Five Ways to Fix the FIFA Club World Cup

By: Daryl | December 11th, 2008

You know a competition is struggling for respect when the favourites to win the thing promising to take it seriously is considered news. Man Utd boss Alex Ferguson has declared “I’ll take my strongest team,” which should go without saying for a tournament that’s technically (but only technically) the pinnacle of club football.

The Club World Cup kicks (kicked?) off today with New Zealand’s Waitakere United vs Australia’s Adelaide United in a play-in qualifier. That’s the first problem with the Club World Cup. It starts with seven teams. What sort of serious tournament starts with seven teams?

Even more bizarrely, Adelaide United are the designated “host” team, even though they’re from Australia and the tournament is taking place in Japan.

If that’s not confusing enough then the South American and European representatives (LDU Quito and Man Utd) don’t come in until the semi-finals. Oh, and there’s a fifth place play-off.

So, to sum up, a seven team tournament where two teams are already in the semis, the Japanese host team is from Australia and there’s a fifth place play-off. LDU Quito only seem interested in swapping shirts with Cristiano Ronaldo, and Al-Ahly’s not very ambitious plan is to finish third. It’s very hard to take a tournament like that seriously.

And yet I want to. I really really want to.

Because this could and arguably should be a great tournament to watch.

Here’s what I think it needs:

1. More teams. Clearly seven teams is not enough. It’s not even an even number.

2. Returning champions. For one thing, bringing back the holders would get us to eight teams. And how much better would the 2008 CWC be if 2007 winners AC Milan were there as well? Much, is the answer.

3. Respect for continental champions. We all know the OFC is rubbish. It’s not a big secret. But to give the tournament some integrity, OFC champs Waitakere United should not be forced to play a play-in qualifier. It demeans both the Kiwi team and the CWC as a whole.

4. No more semi-final pass for the South American and European representatives. FIFA seem to think it’s good for the tournament to guarantee the two bigger names in the semis. But in reality that means we see them play less. To win this trophy, every team should have to play the same number of games.

5. Even more teams. Ultimately, I’d love to see this become a 16 team tournament. Mostly to increase the quality. Sixteen teams would mean two teams from UEFA and two teams from CONMEBOL, and we’d be straight into knockout football. Win or go home. It would be just like the Champions League or the World Cup, only without the preamble of the group stage.

Here’s the 2008 schedule:

Follow The Offside on Twitter

Some Related Stories:

Category: Club World Cup

« Wayne Rooney Still Has a Temper | Home | Transfer Talk: D-Fence »

The Offside RSS Feeds

Shazback

The real problem is more that it's just a show-pony cup. if you add one game (by making it 8 teams) for the South American, European and retaining champions, you increase the risk that the competition isn't taken seriously by the players and the managers themselves. Look at Manchester United, who are going to play at the very least 38 League games, 8 Champions' League games, 4 League Cup games and 1 FA Cup game (notice the "very least")... That's already 51 games and you add the Club World Cup on top of that (and you can probably increase the FA Cup by 2 or 3 since it would be surprising if Man U dropped out in the first round). If you want your star players to be able to play in the "important" games, then you rest them for the unimportant ones when you have so many games. So if Man U (or next year's European Champion) have to play the OFC or AFC champions, I'd be surprised if the starting XI is really "full strength". You're in a period where you're playing every three days, so every extra bit of rest for your star players needs to be taken (also, injuries). For South American clubs I guess it's similar, albeit the Club World Cup might be considered a more premier trophy in South America than in Europe.

The timing is obviously difficult for the European sides, but it is only played so late because of how late the AFC Champions' League finishes. If the CWC is played in summer (in the European pre-season), then the AFC representative will have been the winner from the previous year (this might also be the case for CAF, CONMEBOL, CONCACAF and OFC).

Is the CWC an ideal tournament? Nope. But it was intended as a cash cow for OFC/CAF/AFC on the back of the Intercontinental Cup. If Man U send a B team (or C team), the competition suffers from the lack of "stars" and ultimately could become a "worthless" cup (Anglo-Italian Cup anybody?) constantly won by the underdogs because the supposedly "better" teams just decide it's not worth it. What is the value of the CWC for the European Champions? Winning the trophy, media coverage (particularly in Japan and the rest of Asia, since it's played there, and the added bonus of slight exposition around the world in a competition branded as the "World Cup" by FIFA)... And that's about it. The added media coverage for Man U though seems negligable, so there's also the side that Man U do not want to lose (image). What Man U don't want is to play against minnows (risk of injury, especially against slow and clumsy players, see Eduardo), and want to be out and back as quickly and effortlessly as possible. LDU Quito probably have the same opinion. But for the AFC, OFC and to a lesser extent CONCACAF and CAF champions, their main advantage is playing against Man U or LDU Quito, who are champions of "better" confederations. Beating either of them grants bragging rights and a crack at the final, with the possibility of becoming the first club in their confederation to be "World Champion". Oh, and the media coverage about playing Manchester United is probably slightly higher than your average AFC or OFC game, just sayin'.

The real risk if the CWC expands is that either the European champions or the South American champions start to consider that it's too much of a burden in the middle of the season and send weakened teams. If an AFC/OFC club gets to the final once, it's a great achievement. But if they start getting there regularly, it will reduce the interest in the competition, knowing fully well that the European Champions are only sending a B team, or resting their key players for the final.

The CWC 2001 never took place for several reasons (including bankrupcy of the organisers), but with 5 games scheduled to win the trophy, mostly against badly-known teams (Real Madrid had to play Jubilo Iwata, Hearts of Oak and LA Galaxy, and I believe only a few specialists can name more than one player in any of those three teams from 2001) over 20-odd days, the clubs weren't all too happy... How do you do a proper pre-season warm-up when you're playing games almost as early as players return from holiday (28th July)? Part of the negociations that followed between FIFA and the different confederations agreed on this bizarre format in order to -not- overload the calendar of UEFA and CONCACAF teams, and thus ensure that they wouldn't pull out of the cup nor send a vastly weakened team.
Weston (@wpazzurri)

how bout top 3 from each comp w/ the the winners getting a bye
Jeremy Brahm

Also could have two South American teams instead or European.
Jeremy Brahm

FA Cup has replays.
Jeremy Brahm

The great thing about the tournament is that it is a one and done tournament, no replays as the FA, no home-away 2 leg matches.
However, it needs to go to eight team format, all region winners, host and defending champion.
There would be Seeding as follows
1. UEFA Champions League Champion
2. Libertadores Champion (would rotate with UEFA in a draw)
3. Defending Champion
4-7 Other regional champs (done with a draw)
8. Host nation

This would allow some random matches and the hopefully match up of two European teams either in a final or semi final, may have to put them in other side of the bracket.

Each team is guaranteed three games.

4 quarterfinals, 2 semifinals, 2 loser's bracket, final and 3 placements matches.

Tournament takes 7 to 8 days excluding travel to and from host nation. Only needs two venues with back to back matches.
.Defending champion
Sam

Get rid of it, I say.
Ronald

Fine. Doubt LDU Quito all you want. Some poster from this site ( i forget who somtimes ) went on the offside podcast and said LDU had no chance to win the Copa Livertadores...we all know how that turned out -_- lol
Flippy

Make it a 2 month long tournament in the Summer (august, july) and make it like a preseason tournament. Also maybe the top four of each continent. And why are there 7 teams? Does Antartica count?
Laurie

Funny, I've never stopped to think about why this tournament doesn't interest me, but you've gotten all the reasons just right.

Although a lot of it is also timing. A tournament that's in the middle of the European season almost feels doomed to fail. I know the world doesn't revolve around Europe, but let's face it. That's where all the money is.
CSD

I think the whole thing needs to be done away with. It's like the reward for winning tournaments is to have so many games the following season that your team will be destroyed by the end of it.
DM

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ .....
MoMONEY

An all Red-Devil final hopefully! Al-Ahly will prove their worth...
Taylor Rockwell

And I'm looking forward to a United v. Al-Ahly final
Taylor Rockwell

Daryl, wouldn't that end up being a lot of matches in the middle of a lot of seasons? I doubt United would welcome the opportunity to play what could end up being 6 matches instead of 2... and how would you new Club World Cup fit into the current schedule? I doubt Fergie would take the competition seriously if a group stage, quarterfinals, semis, and final match all took place in 2-3 weeks...
Peter Katsiris

I have a proposal of my own to bulk up the tournament to 8 clubs (an even number!). My plan consists of the same qualification process which sees Champions of each confederation join the torunament.

However, I think FIFA could to this, for the first time they use 8 clubs they add a championship team; meaning the defending champions are brought back to defend their title (ala UEFA in the Champions League with Liverpool).

If the Champion managed to win its continental championship again (first of all dayumn!!), then I suggest they bring in the runner-up from that specific continent.

eg. Suppose Man U wins this year's tournament, and unfortunately and much to my dismay wins the Champions League this year they will return to next year's Club World Cup as defending Champions, but European spot should go to the defeated finalist.

OR................

Europe gets two seeds each year, and the UEFA Super Cup holds more stakes which sees the Super Cup acts as European Champions... or Europe gets two seeds via Champions League winners and UEFA Cup winners.