## 3 Results
### Performance Indicators Comparison Between Match Outcomes  
A one-way ANOVA analysis was conducted to examine differences in possession percentage across match outcomes (loss, draw, win). The analysis revealed a significant effect of match result on possession (Figure 3), F(2, 93) = 12.20, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.208. Specifically, possession was significantly higher in winning matches (M = 53.3% \(\pm\) 12.8, 95% CI [48.9, 57.7]) compared to losses (M = 39.1% \(\pm\) 12.4, 95% CI [34.9, 43.4]; \(p\) < 0.001), indicating that winning teams controlled possession approximately 14 percentage points more than losing teams. Possession in wins was also significantly higher than in draws (M = 45.6% \(\pm\) 10.0, 95% CI [41.5, 49.6]; \(p\) = 0.039). No significant difference was observed between draws and losses (\(p\) = 0.099). Figure 1: Impact of first goal on match outcomes in FIFA Club World Cup 2025 (\(p\) < 0.05). Figure 2: Temporal analysis of goal scoring in FIFA Club World Cup 2025 (\(p\) > 0.05). (**A**) Distribution of goals scored across 15-min intervals of match time. (**B**) Comparison of total goals scored between the first and second halves of the matches. (\(\chi^{2}(2)=10.97\), \(p=0.004\), \(\varepsilon^{2}=0.116\)), attempts at goal on target (\(\chi^{2}(2)=18.78\), \(p<0.001\), \(\varepsilon^{2}=0.198\)), total passes (\(\chi^{2}(2)=20.73\), \(p<0.001\), \(\varepsilon^{2}=0.218\)), total completed passes (\(\chi^{2}(2)=19.83\), \(p<0.001\), \(\varepsilon^{2}=0.209\)), defensive line breaks (\(\chi^{2}(2)=7.92\), \(p=0.019\), \(\varepsilon^{2}=0.083\)), receptions in final third (\(\chi^{2}(2)=15.77\), \(p<0.001\), \(\varepsilon^{2}=0.166\)), ball progressions (\(\chi^{2}(2)=8.93\), \(p=0.012\), \(\varepsilon^{2}=0.094\)), defensive pressures (\(\chi^{2}(2)=21.85\), \(p<0.001\), \(\varepsilon^{2}=0.230\)), and total distance covered (\(\chi^{2}(2)=8.86\), \(p=0.012\), \(\varepsilon^{2}=0.093\)). Post hoc Dwass-Steel-Crichlow-Fligner pairwise comparisons revealed that winning teams scored significantly more goals (Mdn = 2, IQR = 2; M = 2.91 \(\pm\) 1.9, 95% CI [2.28, 3.55]) than losing teams (Mdn = 0, IQR = 1; M = 0.51 \(\pm\) 0.7, 95% CI [0.26, 0.77]; W = 0.90, \(p<0.001\)) and drawing teams (Mdn = 1, IQR = 1; M = 0.92 \(\pm\) 1.2, 95% CI [0.45, 1.39]; W = 6.88, \(p<0.001\)). Attempts at goal were higher in wins (Mdn = 14, IQR = 7; M = 15.29 \(\pm\) 7.0, 95% CI [12.90, 17.67]) than losses (Mdn = 10, IQR = 7; M = 10.09 \(\pm\) 5.5, 95% CI [8.18, 11.99]; W = 4.69, \(p=0.003\)), with no significant difference between wins and draws (drawing teams: Mdn = 13, IQR = 10.5; M = 13.6 \(\pm\) 7.8, 95% CI [10.45, 16.71]; \(p=0.568\)), showing that teams that won produced around five more goal attempts per match than those that lost. Attempts at goal on target were also greater in wins (Mdn = 6, IQR = 3; M = 6.17 \(\pm\) 3.4, 95% CI [4.99, 7.35]) than losses (Mdn = 3, IQR = 2; M = 3.17 \(\pm\) 2.3, 95% CI [2.38, 3.96]; W = 6.16, \(p<0.001\)), with no significant difference compared to the drawing teams (drawing teams: Mdn = 3, IQR = 4; M = 4.35 \(\pm\) 2.8, 95% CI [3.2, 5.5]). On average, winning teams registered three more shots on target than losing teams, underlining the importance of shooting precision. Total passes were significantly higher in wins (Mdn = 600, IQR = 261; M = 579.97 \(\pm\) 166.6, 95% CI [522.73, 637.22]) than losses (Mdn = 380, IQR = 162; M = 408.23 \(\pm\) 130.8, 95% CI [363.30, 453.16]; W = 5.96, \(p<0.001\)), and wins exceeded draws (drawing teams: Mdn = 444, IQR = 167.75; M = 448.00 \(\pm\) 113.1, 95% CI [402.3, 493.7]); \(p=0.004\)). These results indicate that winning teams completed on average over 170 more passes than losing ones.