Latest news with #AleksanderCeferin
The Independent
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Where is Aleksander Ceferin? Uefa is wilting in the face of Fifa's unchecked power
It's a question being asked of the Uefa president in a lot of stadium executive boxes this summer. 'Where is Aleksander Ceferin?' It's also a question that works in a few ways. It could refer to the fact Ceferin has so far attended only one match at Uefa's own Women's Euro 2025. It could refer to how he attended matches at neither the Under-21 Euros or the Club World Cup. Or, perhaps most importantly, it could refer to Uefa's lack of response to the football land grab that Fifa 's controversial new competition represented. The Fifa president, Gianni Infantino, is seen as having outflanked Ceferin. Even the Uefa walkout at May's Fifa Congress in Paraguay, when Infantino turned up late, ended with a bizarre climbdown five days later. These are certainly bizarre times for football. It's debatable whether the Club World Cup fully worked as an event, but it undeniably worked for Infantino's purposes. Donald Trump's farcical appearance at the trophy presentation essentially crowned a landmark moment for the Fifa president, that will now embolden Infantino in trying to supplant the Champions League as the premier club competition. Many club executives already see it as the Super League they didn't get in April 2021, but with institutional endorsement. That's maybe the most significant shift in all of this. The big clubs used to loathe Fifa as an embarrassing nuisance. Now, they're essentially in business with them. The European Club Association has deepened its relationship with Infantino, having long been close to Ceferin. The grounds for upheaval are all there. And although many of the criticisms that can be levelled at Infantino can also be levelled at Ceferin, given the unique nature of these executive president roles, it does seem strange that the other most powerful football body lacks presence in all of this. It's all the more strange since there's a known 'cold war' between Uefa and Fifa, and there's literally a major tournament happening in the country where Uefa are based. Ceferin is said to be confident he has an agreement that Fifa will only hold the Club World Cup every four years. That sounds a bit like his trust in Andrea Agnelli before the Super League. Many football sources see it as shockingly naive, especially with how clubs are already talking about a tournament every two years and expansion to 48 teams. Uefa could even be criticised for being in denial, but – as one prominent Uefa source sighs – 'we seem to be in denial about so much'. Then again, that's an inevitable consequence of surrounding yourself with 'yes men'. Numerous sources insist that, after eight years in the job, Ceferin doesn't really react well to views he doesn't want to hear. As one insider says, 'you're not allowed to express a different opinion to that of the president, and you can't even try to offer advice'. That seems to have fostered a detachment, that has manifested in a lack of presence at games. It's also connected to classic football politics. Football's clientelistic systems have always seen loyalty rewarded with appointments and influence that elevate status back home, especially in the guise of major events. It all points to a crucial reason that presidents are supposed to have term limits, which has already been a controversy in Ceferin's presidency. As it is, Ceferin is surrounded by at least eight loyalists, potentially rising to 12 or 13. Directly under him is Serbia's Zoran Lakovic, who is generally seen as executing the president's plans. There is then Italy's Gabriele Gravina, who is said to have earned Ceferin's respect for leaning towards him over Infantino, and is now Uefa senior vice-president. Two come from Germany: Bernd Neuendorf, the DFB president who is on the Fifa council; Hanz-Joachim Watzke, the former Borussia Dortmund chief executive who is now on the Uefa Executive Committee. Albania's Armand Duka has so grown in influence that he is said to harbour ambitions to succeed Ceferin, but he may have to wait, since Denmark's Jesper Moller pushed for statute changes that could yet allow Ceferin another term after 2027. Another Uefa vice-president, Moller is understood to have committed a tactical mishap when he voted in favour of the unpopular motion to return Russian youth teams. Estonia's Aivar Pohlak is viewed as a 'loyal soldier' despite being less vocal about football ideas, but isn't as close to Ceferin as Hungarian billionaire Sandor Csyani, who is also on the Fifa Council. The loyalist raising the most intrigue is Turkey's Ibrahim Haciosmanoglu, since his country's federation is seen as very close to Qatar and ECA chairman Nasser Al-Khelaifi, with Uefa also having raised eyebrows with the opening of an office in Istanbul. Also in Istanbul over this period: the 2023 Champions League final, moved from 2020 and 2021; the 2026 Europa League final, and Euro 2032, as part of a joint bid with Italy. More critical voices within Uefa have of course tracked the staging of major events. Italy has won hosting rights to Euro 2032 despite huge questions about staging and infrastructure. Albania has had the 2025 Under-17 Euros and the 2022 Europa Conference League final. Hungary gets the 2026 Champions League final. Germany has meanwhile had even more than Turkey, including Euro 2024, the 2025 Champions League final, the 2025 Nations League finals and the 2027 Europa League final. The one outlier is Wembley, still regularly hosting major matches despite the Football Association having earned the ire of Uefa leadership for being the one federation to vote against the statute reforms potentially allowing Ceferin to stand again. It just so happens that Wembley is Uefa's most commercially lucrative host, so they love it. Former Uefa treasurer David Gill, who repeatedly argued back against Ceferin, is still one of many respected figures to be cast aside. That group includes Croatian legend Zvonimar Boban and former depity general secretary Kevin Lamour, who has now decamped to Fifa. Other figures seen as more concerned with the direction of the sport are growing frustrated. General secretary Giorgio Marchetti, famous for helming the Champions League draw, has at least been a tireless presence at Euro 2025 matches as a genuine lover of the sport. Many have been surprised by the trajectory of Razvan Burleanu's positions. The Romanian was seen as a potential challenger to Ceferin, but in Paraguay was the executive who rallied Uefa representatives for the walkout. Sources point to the fact that Bucharest was rejected for the 2026 Europa League final in favour of Istanbul. There are even more questions about what exactly happened after Paraguay. Many in football lament a great lost opportunity, especially since Uefa seemed to capture the prevailing mood at that moment by so pointedly criticising Infantino's 'private political interests' in an excoriating statement. With various European politicians acutely interested in football's questionable direction, Uefa could have got them onside for the beginning of a groundswell. Instead, Uefa withdrew and referred to the episode as 'isolated', while hailing 'the strong and respectful relationship with Fifa, built on mutual trust'. Nobody believes this. Some Uefa sources insist they just didn't want a full-blown war. Others wonder whether the big clubs intervened, especially with the Club World Cup about to start. This is the new world that Ceferin and Uefa have to face up to. They don't currently have much of a presence, let alone a strategy.
New York Times
6 days ago
- Business
- New York Times
UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin snubs Club World Cup amid FIFA tensions
UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin has snubbed the entirety of the FIFA Club World Cup amid ongoing tensions between the European confederation and the global world governing body, FIFA. While all other confederations have been represented at some stage by their presidents during this tournament, Ceferin, who is also a FIFA vice-president by virtue of his role at UEFA, has stayed away from the competition. Advertisement Sources familiar with the situation, but not authorised to speak publicly, believe senior executives at UEFA are concerned by FIFA's encroachment on the club game, the possible expansion of the Club World Cup and the potential of the Club World Cup to one day challenge the hegemony of the UEFA Champions League as the world's most popular club competition. On Saturday, during a press briefing at Trump Tower in Manhattan, FIFA president Gianni Infantino refused to rule out the possibility of expanding the Club World Cup to include more European teams next time around, while also avoiding the question when asked directly by The Athletic if he would like the Club World Cup to take place every two years rather than every four years. Infantino namechecked Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur, Barcelona, Milan and Napoli as teams he would like to see involved, but it is unclear as to how the qualification formula, or country cap, may change to give those teams a better chance of being at the tournament. Infantino hailed the financial benefits of the tournament, praising the $2.1billion (£1.6bn) generated in revenues, across the TV deal, sponsorship, ticketing and other income. 'For 63 matches, the basic average is $33million per match. There is no other club competition in the world today that comes anywhere close. It is already the most successful club competition on all different measures,' he claimed. The winner of the Club World Cup, according to figures published by FIFA, may earn up to $125m (£93.5m). Yet this is less than the $154m that UEFA recently announced Real Madrid earned by winning the Champions League in 2024 — but FIFA would argue that the Club World Cup is worth more per game (given the winner plays a maximum of seven games over a month tournament, while the Champions League is played throughout the season). But speaking to The Athletic during an event at Paris Saint-Germain's flagship 5th Avenue store in Manhattan on Saturday afternoon, the PSG chief executive Victoriano Melero stated his belief the tournament should remain every four years. The Athletic asked UEFA earlier this week why Ceferin has not attended any matches during the Club World Cup in the United States, particularly as 12 UEFA club teams competed at the tournament and three — Real Madrid, PSG and Chelsea — made the semi-finals. In an email, an unnamed UEFA spokesperson said: 'In case it slipped your mind, UEFA and its president's full attention is currently focused on the Women's EURO. This is a major event for us, and understandably, it requires significant commitment and attention.' Advertisement The Athletic has subsequently learned that Ceferin has attended only one of the first 22 matches of the Women's European Championship in Switzerland while the Club World Cup also began on June 13, a couple of weeks before the women's Euros began on July 2. UEFA declined to comment. Ceferin previously did not attend the Women's World Cup final in 2023, which was contested by two European nations, England and Spain. Ceferin, as a confederation president and FIFA Council vice-president, is eligible to receive a net annual compensation from FIFA of $300,000. Neither UEFA nor FIFA commented in May when asked whether he accepts this money from FIFA. It's also curious that the official UEFA social media account on Twitter/X has not made any reference to the Club World Cup or highlighted the roles of European teams or players during a tournament which had large UEFA club representation and will have an all-European final. The Conmebol account has, by contrast, been posting regularly about South American players and teams excelling at the tournament. The situation follows dramatic scenes in Paraguay in May, when the UEFA members of the FIFA Council staged a walkout at the FIFA Congress following the late arrival of Infantino. The eight UEFA members of the FIFA Council and several European delegates did not return after the early afternoon break. The exit followed a three-hour delay to the Congress, because Infantino was late arriving for his own event on Thursday morning, having prioritised meetings with United States president Donald Trump in Qatar that week. This included rescheduling the FIFA Council, which should have been in person in Asuncion on the Tuesday, but was instead held virtually on the Friday. UEFA said the 'deeply regrettable' late timetable change due to 'what appears to be simply to accommodate private political interests' put football's interests second. Advertisement UEFA said: 'We are all in post to serve football; from the streets to the podium, and UEFA members of the FIFA Council felt the need on this occasion to make a point that the game comes first and to leave as originally scheduled.' Infantino did apologise at the start of the Congress for being late. He said: 'As president of FIFA, my responsibility is to take decisions in the interests of the organisation. I decided to spend the last two days in the Middle East, knowing the 2034 World Cup will be in Saudi Arabia and the 2022 World Cup was in Qatar. The 2025 Club World Cup and 2026 World Cup will be in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Some important World Cup discussions took place and I needed to be there to represent football and all of you. We had an issue with our flight, which made this delay happen — apologies, sorry, and I am looking forward to spending time with you here.' The Athletic approached FIFA for comment but it has not done so at time of publication.
Irish Examiner
20-06-2025
- Sport
- Irish Examiner
As Club World Cup hands out riches, a plan is needed for those left behind
While a dozen of Europe's elite clubs were chasing the American dream, 170 of their less garlanded peers gathered for a barbecue next to Lake Geneva. They had converged on Uefa's headquarters to attend the qualifying round draws for next season's continental competitions; Tuesday night was time to get together, perhaps to speed-date representatives of the team you had been paired with or simply to cut loose before a labyrinthine summer spent journeying in search of league-phase football. Borussia Dortmund were slugging out a goalless draw with Fluminense while the meat hit the grills, but 'Club World Cup' is a dirty formulation in Nyon's corridors of power. Any available screens showed action from Uefa's own U21 Championship and alternative sources of entertainment roamed the pastel green lawns. A caricature artist did the rounds, stopping at the table occupied by Aleksander Ceferin and putting his pencil to work. The picture for these smaller clubs may be similarly distorted, but the humorous aspect is lacking. Uefa were correct to trumpet the event's symbolism in their pre-draw publicity: a vibrant collage of European football life was present, from the storied names of Red Star Belgrade and Rangers to Iberia 1999 of Georgia and Estonia's Paide Linnameeskond. However, beneath the collegiality it is impossible to escape the sense of a majority being left far behind, with ideas to redress the balance painfully few and largely inadequate. Most of Europe's clubs stand no chance of keeping pace with a top-level juggernaut that has unhitched itself and careered away. Some occupy an untenable half-space, unable to seriously challenge those in the big five leagues while crushing domestic opposition with the money on offer from the Champions League, Europa League or Conference League. Nobody is squarely to blame for trends that owe much to late-stage capitalism and geopolitical forces, but there may be a less charitable outlook towards those who fail to act. There is particular concern that the revamped Champions League, for all the triumphalism around its 36-team group format, will have the variety squeezed from it. Nineteen of its slots will be filled by English, German, Spanish and Italian clubs in 2025-26, six from the Premier League alone. For proud institutions such as Malmö, Dynamo Kyiv and Panathinaikos the hopes of tracing a path to one of the seven playoff qualifying berths are achingly remote. European football's top-heaviness is little secret, but alarm bells ring louder when consequences begin to rear up lower down. In the qualifying rounds only the Armenian club Noah and Pafos, from Cyprus, are debutants in the Champions League. That is the lowest figure for 14 years, according to research carried out for the Union of European Clubs (UEC), and indicates that the monotony felt closer to the summit is becoming a consistent theme domestically. Should that be exacerbated the fear is that, as one figure at a leading club suggests, national leagues in their current form will be living on borrowed time. The example of Serbia is instructive. Red Star, who have won eight consecutive titles, will earn a basic £16m (€18.7m) if they follow projections and reach the league phase. If the qualifying rounds proceed as expected their three compatriots in the Europa League and Conference League will fail to get that far. Novi Pazar or Radnicki 1923, their representatives in the latter, would take no more than £1m from that best-case scenario of elimination at the playoff stage. Read More Kylian Mbappe admitted to hospital with acute gastroenteritis The pattern would only be reinforced. There will always be clubs of wildly varying size, but the disparity in funding has never been starker. For Red Star's part, they and their equivalents can only gawp at the bare minimum of $12.81m (€11.16m) European sides will receive from appearing at the Club World Cup. In most cases that figure will be multiplied several times over by its conclusion. The clear danger is that three strata are emerging in Europe, separated by financial chasms that have become impossible to mitigate. Solidarity payments, a subject of fierce bargaining annually, are one of Uefa's ways to soften the divide. Clubs absent from European competition receive 7% of the annual £3.7bn revenue from those flagship events, a further 3% being allocated to those eliminated in the qualifying phase. It is certainly well meant, and has increased markedly for the current three-year cycle, but will not disturb the status quo. Creative solutions are needed and it caught the attention last month when the UEC, formed in 2023 to represent non-elite clubs, unveiled its plan for a 'player development reward'. Under that scheme, another 5% of revenue from club competitions would be redistributed to the teams whose academies developed those competing in them. It has been taken seriously enough for European Leagues to discuss it in depth last week. Any European club not playing in the Champions League proper could benefit. UEC's formula, devised with Transfermarkt, takes into account the on-pitch time by each player and the prize money they have helped generate. The Italian fourth-tier club Pavia, where Federico Acerbi came through the ranks, would have earned £275,000 thanks to his 670 minutes en route to last month's final with Inter. In 2023-24, nearly 1,500 clubs would have benefited from this kind of payment. Jude Bellingham's success with Real Madrid would have handed Birmingham £827,000; Vorskla Poltava, struggling in Ukraine, would have received £679,000 (€795,000) for their club's successes; MSK Zilina, trailing behind Slovan Bratislava's Champions League earnings in Slovakia, would have taken £1.3m (€1.5m). At the top end, Ajax's remarkable production line, picked off so frequently, would have earned them £4.6m. Neither UEC's plan nor any other, including Uefa's welcome £200m (€234m) pot for clubs with players at the past two European Championships, will mend things alone. But it would be a step in the right direction, perhaps helping narrow the gap between those two layers under the elite. Football beneath the ultra-privileged minority will only thrive with integrated incentives that reward clubs for their contributions to the ecosystem. Maybe that, even more than the prospect of a Champions League winner from those clubs assembled by the lake, is a pipedream. In greeting the new European season Ceferin rightly hailed the diversity of the scene he oversees; perhaps Uefa's appointed artist could have warned him what happens when, for all anyone's good intentions, a work of beauty is defaced for ever. Guardian
The Guardian
19-06-2025
- Sport
- The Guardian
As Club World Cup gifts its riches a proper plan is needed for those left behind
While a dozen of Europe's elite clubs were chasing the American dream, 170 of their less garlanded peers gathered for a barbecue next to Lake Geneva. They had converged on Uefa's headquarters to attend the qualifying round draws for next season's continental competitions; Tuesday night was time to get together, perhaps to speed-date representatives of the team you had been paired with or simply to cut loose before a labyrinthine summer spent journeying in search of league-phase football. Borussia Dortmund were slugging out a goalless draw with Fluminense while the meat hit the grills, but 'Club World Cup' is a dirty formulation in Nyon's corridors of power. Any available screens showed action from Uefa's own Under-21 Championship and alternative sources of entertainment roamed the pastel green lawns. A caricature artist did the rounds, stopping at the table occupied by Aleksander Ceferin and putting his pencil to work. The picture for these smaller clubs may be similarly distorted, but the humorous aspect is lacking. Uefa were correct to trumpet the event's symbolism in their pre-draw publicity: a vibrant collage of European football life was present, from the storied names of Red Star Belgrade and Rangers to Iberia 1999 of Georgia and Estonia's Paide Linnameeskond. However, beneath the collegiality it is impossible to escape the sense of a majority being left far behind, with ideas to redress the balance painfully few and largely inadequate. Most of Europe's clubs stand no chance of keeping pace with a top-level juggernaut that has unhitched itself and careered away. Some occupy an untenable half-space, unable to seriously challenge those in the big five leagues while crushing domestic opposition with the money on offer from the Champions League, Europa League or Conference League. Nobody is squarely to blame for trends that owe much to late-stage capitalism and geopolitical forces but there may be a less charitable outlook towards those who fail to act. There is particular concern that the revamped Champions League, for all the triumphalism around its 36-team group format, will have the variety squeezed from it. Nineteen of its slots will be filled by English, German, Spanish and Italian clubs in 2025-26, six from the Premier League alone. For proud institutions such as Malmö, Dynamo Kyiv and Panathinaikos the hopes of tracing a path to one of the seven playoff qualifying berths are achingly remote. European football's top-heaviness is little secret but alarm bells ring louder when consequences begin to rear up lower down. In this season's qualifying rounds only the Armenian club Noah and Pafos, from Cyprus, are debutants in the Champions League. That is the lowest figure for 14 years, according to research carried out for the Union of European Clubs (UEC), and indicates that the monotony felt closer to the summit is becoming a consistent theme domestically. Should that be exacerbated the fear is that, as one figure at a leading club suggests, national leagues in their current form will be living on borrowed time. The example of Serbia is instructive. Red Star, who have won eight consecutive titles, will earn a basic £16m if they follow projections and reach the league phase this summer. If the qualifying rounds proceed as expected their three compatriots in the Europa League and Conference League will fail to get that far. Novi Pazar or Radnicki 1923, their representatives in the latter, would take no more than £1m from that best-case scenario of elimination at the playoff stage. The pattern would only be reinforced. There will always be clubs of wildly varying size but the disparity in funding has never been starker. For Red Star's part, they and their equivalents can only gawp at the bare minimum $12.81m (£9.6m) European sides will receive from appearing at the Club World Cup. In most cases that figure will be multiplied several times over by its conclusion. The clear danger is that three strata are emerging in Europe, separated by financial chasms that have become impossible to mitigate. Solidarity payments, a subject of fierce bargaining annually, are one of Uefa's ways to soften the divide. Clubs absent from European competition receive 7% of the annual £3.7bn revenue from those flagship events, a further 3% being allocated to those eliminated in the qualifying phase. It is certainly well meant, and has increased markedly for the current three-year cycle, but will not unseat the status quo. Creative solutions are needed and it caught the attention last month when the UEC, formed in 2023 to represent non-elite clubs, unveiled its plan for a 'player development reward'. Under that scheme, a further 5% of revenue from club competitions would be redistributed to the teams whose academies developed those competing in them. It has been taken seriously enough for European Leagues to have discuss it in depth last week. Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion Any European club not playing in the Champions League proper could benefit. UEC's formula, devised with Transfermarkt, takes into account the on-pitch time each player has spent and the prize money they have helped generate. The Italian fourth-tier club Pavia, where Federico Acerbi came through the ranks, would have earned £275,000 through his playing 670 minutes en route to last month's final with Inter. In 2023-24 nearly 1,500 clubs would have benefited from this kind of payment. Jude Bellingham's success with Real Madrid would have handed Birmingham City £827,000; Vorskla Poltava, struggling in Ukraine, would have received £679,000 for their club's successes; MSK Zilina, trailing behind Slovan Bratislava's Champions League earnings in Slovakia, would have taken £1.3m. At the top end Ajax's remarkable production line, picked off so frequently, would have earned them £4.6m. Neither UEC's plan nor any other, including Uefa's welcome £200m pot for clubs with players at the past two European Championships, will mend things alone. But it would be a step in the right direction, perhaps helping narrow the gap between those two layers under the elite. Football beneath the ultra-privileged minority will only thrive with integrated incentives that reward clubs for their contributions to the ecosystem. Maybe that, even more than the prospect of a Champions League winner from those clubs assembled by the lake, is a pipedream. In greeting the new European season Ceferin rightly hailed the diversity of the scene he oversees; perhaps Uefa's appointed artist could have warned him what happens when, for all anyone's good intentions, a work of beauty is defaced for ever.
The Independent
11-06-2025
- Sport
- The Independent
How Infantino used Trump and the Club World Cup to open up football's next cash cow
As Fifa put in final preparations for the big show to try and dazzle America, there is something increasingly being said behind closed doors. Figures within the federation openly talk about how the new Club World Cup will quickly move to a biannual tournament, rather than every four years. Despite sources telling the Independent that it is an 'an open secret', Uefa is adamant it will stay at four. They state they have an agreement. It is not, crucially, a legal agreement. The difference in viewpoints is just the latest schism in a build-up that has caused more fractious football politics than any tournament in history. That goes right up to an actual legal challenge against Fifa from the players' union FIFPro. Senior Uefa figures, including president Aleksander Ceferin, are said to barely be able to discuss the Club World Cup without spitting. It might yet cause greater upheaval for the game's future, since the competition almost serves as a nexus for the game's major forces: from the super clubs to Saudi Arabia. The irony is that there is one aspect of the Club World Cup, which starts on Saturday with Al Ahly Egypt vs. Inter Miami, that almost brings a unanimous agreement. Most in football admit the concept is a good idea. Football needed to start spreading the elite game's wealth outside Western Europe, which is why there is little sympathy from tournament supporters for the complaints of the Premier League or Champions League. They are quick to point out exhaustive pre-season tours. This format similarly makes more sense than the previous low-intensity, smaller annual tournament that was held previously. The initial idea even came from a genuine football legend with sporting concerns, in former Fifa Deputy Secretary General Zvonimir Boban. It was partly to replace the 'ridiculous' Confederations Cup - which served as a dress rehearsal for the classic World Cup - but mostly to properly crown club world champions. The problem, according to many in football, is that very little about its implementation has been 'proper'. Fifa president Gianni Infantino previously worked as Uefa Secretary General, and saw first-hand the Champions League's lucrative power. He then saw Boban's idea, and was determined to make it happen. There were even periods around 2018 when an earlier version of the concept was linked with the Super League. Infantino eventually announced the tournament on the eve of the 2022 World Cup final, to the surprise of the rest of the game. The complaint, which led to FIFPro's legal challenge, is that Fifa just unilaterally imposed the competition on the calendar without consulting major stakeholders. Hence, there has been so much agitation about European clubs being 'exhausted'. They point to how there was no obvious space in the calendar, a view supported by how some players are arriving straight from Fifa's own mandated June international break, and the African Cup of Nations has also been moved. Even Mauricio Pochettino 's United States squad will be missing Juventus' Weston McKennie and Timothy Weah for the regional Gold Cup, which runs at exactly the same time. The obvious question is why Infantino was so adamant, given this upheaval. There has been a constant perception of Fifa changing rules to suit the tournament, then dealing with the fallout later. The most controversial example has been Lionel Messi's Inter Miami belatedly being awarded the host slot as soon as they won the league stage of Major League Soccer, even though the US champions are crowned by the play-offs. Messi is a commercial behemoth, after all, which feels like the start of the answer to that question. The Club World Cup has been so tied up with Infantino himself that it's impossible not to put it into the context of his political career. The competition gives Fifa entry to the elite club game, which is where the money is, and where the power is. That in turn allows the president greater scope to fulfil election promises to the 211 member associations, in a patronage system. There, the federation distributes its ample resources through programmes like Fifa Forward and the associations return their votes. On top of all that are now greater political forces, from the super clubs to US President Donald Trump and state influence. Therefore, the political strife isn't really about the tournament but its impact, control, and the future of football. The Club World Cup already comes in a fractious period, where no one wants to give up space, and everyone is trying to claim more. Many domestic leagues are already concerned about their financial futures. Within that, Fifa isn't acting as the ultimate regulator but as commercial 'players', starting to tear football's 'social contract'. This is the collection of loose agreements on which the game just about functions, such as releasing players for international duty. The landscape has already been transformed by huge prize money. Although Fifa wants the wealth of the Champions League, they need to offer sufficient reward for the big clubs to take the competition seriously. That could see the winners get over $90m (£66.8m). This would work out at $18m (£13.4m) a game, which is $7m (£5.2m) more than the Champions League and $13m (£9.6m) more than the Premier League. It's game-changing stuff, driving the push for a biennial tournament. You only have to consider the impact on PSR. That is partly why Premier League clubs are totally unwilling to allow Chelsea and Manchester City late starts to the 2025-26 season, bringing yet more dispute. And while the Club World Cup has been promoted as redistributing money from Western Europe, the structure is such that Western European clubs are almost certain to get more, actually increasing financial disparity, especially between individual leagues. How will other South African clubs be able to compete with the new wealth of Mamelodi Sundowns? Such money was eventually possible through Fifa's $1bn (£742m) broadcast deal with DAZN, which will broadcast every game of the tournament, as well as various sponsorships. One with Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund was announced last week. Football's newest state power has consequently been influential in the tournament's staging, and that in football's newest market. The sport is currently enjoying a boom in the US, visible in supporter interest and club ownership. Everyone wants a piece of it, especially the super clubs. Industry figures tell the Independent that the Club World Cup is therefore affording Fifa 'first-mover advantage' in 'football's new frontier'. Infantino's relationship with Trump is consequently more important, since this tournament comes exactly 10 years after the US state investigated Fifa under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act. The subsequent arrests directly led to the Infantino era. Now, the wonder is whether the Club World Cup leads to something else. Some sources already describe it as an alternative Super League, and potentially the equivalent to cricket's IPL. Might it be the first step in the game's true 'globalisation', where more competitive fixtures are played outside traditional territories? This is why the subject of two years or four years is so contentious. Many would say that is dependent on it being a success, amid doubts about attendances and whether European clubs are even fit enough. Except, the money ensures that doesn't matter. The clubs still want more. There may yet be more politics to come, along with the football.
