2017 Confederations Cup: How FIFA turned an independent tournament into a cash cow

There has always been something fundamentally childish about the way in which extreme wealth is employed. At least, the obvious ways. Shiny cars, massive boats, vast mansions filled with endless diversions … and football tournaments. At heart, the origin story of the Confederations Cup sounds like the daydreamed ambition of a sports-obsessed 8-year-old.

When I grow up, I will be king and I will have my own football team and all the other football teams will come and play my team in my big stadium which is named after me.

King Fahd of Saudi Arabia was over 70 years old in 1992, but he was one of the richest and most powerful men in the world. As such, when he decided he wanted a football tournament, the sport jumped to the clicking of his fingers. Saudi Arabia were the reigning continental champions, having won the 1988 Asian Cup, and the USA, Argentina, and Cote d’Ivoire — champions of North and Central America, South America, and Africa respectively — were invited to join them in a straight knockout tournament.

This was an Argentina side led by Gabriel Batistuta and Claudio Caniggia, and anchored by Fernando Redondo and Diego Simeone; all told, something of an unfair advantage. Batistuta scored twice in their first game against the Ivorians, a 4-0 win, and then Caniggia scored one in the final as the hosts were dispatched 3-1. In the third-placed playoff, the USA romped past Cote d’Ivoire, 5-2.

Still, although his country couldn’t capture the trophy, we can assume King Fahd enjoyed his tournament. Three years later, he expanded the tournament to six teams, bringing in the champions of Europe and keeping Saudi Arabia involved as hosts, even though they were no longer the holders of the Asian Cup. This time around, the hosts didn’t win a game and Denmark eventually triumphed, beating Argentina, 2-0, in the final.

Enter FIFA. Nice tournament you’ve got there …

The history of football is littered with tournaments that ran for a while, maybe even flourished, and then faded away. Some even sought to establish similar inter-continental contests: the Artemio Franchi Cup between Europe and South America, for example, or the Afro-Asian Cup. And maybe the Confederations Cup will, in a couple of generations time, seem just such an oddity.

But there is a logical appeal to the fundamental idea: Take the champions of each continent, throw them up against one another, and see if anything interesting happens. So you can understand why FIFA might want to bring the competition under its wing, as it did in 1997: When a tournament makes sense, maybe a tournament can make money. And in the process, it brought with it the world champions.

Here, most of the fundamentals of the tournament were set. Attendance was increased to eight: the champion from each of the six continental confederations, the World Cup holders, and the hosts (Saudi Arabia again). So too the format: two groups of four, semifinals, and then the final. And finally, the principle of somebody failing to show up: With the tournament falling in the middle of the European club season, Germany declined to send a team.

Like their continental counterparts Argentina in 1992, Brazil essentially cheated by arriving at the competition with a pair of excessively gifted strikers. The Ro-Ro partnership — Romário and Ronaldo — had terrorised the 1997 Copa América and did the same to this tournament. They scored 11 goals between them, including a hat trick apiece in the final, and looked set to bend France 98 to their will. That didn’t quite work out.

Eventual world champions France declined to take part in the 1999 edition, which was won by hosts Mexico in front of giant crowds. And then in 2001, the final part of the Confederations Cup, as we know and vaguely like it today, fell into place. The tournament was moved to the end of the European season and was hosted by Japan and South Korea, an explicit dry run for the 2002 World Cup. France strolled it, scoring goals by the fistful.

There would be one more non-World Cup edition of the tournament, in 2003, and it was blighted by tragedy. Cameroonian midfielder Marc-Vivien Foé suffered a heart attack in the 72nd minute of the semifinal against Colombia and was pronounced dead shortly afterward. Amid some debate and international mourning, the final went ahead, and though Cameroon eventually lost, captain Rigobert Song lifted the trophy alongside the winning captain, Marcel Desailly.

One of the more interesting wrinkles of the Confederations Cup is that the winner has never gone on to win the subsequent World Cup. In 1998, the component parts of Ro-Ro were undone by a muscle injury before the tournament and an apparent back spasm before the final. In 2002, France turned up with a one-legged Zinedine Zidane and picked up more red cards than goals.

Brazil — who are pretty good at this, it turns out — won the warm-ups in Germany 2005 and South Africa 2009 but were beaten to the bigger prize by Italy and Spain. And Brazil won at home in 2013, too, against a background of public protest and FIFA chicanery, only to end up humiliated in the semifinals the following year.

Which brings us to 2017. European champions Portugal and South American champions Chile are taking strong squads, led by Cristiano Ronaldo and Alexis Sanchez respectively, while World Cup holders Germany are taking the kids. Russia’s new coach, Stanislav Cherchesov, charged with achieving a semifinal finish in 2018, has picked an experienced squad.

But the clever move here might be to stick a few bob on Brazil to win the big prize in 2018, because for once they won’t be cursed by victory in the Confederations Cup. They can’t be. They’re not in it.