Overview: Growing Tensions Ahead of FIFA Club World Cup 2025
Major League Soccer (MLS) and its three teams—Seattle Sounders, Inter Miami, and LAFC—have qualified for the expanded 32‑team FIFA Club World Cup (June 14–July 13 in the U.S.). Each club will receive a $9.55 million participation fee plus performance‑based rewards from a record $1 billion prize pool. But the crux of the dispute lies in how much of that bounty flows to the players themselves.
Seattle, Washington, USA; Seattle Sounders FC forward Pedro De La Vega (10) wears a t-shirt to protest FIFA Club World Cup bonus sharing from MLS while during pregame warmups against the Minnesota United at Lumen Field. Copyright © BDCNnews. All Rights Reserved.
What Are Players Demanding?
-
Increase in player share: Under the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), players receive 50% of prize money, capped at $1 million per tournament.
-
No added participation bonuses: League's current proposals reportedly exclude extra base compensation, focusing instead on performance rewards.
-
Fair, uncompromised negotiation: The MLSPA (players’ union) insists on direct talks, accusing MLS of “coercive tactics” tied to unrelated contract concessions.
League’s Offer: Enhanced But Insufficient?
MLS has countered with this structure:
-
Guaranteed $1M per club for merely qualifying.
-
20% of group‑stage onward prize money allocated to players — potentially up to $24 million total if a team wins.
Even with a $24M ceiling, players argue this is well below global standards, and that MLS gets to retain the rest of the windfall.
Player Protests: Visual and Vocal
-
Seattle Sounders players donned warm‑up shirts reading “Club World Cup Ca$h Grab” and “Fair Share Now” on June 1, including goalkeeper Stefan Frei.
-
High‑profile social posts with hashtag #FairShareNow circulated ahead of matches.
-
Union statement: MLSPA decried MLS’s offer as “retaliatory” and a sign that "MLS does not respect or value players’ efforts".
Legal & Contractual Context: Who Holds the Cards?
-
CBA binding: The current collective agreement limits strike or work stoppage actions, but players may still undertake protected actions under labor law.
-
Single‑entity model: MLS operates as a single entity (confirmed under Fraser v. MLS), which affects share‑distribution mechanisms .
-
Union solid: MLSPA remains vigorous, backed by global union affiliate FIFPro.
Impact on Tournament & League
-
No risk of game boycott: Players are unlikely to refuse to play—CBA prohibits it.
-
Public scrutiny: The dispute has overshadowed what FIFA hoped would be a festive, global‑club showcase.
-
Precedent setter: This clash could influence future prize‑money contracts, especially as leagues look toward more high‑value international competitions.
Global Comparison: Below the International Stripe?
In many football systems, especially Europe, players can receive 20‑30% or more of external tournament prize pools—without caps. The MLS cap of $1 million is starkly lower, supporting players’ claim that the league is acting beneath global norms.
Final Take: Equity on the Global Stage
MLS executives seek to protect revenue, but players stress fairness, effort, and parity with global peers. With FIFA deploying a mega Club World Cup in U.S. markets and massive media attention, the spotlight on how leagues handle player pay could reshape future agreements worldwide.