When Cape Verde dragged Argentina into extra time in Miami, the loudest argument against the 48-team World Cup began to fall apart. The debutants had already held Spain and Uruguay, then pressed the defending champions into a fight that lasted 120 minutes. Argentina escaped 3 to 2, but Cape Verde left to cheers.
That clash captured the best of FIFA’s expanded experiment. New nations did not simply arrive for photographs and an early flight home. They competed, disrupted established powers, and created games that mattered.
The tournament also tested everyone’s patience. It ran for almost six weeks, covered 16 cities in three countries, and required 104 fixtures to find a champion. FIFA’s gamble worked better than expected because the newcomers earned their places, but the governing body should recognise that 48 teams is the limit.
The Underdogs Made Expansion Worth Defending
Debutants and outsiders supplied the strongest evidence that 48 teams can work. Cape Verde proved it immediately with a scoreless draw against Spain, another draw against Uruguay, and qualification for the round of 32.
Against Argentina, Cape Verde pressed with courage and refused to retreat into damage control. Lionel Messi later acknowledged how effectively the underdogs disrupted his team, which needed an own goal in the 111th minute to survive.
Congo produced another answer in Atlanta. Goalkeeper Lionel Mpasi blocked shots with his hands, his body, and almost every available angle as England struggled to break through.
The Africans led and remained close to a historic result until Harry Kane scored two late goals, including the winner in the 86th minute. England advanced 2 to 1, but the tie never felt like an exhibition.
Curaçao did not reach the knockout rounds, although it entered its final group fixture with a path to advance. Across the confederations, the broader field held up.
Africa sent 10 teams and nine reached the knockout stage. Those sides did not need sympathy. They needed access, preparation, and a chance to show that the global gap is narrower than the old qualification system suggested.
The New Knockout Round Justified Its Place
The round of 32 could easily have become a week of predictable mismatches, but Cape Verde against Argentina and Congo against England gave the added stage a clear sporting purpose. Both games forced former champions to solve difficult problems under real pressure.
FIFA also avoided its worst idea before the tournament started by dropping the proposed groups of three and retaining groups of four. That decision protected the competition from awkward final fixtures in which two teams could calculate the exact result needed to advance.
Every country received three group games, while simultaneous final fixtures remained possible. The format preserved a familiar rhythm and ensured that the final group matches still carried tension across multiple stadiums.
The weakness came from the qualification rules, with the top two teams in each group advancing alongside the eight best third placed sides. That kept almost everyone alive, but it also softened the punishment for poor results.
Some teams could stumble through the group stage and still sneak into the knockouts, while supporters had to track a shifting comparison between countries that never faced each other.
FIFA president Gianni Infantino called the 48-team field “a huge success.”
He has a case. The new format widened the cast without removing the elite from the main story.
Messi drove Argentina to the final. Kylian Mbappé powered France deep into the competition, while Jude Bellingham and Harry Kane carried England’s attack. Lamine Yamal remained central to Spain’s march.
The underdogs added tension, while the established stars still owned the biggest nights. Argentina, England, France, and Spain filled the semifinal places, showing that expansion had not pushed the strongest nations out of the decisive rounds.
The Crowds Came, But the Tournament Felt Endless
FIFA can point to hard numbers. Before the final two fixtures, it reported 6,665,825 spectators across 102 games. The average crowd stood at 65,351, with reported occupancy at 99.7%.
Those figures crushed the old total attendance record and proved that supporters would fill stadiums for a larger event.
Scale also created distance. A World Cup spread across Vancouver, Mexico City, Miami, Los Angeles, Toronto, New York, and several other cities asked teams and supporters to cross a continent. Some fixtures unfolded thousands of kilometres apart.
Television viewers faced several games each day, often across wide time windows. By the round of 16, the tournament had already staged more football than an entire 32 team World Cup.
The 104 game schedule provided more drama, but it also made individual moments harder to hold. A major upset in the afternoon could be replaced by another storyline before midnight, leaving supporters able to follow their own country while tracking the entire competition became a job.
The World Cup should feel vast without feeling endless.
Ticket sales, television reach, and sponsorship money explain why FIFA likes expansion. Those figures do not measure what the event loses when qualification becomes easier and the calendar becomes heavier.
The magic has always started with how brutally difficult it is to get there. Open the door too wide and that tension disappears.
The 64 Team Proposal Is Real
The exhaustion created by the North American sprawl should serve as a warning before FIFA looks toward 2030. Players and supporters had already crossed huge distances within one continent in 2026. The next tournament will carry that logistical strain across three continents before any further expansion is considered.
Infantino has said FIFA committees will examine a possible increase from 48 to 64 teams before the 2030 World Cup. He argues that broader access gives smaller nations an incentive to improve, but the proposal would add another 16 places only one tournament after the current expansion made its debut.
That would be reckless because FIFA has barely begun to study the sporting and physical effects of 104 games. Players arrived after crowded club seasons, teams crossed huge distances in difficult summer conditions, and supporters dealt with expensive travel, high ticket prices, and a schedule spread across almost six weeks.
The 2030 plan makes another expansion even harder to defend. Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay will stage the opening three games, while Morocco, Portugal, and Spain will host the rest.
That means six countries across three continents before FIFA adds any extra fixtures. Turning the event into a 64-team tournament would not celebrate football’s reach. It would stretch the competition until logistics became more important than the games.
FIFA Found the Limit at 48
The 2026 World Cup did not implode. It gave Cape Verde, Congo, Curaçao, and other emerging nations a stage they used well, while Africa’s knockout record strengthened the case for wider representation and the round of 32 produced ties that deserved a place in the tournament.
Those successes should protect the 48 team format rather than become an excuse for another expansion. FIFA needs time to fix the confusing third placed table, review the physical demands placed on players, reduce the strain on travelling supporters, and preserve the value of qualification.
A bigger World Cup can create more stories, as this edition proved, but another 16 teams would also bring more fixtures, heavier travel, and more opportunities for the competition to lose its edge. FIFA made 48 work. It now needs the discipline to stop.
READ MORE: World Cup Expansion to 48 Teams How It Changes 2026 Tournament
FAQs
1. Did the 48-team World Cup format work?
Yes, mostly. Underdogs competed, crowds remained strong and the round of 32 produced meaningful games, but 104 fixtures made the tournament exhausting.
2. How many teams and matches were in the 2026 World Cup?
The tournament featured 48 teams and 104 matches across Canada, Mexico and the United States.
3. How did teams qualify from the World Cup group stage?
The top two teams in each group advanced, along with the eight strongest third-place teams.
4. Has FIFA approved a 64-team World Cup for 2030?
No. FIFA plans to examine the proposal, but it has not approved a 64-team tournament for 2030.
5. Why would a 64-team World Cup be difficult in 2030?
The tournament already spans six countries and three continents. More teams would add fixtures and increase an already complex travel burden.
From local legends to global stages, every game has something worth celebrating.
