As FIFA Explores A 64-Team World Cup, Some Potential Pros And Cons

Pros

Cleaner Competition Structure

One of the main criticisms of the 48-team tournament was the reintroduction of third-place group finishers potentially moving on to the knockout phase.

The odd math of the top eight third-place finishers from 12 groups moving on led to some confusing scenarios in the final days of group play, not to mention some teams waiting several days to learn their round of 32 opponents.

Adding 16 more teams would simplify the math, with only two qualifications at stake in each group.

It would also probably give more urgency to all group matches. At this year’s tournament, Germany, Mexico and the United States all clinched the top spot in their groups after two matches, while Argentina, France and Norway also secured passage to the last 32 with a match to spare.

Minimal Competitive Dropoff

Well-known data analyst Nate Silver wrote an article exploring the possibilities of a 64-team World Cup, including what teams might have qualified had the field been expanded to 64 in 2026.

Of those 16 additional hypothetical qualifiers, seven would have ranked in the top 48 of participating teams according to the FIFA World Rankings at the time. And 11 of them were ranked higher than Cape Verde, the debutants who charmed the world by advancing from their group and giving defending champions Argentina a real game in the round of 32.

A Shortened Schedule Elsewhere

Most stakeholders in the global game agree that the schedule is too crowded for elite players. Adding 16 more teams to the World Cup could potentially give continental confederations license to tackle that problem by shortening their qualification processes.

The previous expansion to 48 didn’t have that impact though, at least not universally. Concacaf adopted a shorter format for its final round. But Conmebol kept its traditional 10-team round robin. And the AFC actually added additional games as a result of receiving more berths.

Cons

Endless Matchdays

The United States, Canada and Mexico have jointly hosted the 2026 World Cup across three nations and four time zones. And even then, there were days when the tournament itinerary felt like too much.

East Coast viewers watched some matches kick off at midnight local time. West Coast viewers watched more than a few matches begin at 9 a.m. locally.

Adding 16 more teams would take the group stage from 72 to 96 matches. With an average of 5-6 matches per day, it would become nearly impossible to schedule every game in an exclusive time window — as has been the norm at the World Cup on group matchdays 1 and 2 — while keeping kickoffs at reasonable local hours.

Decreased Prestige

In his remarks, Infantino spoke of giving more nations realistic license to dream about qualifying for the World Cup. What is less clear is whether the satisfaction of that feat would still resonate if the standard is significantly lowered.

During this tournament, people like veteran World Cup manager Carlos Queiroz spoke of their desire to maintain a feeling of achievement for nations who qualify for the quadrennial event.

The World Cup’s prestige has survived previous expansions in 1982, 1998 and now 2026. But there’s surely some limit before the spectacle would be cheapened. And doubling the tournament field in eight years would be an unprecedented rate of growth.

Limited Host Possibilities

In its initial 16-team format, the World Cup was hosted by smaller nations like Uruguay, Hungary and Sweden.

Those days have already long departed. But the 128-match calendar of a 64-team field — necessitating the use of at least 20-22 stadiums — would mean only a few nations could truly host the event themselves.

And if co-hosting becomes the norm, that would be a considerable departure from the past. The 2026 tournament was only the second to be hosted by two or more nations (following Korea-Japan in 2002).