By Paul Nicholson
December 7 – Somewhat incredibly, perhaps incredulously, the much derided and unloved Club World Cup (at least by Europe’s clubs and more recently by FIFA itself), has survived to see another day, in fact two more days, in its current 7-team format.
In the already overcrowded 2021 football calendar, the competition that no-one really wants will be played twice – in February in Qatar and again in December in Japan, in its spiritual home.
The likely losers in this will be the competitions that people really want, and of course a number of leading players who will once again be asked to show-pony their skills (FIFA demands in its contract with clubs that the big names turn up and act big) to an audience that is probably not very interested, certainly in Europe.
The first and obvious question, is how will confederations qualify their teams in calendars that are already pushing deep into December. Conmebol, for example, will only just manage to qualify a team for February – their 2020 final is scheduled for 23 Jan 2021, the CWC kicks off February 1. Can Conmebol realistically complete another full Copa Libertadores to qualify a team for December
And will the Asian Football Confederation – currently completing their current and fast-tracked iteration of the 2020 Asian Champions League on December 17 – have the energy to turn it all around again for an early December finish? They have the added pressure of ensuring there are enough dates to advance their final group stage of World Cup qualifying.
Concacaf – already given the go-ahead for triple match international weekends in 2021 to squeeze out their 2022 World Cup qualifiers – will similarly have to plan their own expanded Champions League schedules in a year where they also play their expanded Gold Cup. They currently don’t complete the final of their current Champions League until December 23.
One solution might be for confederations to qualify the same teams again for December – why would they compromise their own premium competitions that are both growing and providing income to qualify a team for a CWC competition that gives them no money, very little competitive benefit and restricts any calendar schedule manoeuvrability at the end of what looks like being the busiest year in the history of football?
What’s the plan?
So what is the thinking around book-ending two editions of the same competition at the start and finish of the year? Well, it isn’t really thinking, more politicking and commercial expediency.
In the short but eventful history of the current FIFA administration and its plans for an expanded international calendar, the Club World Cup was to be a cornerstone of the $20 billion+ (why stop there?) sell off of FIFA’s new competition calendar. The buyer was a third party private equity investor backed by Saudi money reportedly via a Japanese bank. That deal founded on the total lack of transparency within the proposition put forward by FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who radically misjudged the temperature of his own FIFA Council who at that stage were not doing whatever he told them to do. Indeed, a set of FIFA officials who didn’t take the money and ask questions later has been rare in the history of this organisation and its members. It was refreshing, at the time.
What was left was an initiative to revamp the Club World Cup into a 24-team competition every four years. A competition a number of the confederations did like the sound of, and that would still give the FIFA president the chance to dine on UEFA’s breakfast, lunch and dinner – its broadcast and commercial revenues. But Covid killed that competition’s new format – it was initially scheduled for 2021 in China.
Instead, rather than keep the calendar clear for clubs, nations and confederations to complete leagues, championships and qualifiers, FIFA has inserted a double hit of the old 7-team format. Why?
A significant motivating force behind the February date for the CWC was apparently Bayern Munich president Karl-Heinz Rummenigge who lobbied hard for the competition that his club has qualified for, and would give them the opportunity to hold national, continental and world titles all in the same season.
Rummenigge called UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin and Infantino to get the competition moving. UEFA were fairly ambivalent to the staging but said they wouldn’t get in the way – just one club, few outside of Munich will take any notice, no skin off their nose.
Infantino, keen to keep on the right side of potential European Super League breakaway clubs (he sees his expanded CWC as their solution and the way to break UEFA’s bubble, whatever he says publicly), was happy to oblige. Qatar was also happy to oblige, though even they might be getting weary of yet another hosting commitment – it will take place hard on the heels of the ‘Arab Mondial’ announced in the summer and re-announced last month as a test event for 2022 (yet another test event for the overly capable Qataris).
So with Bayern, Rummenigge and Infantino sated, why repeat in December? And why jam up an already overburdened schedule?
The answer to that is likely to be a bit more commercial.
The Club World Cup was initially the brainchild of the Japanese and their agency Dentsu a driving force behind the creation and ownership of the asset. In its early years it was generally held in Japan.
But with FIFA’s plan to expand the Club World Cup commitment to 24 teams, came a requirement to cut a deal with the Japanese. It also required FIFA going back to its sponsors to explain to them that their sponsorship rights would not cover the CWC in its new format.
Multiple sources have told Insideworldfootball that this wasn’t well received either by sponsors or in Japan or at Dentsu who had invested in the format and provided the financial guarantees.
Sponsors who had valued the competition as part of their FIFA package weren’t impressed – Alibaba had picked up the presenting sponsorship as part of its activation. Sponsors made noises that they were uncomfortable, the argument being that they hadn’t decided to change the format or sponsorship they had bought, FIFA had. FIFA could make the changes but kicking them out as sponsors or demanding more money for the sponsorship was not as straightforward as FIFA was proposing. It lead to a number of conversations about whether some would even continue their FIFA support under the changed commercial proposals.
For FIFA it is a very delicate balance. A FIFA ‘tender’ for CWC broadcast and commercial rights had received very little positive response for the new rights on offer and none of the billion dollar guarantees promised by Infantino from broadcast or sponsorship markets.
Coronavirus then arrived as something of a saviour with FIFA able to announce a postponement of the new format in China in 2021 ‘in order to support football’. Relief and commercial face saving all-round for the new format.
So why a 2021 double up? Well, if the Germans wanted the Feb event, the Japanese were keen on the December one – it is their centenary year and hosting a FIFA competition is a good way to cap it off (they also have the Olympic competitions don’t forget).
It also gives FIFA a little more negotiating space with Dentsu who aren’t prepared to roll over quietly as FIFA reinvent their format.
The old format has suddenly found a use – but it isn’t a football one. It is a political one and a negotiating tool to overcome some of the problem promises of a bigger money future. What happens to the CWC post-2021 is still to be decided, but 2021 looks to be its politically and financially defining year.
Contact the writer of this story at moc.l1735064723labto1735064723ofdlr1735064723owedi1735064723sni@n1735064723osloh1735064723cin.l1735064723uap1735064723