The World Game or a Cash Grab? The 64-Team World Cup Explained

Photo: Fabrice Coffrini/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The World Cup has already expanded from 32 to 48 teams in 2026, but FIFA is now considering an even bigger change.

A proposal to expand the men’s FIFA World Cup to 64 teams for the 2030 tournament has been discussed at the highest levels of world football. If approved, it would make the centenary World Cup the largest in history, doubling the number of teams that competed at the 2022 tournament in Qatar.

The proposal remains just that, a proposal with no final decision has been made. But the idea has already created a major debate about the future of football’s biggest tournament.

What Is the 64-Team World Cup Proposal?

The proposal was originally raised by Ignacio Alonso, the president of the Uruguayan Football Association and a member of the FIFA Council.

The idea is to expand the 2030 World Cup from the currently planned 48 teams to 64, reportedly as a one-off expansion to celebrate the tournament’s 100th anniversary.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino has previously described the proposal as an interesting idea that should be analysed.

Now, reports suggest discussions over the concept are continuing, ensuring the possibility of a 64-team World Cup remains alive.

What Would a 64-Team World Cup Look Like?

The exact format has not been confirmed, as it remains just a proposal. However, The most obvious structure would be 16 groups of four teams, with the top two teams from each group advancing to a Round of 32.

That would create a simple tournament format:

• 64 teams
• 16 groups of four
• 32 teams advance
• Round of 32
• Round of 16
• Quarter-finals
• Semi-finals
• Final

Under that format, the tournament would contain 127 matches. Comparatively:

2022 World Cup: 32 teams and 64 matches, 2026 World Cup: 48 teams and 104 matches. A 64-team tournament would therefore contain almost twice as many matches as the 2022 World Cup.

The Pros of a 64-Team World Cup

More Countries Get to Experience the World Cup

The biggest argument in favour of expansion is simple: more countries would have the opportunity to compete on football’s biggest stage, expanding the World Game to new places, making the sport even bigger.

For smaller footballing nations, qualifying for a World Cup can transform the sport domestically. It can inspire a new generation of players, increase investment, attract sponsors and create moments that become part of a country's sporting history.

The 2026 World Cup has already demonstrated how expansion can open the tournament to nations that have rarely, or never qualified before.

A Truly Global Tournament

There are more than 200 FIFA member associations.

Even with 48 teams, the majority of the football world still misses out.

A 64-team World Cup would allow greater representation from Africa, Asia, CONCACAF and Oceania while still maintaining a significant number of places for Europe and South America.

Supporters of expansion argue that a tournament called the "World Cup" should represent as much of the world as possible.

More Underdog Stories

Some of the greatest World Cup moments come from unexpected teams. Saudi Arabia defeating Argentina in 2022, Morocco becoming the first African nation to reach a semi-final, Costa Rica reaching the quarter-finals in 2014, and Cape Verde's impressive 2026 run to name a few examples.

Smaller nations are often dismissed before tournaments begin, only to produce some of the most memorable stories. More teams means more opportunities for those stories.

A Cleaner Format Could Actually Be Possible

Ironically, 64 teams could create a simpler format than the current 48-team system. Sixteen groups of four, with the top two progressing, is extremely easy to understand.

There would be no need to compare the records of third-placed teams across different groups. From a purely structural perspective, 64 is a perfect number for a knockout tournament.

Huge Commercial Growth

There is no avoiding the financial side. More teams mean more matches. More matches mean more broadcasting inventory, more ticket sales, more sponsorship opportunities and more countries emotionally invested in the tournament.

A nation that qualifies is far more likely to generate huge television audiences than one watching from home. For FIFA, a 64-team World Cup would likely be an enormous commercial success, and we know FIFA loves money.

The Cons of a 64-Team World Cup

Does Qualifying Still Mean Enough?

This is arguably the biggest concern. The World Cup has historically been difficult to reach, with the difficulty part making qualification special.

With 64 teams, almost one-third of FIFA's member associations could qualify for the tournament. In some confederations, a very large percentage of competitive nations could reach the finals.

Critics argue that continued expansion risks turning World Cup qualification from a major achievement into an expectation for established football nations.

The Quality Could Be Diluted

More teams inevitably means teams ranked further down the international football pyramid will qualify. That could lead to more mismatches during the group stage as we saw in the 2026 World Cup in some instances.

The counterargument is that football constantly produces surprises and rankings do not decide matches. But there is still a legitimate concern that expanding too far too soon could reduce the overall standard of the tournament.

The World Cup is supposed to feature the best teams in the world. At what point does increasing representation begin to dilute that?

127 Matches Is Enormous

A 127-match World Cup would be a massive logistical operation.

Stadiums, training facilities, hotels, transport, security, broadcasting, player recovery, supporter travel, etc.

The 2030 World Cup is already uniquely complicated because it is scheduled across six countries and three continents.

Adding another 23 matches compared with the 48-team format would make an already enormous tournament even bigger. If FIFA decided to continue with a 64-team World Cup post-2030, it would also reduce drastically the nations who could realistically host due to the many logistical nightmares.

Player Welfare

Football's calendar is already packed. Players compete in domestic leagues, domestic cups, continental competitions, international qualifiers and international tournaments.

Expanding the World Cup increases the overall scale and potentially the duration of the event.

Even if the maximum number of matches played by the finalists remained similar, the demands surrounding travel, preparation and the wider football calendar would continue to grow. Players' unions and leagues are already concerned about fixture congestion, another World Cup expansion would intensify that debate and cause huge outrage.

Is This About Football or Money?

This will be the question asked by many supporters, and is many ways the biggest question.

FIFA will argue that expansion grows the global game. Critics will argue that more teams and more matches ultimately mean more revenue.

Both things can be true. Giving more countries the opportunity to experience a World Cup is genuinely valuable, but FIFA also stands to benefit enormously from the additional commercial inventory created by another expansion.

What Would It Mean for World Cup Qualifying?

This could be one of the biggest consequences.

If the World Cup expands to 64 teams, every confederation would likely receive additional qualification places.

The exact allocation has not been determined, but Africa and Asia would likely push strongly for significant increases.

UEFA would almost certainly receive additional places, while CONCACAF, CONMEBOL and Oceania could also benefit.

For South America in particular, expansion could create an unusual situation. CONMEBOL has only 10 member nations. If its allocation increased significantly, the vast majority of South American teams could potentially qualify.

That would raise serious questions about the future relevance of the qualification process.

Why 2030?

The historical argument is central to the proposal. The first World Cup took place in Uruguay in 1930.

One hundred years later, the tournament will return to South America for its opening centenary celebrations before moving to the main hosts in Morocco, Portugal and Spain.

Supporters of the 64-team proposal see the centenary as an opportunity to stage a unique, one-off global celebration.

Critics see something else: another expansion only four years after the World Cup has already grown from 32 to 48 teams.

The 2026 tournament is the first 48-team World Cup. That means FIFA could theoretically approve another expansion before the new 48-team format has even had enough time to be properly evaluated.

The Bigger Future Picture: Where Does Expansion Stop?

The World Cup has continuously grown.

13 teams in 1930, to now potentially 64 teams in 2030. Expansion has often been criticised before eventually becoming normal. The 32-team World Cup was once an expansion and so was the 48-team tournament.

The question is whether 64 represents the natural next step, or the point where the World Cup becomes too big.

My Final Take

There are genuine advantages to a 64-team World Cup.

More nations would experience the biggest tournament in sport. Smaller countries would have the opportunity to create history. The format could be incredibly simple, and the World Cup would become more globally representative than ever before.

But the timing is difficult to justify. The football world has not even completed its first 48-team World Cup yet.

Before expanding again, FIFA should determine whether the current format works.

A 64-team World Cup may eventually be inevitable, but expanding again in 2030 immediately after the first 48-team tournament risks making the biggest competition in football feel less exclusive before we even know whether the current expansion has succeeded.

The World Cup should continue to grow the global game because bigger does not automatically mean better.