Haters gonna hate....

 

I have been shocked and disturbed by the extreme negativity so often being expressed online about this first Club World Cup competition. Most of the people dissing it so heavily are clearly driven by personal grudges and prejudices, and are often nakedly hypocritical too: they abuse the tournament, while also griping how unfair it is that their club isn't in it (if you're a Liverpool fan, you have the beginnings of a case on that; but it's not a reason to dismiss the worth of the tournament); or they suggest it's not worth watching or supporting - while they've clearly been watching it.

Many of them are also so stubbornly invested in this embittered view of the competition that they seek to disparage it further by questioning the quality of the football or the degree to which players and teams have really been motivated for it. I saw one comment from a guy this past week whose main argument seemed to be that Manchester City couldn't possibly have been beaten by Al Hilal if they'd been trying properly! I must assume he didn't watch that game (or many of the ones last season in which City were also chronically incapable of defending against swift counter-attacks): City tried their damnedest, and were just outplayed on the day; and both Pep and his players looked absolutely gutted to have been eliminated. The quality of football in this tournament has, in fact, been of an astonishingly high standard, and no club has been guilty of putting out a sub-par eleven or being unconcerned about a result (except in a few instances, perhaps, at the end of the group stage; but that always happens in competition like this).

So, these critics almost all appear to be driven by a knee-jerk emotional response rather than a rational analysis. And a great many of them also have a hidden - or not-so-hidden! - personal agenda fuelling their invective. Thus, they don't really merit much attention..

However, the detractors of the tournament do have two main lines of attack which I think are worth addressing.

Lack of 'prestige'?

The haters deride the tournament as valueless, they protest that it carries no 'prestige' - or only 'fake' or 'manufactured' prestige.

I would suggest that 'prestige' essentially means how highly the event is valued - by players, fans, and the club's ownership. And the key determinant of that is the standard of the competitors. Most people - players, certainly - are going to value a competition if they have to beat really top opponents to win it. And this competition - aside from the unfortunate but unavoidable omission of a few big names like Liverpool and Barca - does have all the best teams in the world in it.

'Official' status also counts for a lot. FIFA, although it may often be laughably corrupt and incompetent, is nevertheless the game's global governing body, and any event they endorse automatically carries considerable weight - far more than an event organised by one of the regional football associations, or a 'private' friendly competition set up by groups of clubs. And heck, the title of 'World Champion' is inherently prestigious - there's no getting away from that.

Moreover, in our sadly materialistic world, the sheer size of the prize pot is going to be a key determinant of the importance attached to a competition by a club's owners - and, at least to an extent, by the players and the fans too, because we're all dazzled by money, and we appreciate how important it is. And FIFA have produced an impressively huge prize fund for this tournament.

Now, yes, there's a further sentimental component to 'prestige' in sporting competitions, which grows from the associations we've all accumulated  around them - from their history. But no competition has 'history' when it starts; and that isn't a reason to never consider creating a new competition. Even the World Cup was a bit slow out of the blocks, with a lot of the European nations being uninterested in joining it, even when the second event was hosted in Italy in 1934; England and others didn't come on board until after World War II, The European Championship had an even rockier start, with some of the leading European footballing powers - England, Italy, West Germany, Netherlands - actively opposing its creation, and not participating in the first one or two iterations in the 1960s; and it didn't start becoming a major viewing draw until the 1980s. In its first iteration a new tournament is strange, unfamiliar, an unknown quanitity - it's inevitable that natural human scepticism (and resentment of change) is going to win out with a lot of people, and they're going to question the event's prestige, or even its reason for existing.

We had just the same distaste and dismay expressed towards the new Nations League competition in Europe just a few years ago. But now.... people are starting to get into it a little bit, now that they understand the format, and they're starting to build a stock of potent memories about times their team did well or badly in it. And the fact that the Great Egomaniac, Mr Cristiano Ronaldo, is so chuffed to have just won it is probably going to do wonders for how seriously people take the next one.

The same will be true of this Club World Cup - and probably on an even shorter timeline, because it's simply been such a bloody good tournament. People who've watched it with an open mind.... are already looking forward to the next one.  Supposed 'prestige' problem SOLVED.

Unacceptable toll on the players?

This objection I have a bit more time for. I am concerned about the increasing burdens we place on top football players - both physical and emotional - and alarmed about possible adverse consequences a little down the line. But for me, blaming summer tournaments (or international football more generally, or the governing bodies creating novel tournaments more specifically) is a dangerous distraction, it's missing the point. The core of the burden on players comes from the domestic schedule, and that's what needs to be lightened. 

We have been used to there being summer tournaments at least every other year for decades now; we ought to be well used to it. And it's unreasonable to insist that no new tournaments should be tried out ever. Without occasional innovation and experimentation, the sport will stagnate and die. 

People who take that tack in regard to this tournament are wilfully disregarding the very strong and worthwhile reasons for its creation. The original 'Club World Cup' format was tiny, it was buried in midwinter (at a time when most of the world is preoccuppied with preparations for Christmas), and given almost no promotion. For years, it failed to attract very much media attention in Europe; and in the UK, at least, we were barely ever aware that it was happening (even if our club was in it). But in the rest of the world - especially in South America - they went mad for it! The developing football nations were desperately craving an opportunity to test their best teams against the big boys of Europe (even if it rarely worked out very well for them). The demand was undoubtedly there (outside of selfish, insular Europe, anyway) for a proper international competition between the best clubs of all continents - something on a broader scale that could include multiple clubs from each continent, and provide a bigger spectacle that would grab the attention of global TV audiences. Events like this help to develop the game in the less well-off countries - hopefully to the point that, one day, we'll have a more level global playing-field in this sport, and the best African, Asian, and South American teams will be powerful enough to hang on to at least some of their best young players - rather than regularly having all of them poached by European sides. And I think an event like this is also good for 'cultural exchange' in the here-and-now, helping to educate football fans about the level of the game in other countries, and introducing us to some previously unknown talents. (It would be unfortunate, though, if it just became a big shopping showcase! I'm not sure that players like Arias, Mastantuono, and Jesus would have been getting moves to Europe without this competition....)

The root of the problem with player health is not the number of games, but the intensity of them in the modern-day style of play. One game can break a player! And of course, there's a huge variation in individual susceptibility: some players, like Declan Rice, are tanks who seem to be able to play a full 90 minutes again and again and again, with no tail-off in performance or incipient injury risk; others have hamstrings that ping more often than their phones. But sports science has made huge advances in recent years: clubs are now getting very good at monitoring fatigue levels and muscle soreness or stiffness for the earliest signs of danger. It's really the club's responsibility to manage their player's well-being, and ensure that they aren't over-played when they're looking vulnerable. 

The much deeper squads and routine rotation we've grown used to now are a big help with this, as is the increased number of substitutions allowed in each match. Permitting one or two further substitutions might help a little bit more. And the League does seem to be doing its best with scheduling - contriving a short winter 'break', and trying to ensure minimum 'recovery periods' are provided between all fixtures. However, the inevitable mid-winter log-jam still looms ominously over the season. Many countries suspend their domestic leagues altogether for a couple of weeks or so around the turn of the year; we really need to be looking at doing that in England too. Traditionalists, of course, (and especially those who support clubs who would suddenly be at a greatly heightened risk of relegation) are vehemently opposed to reducing the number of clubs in the Premier League. But, with the vastly increased pace of the modern game, I'm afraid it's now unavoidable: we need to get it down to 18 teams as soon as possible - and perhaps ultimately to only 15 or 16. It's not the end of the world, we'll get used to it! After all, it's only 20 years since the League was reduced from 22 teams to 20, and nobody grumbles about that any more; in fact, I think most people had got over it inside a couple of years.

And if we're talking about unnecessary additions to the minutes-burden, surely the League Cup has to go before anything else?! I know fans of clubs like Newcastle and Spurs will briefly get very passionate about it, as it's the only piece of silverware they've managed to claim in the modern era. But that's all it is: a lame 'consolation prize' for teams that aren't quite good enough to win anything worthwhile. It is - and always has been - a complete non-event. And if it were cancelled tomorrow, nobody would miss it in a year's time. [The one small counter-argument I can see in favour of retaining it is that it has become useful as an opportunity for giving squad players and emerging youth talents a few full run-outs.... in a competition that doesn't matter.]

I fear many of the gripes we're hearing from the online community about the possible harm to players from playing another summer tournament are driven by the purely selfish concern that it may impact their team - especially at the start of the season. Pep himself has already jumped on that bandwagon, whining about the possible detriments to City in the domestic league from their participation in America. (He's just getting his excuses in early, as the tournament exposed the fact that his Manchester City might be quite poor again next season, the 'no defence' problem still not fixed!) It's notable, I think, that there were no such complaints before they got knocked out; and you'll probably never hear Chelsea fans bitching about the tournament, because they're so surprised and delighted to have reached the Final!

Fantasy managers tend to be even worse in their narrowness of focus, resenting not just the possibility of a player going missing with an injury, but the likelhood of increased rotations, uncertain starts, and reduced minutes - anything that might eat into their precious points tally. But that's such a problem with Pep's City anyway, you never want to risk taking more than one or two of their players! It's really a very small, potential impact on two EPL teams; it shouldn't be that big of a deal. But people are treating it as the most massive and unconscionable source of grievance. It is not: get over it.

This first Club World Cup has gone far better than anyone can really have expected. It has been a huge success, producing a very high level of competition, a few surprises and upsets, some extremely entertaining football (the main media partner, DAZN, is missing a trick by not having put together a 'Goal of the Tournament' reel yet, because there have been some absolute bangers!!) - and it's produced a fascinating Final for us to enjoy tomorrow.

Quit bitching - it's here to stay.