Ethics CasesSport

Cases · FIFA · 2025–2026

Playing Through the Heat: The 2025 Club World Cup

In June and July 2025, FIFA staged the first 32-team Club World Cup at 12 US venues, backed by a global streaming deal and a $1 billion prize fund. Many matches kicked off at noon or 3 p.m. local time, partly to suit audiences in Europe and Africa, during a period of extreme heat. FIFA used cooling breaks in most matches, but FIFPRO, the global players' union, said its own heat thresholds called for some games to be delayed or postponed. Chelsea's Enzo Fernández said he had to lie down on the pitch because he was dizzy. FIFA later announced mandatory hydration breaks for every 2026 World Cup match. The case asks how far commercial scheduling should yield to athletes' health.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. The FIFA Council schedules the 32-team Club World Cup for June 15–July 13, 2025; FIFPRO objects on workload grounds.
  2. FIFPRO Europe, European Leagues and LaLiga file an EU competition complaint over FIFA's match calendar, including the Club World Cup.
  3. FIFA announces DAZN as exclusive global broadcaster, streaming all 63 matches free.
  4. The FIFA Council approves $1 billion in prize money for participating clubs.
  5. FIFA publishes the prize-money split: $525 million for participation, $475 million for results.
  6. The tournament opens in Miami.
  7. FIFPRO says Chelsea's match against Espérance in Philadelphia should have been delayed or postponed; FIFA reports cooling breaks in 31 of 54 matches.
  8. Enzo Fernández says the heat is 'very dangerous' and left him dizzy during the semi-final.
  9. Chelsea beat Paris Saint-Germain in the final in New Jersey.
  10. FIFPRO publishes a heat study and says several Club World Cup games exceeded its postponement threshold.
  11. FIFA announces three-minute hydration breaks in each half of every 2026 World Cup match.
  12. FIFA and FIFPRO sign a memorandum of understanding; FIFPRO withdraws its legal actions against FIFA.
  13. A Guardian analysis estimates that about one in five 2026 World Cup matches reached FIFPRO's delay threshold.

The ethical issues

  • Commercial kick-off times vs. player health in extreme heat.
  • Who should set heat thresholds: the organizer, the players' union, or independent experts?
  • Whether athletes can meaningfully refuse to play in unsafe conditions.
  • The duty of care owed to spectators, staff and volunteers as well as players.
  • Expanding competitions without the consent of the players who must play in them.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
PlayersSafe conditions, adequate rest and a voice in scheduling.
FIFAA successful new tournament that generates revenue, global audiences and a strong test for the 2026 World Cup.
ClubsPrize money and prestige while protecting players' fitness for the next season.
Broadcasters and sponsorsKick-off times that reach large audiences in key markets.
FIFPRO and national unionsEnforceable health standards and a role in decisions.
Fans and stadium workersSafe conditions in and around venues.

The case

FIFA designed the expanded Club World Cup to be “the pinnacle of global club football” and a rehearsal for the 2026 World Cup in North America.[2][6] It brought 32 clubs to the United States for a month in June and July 2025. That summer was extremely hot, and many matches kicked off in the early afternoon. Players and coaches complained, the global players’ union said some matches should not have gone ahead as scheduled, and FIFA changed its approach for the following year’s World Cup. The tournament became a test of how much weight a commercial schedule should give to the bodies of the people who play.

Background

In December 2023, the FIFA Council scheduled the first 32-team Club World Cup for June 15 to July 13, 2025, at the end of the European season. FIFPRO, the global federation of players’ unions, said the decision showed “a lack of consideration for the mental and physical health of participating players.” It warned that players would “perform at the end of an 11-month season with little prospect of getting enough rest,” and complained that player unions had been excluded from decisions on the competition’s format.[1]

The tournament was built on large commercial commitments. In December 2024, FIFA announced that DAZN would stream all 63 matches free worldwide as exclusive global broadcaster.[2] In March 2025, the FIFA Council approved $1 billion in prize money for participating clubs, part of $2 billion in expected tournament revenue.[3] The matches were spread across 12 venues in the United States.[2]

How the money was split

FIFA published the distribution model in March 2025. Of the $1 billion, $525 million was a participation fee and $475 million was paid for results.[11] European clubs received between $12.81 million and $38.19 million just for taking part, depending on a FIFA ranking that combined sporting and commercial criteria. South American clubs received $15.21 million each; clubs from North and Central America, Asia and Africa $9.55 million; and the Oceania entrant $3.58 million.[11] Each group-stage win was worth $2 million and each draw $1 million. Reaching the round of 16 added $7.5 million, the quarter-finals $13.125 million, the semi-finals $21 million and the final $30 million, and the winner received another $40 million. FIFA said the champion could earn up to $125 million in total. FIFA said it would keep none of the tournament’s revenue and set a target of a further $250 million in “solidarity” payments to clubs worldwide.[11] The largest payments therefore went to the clubs that played the most matches.[11]

Months before the tournament, the dispute over scheduling had moved to Brussels. On October 14, 2024, FIFPRO Europe, the association European Leagues and Spain’s LaLiga filed a complaint with the European Commission’s competition directorate. It alleged that FIFA abused a dominant position by imposing the men’s international match calendar, “including decisions relating to the FIFA Club World Cup 2025,” without meaningful consultation of players or leagues.[12] The complainants argued that FIFA’s dual role as regulator and competition organizer created a conflict of interest. Citing recent EU court rulings in the Super League and Diarra cases, they said FIFA had to exercise its regulatory powers transparently and proportionately.[12] Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said the game was “getting to a tipping point,” and Lorin Parys of Belgium’s Pro League said: “We just don’t want decisions taken about us without us.”[12]

The rules and governance

Heat-stress guidance in football usually relies on the wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT), which combines air temperature, humidity, sun and wind into a single measure. FIFA’s standard threshold for cooling breaks was a WBGT of 32°C, according to FIFPRO.[7] FIFPRO’s own guidelines are stricter. They recommend cooling breaks above 26°C WBGT, delay or postponement above 28°C, and on-site measurement before every match and training session.[8] FIFPRO’s guidelines are recommendations; FIFA, as organizer, set the tournament schedule and applied its own protocols.[7][8]

The heat

Many matches kicked off at noon or 3 p.m. local time, partly to suit television audiences in Europe and Africa, the BBC reported.[5][6] Temperatures reached 39°C in New York, with a heat index above 50°C.[6] Six matches were delayed by lightning for between 40 minutes and two hours, under US rules that halt play when lightning strikes within 10 miles.[6]

Players and coaches described the effects. Borussia Dortmund’s substitutes watched the first half of one match from the dressing room to avoid the sun. Their coach, Niko Kovač, said he was “sweating like I’ve just come out of a sauna.” Juventus coach Igor Tudor said 10 of his players asked to be substituted during a loss to Real Madrid.[6] Chelsea manager Enzo Maresca said it was “impossible” to hold normal training sessions. Three of Chelsea’s matches were played in conditions that local authorities described as extreme heat.[5]

FIFPRO said that Chelsea’s group match against Espérance de Tunis in Philadelphia should have been delayed or postponed.[5] In a statement, FIFA said heat was “a serious topic that affect[s] football globally.” It said cooling breaks had been used in 31 of the first 54 matches and that it stood ready to facilitate dialogue on heat management, adding that “the protection of players must be at the centre.”[5]

“Very dangerous”

Chelsea reached the final. Its semi-final against Fluminense at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey kicked off at 3 p.m. with temperatures above 35°C and a local heat warning in effect.[4] Afterward, midfielder Enzo Fernández said: “The other day I had to lie down on the ground because I was really dizzy. Playing in this temperature is very dangerous, it’s very dangerous.” He added that the heat slowed the game for spectators and said he hoped FIFA would change the schedule for 2026.[4][5]

Not everyone agreed. Jürgen Klinsmann, a member of FIFA’s technical study group, recalled playing in extreme heat in Dallas at the 1994 World Cup. Teams, he said, “will have to adapt.”[5] Arsène Wenger, FIFA’s chief of global football development, said FIFA could “review” kick-off times and consider playing earlier games in stadiums with roofs.[6]

Aftermath

In August 2025, FIFPRO published a study of players’ responses to extreme heat. It said FIFA’s guidelines “do not do enough” and that several Club World Cup games should have been postponed under its thresholds. FIFPRO’s medical director suggested exploring 20-minute half-times.[7] FIFPRO also said nine of the 16 host cities for 2026 faced “very high” or “extremely high” risk of heat-stress injuries.[6]

In December 2025, FIFA announced that every 2026 World Cup match would include a three-minute hydration break 22 minutes into each half. Unlike the Club World Cup’s heat-triggered cooling breaks, the breaks would apply regardless of weather, roof or temperature “to ensure equal conditions for all teams.”[9] FIFA said its 2026 schedule reflected a technical analysis of venues, including average temperatures and cooling infrastructure, as well as the goal of reaching “the widest possible global audience.”[9]

The heat returned in 2026. A Guardian analysis, using estimates rather than on-site measurements, found that about 20 of the World Cup’s 104 matches were played in conditions at or above FIFPRO’s 28°C delay threshold. Another 23 were played in air-conditioned stadiums while the cities outside reached those levels. FIFA said it had stationed meteorologists at venues and provided players with hydration breaks, water, ice, cooling towels, fans and shade.[10]

The dispute over who decides the schedule also changed course. On June 10, 2026, on the eve of the World Cup, FIFA and FIFPRO signed a memorandum of understanding running to December 31, 2031. Under it, FIFPRO and its continental divisions agreed to withdraw all legal proceedings against FIFA, and to stop supporting any. FIFA agreed to create a Global Social Dialogue Platform, chaired by FIFA, where player welfare standards, “including matters relating to player rest and recovery,” would be set by collective agreement.[13] Decisions on workload and playing conditions in FIFA competitions would be based on “a structured collaborative process” between the two organizations, and FIFPRO renewed its commitment to respect the international match calendars.[13]

The core dilemma

The tournament’s revenue depended on global audiences, and kick-off times reflected that. The players whose performances generated that revenue faced extreme heat, and their union said its safety thresholds were exceeded. Should a governing body accept lower audiences or extra cost to keep players out of dangerous heat, and who decides when conditions become too dangerous?

Competing values

  • Player health vs. commercial reach: later kick-offs would have been cooler but less convenient for viewers in Europe and Africa.
  • Uniform rules vs. measured risk: fixed hydration breaks are simple and equal, but heat-triggered protocols respond to actual conditions.
  • Expert judgment vs. organizer control: FIFPRO’s thresholds and FIFA’s differ, and only the organizer can move a match.
  • Athlete adaptation vs. institutional responsibility: some argue players must adapt to conditions, while others place the duty on whoever sets the schedule.

Strongest arguments

For FIFA’s approach: Heat affects football worldwide, and FIFA did use cooling breaks in most matches.[5] It took on the risk of a new competition and distributed large sums to clubs.[3] It said it would review kick-off times and later adopted mandatory breaks for every 2026 match.[6][9] Football has a long history of tournaments in hot conditions, and teams can acclimatize and adjust tactics.[5]

For FIFPRO’s position: Players warned in advance that the competition was being added without safeguards or consultation.[1] During the tournament, conditions exceeded FIFPRO’s evidence-based delay threshold, and players reported dizziness and exhaustion.[4][5][7] Kick-off times were chosen partly for broadcast reasons, so the heat exposure was a scheduling choice rather than bad luck.[5][6] Hydration breaks reduce but do not remove the risk of playing in extreme heat.[7][10]

Applying the frameworks

Care ethics

Care ethics emphasizes responsibility within relationships of dependence. Players depend on the organizer for safe conditions, and they cannot reschedule a match themselves. Listening to players such as Fernández, and to the medical staff and unions who speak for them, is central to care. Treating heat complaints as something players must simply adapt to puts the burden on those with the least control.[4][5]

Utilitarian

A utilitarian weighs the benefits of large global audiences and revenue against the risk of heat illness, lower-quality matches and harm to spectators and staff. Serious heat illness can be catastrophic and irreversible, which gives it great weight even if it is unlikely in any single match. Fernández and Wenger both noted that heat also made the game slower and less appealing, so even on commercial terms the trade-off was not clear-cut.[4][5][6]

Rights-based

From a rights perspective, players are workers entitled to a safe workplace and to a voice in decisions that affect their health. FIFPRO’s 2023 complaint that players had “no say” in the expansion highlights a procedural right as well as a substantive one.[1] If a players’ union sets a delay threshold based on evidence, a rights-based approach asks why the organizer may override it without explanation.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue: Commercially driven afternoon kick-offs exposed players to extreme heat during an expanded tournament.
  2. Gather facts: On-site WBGT readings, kick-off times and the reasons for them, cooling-break use, injury and illness reports, and alternatives such as indoor venues or evening slots.
  3. Test options: Keep the schedule with cooling breaks; move kick-offs later; use covered stadiums; adopt FIFPRO’s delay thresholds; give an independent medical officer the authority to delay matches.
  4. Check codes and law: FIFA heat protocols, FIFPRO guidelines, local heat warnings, and labor and workplace-safety principles.
  5. Decide and document: Set binding thresholds before the tournament, with clear authority to delay or move matches and published reasons for each decision.
  6. Communicate and follow up: Publish heat data and decisions, collect medical outcomes, review with players and adjust for the next tournament.

What’s settled and what’s contested

  • Settled: many matches were played in extreme heat; FIFA used cooling breaks in 31 of the first 54 matches; FIFPRO said some matches exceeded its delay threshold; FIFA adopted mandatory hydration breaks for all 2026 World Cup matches.[5][7][9]
  • Contested: which heat threshold should apply and who should set it; whether broadcast-driven kick-off times were justified; whether uniform hydration breaks are enough; how much risk players should be expected to accept.

Why this case matters

As temperatures rise, more major events will be played in dangerous heat. This tournament showed how scheduling decisions made years in advance for commercial reasons determine the risks athletes face on the day. It also shows that safety standards matter only if someone has the authority and the duty to act on them.

See also: Fixture Congestion and the Legal Fight Over Football’s Calendar.

Key terms

Duty of care
The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.
Non-maleficence
The duty to avoid causing harm, often paired with care ethics when setting safety rules.
Commercialization
The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Agency
An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. FIFA's threshold for cooling breaks was a WBGT of 32°C, while FIFPRO recommends breaks above 26°C and delays above 28°C. Who should decide which standard applies?
  2. Kick-off times were set partly to reach TV audiences in Europe and Africa. How should organizers weigh global audiences against local conditions?
  3. Jürgen Klinsmann said teams 'will have to adapt.' Is adaptation a reasonable expectation, or does it shift responsibility from organizers to athletes?
  4. FIFA made hydration breaks mandatory for all 2026 World Cup matches regardless of conditions. Is a uniform rule better than one triggered by measured heat?
  5. Can a professional athlete meaningfully refuse to play in unsafe conditions? What would make refusal possible?

Sources

  1. FIFPRO Statement: Scheduling of 2025 FIFA Club World Cup — FIFPRO
  2. DAZN signs landmark free-to-view deal with FIFA to exclusively broadcast FIFA Club World Cup 2025 globally — FIFA
  3. FIFA Council approves unprecedented prize money pot for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 — FIFA
  4. 'I was really dizzy': Enzo Fernández reveals scare in heat of Club World Cup — The Guardian
  5. Club World Cup heat 'very dangerous' - Fernandez — BBC Sport
  6. What has Club World Cup taught us before 2026 World Cup? — BBC Sport
  7. FIFPRO, SJPF and PFF conduct scientific study to better understand how extreme heat affects players — FIFPRO
  8. Guidelines and Mitigation Strategies for Hot Conditions in Professional Football — FIFPRO
  9. Players to benefit from hydration breaks at FIFA World Cup 2026 — FIFA
  10. Nearly one in five World Cup matches reached heat levels players' union warns against — The Guardian
  11. FIFA Club World Cup 2025: record prize money and unprecedented solidarity to benefit club football (Mar. 26, 2025) — FIFA
  12. Player unions and leagues file complaint to European Commission over FIFA's imposition of international match calendar (Oct. 14, 2024) — FIFPRO
  13. FIFA and FIFPRO sign landmark agreement to usher in new era of collaboration and player representation in global football governance (June 10, 2026) — FIFPRO