World Football Clubs: New Footsteps in the Corridors of Power

In a Paris hotel, Nasser Al-Khelaifi stands before approximately 900 club representatives from 55 countries. He does not speak about tactics, nor does he mention goals. He speaks about something far more dry: power. And behind the applause, a large question is taking shape: is world football witnessing the birth of a seventh force, alongside the six existing continental confederations? I sit taking these notes, recalling an afternoon in 2026 at Lach Tray Stadium. Back then, I spent three months sitting at the pitch fence, recording every step of a young midfielder about to be pushed down to the First Division. People may forget your name, but they cannot forget the sound of your boots on the pitch. Today's story in Paris is similar: new footsteps of power are imprinting themselves on the corridors of FIFA and UEFA, and no one can pretend not to hear them. European Football Clubs (EFC) has grown from 247 members in 2026 to over 900 members in 2026. This number is not merely administrative expansion. It is a statement. With over 900 clubs from 55 countries, EFC is positioning itself no longer as a purely European interest group, but as a global network with a voice in every decision regarding schedules, revenue, and commercial rights. The most notable event at this meeting is the return of Barcelona and Real Madrid. Two clubs that had stood outside EFC after the 2026 Super League affair have officially returned. Initially, I thought this was merely a symbolic reconciliation move. But when looking at the financial structure, things become clearer: EFC operates the UC3 joint venture with UEFA, with revenues reportedly exceeding 20 billion euros over a four-year cycle, equivalent to approximately 5 billion euros per season. Around 2 billion euros of that is distributed to clubs outside European competitions, along with youth and women's football. For Barcelona and Real Madrid, returning to EFC means sitting at the table where the pie is divided. But here is where I want to pause. There is a notable currency conversion error in the published documents: 20 billion euros at an exchange rate of 1 USD = 0.8814 euros should equal approximately 22.7 billion USD, not 5.67 billion USD as some reports state. The 5.67 billion USD figure is closer to one season's revenue than the four-year total. This means all financial conclusions from EFC need independent verification before becoming the foundation for any analysis. I am not saying EFC is inflating figures. I am saying that when power is built on revenue, the math must be accurate to the last cent. Another notable point: 857 players from European clubs participated in the 48-team World Cup, accounting for approximately 70% of all participating players. Al-Khelaifi used this figure to prove that clubs are the true suppliers for international football. The argument is sharp: if FIFA organizes the World Cup and needs players from clubs, then clubs must have a voice in the revenue distribution from that tournament. In reality, the current compensation mechanism for clubs releasing players for national team competitions in the 2026-2026 period stands at only 233 million euros for 901 clubs. On average, each club receives less than 260,000 euros over four years. For a small V.League club like Hai Phong, that amount would not even cover one month's wages for the squad. Meanwhile, revenue from the 2026 World Cup was reported by FIFA at over 7 billion USD. This is why EFC is pushing the argument that clubs need a larger share of the international football pie. But the story is not just about money. Al-Khelaifi made statements described by media as veiled criticism aimed at FIFA. He spoke of "wasting time dealing with problems" and emphasized that EFC is transparent, member-run. This is a deliberate public relations move. By positioning EFC as a transparent organization, Al-Khelaifi implicitly places FIFA in opposition: conservative, lacking transparency, and ineffective. This is a familiar tactic in sports politics, but this time it is backed by a commercial joint venture with real revenue. From another angle, EFC's support for UEFA and President Aleksander Ceferin is a two-way calculation. EFC needs UEFA to operate UC3 and club-level competitions. UEFA needs EFC to maintain political stability, especially as Ceferin faces pressure for re-election in 2027. EFC's public support for Ceferin is not just praise. It is a political contract with an expiry date. What I find most counter-intuitive here is this: most media analysis focuses on whether World Football Clubs can become a new federation. But the real question is not whether it will take shape. The real question is how FIFA will react to pressure to share power. If FIFA is rigid, it could push EFC further toward an independent structure. If FIFA concedes, it could lose part of its control over the international calendar, which is its core revenue source. In Vietnamese football, we rarely talk about these battles at this level. But look at the figure of 233 million euros in compensation for 901 clubs. If World Football Clubs takes shape and changes the distribution mechanism, small clubs in Southeast Asia might receive more. Or they might receive nothing at all, if the voice belongs only to European giants. The truth is no one in Hai Phong knows for certain what will happen to them when the power-sharing table changes. Every transfer window is a farewell. Those who stay are quieter than those who leave. In Paris, those who stay are 900 clubs sitting in the hall. Those who leave? Perhaps FIFA's monopoly power in shaping global football. Or perhaps just a few guarantees about player compensation. The dressing room does not lie. It only stays quiet long enough for you to hear the truth. And in the corridors of the Paris hotel today, the truth is whispering that world football has entered a new phase. A phase where footsteps on the pitch are no longer the only sounds shaping football.