After a decade of leadership under Gianni Infantino as FIFA president, the organization has focused on expansion, touting more tournaments, games, and revenue as key goals.

The new Club World Cup, the expanded World Cup, and increasing ticket prices have drawn attention.

Furthermore, the halftime show during the last World Cup final lasted 27 minutes and 22 seconds.

Infantino seems to be proposing a 64-team World Cup.

He stated, “If you don’t give smaller countries a chance to participate, they’ll lack the incentive to keep improving.” However, it can be argued that smaller nations already have the opportunity to qualify based on their performance, as seen with countries like Cape Verde, Curacao, Jordan, and Uzbekistan.

From a competition perspective, the proposed format would allow the top two teams from each of the 16 groups to advance, avoiding the need to send third-place teams through.

The 2030 World Cup will commemorate 100 years since the inaugural tournament in Uruguay. It will primarily be hosted by Morocco, Portugal, and Spain, while Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay will host the opening three matches.

The South American confederation, Conmebol, has expressed its desire for additional games. In April 2025, it requested a one-time event featuring 64 teams to accommodate four added groups.

Conmebol’s president, Alejandro Dominguez, claimed this would ensure “nobody on the planet is left out of the party.”

Advertisement

Following the conclusion of the 2026 tournament, Dominguez reiterated his support for an expanded World Cup, sharing updates on social media about Conmebol’s efforts to guarantee a 64-team event in 2030. He asserted, “International football grows when it opens up to the world.”

Despite this enthusiasm, there has been limited support from other confederations. UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin described it as a “bad idea” for both the tournament and the qualification process.

Victor Montagliani, president of Concacaf, indicated last year that such an expansion could negatively impact “the broader football ecosystem.” Similarly, AFC president Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa cautioned that this could lead to “chaos.”

Regardless of the concerns, the decision ultimately lies with the 37 members of the FIFA Council.

Would Adding More Teams Devalue the World Cup?

A 64-team tournament offers several benefits, including a more streamlined format and increased opportunities for emerging nations. This aligns with Infantino’s stance, particularly influenced by thesuccess of Cape Verde.

Prior to the tournament, FIFA faced criticism for suggesting that additional teams might not be competitive. Cape Verde’s performances included a draw against Spain and Uruguay, ultimately making it to the knockout stage, where they gave Argentina a tough match.

However, it’s crucial to balance these inspiring narratives with the overall competitiveness of the event. Countries like Haiti, Iraq, and several others struggled without earning points during the group stage, indicating minimal jeopardy for stronger national teams.

With more teams, it becomes increasingly challenging to see top-ranked nations like Belgium, Germany, Spain, and France failing to advance.

Advertisement

The question of where the additional spots would allocate also arises. Based on this year’s qualifiers, here are potential teams that might have qualified for a 64-team World Cup in 2026:

AFC: Indonesia (118), Oman (79), United Arab Emirates (68).

Uefa: Denmark (21), Italy (12), Poland (36).

Concacaf: Honduras (65), Jamaica (71), Suriname (125).

Conmebol: Bolivia (77), Venezuela (49).

OFC: New Caledonia (151).

Africa: Burkina Faso (62), Cameroon (44), Gabon (86), Nigeria (26).

Of those teams, six reside within the top 50 FIFA world rankings—three from Europe, two from Africa, and one from South America.

While there is an argument for giving more weight to European teams to maintain competitive balance, proponents of expanded participation believe it could further the development of football in many nations.

Infantino may champion the expansion as a way to grow the global game, but skepticism remains regarding its impact on competition. Nearly a third of FIFA’s 211 nations could be represented.

Would the group stage evolve into a less meaningful qualifying contest for what is essentially a knockout tournament?

The Logistical Issues of 64 Teams

Transitioning to a 64-team World Cup would essentially involve adding four supplementary four-team groups. However, this would necessitate more time in the tournament schedule.

This year’s World Cup spanned 39 days, and 24 additional matches would call for 20 new time slots, extending the tournament by about five days.

Advertisement

The unique structure this year allowed FIFA to manage matchdays efficiently across multiple time zones and stadiums, which may not be possible in future tournaments, especially considering challenges like climate change.

World Cups in the past have rarely had joint hosts, with the last instance being Japan and South Korea in 2002. Future hosting arrangements may require more than one nation, potentially complicating logistics and finances.

As more countries seek to host, critical issues such as establishing sufficient elite-level training facilities and accommodations for fans become crucial.

Expanding the World Cup is far from a straightforward endeavor involving increased opportunities; it requires addressing numerous logistical challenges.

Is the Expansion Mainly About Money?

One of Infantino’s promises upon election was to enhance financial resources for football organizations. Each football association now receives $8 million over four years, with additional funding for smaller nations.

FIFA expects significant revenue growth, projecting that a 64-team event would generate even more from ticket sales, sponsorships, and broadcasting rights compared to its already revised 48-team format.

Infantino’s assignment of prioritizing global growth through more football raises questions about whether there’s a limit to beneficial expansion.