With CONMEBOL lobbying for further expanded competition, GOAL US writers debate the viability of a 64-team tournament
And so there is more World Cup speculation. FIFA has already taken plenty of heat for expanding the 2026 World Cup to 48 teams. That seems like a lot, double what it was the last time the U.S. hosted a World Cup, in 1994.
But what if it were 64?
CONMEBOL, the South American football federation, lobbied FIFA President Gianni Infantino to further increase the field for the 2030 event. The logistics here are complicated. Infantino would have to take that initiative to a FIFA congress that would likely shut it down with little hesitation.
A source told the Guardian that “Gianni would not get that vote through Council even if he wanted to. The overwhelming feeling around the table – and not just in Europe – is that 64 teams would damage the World Cup."
Still, the seeds of an idea are here. It aligns with the revenue expansion FIFA has been flirting with for years. The Club World Cup was rather lax in its qualification criteria – and there is already talk of expanding that field. FIFA wants more teams to play more soccer more often.
UEFA, of course, will have its own voice. President Alexander Ceferin has, historically, been reluctant to change things. But by 2030, things could look different. A new generation of footballers will be in the mix. Messi and Ronaldo will have been replaced by Lamine Yamal and Estevao. You'd imagine, too, that some nations might get their first taste of World Cup football.
What would a 64-team World Cup even look like? What are the positives? And what would it mean for nations such as the USMNT, who would presumably coast through qualifying?
GOAL US writers debate the impact of a possible expanded World Cup in the latest edition of… The Rondo.
Getty Images SportShould FIFA expand to 64 teams for the 2030 World Cup?
Tom Hindle: No. Qualifying for the World Cup should be hard. It should mean something. It is the most prestigious sporting contest in the world. Just being there should be a privilege. Switching to a 64-team format would further take away that shine – if not ruin it outright. Stop before you even start, FIFA.
Alex Labidou: As Big Daddy Kane once said, “Ain’t no half-steppin." If you’re going to expand to a weird number like 48, then you might as well push it to 64. While it would be preferable to keep the 32-team format that has made the 1998 through 2022 editions more memorable, there’s not much of a difference between 48 and 64. That makes the shift is more likely than not.
Ryan Tolmich: Hell, just make it 211 participants at this point. Yes, there are obvious financial benefits to expanding a World Cup. But at some point it no longer seems like a big event if everyone's allowed to participate. A Ferrari isn't a Ferrari if everyone has one, you know? Maybe 64 is the upper limit that makes everyone happy and, admittedly, it does make for an easier competition structure than 2026. But even so, it has to end at some point.
AdvertisementgettyWhat are the potential positives?
TH: Well, content, you'd think. FIFA likes money, a lot. More games means more money. So yeah, FIFA would get even richer. There is also a certain romanticism to this. It would give countries that wouldn't normally qualify the chance to play in a World Cup – which is massive. We are so often told that "more soccer is good soccer." Well, this would be a lot more soccer. It also, removes the headache of a 48-team tournament.
AL: Soccer is a much bigger sport with a larger imprint than where it was in the Pele days, and even as recently as the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Putting things into perspective, China has only been to the World Cup once, in 2002. India has never played in the World Cup, despite their qualification in the 1950 event. Those two countries make up 35 percent of the world’s population. If either or both make the field, it would inject a massive boost into the football development of both, with potentially billions of more engaged fans. That could be massive as FIFA continues to search the world for new sources of revenue.
RT: If you're going to go past 32, which FIFA already has, 64 really is the next logical number – 16 groups of four, top two teams in each group advance, more games, more rounds, more money. It would also offer some relief to countries right on the bubble, the mid-tier teams that are just outside of World Cup qualifying range. Maybe making it to a World Cup or two would ignite something in those countries that wouldn't otherwise be catch fire. From that standpoint, it makes sense.
AFPWhat are the potential negatives?
TH: Where do you want to start? The negatives are plentiful. The eroding of tradition, competitive imbalances, the greed behind it all, the likelihood that some countries would just get battered in the groups, player welfare. It just doesn't make any sense.
AL: The first concern has to be quality. With expanded qualifiers and lower-ranked teams having a chance to qualify, the reality is the on-field product is going to take a step back. The other issue is soccer fatigue. It was apparent over the summer when the Gold Cup and Club World Cup – along with touring Premier League teams in the U.S. – created congestion in the North American market. While the 2030 World Cup won’t be played in this country, the proposed 128 matches just seem like a lot. Less is more.
RT: The field gets watered down very, very fast. Some bad teams would get into such a tournament, and those bad teams would be cannon fodder for the teams that actually deserve to be there. Maybe that's OK. Maybe that's what people want, but it does take the jeopardy out of all of this. Also, by the way FIFA, watering down World Cup qualifiers takes away any jeopardy from those games, putting an even bigger focus – financial and otherwise – on one tournament every four years.
Getty ImagesWhat could this mean for CONCACAF?
TH: It would be great for a handful of CONCACAF teams that wouldn't normally sniff the World Cup, and ensure that another nightmare scenario such as the USMNT's failure in 2018 doesn't happen. There's good and bad to that. It would be great to see Jamaica, for example, play in a World Cup. Shamar Nicholson, Andre Blake, Michail Antonio – these guys all deserve a shot on the world's biggest stage. But slashing the jeopardy of qualification kind of ruins the point. It should be difficult to get to the World Cup. The U.S., Canada and Mexico would walk it.
AL: While specifics haven’t been discussed for the CONCACAF region, it would be sure to help. Teams such as Jamaica have been knocking at the door for decades now, with their last appearance coming in 1998. Every World Cup appearance is a program setter for a country’s respective FA. With more spots for CONCACAF, countries such as Jamaica, Panama and even Haiti – last appearance in 1974 – would have a better chance to get in.
RT: It would give Mexico, the USMNT and Canada the world's biggest safety blanket, almost guaranteeing they'd be in every World Cup. For those teams behind them – Jamaica, Panama and Guatemala and others – it would give them a good shot of making it to World Cups consistently. Is that good for growth in the region? Probably. In truth, CONCACAF would be one of the bigger beneficiaries from all of this.