Fifa has finally answered one of the key questions around the upcoming relaunch of the Club World Cup — how much it pays. On Wednesday the competition organiser revealed its prize money schedule, with payments based both on turning up and actually winning matches.
Considering the rates were negotiated with the European Club Association, it’s perhaps little surprise that the bulk of the purse is heading to the top European clubs. Some are promised $38.5mn before a ball has even been kicked, with potential earnings for winning the tournament of $125mn when ends on July 13.
Fifa has made a lot of noise about the Club World Cup being a chance to spread some of football’s wealth beyond Uefa’s sphere of influence. The month-long competition will feature 32 teams from around the globe who qualified largely based on performance in regional tournaments.
Yet the financial impact will be felt differently depending on where a team hails from. Assuming — perhaps unfairly — that Auckland FC fails to win or draw any of its group games against Bayern Munich, Benfica or Boca Juniors, then the only entrant from Oceania will go home with just $3.6mn. Subtract the costs of competing (eg travel), and that probably doesn’t leave a lot of change.
Teams from Asia, Africa, and North America fare a bit better, with each guaranteed $9.55mn for participating. Even if they lose all their games, the tournament will still deliver an annual revenue boost this year of more than 10 per cent for teams the size of the Seattle Sounders and Urawa Red Diamonds.
Fluminense fans will probably fancy their chances of bagging some points against South Africa’s Mamelodi Sundowns and South Korean side Ulsan HD. South American teams will get at least $15.55mn for showing up, while qualification to the second round would bring an extra $7.5mn. That’s more than double the money on offer from winning the Brazilian league, and starts to look similar to the pay-off from victory in the Copa Libertadores — South America’s version of the Champions League.
For top European clubs, the money is decent to start with, but not transformative. Cash for participating equates to around 3.5 per cent of Real Madrid’s annual income, 5 per cent for Bayern Munich, and 7 per cent for Chelsea. A nice boost, but not massive.
Heftier sums come from making progress. Winning all three group stages and reaching the semi-final bags a top club more than $80mn. For a club like Chelsea that could do with a financial sugar rush to help balance this year’s spending, the Club World Cup will be hugely welcome.
By backloading so much for winners, Fifa has also built in a serious financial incentive for actually lifting the Tiffany-designed Club World Cup. Competition should be fierce.
But it’s worth remembering this event (for now at least) will only take place once every four years. Only a tiny group of teams are virtually guaranteed to qualify again (Real Madrid, Manchester City, Bayern Munich, Paris Saint-Germain) — all of whom already feature in the top five richest clubs in the world.
So yes, there’s some trickle down economics at play. But ultimately, if the Club World Cup succeeds, the world’s wealthiest clubs that benefit.
Fifa's motivations
The Club World Cup is Fifa’s attempt to reduce its financial reliance on the men’s World Cup. The month-long tournament, an updated and much enlarged version of a long-standing exhibition tournament, will be hosted in cities across the US. There will be 63 matches involving 32 teams.
Liverpool, Manchester United and Barcelona, three of the most popular teams in the world, did not qualify, while Fifa has faced criticism for giving a place to Inter Miami, home of Argentine superstar Lionel Messi. Miami won the most points during the regular season, but LA Galaxy were crowned US champions after winning the play-offs. Fifa said it considered a range of qualification criteria in consultation with the US league.
On the commercial front, broadcasters and sponsors have been reluctant to back an event with little name recognition, particularly as many had not budgeted for additional spending during what was due to be a relatively quiet summer for sport.
Some in the footballing world have also voiced doubts about how many people will tune in to watch top European club teams face relative minnows from countries such as South Korea, New Zealand and the United Arab Emirates. However, some earlier stumbles have been overcome. In December, Fifa sealed a $1bn deal with streaming company DAZN to show the cup globally free-to-view.
After a slow start, Fifa has signed four sponsors for the cup, with Chinese electronics maker Hisense and Bank of America joining long-term commercial partners Coca-Cola and AB InBev. The most recent World Cup in Qatar had fourteen. One person involved in the competition said the target for the commercial programme was up to a dozen sponsors.
Last month, Fifa boss Infantino took the trophy — a dish made up of concentric rings that can be unlocked by a golden key — to the Oval Office to show Donald Trump, and invited the US president to present it to the champions on July 13. “It’s beautiful,” said Trump. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”
Labels
Bayern Munich Chelsea Club World Cup Fifa Real Madrid
West Bromwich Albion had effectively been in decline ever since the club was sold to a Chinese consortium in August 2016, paying a figure north of £200m to buy former owner Jeremy Peace’s stake. Controlling shareholder Guochuan Lai’s ownership was fairly disastrous for the club, but his unloved tenure finally came to an end after Bilkul Football WBA, a company ultimately owned by Florida-based entrepreneur Shilen Patel and his father Dr Kiran Patel, acquired an 87.8% shareholding in West Bromwich Albion Group Limited, the parent company of West Bromwich Albion Football Club. This change in ownership was urgently required, due to the numerous financial problems facing West Brom, including growing high-interest debt and serious cash flow concerns, following years of no investment from the former owner. Indeed, West Brom’s auditors had already rung the alarm bell in the 2021/22 accounts when they cast doubt on the club’s ability to continue as a going concern without making player s...
Tottenham Hotspur is in talks to sell a minority stake in a deal that could value it at up to £3.75 billion and pave the way for Joe Lewis and his family to sever ties with the Premier League football club. Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy is seeking an investment that values the club at between £3.5 billion and £3.75 billion, including debt. While the terms of any deal have not been finalised, City sources expect Spurs to sell about 10 per cent. The club is being advised by bankers from Rothschild on the sale. Tottenham wants to raise fresh capital for new player signings and to help fund the development of an academy for its women’s team, as well as a 30-storey hotel next to its north London stadium. The financier Amanda Staveley, who brokered the deal for Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund to take over Newcastle United, is understood to be among the parties to have expressed an interest in Tottenham. Staveley’s fund, PCP Capital Partners, has raised about £500 million to ...
Millwall’s season was overshadowed by the tragic death of owner John Berylson following a car accident. The American had been an exemplary owner, beloved by the fans for his leadership, passion and generosity. Millwall’s finances had been pretty good during his tenure, which we shall explore by looking at the most recent accounts from the 2022/23 season, when the club narrowly missed out on a place in the play-offs after finishing 8th. Millwall’s pre-tax loss slightly reduced from £12.6m to £12.2m, as revenue rose £0.8m (4%) from £18.6m to a club record £19.4m and player sales improved from a £0.1m loss to £2.5m profit. However, other operating income dropped from by £1.1m from £1.3m to £0.2m, while operating expenses increased £1.7m (5%) from £31.6m to £33.3m. The main driver of the revenue increase was broadcasting, which rose £1.1m (12%) from £9.1m to £10.2m, though match day was also up £0.4m (7%) from £5.8m to £6.2m. In contrast, commercial fell £0.7m (19%) from £3.7m to £3....