Of Blind Squirells and Acorns

With the explosive power of an A1 Abrams Tank, and the acerbic prose of Maureen Dowd, we have the SoccerScribe -

Maybe for all the wrong reasons, FIFA actually has done something right. Come December, the second Club World Championship FINALLY will be staged. Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth by Euro snobs, the imperfect tournament will determine on the field, not in polls, or boardrooms _ or pubs, which is the best club in the world.
Unlike the Intercontinental-later-named Toyota Cup, which limited participants to Europe and South America, the Club World Championship will give each continent a shot. For those that consider the notion silly, because we all "know" the best club football is played in Europe, Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association would love to have you speak on their behalf to defend the notion that their league champion is the "world champion."
Back in 1960, when leagues in Asia, Africa and CONCACAF were limited, the idea of restricting the Intercontinental Cup to Europe and South America probably made sense. But like everything else in life, nothing remains the same.
Europe may still pay the most, and therefore draw most of the best talent; and South America (i.e. Brazil and Argentina) may still produce a large portion of that talent for European clubs; and Asia, Africa and CONCACAF league may still have a long way to go to match the variety and depth of talent as Europe and South America; but then let this all be proven on the field.
The resistance from the European clubs has numerous origins, not the least of which is obviously money. Tradition, arrogance, inconvenience, self-righteousness and ignorance also factor into their opposition, which probably accounts for all the hostility from the street level.
There seems little glory for Liverpool fans to boast they beat Saprissa, a club probably which the overwhelming major of Liverpudlians, Brits or Europeans don't know where is located.
But in 1960, how many Real Madrid fans had really had heard of Penarol? How many today can identify its country of origin? (By the way, it's Uruguay.) The first Club Worlds in 2000 was won by Corinthians (Brazil for those of you wondering). It wasn't overwhelmingly received (probably because new things usually are met with skepticism and disdain in traditional institutions _ like soccer).
The second fell apart due to a lack of sponsorship money and not so subtle antagonism from UEFA. The Europeans insist that the outcome of the first two events demonstrate that there is "NO" interest or desire for the tournament and that it only adds to an already crowded calendar.
That is the opinion of many _ especially in Europe. And while it does add to the calendar, a one whole team is required for all of a week. Absolutely burdensome!Of course the three-week jaunts by Milan, Manchester United, Real, Barcelona, and the rest of the G14+4gang, to the United States and Asia don't have any negative impact on their players!
This schoolyard argument really comes down to who is in control. The major European clubs (read the G14+4) want to be the biggest bullies on the block. They don't run the tournament; they don't control its revenue, timing or structure. FIFA still thinks it is. They also could lose more than a little prestige by getting beaten by some club from nowhere _ which means anywhere outside Europe.
And while there are still elements of the tournament that probably could be improved, the idea of determining a true club world champion seems like a natural. What seems unnatural is that the most played, watched and global of sports does not have a true champion.And if your argument is that the Club World Championship will not really crown the best on the planet, then ask yourself, is a team that finished fifth in England last season really the best in all of Europe?