Why are Club World Cup stadiums half-empty? The problems go beyond ticket prices

Sports

add

“The environment,” Chelsea coach Enzo Maresca said, “was a bit strange.” When his team debuted Monday at the 2025 Club World Cup, a tournament FIFA has billed as a soccer “pinnacle,” Mercedes-Benz Stadium, Maresca noted, “was almost empty.” Even when late arrivers trickled in, there were around 50,000 unfilled seats in Atlanta. Elsewhere, through four days, a majority of the tournament’s 12 games haven’t reached half capacity; and none have been sellouts.

The swaths of empty seats have been a stain on the new-look Club World Cup, and have sparked debate around a simple question: Why?

Advertisement

The simplest answer is that FIFA, with “alarming” ticket prices and flawed messaging, priced out or put off significant chunks of would-be fans.

Diehard supporters of clubs from South America and Africa have taken to the tournament. But not all of them could afford (or were allowed) to travel to the U.S. for games. Local appetite, meanwhile, was misread by FIFA and beset by the perception that this Club World Cup is a “cash grab.”

And so, there were only 22,137 people at Mercedes-Benz Stadium to see Chelsea vs. LAFC, the first-ever “competitive” match between an MLS club and a European power. There were 30,151 at Lumen Field for Seattle Sounders vs. Botafogo — fewer than the Sounders average for MLS matches. There were 11,974 at the same stadium for River Plate vs. Urawa Reds two days later, and 3,412 in Orlando for Mamelodi Sundowns vs. Ulsan HD.

“If in America you fill soccer stadiums for friendly games, then when you come with a World Cup, with the best players to win a competition, for sure [stadiums will be full],” FIFA president Gianni Infantino said in April.

Advertisement

But he was wrong. The following is an attempt to explain why.

Club World Cup attendance so far

The Club World Cup has averaged 36,126 fans at its first 12 games, and in a vacuum, that’s not a terrible number. It’s not the 53,191 average attendance at the 2022 World Cup, nor the 52,314 at Euro 2024, nor the 49,406 at last summer’s Copa América. But it’s a decent draw that’s featured fun atmospheres in New Jersey and Miami.

The problem is that 10 of 12 games have been played at NFL stadiums or the Rose Bowl.

Overall, per FIFA’s announced attendances and listed stadium capacities, only 54% of seats have been full.

Advertisement

The explanation for the empty 46% is twofold:

1. FIFA executives, reportedly bucking advice from their U.S.-based staff, chose to host most of the tournament at massive American football stadiums rather than smaller MLS grounds.

2. Their initial ticket prices for the Club World Cup, a start-up tournament, were among the most expensive for any major soccer tournament, ever.

Ticket prices

When FIFA first released tickets in December, the cheapest for the opener were $223 (including Ticketmaster fees, but before taxes). Many upper-deck seats at a majority of group-stage games cost upwards of $100.

The prices were “alarming,” Bailey Brown, president of the Independent Supporters Council, a group representing soccer fans across the U.S. and Canada, told Yahoo Sports in an email at the time. They fell in line with a uniquely American trend of soccer organizations trying to milk as much money out of people as possible. Brown was “genuinely concerned” that “many of the most passionate fans will be priced out of enjoying the sport” as a result.

Advertisement

Months later, with sales lagging, amid increasingly desperate attempts to drum up interest for the Club World Cup, FIFA slashed most prices. Of the 39 group games for which sufficient and analogous data was available on Ticketmaster, 33 had seen prices drop by at least 25% since December; only two had seen prices increase by at least 20%. In late May, tickets to 26 of the 48 group games were available for less than $50.

But still, many weren’t selling. Why?

Because FIFA, it seems, did not promote the tournament properly.

FIFA’s messaging

The Club World Cup has been plagued all along by resistance from the European soccer establishment. When Infantino and FIFA finally powered through the resistance, scored a Saudi-backed broadcast deal, and got the competition up and running, they had to sell it to a skeptical public.

Advertisement

Their apparent strategy revolved around a fancy trophy and Infantino, who would simply state, again and again, that the Club World Cup would be the biggest and best tournament imaginable.

It would feature “the 32 best clubs and best players from all over the world,” Infantino said at December’s draw. “Two, three, four million fans will be coming to the U.S.; four, five billion will be watching from home.”

Never mind that plugged-in fans knew none of this was necessarily true.

Casuals, on the other hand, had heard these types of bombastic claims before, from promoters of preseason events like the International Champions Cup. What the ICC successfully sold for several years was a chance for U.S. fans to see soccer’s biggest clubs in the flesh. What FIFA had to explain to those same fans was why the Club World Cup was not just another summer exhibition.

Advertisement

And FIFA never really did that. It sent Infantino on a media tour in April, and he kept making the overhyped claims. A relentless digital advertising campaign screamed “THE BEST v THE BEST.” A social media push featured influencers outlining why the Club World Cup would be “the biggest sports tournament of the summer.” FIFA rarely engaged with traditional soccer media; never directly confronted criticism; and never went beyond the surface level to detail its vision or rationale for the tournament.

So, its messaging felt empty, and its credibility — already low among Western fans — wore thin.

The irony is that many critical thinkers have come around on the concept of the Club World Cup. Many believe that, over time, as fans see that players care, fans themselves will care, and the tournament’s popularity will grow. This is the arc of any unproven competition. It’s currently happening with the UEFA Nations League. It can happen with this one.

The problem is that FIFA priced it, and talked about it, like a proven tournament.

Advertisement

And now, rather than full stadiums converting skeptics, empty seats are reinforcing the perception that these matches are empty of meaning — even as many players say the opposite.

Foreign fans unwelcome or unable

They are most meaningful, it seems, in South America and Africa. In Argentina and Tunisia, and in other countries home to participating teams, the Club World Cup is front-page news. But, for many people in those countries and elsewhere:

• The Trump administration’s unwelcoming rhetoric has made such a trip less appealing.

It’s impossible to gauge the impact of those three factors. But consider the story of Gamal Hosni, a 28-year-old who lives in Cairo and adores Al Ahly, Inter Miami’s opponent in Saturday’s opener. “I really wanted to go, man,” Hosni told Yahoo Sports in a video interview. So, he says, he applied for a visitor visa, and paid the $185 fee. But his application was denied; he was forced to cancel his plans, and instead watch the game from home at 3 a.m.

Has the novelty worn off?

With foreign fans restricted, attendance has largely depended on the U.S. market. Thus far, expats from Egypt, Brazil, Argentina, Tunisia and elsewhere have turned up. But the stark reality is that most sports fans in the U.S. have never heard of Espérance Tunis or Ulsan HD or Botafogo.

Advertisement

Perhaps they’ve heard of Chelsea. But Chelsea has now come to the U.S. four straight summers. So has Real Madrid. Manchester City has been here three of the last four. Bayern Munich, Atlético Madrid, Borussia Dortmund and Juventus have also visited recently. Their presence is no longer novel; and when they come on preseason tours, their opponents are often better — or at least more famous.

Still, it is stunning that Chelsea’s 12 preseason friendlies (excluding a double-header) averaged over 50,000 fans, and never drew fewer than 32,724, whereas its Club World Cup opener drew 22,137.

Kickoff times made for TV

A significant factor in Atlanta, and on Tuesday in New Jersey and Seattle, were the kickoff times: 3 p.m. or noon on a weekday.

Advertisement

The reason for those: FIFA prefers to schedule each game in a unique broadcast window to maximize total viewership.

Doing so comes at the expense of the match-going fan, which is a defensible tradeoff; in some sense, it makes the games more accessible. The baffling choice was to still ask fans to pay premium prices for tickets — plus around $30 for parking at some stadiums, $30 for a drink and food, and perhaps a vacation day.

That, in a nutshell, is why many seats have been empty.

FIFA did not respond to a pre-tournament interview request nor to questions about its ticketing strategy.

It said in a news release Tuesday that “close to 1.5 million tickets” have so far been sold. Across 63 games, that would be less than 40% of the roughly 4 million cumulative capacity.

This news was originally published on this post .

Share on

email

Previous

Frankfurt und Mainz zocken um Burkardt-Ablöse – Der verrückteste Poker der Bundesliga

1. Bundesliga

Next

trending_flat

Why are Club World Cup stadiums half-empty? FIFA’s failures go beyond ticket prices

Sports