Champions League magic, Club World Cup controversy: A blockbuster Saturday of soccer's contrasts
A blockbuster Saturday of soccer will begin with a game that needs no introduction. At 3 p.m. ET, 9 p.m. in Munich, the 2025 Champions League final will ignite. Inter Milan and Paris Saint-Germain will vie for the grandest prize in club football. Both are behemoths, rich and talented, so much so that they are also among the favorites at this summer's Club World Cup.
Which brings us to Saturday's nightcap, a game that needs every introduction. At 10:30 p.m. ET, 7:30 p.m. in Los Angeles, LAFC and Mexican power Club América will vie for one last place in that Club World Cup.
Globally, their 11th-hour playoff pales in comparison to the Champions League final. It has no precedent nor built-in prestige. It is a qualifier for an unproven tournament, one that neither LAFC nor América would have realistic hopes of winning. PSG and Inter, on the other hand, are playing to actually win a competition that's far more prestigious. One will enter the Club World Cup perched on a throne that many consider to be atop the sport.
But here in North America, when Yahoo Sports asked TelevisaUnivision executive Olek Loewenstein about the Club World Cup's most attractive teams, and specifically about where Club América would rank if it qualified, he didn't hesitate.
'Oh, No. 1,' Loewenstein said.
That, in part, is why this novel game is happening — and why it is, in FIFA's words, a 'blockbuster bout' in its own right. LAFC's BMO Stadium is sold out, with the cheapest resale tickets priced north of $200. While América regularly packs stadiums across the continent, even for friendlies, Saturday's game brings unique stakes. The winner will get at least $9.55 million in guaranteed prize money, and a global stage that neither club has ever had. Hype, it seems, is building.
But it's a different type of hype than the one overtaking Paris, Milan and Munich.
It has been manufactured in months, rather than developed over decades.
And it epitomizes the contrasts between the UEFA Champions League and the Club World Cup, which is, in some ways, the UCL's upstart challenger.
Perhaps now is the time for the Club World Cup introduction, and the explanation of a playoff that, a month ago, did not yet exist. The field for the inaugural 32-team, quadrennial club tournament had been set since the fall. North America's representatives were seemingly finalized when Pachuca won the 2024 CONCACAF Champions Cup, the region's only known route to the Club World Cup.
But then, in October, FIFA released the Club World Cup's regulations. Article 10 prohibited the participation of two clubs who share an owner — which, for Pachuca and fellow Mexican club León, became a problem. Both are owned by Grupo Pachuca.
In March, citing this rule, FIFA expelled León, the 2023 CONCACAF champs, from its tournament. León players decried the 'grave,' 'brutal injustice' — 'football is stained by this,' James Rodríguez said — but FIFA was already considering replacements. Its rules gave it significant discretion. And its plan soon became clear.
The Club World Cup's qualification criteria gave FIFA five or six realistic options. It could choose the Columbus Crew or LAFC, the runners-up to Pachuca and León in the last two CONCACAF finals. Or it could turn to its CONCACAF rankings, where Club América was the top unqualified team; Costa Rica's Alajuelense was the top team from a country with less than two participants; and the Philadelphia Union were the top team from a country with less than two standard qualifiers.
The criteria stipulated that 'a cap of two clubs per country is applied' to those attempting to qualify via rankings. FIFA ignored that stipulation, picked LAFC and América, and pitted them against each other in this one-off 'play-in.'
It is, in many ways, the perfect high-stakes appetizer for the Club World Cup. It's also par for the tournament's course. With skepticism and resistance dogging its launch, and with a need to sell tickets, broadcast rights and sponsorships, FIFA has reached for star power. It gave Lionel Messi's Inter Miami a 'host country' berth in October. More recently, FIFA president Gianni Infantino has talked up the possibility that Cristiano Ronaldo could join one of the qualified teams less than three weeks before kickoff.
And now, FIFA will get either Major League Soccer's most valuable club or Mexico's winningest. LAFC was MLS' pre-Messi glamor club. América is the continent's most popular. They will duel in prime time for a place in Group D alongside Flamengo, ES Tunis and Chelsea.
The Champions League final, on the other hand, does not have a sexy headliner. It does not have Real Madrid, nor Barcelona, nor an English Premier League power. It is the first final without them or Bayern Munich in over two decades. Some casual American fans might not find it all that intriguing.
And yet, it will almost certainly be the most-watched sporting event on Earth in 2025.
Even with Lautaro Martínez and Ousmane Dembélé — rather than Ronaldo or Messi, or Vinicius Jr. and Kylian Mbappé — as the stars, it hardly needs hype manufactured.
And it does not need to be sold as 'the $26 million game,' even though its prize pot is larger than the Club World Cup's. It is lucrative, and increasingly commercialized, yes, but its appeal is not about money. Its appeal is simple: It's the Champions League.
There are surely some fans and soccer execs who are bummed that Barcelona isn't playing in it. Ratings won't break records. Narratives, beyond PSG's unlikely resurgence and a possible first title, might not break through into the casual fan's consciousness.
But there is magic in this competition, and in this singular match. Magic sourced in simplicity. For 70 years, the best clubs in Europe — which are almost always the best clubs in the world — have battled for supremacy. And inevitably, special things have happened.
So, you wouldn't dare bet against more special things on Saturday. You might not know the magicians, yet, but you don't need to; and soon, you will. Inter and PSG might not give us a 13- or nine-goal thriller, as they did in the semis and quarters, respectively; but they'll surely give us drama, and emotions, all of which will sell itself.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Crystal Palace's Europe place in balance after Uefa rejects owners' blind trust move
Uefa has rejected offers from Crystal Palace shareholders John Textor and David Blitzer to put their shares in a blind trust to ensure the club can compete in Europe next season. Palace's participation in the Europa League has been cast into doubt as the club's largest shareholder Textor is also the majority owner of Lyon, who have also qualified for the second tier competition. And to compound matters, Blitzer's Danish club Brøndy have qualified for the Conference League, so the prospect of the FA Cup winners dropping into that competition is also not an option due to the European governing body's multi-club rules. Related: John Textor seeks sale of Crystal Palace stake in bid to avoid European ban Palace executives, including Textor and chairman Steve Parish, met with Uefa officials in Nyon on Tuesday to try to broker a solution without reaching a resolution. The Guardian has learned that the so-called blind trust option in which Textor's Palace shares would be placed in the hands of trustees next season was rejected by Uefa, as the club missed the deadline for registering the trust. Manchester City and Manchester United both used blind trusts to ensure compliance with Uefa multi-club rules last season after their partner clubs, Girona and Nice, both also qualified for the Champions League and Europa League respectively, while Nottingham Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis also transferred his shares when Nuno Espirito Santos' side and his Greek club Olympiacos looked on course to qualify for next season's Champions League. Uefa rules state that such ownership changes must take place before 1 March to take effect in time for the following season, however, with Palace told this week that they will not be shown any flexibility. European qualification was not on the agenda for Palace before March, as they were mid-table in the Premier League and had not progressed beyond the FA Cup fifth round. Palace are in danger of paying a heavy price for their lack of foresight, leading to considerable frustration at Uefa's lack of flexibility. Uefa declined to comment, but sources at the European governing body stressed that given more than 300 clubs take part in its competitions each season, it has to ensure that the regulations are applied consistently. Textor told the Daily Mail after Tuesday's meeting that he is looking to sell his 45% stake in Palace, but there is little realistic prospect of that happening in time to influence Uefa's decision, with the Europa League qualifying draw due to take place on 17 June. Just three weeks ago on the eve of the FA Cup final, The Guardian revealed that Textor was seeking to buy out fellow American shareholders, Blitzer and Josh Harris, who own 36% of the club between them. The two parties have previously held on-off talks about buying each other out, but have never got close to an agreement on price. Textor also signalled his intention to sell Palace when he was attempting to buy Everton last summer without making any discernible progress. With a quick sale and the transfer of shares seemingly off the table, Palace's best hope of playing in the Europa League for the first time appears to be persuading Uefa that Textor has no influence at Selhurst Park, although this may not be straightforward. In addition to his 45% stake Textor has 25% equal voting rights with Parish, Blitzer and Harris, and is known to have played a key role in the appointment of the manager Oliver Glasner last year. Textor has declined to comment. Uefa rules make clear that any influence at two clubs in the same competition is prohibited. 'No one may simultaneously be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration, and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a Uefa club competition,' the regulations state. 'No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a Uefa club competition, (including) holding a majority of the shareholders' voting rights; having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club; being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders' voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.' In the event of Palace being barred from the Europa League, Forest could be promoted to take their place after qualifying for the Conference League by finishing seventh in the Premier League. Palace's rivals Brighton, who finished eighth, could then replace Forest in the Conference League. Palace's European position is under threat rather than Lyon's, as Uefa rules state that the club ranked highest in its domestic championship will be given entry to the competition. Lyon's sixth-place finish in Ligue 1 gives them precedence over Palace, who came 12th in the Premier League.
CNBC
29 minutes ago
- CNBC
30-year-old supercommuted from Mexico City once a week to attend law school in NYC: 'Everything kind of fell into place'
In 2024, Nat Cedillo was in her last year of law school and subletting a one-bedroom in New York City with her husband. The two were paying $2,750 a month for rent, which included utilities. They also spent an additional $1,250 on monthly expenses like groceries and transportation. As Cedillo, 30, neared graduation, her schedule became more flexible. While registering for classes for her final semester, she realized she could take one class remotely and then schedule the rest on Mondays and Tuesdays. "I started thinking if I barely had to be on campus why should we be spending so much money living in New York City? We have this flying perk, so is there something we can do with that and avoid the New York City part?," Cedillo tells CNBC Make It. Cedillo's husband works in the airline industry, so the couple has the advantage of paying less for flights when flying standby. The two are also both Mexican citizens and Cedillo's sister had an apartment in Mexico City that was sitting empty, so it was a no-brainer for the couple to look into potentially moving there. "Once I saw I didn't have to be on campus, we looked at the numbers of how much it would cost if we used this flight benefit to go back and forth," Cedillo says. "Everything kind of fell into place because my sister also told me we could move to her apartment. We formulated this plan last November and December, and then we did it." In January, the couple moved to Mexico City. They live in a one-bedroom apartment and pay roughly $735 USD a month for utilities, Wi-Fi, water, gas, electricity and an HOA fee, according to documents reviewed by CNBC Make It. That same month, Cedillo made her first supercommute to attend class back in the United States. Cedillo says she typically woke up around 4 a.m. on Mondays to head to the airport and catch the first flight from Mexico City to New York City, which departs at 7 a.m. local time. The flight is usually scheduled to land in New York City at 2 p.m. local time and then Cedillo either headed straight to campus or to a meeting with her boss — she works remotely as a law clerk for a NYC law firm. Her first class of the day started at 6 p.m. To save money while in New York, Cedillo stayed with friends for the night or in a hotel room that cost no more than $150 a night. She had to do that four times, she says. On Tuesdays, she attended two classes and would be done for the day by 4 p.m., and head to JFK for the 7 p.m. flight, which landed in CDMX around 11 p.m. local time. "Fortunately, I was never able to not get on a plane," she says. While at home in Mexico City, Cedillo worked on an as-needed basis as a law clerk, attended her online class, studied and completed her schoolwork, and made sure to spend plenty of time with friends and family. From January to May 2025, Cedillo traveled from Mexico City to New York City 10 times. The final time was for her graduation. "The semester was 13 weeks long and I was allowed two absences, and there were a few weeks where my professors decided to do class via Zoom, so thankfully that also helped cut expenses," Cedillo says. Cedillo estimates that she spent approximately $800 per month commuting to New York City. The most she ever paid for a flight was $260 round-trip. In total, Cedillo spent around $4,000 commuting for her final semester. "In NYC, we easily spent $4,000 in one month living in a one-bedroom in Bed-Stuy," Cedillo says. "That is approximately how much I spent total commuting between CDMX and NYC for one semester of law school." Cedillo is currently studying to take the New York state bar exam, so the couple hasn't completely ruled out moving back to the Big Apple. "I went to law school for two years there, so I'm going to try and see what we can do," she says. "Ideally, we would love to stay in Mexico City and make a life there."
Miami Herald
33 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Domino's and Pizza Hut rival makes ‘first-in-decade' menu change
There was a time when people would say that any pizza was pretty good, even some of the worst takeout and frozen options. Consumers ate bad pizza (or decent pizza depending upon how you look at it) because it was the best option. Calling Domino's (DPZ) for delivery, or pulling out a frozen pizza from the back of the freezer (or maybe even stooping pizza rolls) was the best late-night option. In some markets, it was the only delivery choice. Related: Popular dessert, fast-food chain survives Chapter 11 bankruptcy Bad pizza was better than cooking, especially if you had limited ingredients to work with. Food delivery services changes all of that. Now, Uber Eats and DoorDash will bring you sushi, Italian food, Chinese, and who knows what else until fairly late hours. You can also order pizza from local places , and the competition for your food dollar has increased. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Delivery from Uber Eats and other services, however, is expensive and many consumers have been tightening their budgets when it comes to food. People who used to order higher-end pizza, might opt for Domino's or Pizza Hut, while those chains may lose customer to frozen pizza. Now, a leading player in the space wants to give people a mix of value and gourmet that may fit the current market really well. DiGiorno has long-used the catchphrase, "it's not delivery, it Digiorno." They saw that as a positive, some customers saw it as an apology. Sure, I could have gotten delivery, but instead I opted for this frozen pizza. It's either lazy or insulting, but not person actually needs to be told they're eating a frozen pizza. DiGiorno has marketed itself as premium frozen, which it is, but it's all relative. The company offered a superior product to much of what you see on grocery shelves. It's better (to most) than Elio's, Red Baron, and many of the other offered brands. More Food: Applebee's brings back all-you-can-eat deal to take down Chili'sPopular Mexican chain reveals surprising growth plansStarbucks CEO shares plan for a whole new menu In most cases, it was equal to say California Pizza Kitchen and other premium frozen brands. DiGiorno may also be better than some freshly-made frozen in-house pizza brands, but many Publix and Fresh Market fans might argue that. DiGiorno was upscale in that it was higher-quality than most of its rivals. Now, the Nestle-owned company wants to put a flag in the sand. It does not want to just say it's better. It actually want to be better. Premium frozen pizza is a bit like saying, "that's the best gas station sushi I have ever had. Still, DoGiorno has made a real bid to offer something better. The company has added a new line, Wood Fired Style Crust Pizza. "This all-new pizza from DiGiorno features premium toppings and a perfectly crisp crust that serves up restaurant-quality taste fresh from your oven. Previously baking the crust at high temperatures to achieve a perfectly chewy and lightly charred texture, the DiGiorno Wood Fired Style Crust Pizza elevates the at-home pizza experience offering a dough with rich flavor, airy structure and the perfect bite," the company shared in a press release. Related: Popular local Dairy Queen rival suddenly closing, no bankruptcy The U.S. pizza market is nearly $55 billion, but less than 20% is frozen pizza. In a time where budgets are getting tighter, DiGiorno may be hitting a space in offering a mix of quality and value. The company will offer four flavors: DiGiorno Wood Fired Style Crust Four Cheese Pizza features a rich blend of cheeses-Romano, Asiago, Mozzarella, and Wood Fired Style Crust Italian Meat Trio Pizza includes a curated blend of pepperoni, salami, and Italian Wood Fired Style Crust Supreme Speciale Pizza is a vibrant celebration of flavors featuring generous layers of savory pepperoni and sausage and topped with a medley of colorful vegetables-green, yellow, & red peppers and Wood Fired Style Crust Premium Pepperoni Pizza is stacked with rich, zesty pepperoni on a crispy, lightly charred crust. All four DiGiorno Wood Fired Style Crust Pizza varieties will be available at retailers nationwide for an MSRP of $6.49 (prices may vary by store) starting in May. Some have hailed this as a "first-in-a-decade" change. "Frozen pizza hasn't seen a major innovation in a decade when stuffed crust hit the market, Graves said. Before that, it was rising crust, which was developed by DiGiorno in 1995," FoodDive reported. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
