Club World Cup could be better, but FIFA isn’t interested
Disclaimer: one year ago, with some friends from the Facebook page “Calcio da dietro”, we tried to imagine a different football world. If they took care of club football, I covered int’l tournaments and possible change between confederations. This is just the first step of a series of pieces, which will translate what we wrote and thought for the sport we love and follow (you can find the full Italian guide here).
December is often time for the FIFA Club World Cup, a tournament born in 2005 to replace the old Intercontinental Cup. Yes, because as much as fascinating the usual Europe-South America duel could be iconic and give you a wonderful trophy, the rest of the world wanted to join the contest. If you remember, in 2000, there was already an experiment with the FIFA Club World Championship, hosted by Brazil between more than one doubt.
That first edition saw participating eight teams in the middle of 1999–2000 season. You could witness the presence of the six continental champions: Manchester United, Necaxa, South Melbourne, Raja Casablanca, Vasco da Gama (1998 champions: for reasons unknown to me, ’99 champions Palmeiras were not considered) and Al-Nassr (again, 98 champions of the Asian Super Cup; ’99 champions Jubilo Iwata were not invited).
To these six teams, also Real Madrid (’98 Intercontinental Cup title holders, since ’99 champions were already in the contention) and Corinthians (’98 and ’99 Brazilian Série A winners) were also part of the tournament.
From 2005, though, FIFA Club World Cup format became reality. 2004 Intercontinental Cup final between Porto and Once Caldas was the last one. The new and legitimated tournament debuted with this format: the six continental champions were qualified, but UEFA and CONMEBOL representatives could count on some “historical weight” and they were immediately qualified to the semi-finals. To these six teams, also national champions of the host country were invited (in these years, the honour was taken by Japan, Morocco and United Arab Emirates).
In its 12th edition, Real Madrid defeated host champions Kashima Antlers only after extra-time and the Japanese club reached the final despite starting from the preliminary round. They played four games, winning three of them and also overcoming a big hurdle like 2016 Copa Libertadores champions, Atlético Nacional. A massive surprise, not new though: in 2010 CAF representatives Mazembe knocked out SC Internacional, while in 2013 Raja Casablanca — the host team — defeated Atlético Mineiro.
Seeing the usual competition, there were some complaints: «This format isn’t worth it». Someone even invoked the return of Intercontinental Cup, which though would cut away the rest of the world. In addition, South American teams were knocked out three out of the last eight editions. Which is correct, though, is that the current format doesn’t seem to work fully.
While European teams cry (we’re still the only continent to see the FIFA Club World Cup as a nuisance), the rest of the world awaits this tournament. An example? In 2016, Atlético Nacional players — who just won the Copa Libertadores — wore immediately some headbands with a Japanese flag on them. Therefore, the travel to Japan and the possibility of playing in this tournament was heavily essential for them. Auckland City FC — OFC Champions League titleholders for the last seven years — often find their highest moment in the FIFA Club World Cup participation.
With great power comes great responsibility (but EU doesn’t care)
Unfortunately, ECA (the European Club Association) and UEFA don’t share the same sentiment. They would like to move the tournament from winter to summer, starting from 2019, since for 2018 UAE have still the rights to host it (or even from 2021). They want indeed transform the tournament from a sort of Olympic-spirited competition to an extended American/Australian/Chinese (pick your nation) market show without any example before in history. The “super-tournament” should — in UEFA & ECA views — feature:
- 8 UEFA clubs
- 8 CONMEBOL clubs
- 4 continental champions (one each for AFC, CAF, CONCACAF & OFC)
- 4 invitations for external clubs
Nevertheless, we’re not finished. In their plans, the tournament — if moved to summer — would actually clash with int’l tournaments between national teams (like Copa América, for example). Therefore, FIFA president Gianni Infantino — who already ruined with the help of FIFA Council the World Cup by expanding the number of teams from 32 to 48 thinking about 2026 edition — might use the FIFA Club World Cup as a little compensation to UEFA, which actually was the only confederation opposite to this massive change.
In this guide we composed, you read a lot of possible proposals and we’ve always tried to be as permissive and mild as we could. We found new ways and put a lot “ifs” in our hypothesis. But maybe this point is the only one that actually deserves a firm position: such a tournament would be a plague for club football, especially if you want the other continents to reach a certain level of competitiveness.
It would be a reactionary push, which would produce an even more exclusive tournament than Intercontinental Cup. However, the IC existed from 40 years ago to 2004 because club football outside UEFA and CONMEBOL wasn’t still there. Club football wasn’t so extended all over the world; now the scenario changed a lot and that’s why the FIFA Club World Cup was born (in theory).
In addition, this reform is useless. European clubs have already found a way to cash in a lot of money by playing pre-season friendlies between China, Australia and USA: aren’t they enough? Did they have to be so greedy and tried to search for even more money? Moreover, cancelling the current FIFA Club World Cup wouldn’t produce such a big economic boost. Moreover, it is ludicrous to hear such proposals from the confederation that is actually the less interested in this tournament.
On one matter, though, I agree: FIFA Club World Cup needs a reform. Calling continental champions to play just one game is absurd. Someone should guarantee them at least two games against different opponents. Therefore, you have to find a new way to reform this competition by changing format and participants. You can do it in three simple steps.
A simple “how to”
First: scrap off host teams.
As likeable they may be, the stories of Raja Casablanca, Kashima Antlers and now Al-Jazira invalidated the result of those editions. In 2013, Raja Casablanca were knocked out in the 2nd round of CAF Champions League, while Kashima Antlers came to 2016 FIFA Club World Cup only due to a crazy system brought back by J. League for 2015–16 seasons: the play-off system. Despite coming 15 points adrift from 1st-placed Urawa Red Diamonds, Kashima won the play-offs and then snatched a spot in the FIFA Club World Cup.
Second: make the tournament round between confederations.
For now, 14 editions of FIFA Club World Cup have been hosted between Japan (8), UAE (4, considering also 2018) and Morocco (2). Why instead making the tournament go round every year? Year after year, each confederation should have this opportunity. Here’s an example: Japan → Morocco → Uruguay → Canada → New Zealand → Portugal… and so on.
Third: change the format.
The current disposition with knock-out stage doesn’t work. At least, it does not give the right opportunity to make everyone play. It would be better to split the six teams in two groups (with UEFA and CONMEBOL as seeded teams in the draw): the clubs then should play three games per group, with the top two qualified for the semi-finals. From there, you play another four games (semi-finals, 3rd place final and 1st place final). You would see 10 matches instead of the current 8 to play in 11–12 days (instead of the actual 10).
All doable… if you want to.
