Talk:2025 FIFA Club World Cup

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

On the map, can you add the location for Inter&Co Stadium as well so that users can see where both Orlando stadiums are located? Also alphabetise the locations on the map. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't think that's practical because it would require a hyper-local level of detail. If you take a look at Google Maps (link: [1]), you'll see the two Orlando stadiums are essentially right down the street from each other—I asked it for directions from the Citrus Bowl to the soccer-specific stadium and it shows they're half a mile apart. There's simply no way to render a half-mile distinction in any meaningful way on a map showing the entire 48 contiguous states (as a practical matter, they're in the same place). The map shows where the host cities are. Regarding alphabetizing, I don't object to that idea in principle, although I note the article lists the venues in decreasing order of capacity and the map legend tracks the order they appear in the article, so I'm reluctant to pursue that change—I'd rather leave that issue for others to decide because I don't know whether there's a consensus regarding the order in which venues are listed. Because of that second comment, I haven't tagged the request as "answered." 1995hoo (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: please submit one edit request for each change you want to be made. Bowler the Carmine | talk 05:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Club World Cup roster regulations

Is there a way we can include how the roster regulations will be handled by clubs? The FIFA Council just announced how clubs will be able to submit squad list and deal with contract expirations during the tournament.

Here is the info: https://www.fifa.com/en/news/articles/council-decisions-upcoming-competitions HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

Inter Miami did not qualify through winning the Supporters Shield. They qualified just by being a part of the host country. Not related. Cable10291 (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you have a case. FIFA is quite evasive with their wording in their release. BLAIXX 18:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Inter Miami just qualified, we are almost in 2025 (tournament’s year) and FIFA still treating it as the 1st edition, we need to correct this mistake in the article, as we can see:

“Find out more about the Major League Soccer side and how they qualified for the first edition of the global club tournament in 2025.”[2]

“Inter Miami CF have become the penultimate club to seal a spot at the new FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ after winning the 2024 MLS Supporters’ Shield [3]

“FIFA announced today that Inter Miami CF has become the penultimate team to seal a spot at the new FIFA Club World Cup™ after winning the 2024 MLS Supporters’ Shield”[4] TF MxLoko (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Re-opening discussion since it was closed with a fake news: “the only sources referring to "1st" here are primary, see previous talk page sections”. However, the truth is that secondary sources were provided too, like Inter Miami website for exemple, and many others that I saw in the discussion already closed before.

Let’s stick to the reality and correct mistakes in this article. TF MxLoko (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Recently FIFA posted "being part of the exciting new tournament"[5][6], which, together with the various secondary sources already presented, corroborate the aforementioned edition to correct the article and treat the competition correctly as the 1st edition in 2025. TF MxLoko (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Chelsea’s second Champions League triumph would follow some nine years later, when their 1-0 victory over Premier League rivals Manchester City in 2021 sealed qualification for the INAUGURAL FIFA Club World Cup 2025™. FIFA Video ( INAUGURAL CHAMPION) [7]. Join us at the FIRST ever FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ [8]. FIFA Council: "competition’s official name will be Mundial de Clubes FIFA". The FIRST EDITION of which will be played in the United States in 2025. Gianni Infantino: "the FIRST EDITION a great event, a great tournament". [9] It is not the "21st" of the quadrennial world cup.[10][11] The official name Coupe Intercontinentale de la FIFA[12] is the evolution of the tournament created in 2000 (its continuation and replacement, the annual world cup) [13][14] 2804:23D4:C208:2501:AD8C:95DB:F289:2DC3 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree 100% with you too and I think we have a consensus here... that's crazy that only 2 people spoke out in more than 15 days.

But, from what I've been reading in the Talk:2025 FIFA Club World Cup#Team names, it makes sense... I see what the user @PeeJay is suffering there. So, they do not reply here, because they will need to reopen the discussion and they will keep with the arguments "because it is that way", "because it's always been this way" or "because we do not have consensus".

Amazingly, it is always the same 3/4 who comment and think they are in charge of Wikipedia. No guys, less, much less. Let's respect the rules, we are here to always evolve and if there are people who bring points of view that are contrary to ours, we will listen and if the person is right, regardless of whether they are a new user or not, adopt their point of view. MxLoko (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The reason no one responded is probably because this discussion was already had at WP:FOOTY and above and you chose not to accept that and opened a new discussion. The fact of the matter is that FIFA originally called it a new tournament. Then started referring to it as a continuing tournament. Now it is being referred to as a new tournament again. This was discussed and while no consensus was reached, a majority of the responses were to leave it until closer to the tournament (I believe after the 1st of the year was brought up). The discussion was closed by an admin and subsequently the discussion on this talk page was closed as well. You chose to not agree with that for the reasons you stated. It is the same as it has always been and no one wants to rehash the same old fight that has been happening all year with very few editors against the decision to leave it for now. You don't gain a consensus with two editors saying the same thing.

What has been happening in these discussion is a common pitfall of the process: Tendentious editing - The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.

Historically in this discussion there has been one person that wants it their way and will not listen to the majority view. All the sources you provide are not advancing the topic because the reason multiple editors have stated for not changing it is because sources can be provided that show it is not the inaugural tournament. While recent history lends itself to the concept of it being a new tournament, a majority agreed with leaving it until the new year, closer to the tournament to ensure that nothing would change again in how FIFA is referring to it.

I think you will find the reason that a lot of editors use the arguments you discuss in your reply is because of situations like these, where no consensus has been reached. Based on WP:CON, if no consensus is agreed upon: When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. This is what has been done in the instance and although consensus can change it has not been very long since consensus could not be reached and none of the arguments have changed. Chris1834 Talk 15:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but your arguments are full of errors. I opened an "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2024" because it was closed with a fake news that “the only sources referring to "1st" here are primary, see previous talk page sections”, however, the truth is that secondary sources were provided too, like Inter Miami website for exemple, and many others that I saw in the discussion already closed before.

That discussion was opened by @Danoniinho on 19 March 2024 and FIFA did not changed the way they treat the tournament (1st edition) since that date. So, to say the least, it is shocking to hear that FIFA may change the way it refers to the tournament again, just because they have already done this in the past, as an argument. If it were to act like this, most edits with changes here on Wikipedia would not happen.

No, there are not only 2 editors against keep the way it is. If you see discussion since it started on 19 March by Mr. @Danoniinho, you will see many opinions against (could be much more as each passing day FIFA continues to treat the tournament as the 1st edition and more secondary sources - like this one from The Nation - are emerging in this sense, but the discussion was closed). Also, only like three people saying the same thing and, worst, tagging other editors they know they think the same way with the aim of pretending consensus is, again to say the least, spoiled.

Almost 8 months have passed since the start of the other discussion and FIFA continues to treat it as the 1st edition of the tournament, as we can see in the news published on its website today. [15]

"Inaugural 32-team FIFA Club World Cup™", but the couple of editors who are against the change will want to make a favorable interpretation of what they are defending, saying that FIFA is only referring to a "inaugural 32-team format". So, to refute this biased interpretation, next in the text we have: "All 32 clubs for the new FIFA Club World Cup". MxLoko (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2024

I request that Inter Miami be included in a separate table from qualified teams titled "Invited Teams." According to USA Today, Inter Miami's official announcement, and MLS' and FIFA's official announcements, Inter Miami were "selected" to participate in the tournament in 2025 (Inter Miami CF Communications Department, 2024) (Deen, 2024) (FIFA, 2024) (MLSsoccer Staff, 2024). They did not "qualify" through continental competition or four year coefficient as the rest of the teams listed in the "qualified" table. They did not meet a criteria previously set by MLS, CONCACAF, or FIFA as the other qualified teams, but were invited by FIFA (Deen, 2024).

https://www.intermiamicf.com/news/fifa-announces-inter-miami-cf-as-host-member-association-club-for-fifa-club-world-cup-2025tm-following-2024-mls-supporters-shield-success https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/fifa-2025-club-world-cup-inter-miami-awarded-spot-alongside-seattle-sounders https://inside.fifa.com/about-fifa/organisation/media-releases/inter-miami-cf-joins-fifa-club-world-cup-2025-tm-line-up-mls-supporters-shield https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/2024/10/19/fifa-club-world-cup-2025-inter-miami-messi/75757646007/ 24.104.65.70 (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No @24.104.65.70, the article is perfect this way. Inter Miami qualified as the host country representative after winning the 2024 MLS Supporters' Shield and this method was chosen by FIFA (which had the prerogative to establish how the host country's representative would qualify). Inter Miami is already separated from other CONCACAF clubs in that table, showing they qualified as host country's representative and not through the 4 CONCACAF slots. So, in this point the article is perfect how it is. TF MxLoko (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Inter Miami CF

Pinging @S.A. Julio:, @Matilda Maniac:, @Blaixx:. @PeeJay: in my opinion your edit is wrong. Inter Miami CF is invited as host. Host is United States, and their Federation is part of CONCACAF. In spite of being the host, Inter Miami CF Confederation is CONCACAF, which has been given one slot (to the host). Island92 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

They are not representing CONCACAF, though. They didn't qualify through a CONCACAF competition, they qualified because they are representing the host nation. If you're counting the number of clubs from CONCACAF nations, yes, they would count towards that number, but the team representing the host nation is an entity unto itself and shouldn't be listed as a CONCACAF team. – PeeJay 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but each team qualified has its Confederation on the left. Why cannot this be the case for Inter Miami CF? CONCACAF is given an extra slot because the Host is representing United States. Island92 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The column says confederation, I don't think "Host (United States)" makes the most sense in this context. I would suggest continuing the format from past articles, such as 2023 FIFA Club World Cup#Qualified teams. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Island92 (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to retitle the column if it doesn't cover everything below it. We shouldn't be referring to the host as a CONCACAF team just because that's what the column header says. – PeeJay 21:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Why that should be a problem? We have always used this kind of columns refering to team qualified in these tournaments... Island92 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Because you’re using it as an excuse to incorrectly apply a confederation to Inter Miami. Personally, I don’t see a problem with using “Confederation” as the column header and still saying Inter Miami is representing the host nation. It’s not confusing, it just means for the purposes of a tournament like this, the host nation is a pseudo confederation. – PeeJay 09:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it's logical understanding. Always adopted this practice. Island92 (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If you think that's logical, then you don't understand logic. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't mean that way is correct. See is–ought problem. – PeeJay 11:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I know that, but apparently only you are opposing this feature to have a table different from the practice. For major tournaments the style has always been this. Inter Miami CF is representing host, part of CONCACAF. Island92 (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That word "apparently" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. You're making incorrect assumptions about my motives. My intent here is to reflect reality as accurately as possible. Although Inter Miami is a club affiliated to CONCACAF, they have not qualified and referring to them as a CONCACAF qualifier is incorrect. By the way, I notice that you only pinged S.A. Julio, Matilda Maniac and Blaixx about this; what was your motive for selecting those three users in particular instead of notifying WT:FOOTY about this discussion? – PeeJay 16:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Because they have been the most active according to the history page. Also Qatar did not qualify for 2022 FIFA World Cup, but they are listed as part of AFC teams. So what's the most correct display? Island92 (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be more correct to list Qatar separately from the AFC teams, especially since they played friendlies against UEFA teams in preparation for the tournament. – PeeJay 20:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Has never been the case, right? That's why there is a practice for these tables in major tournaments. Qatar is part of those AFC members (if you have qualified for the tournament via campaign or being just the host), as well as Inter Miami CF of CONCACAF, no? Island92 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? As I said, just because something has been done a certain way since the start, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. – PeeJay 21:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Island92 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Because you might not have considered a better way of doing things, obviously… – PeeJay 02:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily, sometimes... However, just @Matilda Maniac: has to give the take according to who I pinged, let's say the response and what should be displayed in the table. Island92 (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If you look at 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification, you can see that Russia is simply listed as host in the qualifying table, which is what we are discussing here (a qualifying table). Their confederation is not listed. However, the entire table is done differently, so maybe that is something to consider - unifying the look of the tables. I understand that it is a little different as Russia is the one and only option to host as they are the country and in the club competition, they are choosing one of many options so they have technically qualified as host by being the supporters shield champion. To carry on from the previous would mean Island92 would be correct but I get where PeeJay is coming from. I would recommend putting it through WT:FOOTY and discussing a consensus for all such articles: club, national team, or otherwise. Chris1834 Talk 13:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that. This as no different than 2022 FIFA World Cup#Teams either, where Qatar qualified as hosts, but are listed along with the other AFC teams. Miami's confederation is undoubtedly CONCACAF, it's just that their method of qualification is as hosts. BLAIXX 15:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

FIFA disagrees: North & Central America, Carribbean - 4 teams and Host country United States - 1 team: 2023 annual tournament is not a continuation of the quadrennial 1st edition of 2025[16] 2804:23D4:C208:2501:991B:C631:245E:2753 (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We know that, but the Confederation for the host is in this case from CONCACAF anyway, being given one extra slot because representing USA, host of the tournament. Island92 (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but host indicated by the country, without criteria established by the confederations(ex. Concacaf). first edition and new tournament is different from 21st edition 2804:23D4:C208:2501:991B:C631:245E:2753 (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, we have a table listing Confederations on the left. Inter Miami CF representing host is part of USA (CONCACAF). Secondly, this is only a new tournament under a new expanded format, not a new tournament overall. You are you? The blocked user Sinister Union, Fa30, who have gone on by supporting this theory? Island92 (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not. FIFA doesn't call it a "new format", except for the 2024 Intercontinental in relation to the 2023 annual tournament, but the first edition of a new tournament.2804:23D4:C208:2501:991B:C631:245E:2753 (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Remember not going off topic. The original is quite different. We discussing other thing, not if this is new or not. Island92 (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the host country, Concacaf has not established rules on this. Goodbye 2804:23D4:C208:2501:991B:C631:245E:2753 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This according to the rule, but each team qualified or representing something has got its respective Confederation on the left, according to the table we use here on Wikipedia. Regards. Island92 (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Criticism sub-section

As an aside from the current conversation, there probably ought to be a criticism sub-section on Miami's selection. There has been a decent amount written on that already, I just haven't found the time to actually write that sub-section into the article yet. Jay eyem (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been done, let me know if there are any other pertinent points that should be included. Jay eyem (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jay eyem: Thanks for the addition! I also noticed that reporters Tom Bogert and Jonathan Tannenwald mentioned that FIFA made the decision unilaterally, ignoring the request of MLS to give the spot to the MLS Cup champions (see: [17], [18]). Would this be worth adding to the article? S.A. Julio (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I definitely think that is worth mentioning. I know I saw some tweets to that effect. Do we have that in a RS in English? I haven't searched for those yet. Jay eyem (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jay eyem: I haven't found any English-language articles, Bogert mentioned it in a podcast while Tannenwald confirmed the same information in a tweet. I'm not sure if this would meet the threshold of inclusion, but the Spanish-language sources seem reliable and are referenced in numerous articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Team names

@PeeJay: please do not modify how a team name should be displayed. Inter Miami CF for example is written like that on every Wikipedia page the team is involved in. Island92 (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to write the full name in a map. Thanks. – PeeJay 00:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@PeeJay: rather than reverting, please ask user @S.A. Julio: how a team name should be displayed. Seattle Sounders FC should be reported, Inter Miami CF and so on. It is their common name here. You need consensus for the change. It is not a case of being more flexible. Island92 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in asking @S.A. Julio for their opinion, they are not the arbiter of what is "standard" around here. Your argument doesn't hold water. The map is small, therefore we can use shorter names. Also, Inter Miami and Seattle Sounders are referred to by shorter names all the time. Just look at MLSSoccer.com. The idea that we have to call them "Inter Miami CF" and "Seattle Sounders FC" all the time is ridiculous. – PeeJay 00:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

On a map ok. Island92 (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The idea that we have to call them "Inter Miami CF" and "Seattle Sounders FC". That is a pre-established consensus I think. Always read like that for these teams. Island92 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Everywhere Seattle Sounders and Inter Miami are involved they are reported with FC on Wikipedia. I don't know why. I think it is correct also here if that is the standard. Island92 (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If you don't know why something is a certain way, you have no standing to claim that that standard should apply at all times. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about, you just follow blindly where other people have laid a path before you and make bold proclamations about what is "standard". – PeeJay 11:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, and if so far I've always read Inter Miami CF outsite this page, I think is correct to display Inter Miami also here. Island92 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That's demonstrably false. In their own article, Miami are referred to as "Inter Miami" 146 times and "Inter Miami CF" 138 times. Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It definitely depends on the team. In MLS the only ones I can think of where we make sure it is un-piped nearly every time are the "City FC" or "FC City" types e.g. Charlotte FC, FC Cincinnati, etc. The others are a bit more varied in their usage. I think with Seattle's particular case, it was often unpiped to distinguish itself from other previous iterations, but I may have that wrong. To my knowledge it has never made a difference for Inter Miami. Jay eyem (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, that's the way I see it mostly done in the media too, including in the work I do for the CBS Sports Golazo Network. – PeeJay 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed a number of times, it is standard for American club names to not be shortened (subsequent mentions in prose can be, though). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 129#American teams and FC, SC, AFC, etc., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 164#Frank Lampard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/United States and Canada task force/Archive 1#Use of FC/SC suffix for club names#Use of FC/SC suffix for club names, etc. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The first time they're mentioned in prose, yes. No one is arguing against that. – PeeJay 19:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I reverted more than once because Inter Miami without CF was reported into qualified teams table. This should not be the case for these kind of tables, as well as Brackets, Standing tables, and Football box collapsible. Island92 (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Syvä-äksy: there is a current consensus to display those teams with FC and so on. See links above of S.A. Julio. Island92 (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I was reading those discussions and I agree 100% with @PeeJay, I strongly recommend most of you guys to read this article: Is–ought problem.

Guys, having been editing here for a long time doesn't give you the right to edit the way you want. Unfortunately, many of you are thinking that you are the master of the truth and you are not. You are mere editors who need, like anyone else, to respect the rules of this Wikipedia and provide a plausible justification for making a change or for preventing a change from being made. It's not enough to say that "it's always been done this way", we don't care about that.

It is terrible the article they way it is, regarding the name of the clubs. We need to standardize that. All clubs without "FC", for example, not Chelsea without FC and Seattle Sounders FC, no pattern at all. MxLoko (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned in the discussions, it is a WP:ENGVAR issue, as many American sources use the full name of the teams. This is more apparent for clubs like Nashville SC or Los Angeles FC, which should never be written as just "Nashville" or "Los Angeles". Also note that exceptions exist for clubs from other countries as well, for example Germany or Sweden, which use longer forms of club names. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

How it is used by the media in each country varies and does not matter. In my opinion we should standardize the way we refer to clubs. MxLoko (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Island92 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Dedicated articles for each group and knockout stage?

I was wondering, given the increased size and prominence of this tournament, should we eventually create articles for each group and the knockout stage, similar to what is done for the FIFA World Cup? (With the full line-ups added for each tournament fixture.) Typically, this level of detail is reserved for national team competitions, while club tournaments only include line-ups for the final. However, since this is the first global club tournament to use a true 'World Cup' format, I think it would be worth providing more detailed coverage on Wikipedia. Pinging @Blaixx, Chris1834, Island92, and Matilda Maniac:. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Despite its importance, that can be left reserved for national team competitions, only. Island92 (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, an international club competition has never really been played before with this many teams in a centralized location over a short period. Given the participating clubs, I think there will certainly be interest from readers. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait and see. It’s not clear yet if it requires that much detail. For now I think we can split out the groups stage, knockout stage, and final only. BLAIXX 20:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blaixx: So if we go that route (for the time being), should the main CWC article look something like 2024 Leagues Cup? With {{Football box}} only shown for the final?

Personally, I don't think such a minimal layout is informative enough for this topic (given the likely reader interest) when compared to the layout of an article like 2022 FIFA World Cup or 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that’s how it should look. That’s also the format of the 2023–24 UEFA Champions League article, and that tournament is currently the world’s most popular club competition. BLAIXX 17:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blaixx: Yes, but the 23/24 Champions League was played over 11 months, using a double round-robin in the group stage, and two legs in the knockout, which is not the case here. This is more similar to the difference between 2024–25 UEFA Nations League and UEFA Euro 2024. Given the shorter time frame and far fewer matches of this tournament, I think a different approach would be worth taking. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I get that they're different formats and schedules but that kinda works in favour of my point. Between the group stages of the CWC and the UCL, the UCL is longer in duration, has more matches per group, and is more extensively sourced (i.e. more popular). If anything, the UCL is the one that should have articles for each group but I think the current group stage article does the job well enough. BLAIXX 14:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait and see. It’s not clear yet if it requires that much detail. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. I'm inclined to say I agree that it will probably need that kind of article breakdown but I would hate to see an article created for each group, just to need to consolidate it later. If countries / teams end up not really sending their A teams because of the fixture congestion they all complain about, it may not be necessary.

Chris1834 Talk 14:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

At the same time, it would be nice to avoid having to create an article for the group stage, only to have to spend effort again to split it into separate group articles a few months down the line. Given the draw is in 3 weeks, the sub-articles will likely need to be created soon. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

True, hadn't really thought about it from the other side. I was really on the fence between waiting and support and feel that ultimately it will need that level. Chris1834 Talk 14:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Per S.A. Julio. Kante4 (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. I completely disagree with @Island92, that is, again, trying to rule Wikipedia saying "that can be left reserved for national team competitions, only". No, we do not have this rule here Mr. Island, this is the 1st World Cup like club tournament, quadrennial as the national team World Cup and given its importance, in my opinion we should create dedicated articles for each group and knockout stage. MxLoko (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You do realize that Island92 has a vote, the same as you, correct? You talk about a bubble around 3-4 editors that apparently push everyone else around yet in recent days, you are the most opiniated, rude editor on this page. All Island92 did was put their opinion in as one vote and if you look, that opinion has been for the most part disagreed with. Yet Island92 has not come back to this discussion and berated people to force their opinion down our throats. This is like all of these discussions, everyone gets a vote. Chris1834 Talk 14:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

"The one and only FIFA Club World Champion” (Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2024)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'll try to be very succinct, there are 2 changes to be made to the article:

• Add information regarding the new tournament trophy that had just been revealed;

• Change from 21st to 1st edition, now that FIFA (in addition to revealing a new trophy for the new tournament) also states "the start of a new era for football when the one and only “FIFA Club World Champion” lifts the FIFA Club World Cup trophy in New York New Jersey on 13 July 2025"[19], as well as the information previously brought to the discussion on Talk:2025 FIFA Club World Cup#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2024.

MxLoko (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait and see. Island92 (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If we wait and see, we will leave this important Wikipedia article outdated and wrong. We already have FIFA explicitly confirming that this is the 1st edition and secondary sources also in the same sense, as we can see in most recent news:

"Tiffany & Co., will be presented to the inaugural FIFA Club World Cup™ winners" Mirage News

"The first edition of the FIFA Club World Cup.." Juventus official website

"Bold prize that will reward the one and only Fifa club world champions.."Supersport

Also, we do need to add information regarding the new tournament trophy that had just been revealed. MxLoko (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You've been making the same argument over and over again in multiple edit requests. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Your pushiness on the issue might also be construed as WP:BLUDGEONing. 1995hoo (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Do we have to deal with another Sinister Union blocked user? Or is he the same person? Island92 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"She", please. And no, I'm not another user. User @PeeJay has already revealed, you guys have a method, when there is a strong opinion that does not come from 3 or 4 users in your group, you start to belittle that user's opinion, trying to say that it is the same person or tag others users of your small group to try to form a false impression of a majority. You have a method. However, it had already been discovered by other users and no longer works.

Let's stick to the facts and not divert the focus from the discussion on screen. MxLoko (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said, drop the stick. Repeating the same talking points over and over again does not make your point more convincing or credible. Trying to impute sinister motives to everyone does not somehow change that. 1995hoo (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not the same talking points. New information appeared, secondary sources adapted themselves to reality and FIFA continued treating it as the 1st edition after almost 8 months since danoniinho motives were presented.

As I told to another guy, you guys have a method. You want to impose that anyone who comments here that goes against the opinion of 2 or 3 (always the same), are fake profiles or are the same person. I took a look at the discussion and even with an IP you used this method. It doesn't stick anymore, we've already discovered this method. MxLoko (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Am I supposed to be intimidated by that? 1995hoo (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I just exposed you and your methods. You are supposed to reply only about the topic being discussed! MxLoko (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

What the heck are you even talking about? "Exposed you and your methods"? What "methods"? You really have nothing worthwhile to say, do you? Again, it's time for you to drop the stick. Insisting you're right and that everyone else is wrong will not get you what you want. You seem to think I should be afraid of you. I'm not. 1995hoo (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Dude, what are you talking about?! As I said, you are supposed to reply only about the topic being discussed!

And you know what I'm talking about and what I exposed. If you didn't get it and are having difficulty, just read it again. Also, I don't have any stick with me to drop it.

You said "Insisting you're right and that everyone else is wrong will not get you what you want", here is what was exposed by Mr. @PeeJay. You 3-4 try to create an imaginary majority, often even tagging other users in that group, to try to create this majority. It doesn't stick anymore. Your methods have been exposed. If you read discussion since Mr. @Danoniinho created it, you will see many many people who are in favor of making these changes and it is always the same little group that tries to stop it. I believe it is a matter of honor, so as not to have users with fewer edits promoting such an effective and correct change, to their detriment.

Finally, since you came up with this talk of fear, now I'm thinking you're really afraid, but don't need to. I don't wanna scare someone from behind a screen. Rest assured. MxLoko (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I see you made a comment about me in an edit summary. WP:REVTALK expressly prohibits stating opinions about other users in edit summaries. I’ll be happy to seek administrator intervention if you don’t stop it. 1995hoo (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Stop with this method that has already been revealed, trout. This is 2025 FIFA Club World Cup talk page! If you saw something you didn't like, you should comment on my talk page and not here!

As guru @PeeJay said earlier about tagging your friends from your little 3-4 people group, it seems like you're trying to get the attention of them to come and help you. Grow up and solve your problems on your own. Respect Wikipedia rules and focuses on the discussion that is the topic here. MxLoko (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You came to attack my comment and my way of acting, with the clear intention of diverting the focus, will not pass.

As for your comment: fake news. About 1 month ago I created an edit request, which was mistakenly closed and later reopened, and that was it.

Furthermore, we will focus on the topic under discussion and the improvements to be made to this article to correct errors and update it. MxLoko (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Which kind of attack you refer to? Do you know what excatly attack means? Your way of operating here is quite similar to past users who were blocked for the same reason. It's not the first time I'm coming across it. It makes me doubful more users seem to be the same person. The article will be updated when it's time to be updated. We have said many times wait and see for the time being because is the most accurate thing to do now. How much do we still need to deal with it? How many sources do you want to add to claim it's new tournament? There must be a limit. And posting the same thing multiple times in different sections. It is not needed. Island92 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"making the same argument over and over"; "Your pushiness on the issue might also be construed as WP:BLUDGEONing." I know exactly what it is.

There's no point in coming with this talk about blocking, you've already been revealed. You guys have a method. You want to impose that anyone who comments here that goes against the opinion of 2 or 3 (always the same), are fake profiles or are the same person. I took a look at the discussion and even with an IP you used this method. It doesn't stick, we've already discovered this method and I'm not afraid of blocking, threats won't stick, since I'm not violating any rules on Wikipedia.

Finally, you say it's not the most accurate thing to do right now, but you're not in charge of anything. The primary and secondary sources, which's what matters, are proving that this article is currently outdated and wrong according to Wikipedia rules. MxLoko (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, more and more users have said wait and see for the time being, despite all that quantity of sources that say it's new. Hence, which kind of authority do you think I have? Secondly, Wikipedia doesn't escape. There is much time ahead to update a page when it's needed. According to different users, there is no rush now. And what about if this page is hidden and will be available one day before the tournament starts? Won't it be needed to be updated by then? We have expert users who can update/move it instantly. This was my last comment because I have had enough of this condition now. Island92 (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Dude, it is always the same group. If you see opinion from people outside that 3-4 people, the majority is in favor of the changes adapting the article to reality, to primary and secondary sources, which they treat as a 1st edition, obviously.

We know Wikipedia doesn't escape, it is here and wrong. This article, as majority outside that 3-4 group agree, is outdated and wrong. Wait and see is very comfortable. We must adapt this article to the real world, primary and secondary sources, in accordance with WIKIPEDIA RULES. I'm here to comply with the rules of this encyclopedia that I decided to be part of and make history, becoming a revelation editor, with beneficial edits, adding content and updating errors, which unfortunately still exist here. MxLoko (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait. I have said Wait over the past few months, knowing that there is a draw coming up in early December and that there will be some further official documentation provided at that point, or just before. It is only a few weeks away now. I am very happy if there is a change at that point based on FIFA releases, as during other parts of this year they have not been consistent (and their inconsistency is then echoed by the secondary sources who are really just quoting the primary). To me, in mid-November "Wait" remains a better option than change, change back, change back again, change back etc.Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Island92 that this could be a WP:SOCK, the actions/combative style of this user mimic SinisterUnion. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Natan96-wiki is another likely sockpuppet. 6 edits total, and all of them arguing the same points on CWC-related articles. BLAIXX 01:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I note that of MxLoko's 25 edits since creating an account on October 20, 17 of them are on this talk page and another three are on the 2024 FIFA Intercontinental Cup talk page. That leaves five substantive edits. Aside from any sockpuppet issues, it raises WP:NOTHERE concerns. 1995hoo (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your summary of edits made by me. So trout, I don't owe you satisfaction, but due to my good will, I will explain it to you. I started editing here making improvements to articles about Paraguayan football clubs, however, when I came across this outdated and wrong article, I had no other option but to focus my efforts here. Since I saw that you are a fan enough to create a summary of my editions, I will tell you my next steps: after completing the edition with several improvements in more articles about Paraguayan clubs, I will go to Colombia, where I will make several improvements to articles about football clubs in that country. Keep following. MxLoko (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing combative here, I am just presenting facts and as I said, you have a method. It's just an editor go against 3-4 users who think they own Wikipedia and they already try to reduce the value of the opposing argument, trying to say that it's the same person.

But unfortunately for you, the user @PeeJay, in another discussion, has already discovered this method and it no longer works. I don't know either Sinister or Natan and I'm just one of millions who agree that Wikipedia's rules must be followed and if we have primary and secondary sources on the same page, we must make changes to adapt the article to what they say.

Maybe, what you are not understanding, because you are in a bubble, is that perhaps there are people creating accounts with the intention of making these changes, as this article is already so bizarrely at odds with primary and secondary sources. Get out of the bubble guys.

Since @Danoniinho started this discussion, so many people passed by and this same little group of 3-4 users is always against the changes and almost always trying to belittle the opposing opinion. 8 months have passed, FIFA continues to treat it as the 1st edition (now with even more emphasis) and with each passing day more and more secondary sources follow the same trend. There is no more space to say "Wait" remains a better option than change, change back, change back again, change back etc."! Back in March, when Mr. Danoniinho started this discussion, that could be said, not anymore. Change the record, times have changed and we have to adapt ourselves to it. MxLoko (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

May I suggest we close this discussion? MxLoko has been blocked as a sockpuppet. 1995hoo (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Host" notation in the group stage standings

I note that Inter Miami is listed as the host in the Group A standings. As the article notes, the slot given to them was given to the host country, or technically to the US Soccer Federation, to award as it saw fit. It's arguably misleading to call any particular team the "host team" for the entire tournament unless the host country has only one participant, which is not the case here because the Seattle Sounders are also participating. Query what the best approach would be: Should both Inter Miami and the Sounders be marked as hosts in the standings tables, or should neither of them be so marked? 1995hoo (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

H only for Inter Miami CF. They qualified as Host given, Seattle Sounders FC qualified as CONCACAF slot given. Island92 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I have to say I think it shouldn't be there at all. Yes, Miami was given that spot because the US, as host, received that spot but 1995hoo is right, they are not actually hosting the tournament. The US is hosting. It does give the wrong connotation in my opinion. Chris1834 Talk 20:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, the H should not be there, Miami is not the host. Kante4 (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I didn't really cast a vote either way in raising the question. My inclination is that the "H" should be omitted. I take note of Island92's point about Miami qualifying via the slot reserved for the host federation, but I think the other table further up in the "Teams" section clarifies that issue. I think the "H" in the standings table comes across the way it does in a World Cup article as implying that the identified team is the "host team." 1995hoo (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Also of the opinion that it should be omitted. Unlike with international competitions where a host country hosts an entire tournament, these teams are not "hosting" the tournament per se. I know they are playing matches in their stadium/home market, but I don't feel a H would be appropriate. Jay eyem (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I had originally added it, but looking back at the 2000 FIFA Club World Championship, it seems a status letter was not used for Corinthians. There is certainly far less significance for the host slot of a club tournament compared to those of national teams, so I don't object to its removal. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the "H" notation is unnecessary and confusing to readers. Better to remove it. SounderBruce 19:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

ESPN Brazil broadcast this tournament

As I said, ESPN Brazil have broadcasting rights of this tournament https://espnpressroom.com/brazil/press-releases/2024/12/espn-exibe-sorteio-do-mundial-de-clubes-da-fifa-2025/ 2402:800:61AF:C38C:BC15:666A:9186:6276 (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)