This year’s World Cup is finally over – and after 48 teams took part, it was a long, long tournament. But just as we bid to say goodbye to the 2026 edition, this competition may be getting even bigger.
FIFA president Gianni Infantino says any further expansion of the World Cup for 2030 – where six countries are set to host the tournament – will be discussed now the 2026 World Cup has finished.
South American nations Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay – who are set to host one game each before the tournament transfers to main co-hosts Spain, Portugal and Morocco – are calling to host more games.
And one solution FIFA are discussing is a 64-team tournament. More teams, more matches, more talking points.
So if the 2030 World Cup celebrates its centenary year by having 16 more teams than we had this summer, what would that look like?
A six-week tournament!
Fans would have to plan for a six-week World Cup tournament if it rises to 64 teams
A 64-team World Cup would create one heck of a group stage. There would have to be 16 groups of four teams, as 64 does not evenly divide into three. That means group stages would go up from 72 matches to 96.
The 48-team tournament saw those 72 matches played during an intense 16-day period – averaging 4.5 matches a day. If FIFA try to average 4.5 matches a day in a 64-team group stage, then the first part of the tournament would take three weeks.
Given the round of 32 onwards in this World Cup needs another three weeks to complete, that would mean a six-week tournament.
And assuming there is a couple of weeks of pre-tournament preparations for each country, then the 1,664 players taking part in the World Cup would have to give up two months for the competition.
More goals than ever before?
Of course, more games will set new records for most goals in a tournament. The move from the regular 64 games to 104 matches in 2026 set new records. There were 308 goals in this year’s World Cup, compared to 172 four years ago.
But what was interesting about the 2026 World Cup is goals flew in at a higher rate per game. There was an average of 2.96 goals per game this year, compared to around 2.6 across the last three tournaments.
One of the reasons for more goals at this World Cup is a greater disparity between the best and worst teams. There was a bigger average gap between teams at this World Cup in terms of the FIFA world rankings than ever seen before.
And this disparity matters. Sky Sports data shows that the higher-ranked team’s goal difference in a game tends to rise as the FIFA rank gap widens – even though upsets remain common.
No more third-placed drama
A 64-team tournament allows for one very simple thing: the third-placed qualification route to the knockout rounds will have to be scrapped.
The only way you can make a round of 32 in this format is by having the top two teams from all 16 groups qualify for the latter stages.
So the rogue calculations about how much goal difference Scotland need to qualify as a third-placed team would likely have to go.
If Scotland qualify for a 64-team World Cup in 2030, it could make their knockout chances a lot harder
However, if the top two teams are the only ones in the group that qualify, it would go back to the 32-team World Cup format where a lot of the final round of group matches were ‘dead rubber’ occasions between teams already qualified for the next stage, or teams already eliminated.
FIFA would probably have to put goal difference back above head-to-head record in a 64-team tournament to create enough jeopardy in the third and final round of group matches.
Goodbye to the ‘one nation host’?
If this becomes a long-term plan from FIFA, a 64-team tournament would effectively confirm that the World Cup can no longer be held by one individual nation.
For the current 48-team tournament, 15 stadia are being used for 12 groups and 104 games. Using those numbers as a template, a move to 64 teams would mean 20 grounds would be needed for 128 matches.
So if England were to host the tournament, nearly the entire Premier League would have to give up their stadium for the summer, assuming Wembley will host matches too. Imagine Brazil playing in Bournemouth…
True, having multiple host nations are the way forward in international football. The 2028 European Championships are across the entire UK and Ireland. Six countries will host the 2030 World Cup. The 2032 European Championships are in Italy and Turkey.
But Saudi Arabia are the sole host for the 2034 FIFA World Cup, and when a 48-team World Cup was considered for the Qatar World Cup in 2022, it was impossible for the Gulf nation to stage such a tournament.
Logistically, there are question marks if 64 teams is the way forward in the long-term.
Who would qualify for a 64-team World Cup?
A 64-team World Cup would mean 30 per cent of all FIFA nations would qualify for the World Cup. But how would the allocations be split?
With a third of the 48 teams, Europe have the largest allocation of qualification spots in the current tournament system. Applying the same logic would mean 21 European countries would take part in a 64-team tournament. Maybe Italy would even qualify…
The vast majority of all confederations would get more spots in the World Cup, if we use the current model as an example.
Rough estimation of confederation allocation, using current FIFA percentage split…
- 21 – Europe
- 12- Africa
- 10 – Asia
- 8 – North, Central America and Caribbean
- 1 – Oceania
- 8 – South America
- 4 – Play-off spots from various confederations
Leave a Reply