How Infantino embraced Trump and the Club World Cup as a political football

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 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 a game, which is $7m more than the Champions League and $13m 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 the profit and sustainability rules (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 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 investigated Fifa under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations (Rico) 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 of cricket’s Indian Premier League. 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 it is dependent on it being a success, amid doubts about attendances and whether European clubs are even fit enough. Except, the money ensures that it doesn’t matter. The clubs still want more.