The club World Cup reveals the uninhibited greed for profit of football

The TQL stadium of Cincinnati in the US state of Ohio is what is called jewelry box in Germany in a homely, loving tone: a chic, small stadium, newly built, capacity 26,000 spectators. Nevertheless, the arena was not sold out at the club World Cup for the opening game of FC Bayern. Shortly before kick-off, the TV cameras showed huge gaps in the stands. The opponent was called Auckland City FC, an amateur club from New Zealand and the unrestricted number one of the island state.

The game was ten too zero for the German champion. After the final whistle, many Auckland players tried to get a jersey from Thomas Müller, to which the stock of Jerseys quickly went out. It was a moody summer shelf in which even a professional like Sacha Boey, who otherwise had little chance of a commitment, celebrated a sense of achievement through a goal. Jamal Musiala, who returned after an injury, scored three goals in a row after his substitution. It would not have been surprised if the actors had then set up a grill on the square to decide the nice day with beer and sausages. It was so cozy.

Bavaria’s start at this questionable tournament made it clear that nobody needs the club World Cup. Now this is not a surprising knowledge. The criticism of FIFA boss Gianni Infantino, which was primarily devised with Saudi Arabia, was already great. Clubs, trainers, officials and fan organizations complained about the additional burden during the summer break, the sporting value was more than limited, nobody needs such an event.

Not only the Bayern game confirmed the assessment. Even the other games at the beginning of the tournament do not give much hope for the further course: the opening between the Lionel-Messi-Club Inter Miami and Al-Nahry from Egypt produced sporty wasteland, the game ended goalless. Messi showed that a 37-year-old cannot conjure up at tropical temperatures, let alone run. The spectator interest was moderate, the stadium was not sold out, despite a greatly reduced prices.

The highest quality game at the tournament start, the duel between Champions League winner Paris Saint-Germain and Atlético Madrid, at least recorded 80,000 spectators, but it was not sold out (10,000 spectators were missing). At least it had a lot to offer with the 4-0 win of the French. The stadium was only half filled with the game between Botafogo from Brazil and the local Seattle Sunders (30,000 instead of 60,000 spectators). The same applies to Palmeiras against FC Porto.

This fits the history of the tournament: the marketing started as slowly as the ticket sales started, after all, FIFA presented the first sponsors and with the streaming platform DAZN a transmission TV station. DAZN is said to have left around one billion US dollars for the transfer rights. One wonders how the money should come back? But maybe that’s not that important. Because a Saudi Arabian state fund paid around one billion US dollars for participation in DAZN in February 2025. FIFA can be sure of Saudi support since Infantino has had the world championship 2034 (the “right” World Cup of the national teams).

The participating clubs don’t care because they all earn wonderfully and depending on the size. An amateur club like Auckland City alone receives about three and a half million dollars, FC Bayern only collects around $ 27 million, Borussia Dortmund, the second German representative, a little less. If FC Bayern win the title, it would collect more than $ 100 million-not a bad earnings for a summer break. That is the reason why the participants only have positive things about the World Cup.

And yes, for smaller clubs from the football areas, the tournament offers a chance to present yourself on a larger stage and to draw from the large money pots. Followers of the Egyptian association Al-Nahry took care of tickets long before the tournament and traveled to Florida to cheer on their team. Not everyone is in a bad mood when there is talk of the club World Cup.

Nevertheless, the tournament shows what happens when you create a new format from a purely commercial point of view. A monstrous hybrid event is created that follows a pure purpose: earning money.

This is not a shame. In football it was always a matter of securing and increasing the sources of income. This worked because the product sweeps up so many people in the world and had a high value in terms of sport. But what is going on in the USA is uninhibited greed for profit without meaning and mind. That has never been a good idea and will harm football in the long term instead of using it – and with it the supposedly smaller one.