

There’s a degree of shared ownership, revenue sharing, etc. But the clubs operate independently and there are specific transfer rules to prevent anti-competitive behavior. For example, Houston can’t pay off Minnesota’s ownership group to give them all their good players and turn them into a feeder team. This wouldn’t be approved by the league.

That said, I have no idea if FIFA even cares about this sort of thing or makes any distinction.

 

That, to me, is the underlying question. It may very well be that MLS has better "mechanisms of independence" - but did FIFA even look at the ownership structure?

 

Well clubs in most arab countries and many others are owned and funded by the govt. FA's, ministry of sports etc... Recently, Saudi Arabia changed majority ownership of the top 4 clubs to PIF, which is a govt entity but clubs are still run independently. Not that much really changed. If they were to be banned now, they would have been banned before.
My understanding was the FIFA rule pertains to private investors only for fear of collusion and other practices. Earlier this season a korean club raised the issue of saudi club ownership but the asian FA turned it down. Otherwise only one club from UAE, Qatar,... will be be allowed to participate. In a way similar to MLS situation.
Moreover, PIF involvement is temporary for funding reasons. the goal is to privatize them.
I am however not a fan of this rule. It presumes guilt beforehand. I understand a conflict of interest might be an issue if two big european clubs have same owner. Still I believe these clubs have too much pride. Collusion can also happen between clubs with no joint ownership...

 

It seems that broadcaster interest - including in important markets - has increased as the competition approaches.

https://media.sportbusiness.com/202...58.399658155.1747376837-1469846240.1701198374

 

got the atricle header but its content is hidden behind the subscription login

p.s. OK .. the point is clear. the question is who paid what for the sublicensing, no way they get their billion back

 

Channel 5 in the UK and Mediaset in Italy are among the broadcasters.

Presumably DAZN will recoup some of their billion investment through advertising.

 

Should be a fantastic atmosphere.

 

It's a truly ridiculous decision to let one side host this match with $10M on the line. Club America have every right to complain about this one. Even if tickets are sold as a "neutral venue", homefield advantage is more than noise in the stands. It includes (lack of) travel and familiarity with the pitch.

I find myself reluctantly in Club America's corner now. It was truly comical how the glorious threepeat Mexican champions couldn't get it done in international play while Leon and Pachuca could. But they are the deserving replacement based on the four-year ranking and this unfair venue decision tips the scale for me. Besides, including the Leagues Cup, how many one-sided hosting scenarios does MLS need on the road to the CWC?

Infantino is doing his best to undermine this "great new CWC" of his at every turn.

 

UEFA also has rules against multi-club ownership. Yet it wasn't really an issue when both Red Bull teams took part in the UCL, and also not this year with Manchester City and Girona.

Come to think of it, this is the first time I really see it enforced. I can't help but think that Infantino saw a window of opportunity to "upgrade" one of the participants.

 

https://www.lafc.com/news/lafc-to-h...p-2025-play-in-match-on-may-31-at-bmo-stadium

So not even ticketing is handled as a “neutral” venue.

 

It will be interesting. There's a lot of America fans that will pay a bunch of money on the secondary market to see them win a game like this.
LAFC not so much.
I think the crowd will still be about 60-40 America fans but I could be wrong.

As for weather it is right or wrong, FIFA has more to gain with America being in this tournament so at least we cannot accuse them of rigging it up for better attendance/ TV ratings on Univision.

But it does suck for America and they do have the right to at air their grievances.

 

That may be true in isolation, but right now Infantino has two favourite member associations. The USA and Saudi Arabia. And that endearment most definitely has a commercial background. I already outlined my reasoning (four-year ranking). LAFC have no business being in this match. But not only are they in it, they also get to host it.

 

Here is an interesting wrinkle in the CWC transfer window for the MLS teams:
https://www.givemesport.com/us-soccer-mls-approves-pre-club-world-cup-transfer-window-sources/

I generally hope this CWC transfer window is a "one-off" for this edition only. For 2029 player contracts can be adjusted accordingly (until the end of July - or subject to CWC participation).

In other news...

15,000 Argentine fans to be banned from Club World Cup:
https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/45115536/15000-argentine-fans-banned-club-world-cup

As if high ticket prices weren't already enough of a deterrent for international traveling fans.

 

Boca fans will be in full force. Especially the ones that live in Miami. The draw was very good for them.

River not so much. But there's still a lot of fans that will travel.

 

They have lowered the ticket prices again out of desperation. You can get tickets now for under $40. Under $30 in at least one case.

Of course, for some matches the prices haven't budged much. This tournament is really taking dynamic pricing to the extreme. Not sure there has ever been a tournament anywhere with such a disparity between the most attractive games versus unattractive ones.

 

I see your 2025 CWC Group Phase and raise you 2016 CA Centenario Quarterfinals.

2016 CA QF ticket prices:

USAvECU at Seattle: lowest-$84, median-$159

ARGvVEN at Foxborough: lowest-$81, median-$175

PERvCOL at East Rutherford: lowest-$224, median-$350

CHIvMEX at Santa Clara: lowest-$226, median-$387

I would rather compare attendance figures to determine tournament success, though.

 

Interesting that today’s Messi obsession wasn’t there in 2016. $81 for a Copa America QF with Argentina in 2016, and now people pay $300 to see Inter Miami play in MLS.