The Pros and Cons of Expanding the World Cup to 64 Teams

In four years, there could be an extra 16 teams competing for soccer’s most prestigious prize.

Spain will come into the 2030 World Cup as the reigning champions. | Erick W. Rasco/Sports Illustrated

The 2026 World Cup only just ended, and talks are already being had about expanding the tournament to 64 teams to celebrate the 100th anniversary of soccer’s grandest spectacle.

This summer’s showpiece event, the first-ever World Cup with 48 teams, unfolded across North America for nearly six weeks and ended with Spain dethroning Argentina. The tournament had just about everything across its 104 matches, capturing the attention of the globe despite omnipresent controversies over ticket prices, political allegiances and suspended red cards.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who spearheaded the competition that stands to rake in a record $15 billion in revenue for soccer’s governing body, previously teased expanding the World Cup yet again for the 2030 edition, a plan CONMEBOL president Alejandro Domínguez seemingly confirmed.

“The next one is played at home!,” he wrote on X. “In 2030, the World Cup comes to Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay, a great opportunity for soccer, to celebrate the Centenary of the World Cup with a competition featuring 64 teams.”

Although FIFA has yet to announce such approval, the mere insinuation of another supersized World Cup sparked plenty of conversation—and even more debate.

---

The Pros: More Opportunities and Less Third-Place Nonsense

Cabo Verde almost pulled off the impossible against Argentina. | Steph Chambers/FIFA/Getty Images

Further expanding the World Cup is of course an attractive option to the governing body. The more teams competing means more matches, which means more revenue going into FIFA’s pockets—all of which is invested in the growth of the sport, of course.

There is also the more romantic perspective that Infantino told Swiss broadcaster Blue Sport: “When you organize a World Cup, it’s important that you organize it for the whole world. It’s not just Europe and South America, but the entire world, effectively. Every nation should be able to dream of taking part in the World Cup.”

It’s easy to agree with the 56-year-old’s statement, especially after watching underdogs steal the show this summer. Cabo Verde, a team that many expected to come bottom of Group H, became the smallest country to ever qualify for the knockout stage and nearly produced the greatest upset in World Cup history against Argentina in the round of 32.

Erling Haaland became the most popular player in the United States. | Erick W. Rasco/Sports Illustrated

Norway and the ever-charismatic Erling Haaland took over Boston and New York City, galvanizing even the most casual American fans to get behind the country’s historic run to the quarterfinals. Co-host Mexico, meanwhile, produced arguably the best match of the summer against England at the Estadio Azteca.

Inviting more teams into the fray only adds to the possibility of more shocking results and must-see storylines. It gives overlooked nations the chance to compete on the world stage and spread hope back home, much like DR Congo did this summer.

Adding 64 teams also guarantees an action-packed group stage, with matches to watch practically all day, every day, a dream for most fans across the globe. Plus, if FIFA went ahead with 16 groups of four, then there would be no third-place qualifiers; only the top two teams from each group would advance to the round of 32, eliminating the largely unpopular method from this summer’s edition.

---

The Cons: Skill Disparity and Skewed Records

More underwhelming opponents will feel like child’s play to many. | Erick W. Rasco/Sports Illustrated

The major downside to a 64-team World Cup lies with the level of competition. There was already plenty of negative discourse surrounding the skill gap between nations with 48 teams. Curaçao qualified for the World Cup just to concede nine goals in three group stage matches. The likes of Tunisia and Iraq lost all three of their matches, as did Panama, who did not even score a goal along the way.

As a result, many of the early games were rather straightforward and easy to predict. Even in the round of 32, there was a handful of lopsided fixtures, especially when a top nation went against a third-place team that was just happy to be there.

The disparity among teams would only get larger with 16 extra nations competing in 2030. More uncompetitive opponents then can easily skew World Cup history, and not for the better. What’s stopping Kylian Mbappé from abusing weaker teams to increase his lead atop the scoring charts? What’s stopping goalkeepers from tallying clean sheet after clean sheet against nations who would never have qualified for the 2022 World Cup?

Kylian Mbappé became the all-time leading goalscorer at the World Cup. | Jordan Bank/FIFA/Getty Images

We have already seen an expanded format stain the sanctity of the Champions League record books, and the World Cup would be next in line. Suddenly, what is supposed to be the grandest stage in soccer would feel more like a gimmick.

Imagine if Pelé or Ronaldo or Miroslav Klose got to play in a 64-team World Cup? Honestly, those superstars—and many of today’s biggest names—might not have even needed to step onto the pitch until the knockout stage given how lopsided group stage matches would be.

Players might also feel compelled to sit out because of the tournament length, which would likely have to approach the two-month mark to fit in such an expanded group stage. Suddenly, players who already get so little rest throughout a season as it is would now get even less time to properly recover in the summer before the start of a domestic campaign.

Even all the downsides in the world, though, likely will not be enough to stop FIFA from going even bigger in 2030 after seeing the financial success of this summer’s tournament.

---