By: Tomas Bernales-Jabur

“This summer football fans around the globe had the privilege of watching the FIFA Club World Cup.”

This, dear reader, is the introduction you would have expected. Yet, while this tournament did feature memorable moments, such as heroic displays of Latin American footballing prowess, it also served as yet another example of America’s endemic commercialism culture. Despite South America’s quixotic rebellion against Europe’s footballing dominance, clubs like Paris Saint Germain, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, and Chelsea proved once again why they control the sport.

For those who did not watch the tournament, the crowning image of Chelsea lifting the trophy perfectly captured the spirit of the Club World Cup. Chelsea’s captain, Reese James, lifts a crude, tawdry trophy. Around him are his ecstatic teammates and Donald Trump. Anyone who does not understand football looking at the image could have easily believe Mr. Trump was attending a political rally. The irony of it all is the surrounding party was in blue.

Turning our gaze slightly to the left, we catch sight of Gianni Infantino, who failed to shepherd Mr. Trump off the stage, feigning the smile of a skilled politician. Dear reader, he looked like he had just eaten a lemon. Behind the celebrating group are massive, golden, inflatable plastic rings, the ultimate achievement of America’s inflatable balloon industry: Big Air.

Mr. Trump’s sentiment of joining in with the players as they lifted the trophy was a perfect manifestation of the American influence on this tournament. All elegance and ceremony flew out the window when we Americans stomped into the room.

What should have been a promotion of football was instead a transformed into the rude ritual of American sports. Player entrances were akin to basketball and hockey, while announcers like Micheal Buffer known for his famous “Let’s get ready to rumble!” made an appearance. The entrance was surrounded by lights. Lights that a casual observer might denounce as an attempt to blind the exiting players. Loudspeakers blasted music which drowned out organized, dedicated ultras or fan groups. Whilst attending Flamengo’s triumphant thrashing of Chelsea, our Portuguese chants were smothered by the eardrum-rupturing volumes of “We Will Rock You.”

And by now, dear reader, you may be wondering what has me in a fit of frenzy. And my critics may well claim all this American pomp is needed to persuade our dear populace to watch the “boring” sport of soccer. I shall preempt such arguments by stating that it is not of question of football fans wishing the sport spreads to America, but rather football executives withing the sport earned more money in America, which, I might add, is an important distinction. Football, or, for the sake of American clarity, Soccer, has slowly gained traction in our country, yet remains a fringe sport in an environment dominated by American Football, Baseball, Basketball, and Hockey.

Being a soccer fan myself, I can confidently say that some of the attraction of football is the pomp and circumstance. The anthems, the lineup facing the crowd, the stoic faces, and arrogant stances of teenage and twenty-year old millionaires all contribute to a general atmosphere that is integral to the show of football, especially the European and South American editions.

Sadly, the American edition, as evidenced by the Club World Cup, lost these integral pieces of the ceremony.

But, dear reader, ignore the stylistic objections of a querulous parrot like myself, for the tournament posited a great many other debating points besides American ceremonial influence. The infrastructure, injury risk, weather, and finance should all be examined. And while I shall do my best to incorporate a percentage of each, this piece is far from a comprehensive examination of each topic.

To begin, the tournament saw several thunderstorm delay games for hours and dangerously high temperatures bother fans and players. At the Club World Cup, FIFA enforced stringent weather protocols, dictating games were to be shut down if thunder was detected within a ten-mile radius of the sporting event. These protocols gave rise to several memes, especially in South American countries where there is a greater disregard, for lack of a better word, of weather.

Players and fans also experienced highs of 95 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit, causing several heat strokes in the stadiums, and leading to hydration and cooling breaks. This summer heat wave ignited the discussion of scheduling adjustments for future tournaments. “Heat conditions are a serious topic that affect football globally… Discussions on how to deal with heat conditions need to take place collectively… The protection of players must be at the centre.”  Not only can they be harmful to players, but it also dramatically lowers the intensity of matches, lessening the spectacle and the public turnout. Dear reader, it is essential to note these problems come at a crucial time for FIFA, as the 2026 World Cup preparations are well underway.

Now, dear readers, before you dismiss the rest of my piece out of sheer boredom, bear with me. For, although the job of organizing soccer events initially sounds fun, the list of problems for setting up a World Cup must be infinitely long. While we have covered some of these problems, another is the question of suitable fields. For my American readers, you will understand most sports arenas are designed for American sports, namely baseball, and football. However, these generally must be re-turfed with natural grass to conform with FIFA standards. At the Club World Cup, the pitches ended up being completely unsuitable, and perhaps even dangerous. Because of the re-turfing, the pitch often exhibited issues such as unevenness and seams from the overlay. Additionally, Borussia Dortmund’s manager, Niko Kovač likened the MetLife Stadium pitch to a golf green, criticizing its short, dry, and sticky conditions. FIFA’s Arsène Wenger acknowledged these shortcomings, stating that the pitch quality was not up to standard but assuring improvements for the 2026 World Cup.

Unfortunately, the Club World Cup also served to confirm skeptics’ arguments surrounding injury risk in preseason competition. In the quarterfinals, Paris Saint Germain faced Bayern Munich, two teams who were both champion contenders. In the final moments of the first half PSG goalkeeper, Gianluigi Donnarumma, collided with Bayern Munich’s midfielder, Jamal Musiala.

Now, dear reader, usually injuries in soccer are simple muscle tears or twisted ankles. Sadly, this was neither. As a result of the collision, Musiala’s leg was bent out of shape in such a gruesome manner, news sources later blurred the video due to its “graphic” quality. And Musiala, who otherwise promised to have been one of the primary stars of the Champions League and Bundesliga this season, was carted off in a stretcher from his last game for the next six to eight months.

What was easily one of the worst injuries of the entire 2024-25 soccer season, clearly illustrated the dangers of preseason competitions taking away from the regular season. These tournaments also place an unnecessary physical load on players who compete in more than sixty matches per season. And while they might emerge unscathed from the Club World Cup, the physical strain could easily result in injuries later in the year.

But, dear readers, FIFA clearly has a disregard for player safety when it comes to making money. And for FIFA despite the arguments against the Club World Cup, the sporting event proved to be one of the most successful in club football tournaments. Gianni Infantino hailed the tournament as a “transformative success,” racking in a revenue north of $2 billion, which equates to a whopping $31 million per match.

Another financial aspect to keep in mind, my now wavering reader, is the financial disparity between football powerhouses like Real Madrid and Manchester City, versus South American and other non-European teams. For Mamelodi Sundown of India, simply exiting the group stage would earn them $20 million, more than half of their annual revenue.

And while a greater revenue between teams means unequal talent, some teams showed passion and, through simple herculean effort, managed to surpass the financial gap. Of particular pride to the Brazilian people, for instance, was the win of Fluminense over Inter Milan, a team with five times the annual revenue.

Ultimately, the Club World Cup functioned less as a celebration of football and more as a stress test for FIFA’s vision of the sport’s future. The tournament exposed how easily tradition, ceremony, and player welfare can be compromised in the pursuit of spectacle and profit. That reality matters because this event was not an anomaly—it was a rehearsal. With the 2026 World Cup approaching, the same issues of weather, infrastructure, pitch quality, and commercial overreach will be magnified on the sport’s largest stage. If FIFA treats these warning signs with the seriousness they demand, the World Cup could be a triumph; if not, it risks becoming a grander version of the same excesses. Football will survive either way, but the question remains whether its most important tournament will honor the game’s spirit or merely monetize it.