Was the Club World Cup a success or a failure? It depends on what FIFA and its stakeholders really wanted out of it.

Much of the media chatter around the Club World Cup has been negative. Yet as with any undertaking, its outcome can’t be assessed without understanding the objectives behind it. The grades for the Club World Cup vary greatly depending on what perspective you take on its strategic purpose.

As a Showcase for US Audiences

Let’s start with the bad news we’ve already heard. On average, stadiums through the group stage were at 53% of capacity. Chelsea manager Enzo Maresca called the numerous weather delays “a joke,” after Jurgen Klopp called it “the worst idea ever implemented in football.” For a sport still coaxing America to view it as one of the majors, it did not help the cause. Political rallies are often held at purposely undersized venues to overstate a politician’s support by showing an overflowing crowd. FIFA higher-ups did the opposite when they overruled feet-on-the-ground pushing for smaller arenas and instead insisted on booking the largest stadiums possible. While hardcore fans got to see teams they rarely see live, casual fans saw a sport yet to be taken seriously. The only thing saving a failing grade here is the hope that the Knockout stage can still bring some positive sporting drama and fan attention to the tournament.

Grade: D-

As A Trial Run for the World Cup

One way to think about the Club World Cup is as a rehearsal for the 2026 World Cup. From that perspective, many of the complaints about the tournament can be viewed as learnings for the “real show.” There were a number of pre-existing reasons to think that attendance would be low. For one, the Club World Cup is considered a secondary tournament by ardent footballers. For another, the expanded field meant there were a lot of teams that just don’t have much of a following in the US. Finally, many of the game times were optimized for media viewing in time zones in other parts of the world rather than for maximizing attendance on site. Mistakes like scheduling games in storm-prone summer Florida afternoons are better made now than next year. The wide variation in attendance also provides some useful input for next year’s ticket pricing strategy. Assuming they’re willing to make adjustments, FIFA has gotten useful feedback for optimizing next year.

Grade: C+

As Incremental Revenue for FIFA

Another lens to view the CWC is as a standalone event in its own right. Forget comparisons to the World Cup, the Champions League, or other iconic events. While the attendance numbers look poor compared to the prestigious global soccer tournaments, the Club World Cup is still outperforming the MLS. Average attendance for the group stage was 35,190. Only one MLS team, Atlanta United, regularly draws more fans than that. Then there was the media rights deal with DAZN reported by multiple sources at $1 billion. As is often the case with FIFA, there is the suspicious fact that Saudi Arabia made a major investment in DAZN around the same time it got the nod from FIFA to host the World Cup in 2034. Still, there are only a handful of events across any sport that can command those numbers. Even after taking a few points off for the conniving side deals, this American-based Club World Cup can be viewed as a success.

Grade: B+