Infantino’s 64-team World Cup idea reopens the old argument about size and quality

Gianni Infantino has said the idea of a 64-team World Cup will be examined after the 2026 tournament. The argument is not simple: access and money sit on one side, tournament quality on the other.

The idea is no longer a side comment

FIFA officials are expected to examine the idea of a 64-team World Cup before 2030.

Infantino framed the thought around global access and argued that more nations should be able to dream of taking part. That makes the topic bigger than a format tweak.

The 2026 tournament is already the first 48-team World Cup, with a 104-match schedule. Moving to 64 would not be a small change. It would reshape qualification, group design, travel, broadcast windows and the basic feeling of the tournament.

That is why the debate has to stay careful. Expansion can open doors for more regions, but it can also stretch a product until the best part becomes harder to find. Football has to ask not only how many teams can play, but what kind of event the World Cup should be.

The commercial case is easy to understand

A larger World Cup brings more matches, more markets and more national interest. If a country qualifies for the first time, its audience grows quickly. Sponsors and broadcasters notice that. FIFA also gains a stronger argument that the tournament belongs to the whole world.

This is the strongest side of the expansion idea. The World Cup is not only a European and South American competition, and smaller countries can improve faster when a real target is visible. Infantino made that point directly by speaking about incentive and opportunity.

The issue is whether the commercial logic can stay connected to sporting logic. A bigger tournament should not only create more inventory. It should create meaningful matches that still feel worthy of the competition’s name.

Also read: Rajoy’s France remark brings political noise into Spain’s biggest week. More news: Argentina, France, Spain and England give the World Cup a classic final four.

The quality question cannot be waved away

The 48-team format has already created a larger first phase and a new last-32 knockout round. Some matches have been strong, and several teams from outside the usual elite have delivered serious moments. That supports the idea that the football world is deeper than old habits admit.

But 64 teams would ask a different question. If nearly one third of FIFA members reach the finals, qualification changes its value. The first round could include more mismatches, and the tournament may need more days or more simultaneous matches to stay manageable.

That does not make expansion wrong by itself. It means FIFA should show the format before asking people to accept the slogan. Fans can judge a plan. They cannot judge a dream.

The 2030 setting adds pressure

The 2030 World Cup is already a centenary event across several countries. Early matches are planned in South America. The main tournament will be in Morocco, Portugal and Spain. A 64-team model could make that geography feel even more ambitious.

It could also create a cleaner political argument for the South American hosts to stage more than one ceremonial match. That may be part of the appeal. But adding teams to solve a hosting story would be risky if it creates problems for players and supporters.

Travel, recovery and clear scheduling matter. A World Cup that becomes too wide can lose rhythm. The best tournaments build momentum. A 64-team version would need to prove that it can still build that momentum instead of scattering it.

Players need to be part of the answer

Any larger tournament also affects players. Club calendars are already crowded, and national teams ask for intense physical and mental work. More matches do not only add television hours. They add travel, preparation and recovery demands.

That is why the next discussion should include more than federation leaders. Coaches, player unions, medical staff and competition organisers all need to understand the cost. Expansion that ignores the body of the player risks damaging the very product it wants to grow.

There may be a way to design a wider tournament that protects rest and reduces dead matches. But that design has to be shown in detail. Without detail, the idea will look like a commercial move first and a football move second.

The best argument is earned on the pitch

If FIFA wants this idea to gain trust, it should start with evidence from 2026. Which new teams improved the event? Which matches created genuine competitive value? Which regions showed more depth than expected? Those answers matter more than broad statements about dreams.

The case for access is real. The danger of dilution is also real. Treating one side as noble and the other as negative would miss the point. The World Cup is valuable because it is global and because it still feels difficult to reach.

A 64-team World Cup can only work if it protects both parts. More flags alone are not enough. The tournament has to stay sharp, fair and readable from the first match to the final.

The current semi-finals are the strongest counterpoint

The 2026 final four is an awkward backdrop for the expansion debate because it shows the value of quality concentration. A bigger tournament can give more countries access. The strongest World Cup argument still appears when elite teams meet under pressure and the margin is narrow.

That does not end the discussion. Access matters, and new countries can bring real energy. The point is that expansion needs a football reason as well as a commercial one. If the format grows again, FIFA will have to explain how it protects the matches that make the tournament feel serious.