Gianni Infantino was elected Fifa president on a manifesto that included increasing the size of the World Cup. After 10 years in the role, one lesson has become clear: more is better — more tournaments, more games and more money.
That approach has produced the new-look Club World Cup, the expanded World Cup, higher ticket prices and a Super Bowl-style show that meant the half-time break at the World Cup final lasted 27 minutes and 22 seconds. Infantino now appears to have opened the door to a 64-team World Cup, arguing:
“If you don't give smaller countries a chance to participate, they'll lack the incentive to keep improving,”But smaller countries are not denied the chance; if they are good enough, they qualify, as Cape Verde, Curacao, Jordan and Uzbekistan have shown.
From a pure competition-format perspective, a 64-team tournament does make sense. The top two teams in 16 groups would progress to the knockout stage, removing the need to send through a few third-placed teams. But whether there is any other logical reason to expand to 64 teams is another matter.
Who is behind the proposed expansion?
To understand how the idea emerged, it is necessary to go back to the 2030 World Cup, which will mark 100 years since the first World Cup in Uruguay. The tournament will primarily be hosted by Morocco, Portugal and Spain, while the opening three matches will be played in Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay as centenary hosts.
Conmebol, the South American confederation, wants more games. In April 2025, it requested a one-off 64-team tournament so it could take on the full programme of the additional four groups. Its president, Alejandro Dominguez, said it would ensure
“nobody on the planet is left out of the party”.
There has been little support elsewhere. Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin dismissed the proposal as a
“bad idea”for both the tournament and qualifying process. Victor Montagliani, president of Concacaf, said last year it would damage
“the broader football ecosystem”. Asian Football Confederation president Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa agreed, saying further expansion could bring
“chaos”.None of that guarantees the idea will fail, because the decision will be taken by the 37 members of the Fifa Council.
Would adding more teams devalue the World Cup?
Cape Verde were one of the success stories of the World Cup, but they were the only debutants to get out of their group
A 64-team tournament has two main advantages: a more natural format and more opportunities for emerging nations. It is the latter that Infantino is championing, especially after the heroics of Cape Verde.
Fifa faced criticism before the tournament amid suggestions the additional teams would not be competitive. Then Cape Verde drew with Spain and Uruguay to finish second in their group. The Blue Sharks then gave Argentina an almighty scare by taking them to extra time in the last 16 before losing 3-2. 
Those fairytale stories, however, have to be weighed against the tournament’s competitive edge. Haiti, Iraq, Jordan, Panama, Tunisia and Uzbekistan failed to pick up a point, and this summer’s group stage offered minimal jeopardy for the top nations.
If more teams are added, it would be hard to imagine repeats of top-four seeds such as Belgium in 2022, Germany in 2018, Spain in 2014, Italy in 2010 and France in 2002 failing to reach the knockout stage.
There is also the question of where the extra places would go.
Based on this year’s qualifying, these are the additional countries that would have made it into a 64-team World Cup 2026, with their Fifa ranking at the start of the tournament in brackets:
AFC: Indonesia (118), Oman (79), United Arab Emirates (68).
Uefa: Denmark (21), Italy (12), Poland (36).
Concacaf: Honduras (65), Jamaica (71), Suriname (125).
Conmebol: Bolivia (77), Venezuela (49).
Africa: Burkina Faso (62), Cameroon (44), Gabon (86), Nigeria (26).
Six of those teams are in the top 50 of Fifa's world rankings: three from Europe, two from Africa and one from South America.
That illustrates one of the central problems. Asia and Concacaf are weaker confederations, as this year’s performances showed. Nine of Africa's 10 countries reached the group stage, but only two of nine Asian countries advanced, and just three of the six Concacaf countries — the co-hosts — made it through.
New Zealand, who got one point and finished bottom of their group, are the only country from Oceania in the world's top 150.
There is an argument that if the competition is extended again, Europe should receive a greater share of places for competitive balance. On the other hand, some would argue that involving more teams in the World Cup helps the game develop further in those countries.
Infantino is likely to present expansion as beneficial for the global game, but there are doubts about whether it benefits the competition itself. Almost a third of Fifa's 211 nations would be present. Would the group stage simply become a glorified pan-confederation qualifying competition for what is, in essence, a knockout tournament?
What logistical issues would a 64-team tournament create?
Expanding the World Cup to 64 teams would essentially mean adding four more four-team groups. But more groups also mean more time.
This year's tournament lasted 39 days. An extra 24 matches would require 20 schedule slots, or another five days.
This summer’s event was unusual for two reasons: multiple time zones and indoor stadiums. Fifa could stretch the matchday at both ends, with games scheduled over a 14-hour period to preserve exclusive television time windows.
That will not be so simple in future, even with 48 teams. Climate change is making daytime play more difficult, as shown by the record heatwaves in Europe in recent weeks.
Other countries are much less likely to have covered venues such as those in Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and Vancouver to help mitigate the problem. The Saudi Arabia World Cup is likely to move to January 2035, but it is not clear how other countries would deal with the growing challenge.
Until this year, only once had the World Cup been hosted by two countries — Japan and South Korea in 2002. It is difficult to imagine a single country ever being able to host again, even Saudi Arabia.
Could future tournaments be hosted by, for example, the UK and Scandinavia, or Eastern Europe? How would an Asian or African country be able to fund hosting the World Cup?
There are only a few of the issues that would need to be resolved. This summer there were 16 host cities, with stadiums ranging from 43,000 to 81,000 in capacity. More would be needed.
There would also need to be 64 individual, elite-level training facilities for the qualifying nations, along with hotels for fans, and the infrastructure and support network to move them around.
Expanding the World Cup is not as simple as offering more countries a chance to play.
Is the expansion mainly about money?
One of Infantino's key promises when he was elected was to bring more money into the game. Every football association now has access to $8m (£5.9m) in funding over a four-year period, with an additional $1.2m (£890,000) for the smaller nations.
Confederations receive $60m (£44.5m) to develop, promote and organise football. That is why Infantino is likely to be re-elected unopposed next year.
The money has to come from somewhere, primarily the World Cup. In 2017, Fifa projected that a 48-team World Cup would generate $6.5bn (£4.8bn). In 2022, it revised the format again and added 24 games. Now it expects to raise $9bn (£6.7bn) this year.
A 64-team event would likely generate even more through television, sponsorship and ticket sales. Fifa says it has a responsibility to grow the game, and its main tool for doing so appears to be more and more football.
Critics, however, would argue that there must be a point at which expansion is no longer good for the game.
Why European backlash over Trump intervention won't worry Infantino
When the World Cup finishes, the football continues on
