The possibility of a 64-team World Cup could significantly alter football's economics, affecting qualification, broadcasting, and financial dynamics.
Doha, Qatar Jul 21, 2026 ALN: The first 48-team World Cup has barely finished, but Gianni Infantino has already acknowledged the possibility that football’s biggest tournament could one day grow larger still, a move that could fundamentally alter the economics of the sport. The FIFA president's remarks have sparked a renewed discussion about the future of the World Cup and its potential expansion to 64 teams, raising questions about the implications for the sport on multiple levels.
Speaking to Swiss television during the tournament, Infantino mentioned that a 64-team World Cup was among the ideas that could be examined once the final was over. This statement has reopened the debate over how large the game’s showpiece event could realistically become. The World Cup, historically a 32-team tournament, expanded to 48 teams for the first time in 2026. The prospect of further expansion to 64 teams has provoked a range of responses from various stakeholders within the football community.
The logistical implications of another expansion are obvious. A bigger tournament would require more stadiums, more hotels, more transport and, most likely, more time. The infrastructure demands would escalate significantly, as hosting a tournament of this magnitude would necessitate not only the construction of additional venues but also the enhancement of transportation networks and hospitality services to accommodate the influx of fans and teams from around the world.
However, the financial implications could prove even more significant. By making qualification easier for many of the game’s biggest nations, a 64-team tournament could reduce the commercial value of qualifying competitions while increasing the importance of FIFA’s own flagship event. This shift could lead to a reallocation of resources within the sport, as national federations may find themselves relying more heavily on FIFA for financial support.
If broadcasters place less value on qualifying campaigns, football’s six regional confederations could become increasingly dependent on FIFA’s own distributions, potentially shifting more financial influence – and power – towards the global governing body. This scenario raises concerns about the balance of power within international football governance and the potential marginalization of regional bodies.
“I don’t think it’s a good idea for the World Cup itself, and it’s not a good idea for our qualifiers either. So I’m not supporting that idea,” UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin stated last year. The European governing body’s position has not changed since then, reflecting a broader apprehension about the implications of expanding the tournament. Ceferin’s comments underscore the tension between the desire for inclusivity in the tournament and the need to maintain its prestige and competitive integrity.
Asian Football Confederation President Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa has also voiced opposition, questioning last year where further expansion might end. His concerns highlight a critical debate within the sport: how to balance the interests of larger footballing nations with the aspirations of smaller nations seeking representation on the global stage.
“I think it is important that when you want to organise a World Cup, you do it for the whole world – not just Europe and South America,” Infantino said when discussing the idea of an expanded tournament. This perspective reflects FIFA's ongoing efforts to globalize the sport and provide opportunities for nations that have historically been underrepresented in World Cup competitions. However, the challenge lies in ensuring that the tournament remains competitive and retains its allure for fans worldwide.
The 2026 tournament in Canada, Mexico, and the United States was the first since 1998 to move away from the 32-team format, expanding to 48 nations and 104 matches over more than five weeks. The logistics of managing such a significant increase in the number of teams and matches are formidable, and the prospect of a 64-team World Cup adds another layer of complexity.
If the competition retained the same basic structure with four-team groups followed by a 32-team knockout stage, a 64-team World Cup would comprise 128 matches – 24 more than in 2026 and double the total staged under the old 32-team format. The sheer volume of matches could overwhelm existing infrastructures, leading to potential issues with scheduling, logistics, and fan engagement. Unless FIFA compresses the schedule or stages more games simultaneously, that could add roughly another week to a tournament already lasting more than five weeks.
Plans are in place for Spain, Portugal, and Morocco to stage most of the 2030 World Cup with Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay each hosting a single opening-round match to mark the tournament’s centenary. Accommodating 64 teams across six host nations presents a formidable organizational challenge. Doing so in a single country could prove even more demanding, as seen in past tournaments where logistical hurdles have led to significant operational issues.
Saudi Arabia, due to host the tournament alone in 2034, already faces significant scheduling questions. Ramadan is expected to begin in mid-November that year, making the November-December window used for the 2022 World Cup in neighboring Qatar difficult to replicate and potentially forcing another unprecedented reshaping of the global football calendar. A 64-team tournament would magnify those challenges, requiring more stadiums, training facilities, hotels, transport capacity, and volunteers while placing additional pressure on infrastructure in a country still developing its tourism industry.
The Saudis have proposed 15 venues for the existing 48-team format with eight stadiums in Riyadh, four in Jeddah, and others in Khobar, Neom, and Abha. Construction and renovation work is already under way before the 2027 Asian Cup, but the demands of hosting a World Cup could stretch these resources even thinner.
An expanded World Cup would also place greater strain on an already congested international calendar and increase pressure on domestic leagues, many of which have aligned themselves with Europe’s traditional August-to-May season. The demands of a longer tournament could lead to player burnout, injuries, and decreased performance levels, raising concerns about the welfare of elite athletes.
Japan’s J-League is about to begin its first August-to-May campaign while US Major League Soccer plans a similar switch from next year. Any future winter World Cup would, therefore, disrupt an ever-growing number of competitions rather than primarily Europe’s major leagues, as was the case in 2022. This shift could lead to increased tension between club and national team commitments, further complicating the landscape of international football.
World Cups can be costly for national federations, even rich ones like France. The French Football Federation had been expecting to spend 24.5 million euros ($28m) at this year’s World Cup, with federation President Philippe Diallo saying Les Bleus would probably need to at least reach the semifinals not to lose money. This financial reality underscores the risks associated with hosting and participating in major tournaments, particularly for nations with fewer resources.
At the April FIFA Congress in Vancouver, Diallo said FIFA needed to provide greater financial support to participating nations. This call for increased support highlights the potential financial strain that an expanded tournament could place on national federations, particularly those with limited budgets. If a 48-team tournament is already stretching the finances of participating federations, a longer 64-team event could increase those costs further.
Player welfare concerns would also intensify with more matches adding to the workload of elite players. The physical toll of an extended tournament could lead to increased injury rates and longer recovery times, prompting calls for better management of player health and workload.
A 64-team tournament would give more nations access to football’s biggest stage but could also reignite debate over competitive balance, tournament length, fan costs, and whether the World Cup risks losing some of the exclusivity that has long underpinned its appeal. The expansion could dilute the quality of competition, as teams that traditionally struggle on the world stage may find themselves outmatched in the group stages.
Whether the idea progresses beyond discussion may depend in part on how the first 48-team World Cup is ultimately judged. If the expansion is deemed successful and well-received by fans, it could pave the way for further changes in the future. Conversely, if the 48-team format faces significant criticism, it may prompt FIFA to reconsider the viability of a 64-team tournament altogether. As the football world watches closely, the implications of these discussions will undoubtedly shape the future of the sport on a global scale.
To learn more about the latest developments in Golf, stay updated with our exclusive reports and analyses on AiLensNews.
