The recent FIFA Club World Cup final, where Chelsea triumphed over Paris Saint-Germain 3–0 at MetLife Stadium, underscored a significant moment for soccer in the United States. The vibrant stadium atmosphere was akin to major European events, filled with a diverse crowd united in their love for the sport. However, the tournament leading up to the finals revealed stark contrasts. In the weeks prior, attendance at stadiums in Orlando and Cincinnati was dismally low, impacted by high ticket prices and widespread concerns about immigration issues. The experience served as both a celebration of global soccer and a cautionary tale for the U.S. as it gears up for the 2026 World Cup.
One of the most prominent issues highlighted during the tournament was the exorbitant ticket pricing structure. Initial prices for semifinals reached as high as $473, while premium tickets for the finals soared to over $2,900. Such pricing led to significant number of empty seats at early matches, prompting FIFA to drop prices drastically in a desperate effort to fill the stands. While this adjustment attracted larger crowds for semifinal matches, the empty rows during earlier games raised pressing questions about the planning and accessibility of such major sporting events. Critics, including fans, expressed that more affordable ticket prices would have led to greater attendance and a more vibrant atmosphere.
The harsh weather conditions presented another challenge for both players and fans, particularly in cities experiencing peak summer temperatures. Midday kickoffs, timed for European television audiences, subjected everyone to extreme heat, sometimes soaring above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Players reported severe discomfort, with Chelsea’s Enzo Fernández suffering from dizziness during matches. FIFA’s attempts to mitigate these conditions through water breaks and shaded areas were insufficient. Veteran players also echoed concerns about how the heat affected the game’s tempo and overall quality, highlighting the urgent need for more sensible scheduling during the 2026 World Cup.
Political factors, especially pertaining to immigration, also marred the event. A restrictive executive order from President Trump affected fans from certain countries, creating a climate of fear and uncertainty that dissuaded many would-be attendees. Visa backlogs compounded the situation, leading to greater apprehension among supporters who feared they could be subjected to immigration enforcement. Messages from U.S. government officials added to the mixed signals about who would be welcome to attend the World Cup, raising serious concerns about the inclusivity of such a globally significant event.
Despite these challenges, the Club World Cup showcased the accomplishments the U.S. is capable of achieving on the world stage. Broadcast production quality was widely praised, and transportation systems largely functioned efficiently for attendees. Importantly, the event managed to generate more than $2.1 billion in revenue, thus countering doubts about the viability of hosting major soccer events in the country. FIFA President Gianni Infantino remarked on the financial success of the tournament, heralding it as a major achievement in terms of revenue per match.
Moreover, the fan experience during the knockout rounds provided a glimpse of the passionate soccer culture thriving in the U.S. South American supporters invigorated stadiums with their spirited chants and vibrant displays. Unexpected results, such as Al Hilal’s surprising win over Manchester City, added to the excitement and brought attention to the high levels of competition present in leagues outside of Europe. As FIFA and U.S. officials prepare for the upcoming World Cup in 2026, the lessons learned from the Club World Cup will prove invaluable, ensuring that the next event capitalizes on the country’s potential to offer an extraordinary experience for global soccer fans.
