Last December FC Barcelona won their third FIFA Club World Cup (FCWC) title, and… well, it didn’t get the attention it deserved – from the European media or even from the Catalan fans.
Had River Plate won the final, surely that trophy would be considered by their fans the most important one since 1986, when the club won its first (and sole) Intercontinental Cup – a predecessor of the FCWC. It makes sense. In South America, as well as in any other continents except Europe, the Club World Cup represents the premier trophy a football club can claim. Naturally, it is viewed as more important than a continental title – which in a way is a stage for a club to play in the Club World Cup.
In Europe it is not like that. The UEFA Champions League (UCL) is considered the most important club competition there is. In fact, many people in other continents also view the UCL as a “bigger” conquest than the FCWC. As a comparison, in Spain, home country of FC Barcelona – protagonist in both finals – an average of 6.7 million viewers (with peak of 8.2 million and total of 15 million) watched the UCL Final between the Catalan team and the Italian champions Juventus last June, while “only” 2.4 million watched Barça’s defeat of River Plate in the final of the FCWC in December.
There are few reasons for that. In my view, the two main ones are:
- The UCL is considered much more difficult for European clubs to win.
- Financially, the UCL pays a much bigger reward.
Let’s expand on that.
The UCL is considered much more difficult for European clubs to win.
There was a time when club football power was divided equally between Europe and South America.
Prior to the FCWC, the Intercontinental Cup was played between the winners of the European Cup and the Copa Libertadores. In total, South American sides won 22 trophies, against 21 from European clubs.
Since the new format – with clubs from other confederations – was created, European teams have won it eight times, and South Americans only four. However, it’s more alarming to notice that Europeans won eight of the last nine editions.
It is notorious that players are leaving their countries at a very young age to play in Europe and a few rich countries in the continent concentrate football’s economic power.
It is evident that in the current format you’ll have one team much stronger than the others, and the consequence is that it makes the competition’s outcome increasingly more predictable. That’s not good!
The outcome of a FCWC Final is considered much more predictable than the UCL Final, as attested by bookmakers and betting sites in the past years (just before the match, a famous betting site had odds of 18/1 for River Plate to beat Barcelona, while the same site had odds of “only” 9/4 for Juve to win the UCL Final against the Catalan side).
Financially, the UCL pays a much bigger reward.
Apart from that, the UCL’s financial reward to clubs is much higher than the FCWC’s.
That sends out a message of importance to the public. People tend to associate the value of the money prize with the “value” of the event. The Grand Slams pay the most money in tennis; the Majors pay the most money in golf; the biggest boxing matches have the highest prizes to the boxers, and so forth.
With that in mind, in order to be perceived as the top achievement in club football, FIFA could consider some changes in the format of the FCWC – including increasing the prize money.
A major issue to change with the FCWC is the calendar. There have been proposals to increase the number of teams and dates, but that would clutter even more an already packed calendar. Therefore, in the following proposed format, we shall stick with the same number of clubs and dates and implement one major change: the replacement of the representative from the host country with the previous FCWC winner.
The main changes proposed for a new FCWC are:
- Replace the representative from the host country with the previous FCWC winner.
- Increase competition’s money prize
Replace the representative from the host country with the previous FCWC winner.
By replacing the host country representative with the previous champions, FIFA would hit 2 birds with one stone.
Explaining why it is good to have the previous winner with a guaranteed spot:
First of all, that would make the competition much more interesting and relevant. Imagine that if instead of playing against River Plate, Barcelona faced arch-rivals Real Madrid (2014 Champions) in last year’s FCWC Final?
That would have been considered the ultimate show down between the two biggest teams in the world. A match like that, could elevate the FWCW to the status it really deserves.
Regardless of the inclusion of the previous champion, the country representative should be excluded from the competition in any case. That is simply a bad idea. A dangerous idea.
One could argue that it is normal that host nations have a guaranteed place in international competitions – so why should a local team not participate in the FCWC?
Firstly, a local team should play in the FCWC… but only if that team is also the continental champion/representative.
It makes sense that host nations have a guaranteed spot in international competitions… when we are talking about national teams; teams that truly unite a country. That is not always the case in club football. In fact, in many casesthe opposite is true. Commonly you have a much larger number of supporters in that country rooting against the local team.
Sometimes the local team is from a different region to where the matches are being held, so they don’t even attract large audiences. In this case, even commercially it doesn’t make sense.
For example, in the last FCWC, local club Sanfrecce Hiroshima played a semifinal match against River Plate at the Osaka Nagai Stadium, which has a capacity for over 47,000 people, but only 20,133 attended the game. On the other semifinal, however, 63,870 people went to see FC Barcelona play against Guangzhou Evergrande, from China.
Locals prefer to watch big international sides than their own clubs.
Why it is bad to have a local representative with a guaranteed spot:
The same way a clash between two huge teams could lift the competition, a scenario where a small local team – who didn’t qualify via continental competition – wins the tournament could sink it for ever.
It’s not uncommon to have upset results in cup competitions. It’s relatively normal to see weaker sides knocking out favorites in football. So it wouldn’t be impossible to predict that a team like Sanfrecce – which lost only by 1-0 in the semis against River Plate – could advance to the final and then playing an extremely defensive game could bring the decision to penalty shoot outs… and win it.
Suddenly you would have a team like that claiming to be world champion, which, in a way would devaluate the competition. It is clear that they are not the best team in the world.
The problem is not that the team is an unknown club from Japan. The problem is that in the mindset of many fans it didn’t deserve the chance to even play it. That would not be a problem, had the team won the AFC Champions League.
The Brazilian side Corinthians is a good example. The club won the FCWC in 2000 (at the time called World Championships) and 2012. The second trophy is undisputed by all in Brazil. Many – even Corinthians supporters – believe that the runners-up, Chelsea, were a stronger side and played better, but in the end it was the team from Sao Paulo the winner. Fair and square. That is football. They were the deserved champions.
However, to this day, the majority of Brazilian football fans don’t really consider Corinthians a “real” world champion of 2000. There are a few reasons for that – one being that city rivals, Palmeiras, winners of the Copa Libertadores in 1999 did not participate in the tournament (for commercial reason, the organisers preferred to invite 1998 winners, Vasco da Gama, from Rio de Janeiro) – but the main reason is that many feel that Corinthians did not deserve to play a World Cup without having won their Continental Cup.
That is the point: national champions should represent countries in continental competitions, not in world cups. Moreover, since there is no rotation between host countries (only Morocco and Japan received the tournament in the past 10 years), that advantage to local teams becomes even more unfair. A win by one of these teams could damage the competition’s reputation.
Increase competition money prize
UEFA has announced that it will increase the prize money for the next three-year cycle of the UCL significantly. Teams get a fixed fee to play in the group stage, plus extras for points (wins or draws). Then each team receive prizes for playing in the round of 16, quarter finals, semi-finals and in the Final. As a reference, the UCL winner will get only for the Final match a prize of € 15 million, whereas the runner-up will take € 10.5 million. Each of the four teams that play in the semi-finals will earn an additional € 7 million. Just as a comparison, Barcelona’s prize money for winning the 2015 FCWC was $5M (€4.5M) – that is for playing in the semi-final and winning the Final.
If the FCWC wants to be recognised as the ultimate club football trophy, it must improve not only the quality of the competition (by replacing the local representative with the last champion), but also boost its money prize. Taking the UCL as reference, the FCWC should pay €8M to €10M for the clubs playing in the semi-final, €20M to the winner (to be added to the prize from the semi-final – or other phases) and €15M to the runner-up.
That is indeed a very large increase in the prize money – with total prize going from around 15 million Euros to nearly 100 million. The cost ideally should be covered by new sponsorship and media agreements – after all, those companies will be broadcasting and sponsoring a much more valued tournament.
Format
One of the main issues to organise a club world cup is the calendar. Teams – especially in Europe and South America – are overloaded with matches and it would be difficult to increase the number of dates for such competition. Therefore, this proposal maintains the current number of participants and dates, but with a slight change in the format.
Participants:
Currently the participants are 6 representatives from confederations (AFC, OFC, CAF, UEFA, Conmebol and Concacaf) plus the host country representative (HCR). The new format replaces HCR per the previous FCWC winner.
Play-off round: OFC champ vs HCR
2nd round: the Play-off winner, the AFC champ, the CAF champ and the Concacaf champ are drawn in 2 knock-out matches.
Semi-final: the 2 winners of the 2nd round are drawn to play the champions from UEFA and Conmebol.
Final: Winners of Semi-finals.
New format:
1st round: champions of OFC, AFC, CAF and Concacaf are drawn to play 2 knock-out matches.
2nd round: winners of 1st round play a knock-out match.
Semi-finals: winner of 2nd round will enter a draw with previous FCWC winner and winners of UEFA and Conmebol.
Final: Winners of Semi-finals.
There you have it: a much more attractive and relevant FCWC, played with the same number of teams and dates.
This way it would be easier to FIFA to show football fans (in Europe and elsewhere) that there can be a trophy in club football that is held in higher regard than the UEFA Champions League.
Article also published by Soccerex
jfrigerio.com 