Reaching a World Cup used to define a footballing generation. Under FIFA’s latest proposal, simply qualifying could become an expectation for many established nations.
President Gianni Infantino has reopened the possibility of expanding the 2030 tournament from 48 teams to 64. FIFA’s committees are expected to examine the plan after the current World Cup, where the 48-team format made its debut with 104 matches and a new Round of 32.
The proposal would add another 16 countries to the finals. That represents a huge leap from the 32-team structure used between 1998 and 2022.
The 2030 event already has an extraordinary footprint. Spain, Portugal, and Morocco are the three primary hosts. Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay will stage three centenary matches.
Adding more nations would create opportunities across every confederation. It would also force FIFA to answer a harder question. How far can the World Cup expand before qualification loses its fear, pressure, and prestige?
Infantino Has Evidence on His Side
FIFA does not need a presentation deck to prove that emerging nations can compete. The evidence has played out on the pitch throughout the 2026 tournament.
A record nine of Africa’s 10 representatives reached the Round of 32. Morocco advanced to the quarterfinals, while Cape Verde went unbeaten in the group stage during its tournament debut. South Africa and Côte d’Ivoire also reached the knockout phase for the first time.
Those results make it harder to dismiss expansion as a simple lowering of standards.
Cape Verde offered the clearest example of what access can create. A country with a population of roughly 500,000 reached the World Cup, survived its group, and earned a knockout match against Argentina. That exposure can inspire players, attract sponsors, and strengthen a football system that rarely commands the global spotlight.
Teams outside the traditional powers also looked comfortable at this level. They defended in organised units, managed difficult periods, and attacked established opponents without treating survival as their only objective.
Infantino can point to that progress and argue that the old distribution of places no longer reflects the depth of the international game.
“Every nation should be allowed to dream of participating in the World Cup,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said.
It is an easy sentiment to support, especially for confederations historically starved of places at the global table.
Development, however, forms only part of the equation. Every added match creates another broadcast window, another ticketing opportunity, and more inventory for sponsors. A 64-team World Cup would support FIFA’s global mission, but it would also expand its most valuable commercial product.
Qualification Is Part of the Product
The World Cup begins long before its opening ceremony.
Qualifying campaigns stretch across years. They decide coaching careers, expose weak football structures, and create matches in which one mistake can end an entire generation’s ambition.
Italy provided the most brutal modern example. The four-time champions missed the 2018 and 2022 tournaments. Those failures became national sporting crises because qualification was never guaranteed.
A 64-team field would change that pressure.
FIFA has 211 member associations, meaning more than 30 percent could reach the finals. With all six host nations expected to qualify automatically, FIFA would face a political minefield when distributing the remaining 58 places.
South America presents the clearest problem. CONMEBOL has only 10 members, while Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay already have hosting roles. A major increase in the region’s allocation could turn its famous qualifying marathon into a competition where elimination becomes the exception.
Europe would face a similar debate. More places may help major nations avoid embarrassing failures, but those failures form part of the competition’s power. Supporters remember qualification victories because they understand what defeat can take away.
Expansion only works if reaching the tournament remains a hard-fought achievement.
A Cleaner Format Creates a Much Bigger Machine
Structurally, a 64-team World Cup looks cleaner than the system used in 2026.
FIFA could create 16 groups of four, with the top two teams advancing to the Round of 32. That would remove the need to compare third-placed teams across different groups and give every country a clear route into the knockout phase.
The simplicity comes with a cost.
Such a format would contain 128 matches, which is 24 more than the current 104-match schedule. Organisers would need more training bases, hotels, transport routes, security operations, and recovery facilities.
Those demands become harder to manage because the 2030 World Cup already spans three continents.
Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay will stage the centenary matches in South America. Morocco, Portugal, and Spain will host the rest of the tournament across Africa and Europe. Expansion could allow the South American countries to stage complete groups rather than isolated fixtures, but it would also enlarge an operation that is already geographically stretched.
More matches would place additional pressure on broadcasters and host cities. Domestic leagues would also have to protect their calendars while clubs release more players for international duty.
The World Cup can absorb growth better than most sporting events. That does not make the logistical burden irrelevant.
FIFA’s Critics Have Already Drawn Their Line
Infantino’s renewed support does not erase the opposition that emerged when the proposal first surfaced.
At the UEFA Congress in Belgrade on April 3, 2025, UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin called a 64-team World Cup a bad idea for both the finals and Europe’s qualifying competition.
Concacaf President Victor Montagliani raised similar concerns later that month. He warned that expansion could affect national teams, clubs, leagues, and players across the wider football system.
Their objections came before the 48-team tournament began. FIFA now has real evidence that more countries can compete without turning the group stage into a procession.
Still, one successful expansion does not automatically justify another.
FIFA must separate three questions that often become blurred. Are more national teams good enough to compete? Can the calendar and host structure support another 24 matches? Would a 64-team field make the World Cup better rather than simply bigger?
The answer to the first question may be yes. The other two require far more scrutiny.
FIFA must tread carefully before expanding again. It needs to protect the magic that begins years before the opening match.
Every country deserves the right to dream about the World Cup. That dream loses something when reaching the tournament becomes too easy.
READ MORE: World Cup Expansion to 48 Teams How It Changes 2026 Tournament
FAQs
Q1. Is FIFA expanding the 2030 World Cup to 64 teams?
FIFA has not approved the change. Its committees will examine and discuss the proposal after the 2026 tournament.
Q2. How many matches would a 64-team World Cup have?
A format with 16 groups of four would produce 128 matches. That is 24 more than the 2026 schedule.
Q3. Which countries will host the 2030 World Cup?
Morocco, Portugal and Spain are the primary hosts. Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay will each stage a centenary match.
Q4. Why are critics against a 64-team World Cup?
Critics fear it could weaken qualifying, increase player workload and make an already complex tournament much harder to organise.
Q5. How many teams played at the 2026 World Cup?
The 2026 World Cup featured 48 teams and 104 matches. It also introduced a Round of 32.
