The Club World Cup could be hosted by the United States for a second consecutive time as FIFA considers taking the tournament back there in 2029, according to sources familiar with the process who spoke on the condition on anonymity

The U.S. will host the inaugural edition of the revamped Club World Cup next summer, before hosting the men’s FIFA World Cup in 2026.

Last week, FIFA announced a global $1billion free-to-air broadcast deal with DAZN for the 2025 Club World Cup and then conducted the draw for the tournament at a glitzy event in Miami.

The decision to award the U.S. with the 2029 Club World Cup would have to go through the FIFA Council and that is yet to happen.

Should the U.S. host the 2029 edition, it would add to the unprecedented trail of international soccer events held in the country. This would be their sixth major tournament in just eight years, which started this summer with the men’s Copa America.

The U.S. will host the first expanded men’s Club World Cup next year, the men’s World Cup in 2026, the Los Angeles 2028 Summer Olympics, potentially the 2029 Club World Cup and then end their historic run by hosting the women’s World Cup in 2031.

Part of the thinking behind taking the Club World Cup back to America in 2029 is that it would enable FIFA to consolidate U.S. sponsors for this tournament, as well as having a legacy event following the 2026 men’s World Cup. It would also suit clubs, with the U.S. a priority market for many leading European teams, many of whom have chosen to spend their pre-seasons traversing the country to build their profile stateside. Spain’s La Liga has also been attempting to take a competitive league match to Miami.

The U.S. will likely face competition from other countries to host the 2029 Club World Cup, though.

James Johnson, Football Australia’s chief executive, told the Sydney Morning Herald in June 2023 that he would consider bidding for the hosting rights.

“It’s going to grow, over the years,” said Johnson, who previously worked under FIFA president Gianni Infantino at football’s world governing body until 2018. “Gianni really grew the Champions League at UEFA, he knows what it takes to do that.

“To one day have the best club teams coming to our shores (would be) only good for Australian football. That’s something we could look at, as well as the men’s World Cup.”

Next year’s Club World Cup involves 32 teams, including Chelsea, Manchester City, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Paris Saint-Germain and Juventus, with Inter Miami and Al Ahly getting the competition underway on June 14.

Chelsea produced a brilliant comeback away to Tottenham Hotspur to move second in the Premier League and add to the pressure on Ange Postecoglou.

Tottenham took an early two-goal lead thanks to Dominic Solanke and Dejan Kulusevski but Chelsea reacted superbly, pulling a goal back through the impressive Jadon Sancho before half-time.

Cole Palmer added two penalties after the break, either side of Enzo Fernandez firing past the Tottenham goalkeeper Fraser Forster.

A goal late in added time from Son Heung-min made it 4-3, but that was too little too late, and the result leaves Tottenham in the bottom half of the Premier League table.

Liam Twomey, Jay Harris and Jack Pitt-Brooke analyse the key talking points from Chelsea’s 4-3 victory…

Chelsea played with a confidence verging on arrogance

Last season, Chelsea won 4-1 at this stadium and somehow managed to emerge from the experience bruised, even figures of fun in some quarters.

Postecoglou’s volatile Tottenham were flying high then, and appear to be on a very different arc now. But the nature of this comeback at the home of their arch-rivals — when was the last time Chelsea even fought back to win a game? — ensures they will get every inch of the credit they deserve.

Chelsea under Graham Potter or caretaker Frank Lampard would likely have collapsed completely in the face of Tottenham’s early storm. But Enzo Maresca’s side are made of considerably sterner stuff, and while they rode their luck at times here, they felt on track to turn the tide against Spurs long before Moises Caicedo won the penalty kick that tied the game.

Jadon Sancho gave them life with a sublime intervention in the 17th minute, silencing the home crowd with a sharp run infield from the left and a shot like a dagger in off the far post.

From then on, Chelsea applied sustained pressure, and with every extended stretch of defending Tottenham’s audible anxiety grew.

Sancho’s goal kickstarted Chelsea’s comeback (Shaun Brooks – CameraSport via Getty Images)

Maresca’s half-time reshuffle solidified their dominance. Romeo Lavia had produced some brilliant passes in the opening 45 minutes but introducing Malo Gusto and shifting Benoit Badiashile over to the left side of central defence removed the corridor of uncertainty that Spurs had exploited to such great effect in the opening minutes.

Chelsea played with a confidence bordering on arrogance from then on, pinning Spurs back and pulling them into uncomfortable areas that, eventually, led to fatal mistakes.

Fernandez’s emphatic half-volley — his third goal in four matches from midfield — simply confirmed the dynamic of the game and Palmer’s Panenka penalty was as brilliant as it was utterly disrespectful.

Chelsea turned what could have been a damaging setback into another victory over their favourite punching bags, and questions of a surprise Premier League title challenge will keep coming.

Liam Twomey

This was painful deja vu for Spurs fans

So far this season, Spurs have alternated between giddy highs and painful lows. Today, they managed both in the same match. The football that Tottenham played in the first 35 minutes or so was scintillating, as they raced into an early 2-0 lead. It felt like it might be a repeat of the 4-0 win at Manchester City last month.

But Spurs collapsed and lost 4-3. As Spurs players kept getting injured and Chelsea kept scoring, it all felt eerily similar to the 4-1 defeat in this fixture last November. When Palmer converted his second penalty, some Spurs fans started to boo, others started to leave.

Many fans will ask why Spurs are stuck with the same problems now as they were one year ago, and whether the variance in performances might ever be reduced to more manageable levels.

It is all very well playing dazzling football in spells but this was Spurs’ seventh league defeat of the season. They have only played 15 games.

Jack Pitt-Brooke

Did Cucurella recover from his boot drama?

Premier League history was made at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium on Sunday: for the first time in the competition’s history, a pair of football boots were hooked well before half-time.

There is no telling whether Marc Cucurella would have acted quite so decisively had both of his slips in the first 11 minutes not swiftly resulted in Tottenham goals, but his immediate reaction to seeing Kulusevski’s low shot creep beyond Robert Sanchez was to hold up the offending boot in anguished gesticulation towards the Chelsea dugout.

To the kitman’s credit, a fresh pair were immediately available and the fact that Cucurella did not slip again supports the idea that it was no mere excuse.

GO DEEPER

The secret world of football boots

Tottenham’s ruthless finishing was harsh on Cucurella, who has been one of Chelsea’s better and more consistent performers this season — but he did not let it define his game.

Cucurella had already begun to exert a more positive influence in the remainder of the first half, moving the ball on quickly and accurately to Sancho to cut infield from the left and curl in the brilliant goal that gave Chelsea life before the interval.

In the second half, his attacking role grew as Maresca’s tactical reshuffle required him to invert into an advanced midfield position. Tottenham had trouble tracking his movement and he continued to dovetail effectively with Sancho on the left, where Chelsea did most of their best work in possession.

By the end of the game, Cucurella was back exactly where he wanted to be on a match day: being booed rather than gleefully jeered by opposition supporters.

Liam Twomey

Yet more injuries compound Tottenham’s misery

There was a surprise twist when the line-ups were announced as Micky van de Ven and Cristian Romero both started for Spurs. Romero only returned to full training on Friday, while the last time Postecoglou gave an update on Van de Ven’s fitness, he said he would be back by “mid-December”.

It was a huge boost for Spurs but things quickly went wrong when Romero pulled up injured shortly after Dejan Kulusevski made it 2-0 after 10 minutes. The centre-back went down on the floor with his hands over his face. He walked off the pitch with his shirt over his head and looked close to tears.

Romero picked up another injury (Marc Atkins/Getty Images)

Van de Ven made a couple of exceptional tackles on his return from over a month out with a hamstring injury but only lasted until the 78th minute. The Netherlands international went down on the floor and the medical staff stretched his right leg but he had to be replaced by Archie Gray. It was a bold gamble to start them both and it backfired.

To make matters even worse, Brennan Johnson picked up an injury a few minutes into the second half, too. The 23-year-old went down just outside Chelsea’s box, tried to stand up and continue but was replaced by Timo Werner.

When Maresca could bring Christopher Nkunku, Joao Felix, Noni Madueke and Malo Gusto off the bench, Postecoglou had to turn to Werner, James Maddison and two teenagers in Gray and Lucas Bergvall. Tottenham are down to the bare bones for the busiest period of the season. The lack of options and quality in the squad has left them in a precarious position.

Jay Harris

What next for Tottenham?

Thursday, December 12: Rangers (away), Europa League, 8pm UK, 3pm ET

What next for Chelsea?

Thursday, December 12: Astana (away), Conference League, 3:30pm UK, 10:30am ET

Welcome to The Briefing, a column where, every Monday during this season, The Athletic will discuss three of the biggest questions to arise from the weekend’s Premier League football.

This was the round when the final Merseyside derby at Goodison Park in the league (and potentially last ever) was postponed because of the weather, Manchester City and Arsenal dropped points again, Brentford continued their brilliant record at home and Nottingham Forest won away to Manchester United for the first time in 30 years.

Here, we will ask whether Chelsea are genuine title challengers, what impact Dan Ashworth’s swift departure will have on United, and whether it’s ever a good idea for a struggling manager to pick a fight with the club’s fans…

How realistic is Chelsea’s title challenge?

Brentford at home. Everton away. Fulham at home. Ipswich away. Crystal Palace away. Bournemouth at home. Wolves at home.

Those are Chelsea’s next seven Premier League fixtures before they travel to face Manchester City on January 25. A few tricky games for sure and you’d expect them to drop points here and there, but with limited distractions (no more Carabao Cup as they’re out, Morecambe (currently second-bottom of the entire EFL) at home in the FA Cup, and two more matches in the Conference League, where they’re well on the way to qualifying so can rotate heavily), it’s a pretty good run at what is usually one of the most frantic times of the season.

Chelsea are four points behind leaders Liverpool, having played a game more than them. At a time when the other challengers are showing real fragility — Arsenal drawing away to Fulham and Manchester City dropping points at Crystal Palace this weekend — they are pretty consistent. At the very least, much more consistent than we thought they would be.

They’ve won their last four league games and have only been beaten this season by Liverpool and a pre-existential crisis City. Maybe the most encouraging thing is how Chelsea have been winning in a variety of ways recently: some relatively serene (Leicester), some where they’ve blown the opposition away (Southampton), some where they’ve ground it out (Newcastle) and, on Sunday, one where they’ve come from behind (Tottenham).

Chelsea coach Enzo Maresca celebrates Sunday’s win (Shaun Botterill/Getty Images)

They have an array of attacking talent, not least the majestic Cole Palmer (side note: did anyone else laugh out loud at his Panenka against Spurs?), Moises Caicedo is looking great, Nicolas Jackson is scoring goals, even Enzo Fernandez is playing better.

The doubts come at the back. Nobody is really convinced by Robert Sanchez in goal. Central defence is a potential concern. Reece James can’t stay fit. Will those defensive issues stop a concerted title challenge?

Maybe. Probably, even. But for the moment, that’s almost not important.

There’s a rare feeling at Chelsea of progress, that they actually might be taking steps forward without some inevitable backward ones coming soon.

What does Dan Ashworth’s departure mean for Manchester United?

It’s not ideal when you lose 3-2 at home to a team with much more modest resources on a Saturday evening and your weekend only gets more farcical from there.

Manchester United’s defeat to Nottingham Forest was surprising, though not nearly as surprising as it probably should be given the two sides’ respective ambitions and expectations. But the fun was only just beginning, as shortly after the game, the decision-makers at Old Trafford concluded that Dan Ashworth, the sporting director they spent six months trying to recruit and delayed their work in rebuilding the club by waiting for, was no longer the man for them, only five months after he officially started work.

This is the real issue with new co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s big economy drive since his INEOS empire took over running the club early this year: if the money you save by making ordinary staff redundant, withdrawing perks from the ones you do keep and charging children £66 for a match ticket is just spent on expensive mistakes like this, then what’s the point?

But this sort of confused decision-making, going from Ratcliffe describing Ashworth as “one of the top sporting directors in the world” to being pivotal in the decision to part ways with him a matter of weeks later, only diminishes the confidence that these people know what they’re doing.

Ashworth has left United, which is now part-owned by Ratcliffe (Plumb Images/Leicester City FC via Getty Images)

There are plenty of other questions.

Is this going to set them back even further when they have a squad that needs to be retooled for a new manager? Their PSR (profitability and sustainability rules) concerns were significant before Ruben Amorim replaced Erik ten Hag in that job last month, and this isn’t going to help. Should a sporting director have this much power? Do United even need one of those? If the answer to that is no, then why did they spend months, and £2million to £3m in compensation to Newcastle, trying to hire this one?

And what of Ashworth? Where now? The Athletic reported on Sunday there could be a place for him at Arsenal, but being eased out of your previous position after only five months isn’t going to be a positive entry on anyone’s job history.

Will this diminish the importance of sporting directors across the board? Will clubs think that even the ones with big reputations are sometimes good and sometimes lucky and sometimes are more the products of their environment than individual geniuses who can assemble quality squads at will?

That’s a lot of questions. As usual with United, there are more of them than there are answers.

Did Pep Guardiola and Russell Martin make big mistakes in their post-match interviews?

You wonder if it might be a good idea to give managers an hour or so before they do their post-match interviews.

That’s not going to happen because a) we in the media want instant reaction and b) generally, the managers want to get it over and done with as soon as possible. But with a delay, they would have time to allow the adrenaline to dissipate, their mind to calm down a bit, and the angels of their better nature to drown out the devils.

It might have been a good idea for Pep Guardiola and Russell Martin this weekend.

Firstly, Guardiola and a truly surreal interview with BBC TV, when he was asked about Rico Lewis’ dismissal for two yellow cards against Palace.

“It’s because it’s Rico,” Guardiola said, with a sort of half smile on his face, as if this was the most obvious point in the world. When the, understandably baffled, interviewer asked for clarification, he repeated: “It’s Rico.”

What was he trying to say here? That officials around the country have it in for the tidy, broadly inoffensive Lewis? Or that, inevitably, the tidy, broadly inoffensive Lewis will do something silly to get booked?

Either way, it was a bit odd.

Not nearly as odd as Martin’s post-match interview with BBC radio, when he said of the goal his Southampton side conceded against Aston Villa: “We played out and got pressed just before that, which then makes Joe (Lumley, their goalkeeper) kick and it gets a cheer from the supporters, and we concede within about 10 seconds, so it is what it is.

“They (the fans) have a right to criticise everything else, but it’s really important to understand why we do things. We kick it to our two smallest players and it comes back.”

The reaction from some was to suggest that Martin was blaming the Southampton supporters who travelled to Villa Park for the goal, which might be slightly unfair. But at best, he was rather condescendingly lecturing his own crowd about a way of playing that has their team bottom of the table with only one win from the 15 games so far.

Martin after Southampton’s loss on Saturday (Matt McNulty/Getty Images)

Yes, Martin might be right that there’s a reason Southampton don’t hoof the ball up towards a couple of relatively diminutive strikers, but his way of doing things isn’t going brilliantly either. Southampton have conceded 26 shots and 10 directly from errors this season: both of those figures are the most in the division. They almost conceded another goal against Villa because of an errant short pass from Lumley, who was only their third-choice ’keeper as recently as a month ago.

You might argue that a chosen way of playing which indirectly led to conceding one goal, over another that has directly led to 10, might be worth considering. Martin’s commitment to his style is well-established and he’ll be sacked before he changes it, but acting like it is the only way to play and patronising those who travelled a long way to be at the Villa game, spent a lot of money and greeted a clearance with a bit of joy is, at best, a bad look.

Those Southampton fans have watched 12 defeats this season out of the 15 league matches and are staring instant relegation back to the Championship in the face: it’s best not to compound the misery by treating them like idiots.