No sponsors, no broadcasters and perhaps no players? FIFA's 2025 Club World Cup mired in crisis just nine months from kick-off

While FIFA own the rights to the biggest football tournament on earth in the shape of the World Cup, there has been an air of jealously emanating from the offices in Switzerland regarding the success of the UEFA-owned Champions League and how it compares in popularity to FIFA's Club World Cup.

Interest in the tournament has decreased considerably over the past decade or so, with European fans, in particular, showing it little interest even when their own clubs are involved. The timing of the tournament - usually in December - means that is hidden by domestic fixtures, while supporters of the European clubs involved tend not to travel in the same numbers as their counterparts from South America, Asia and elsewhere.

As such, the new Club World Cup format has been drawn up. Instead of the slightly convoluted, seven-team competition that has taken place in recent years, the 32-team, eight groups of four format is far more familiar to fans from around the globe. Like the World Cup, it will take place every four years and include continental champions from throughout that period. That it will take place in the European summer, too, means it won't be battling for eyeballs in the same way.

Of the 2025 participants, 12 are from Europe, with Real Madrid and Manchester City - and global stars such as Kylian Mbappe and Erling Haaland - serving as the headliners. Chelsea, Bayern Munich, Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain will also be present, while fans in the host nation will be able to get behind the Seattle Sounders, as well as the likely wildcard addition of Lionel Messi and Inter Miami. There will undoubtedly be plenty of support for Liga MX sides Monterrey, Leon and Pachuca, too, while how big-spending Saudi Pro League champions Al-Hilal fare against top opposition will also be of interest.

Former Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger, who has since taken up a role with FIFA perhaps summarised what the tournament hopes to achieve best: "In Europe we are lucky," he said last year, "but it's important that we make football really global, and this creates a chance for other clubs to progress. This is the real target."

On the field, perhaps the biggest question mark over the tournament is whether the biggest clubs in Europe bring full-strength squads to the U.S., given they will be coming off the back of a season with more European fixtures than ever before, while many players took part in international tournaments last summer, too.

Certainly, Real Madrid boss Carlo Ancelotti cast doubt on how seriously the 15-time European Cup winners would be taking the tournament when asked about over the summer, as he told Il Giornale: "FIFA forgets that player and teams will not participate in the new Club World Cup. A single Real Madrid match is worth €20 million and FIFA wants to give us that amount for the entire tournament. Negative. Like us, other clubs will refuse the invitation."

Madrid quickly refuted Ancelotti's comments and insisted they would be taking part, but the Italian coach's admission hinted at the displeasure the best coaches and players in the world have towards a schedule that is being further inflated by this new Club World Cup.

In a cruel twist of irony, Rodri became a spokeperson for the world's players in their battle against the current schedule, only for the Manchester City star to suffer a season-ending ACL tear just days later. Spain's Euro 2024 winner speculated that players might even go on strike due to the packed fixture list, which does not bode well for a Club World Cup that remains a lower priority than league and continental competition.

"I think we are close to that [a player strike], it is easy to understand," Rodri said in a press conference. "I think it's something general. I think if you ask any player he will say the same, it is not the opinion of Rodri or whatever. I think it's the general opinion of the players. And if it remains this way, there will be a moment where we have no other option, I really think but let's see. I don't know what's going to happen, but it's something that worries us because we are the guys that suffer."

He, and others who have shared similar sentiments, have a point. This will be the busiest season on record for those playing in the Club World Cup. If Man City reach the final of the Champions League, both domestic club competitions, and the Club World Cup - none of which is beyond the realms of possibility - they could play more than 80 games.

Rotation exists, of course, but Rodri admitted that "40-50" games is probably the optimal number for a professional to operate at a high level throughout an entire campaign.

This isn't just a European problem, either. MLS, with the addition of an expanded Leagues Cup in 2023, is seeing its schedule get busier. Meanwhile, additional competitions in South America have only increased demands on players.

Players unions have made their feelings heard, too. The English, French and Italian football associations have filed a joint complaint against FIFA regarding their concerns with pushing players past their limits. Meanwhile, global player's union, FIFPro, is also threatening legal action.

Off the pitch, there are even more concerns from FIFA's point of view. The global governing body has been trying for months to secure a global TV rights deal for the tournament, but has been unable to agree on one that met their valuation. Apple reportedly offered $1 billion for a global rights deal, but that fell significantly short of the $4bn that FIFA was seeking.

On September 19, FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who had reportedly refused to get deeply involved, was moved to summon a number of influential individuals from the worlds of football and broadcasting to hash out a deal. However, more than a week later, no deal has been announced - and there is no official word as to whether anything is close concerning broadcast and streaming rights.

It is not just valuations that have been of concern. European broadcasters have been hesitant due to a scheduling overlap with Wimbledon and the Women's European Championship, according to The Athletic. In the U.S., things are even murkier. It was reported that "a major U.S. media company with a significant sports portfolio was so unconvinced about the merits of the competition that it estimated the North American rights to be worth around $30 million."

Broadcast and streaming rights in football are often scattered among multiple providers on a global scale - for example, the Premier League sold rights to 40 media outlets across 97 different countries from 2022 to 2025. On the other hand, Apple committed a minimum of $2.5B over 10 years for global rights for to MLS.

Either way, it seems, that FIFA's expected rights revenue might not be as significant as it had hoped.

And then there is the issue of sponsorship, which is inherently intertwined with a broadcast and streaming deal. Part of the problem, according to multiple reports, is the lack of clarity around venues - in some cases, potential sponsors would have an easier time targeting markets once they know where the matches will be played.

The absence of a global TV deal could also concern potential partners, and although there are expected to be plenty of domestic sponsors, the reported $100m asking price per sponsor is more significant than the asking prices for the NFL and NBA - which routinely reach massive U.S. markets.

According to The Athletic, FIFA officials have suggested that the revamped Club World Cup is a tournament of such potential that it merits a new set of sponsorship deals, while long-standing FIFA partners, such as Coca-Cola and adidas, are arguing they already have rights.

These broadcast and commercial revenues are needed to appease major club sides, who are set to have an extra month added onto their season to play in the competition. FIFA had reportedly hoped that its existing partners would be willing to refresh their current deals. To date, though, that all remains unanswered.

Presuming these issues are ironed out, there should be incentive for clubs to participate, and to win.

For some time, there was a perception that this competition was merely a collection of glorified friendlies. In 2019, then-Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp made his feelings clear about the tournament shortly before the semi-final: "You cannot just add on tournaments. It doesn’t work. FIFA doesn’t like I say it – sorry – but it is my opinion and my opinion has to be right sometimes, because I think about football all day.”

Yet there are undoubted financial incentives for those involved. Man City reportedly made $5m from their win in 2023. With more teams, potential revenues are also expected to grow.

Napoli club president Aurelio De Laurentiis voiced his disappointment after a Champions League loss to Barcelona last season; not because his team had been bumped from Europe's top competition - rather, they would miss out on the potential earnings that could come with a Club World Cup campaign. He even speculated that Juventus - who had qualified ahead of them - should be removed from the competition due to their financial breaches that had them banned from European competition in 2023-24.

"I also think that Napoli should go anyway, precisely because if Juventus have been punished by UEFA with elimination from the European cups, they shouldn’t even be admitted to the Club World Cup, even though such an event will create a thousand problems for us in the next national championship," De Laurentiis said.

At some point, this will all come together. For all of the talk about sponsors, TV rights and player discontent, it would be unimaginable for FIFA not find the answers and hold the tournament as planned.

Despite the uncertainty, lack of TV deal or any major sponsors, this is still a global soccer event. Some might not like it, but it's coming to the U.S., and fans will flock to the games. Yes, questions need answers, but like it or not, FIFA always tend to find a way.