The last ‘great’ World Cup? How expansion could kill its future

When FIFA decided to pull the trigger and vote to expand the World Cup from 32 to 48 teams five years ago, many fans were understandably outraged by the decision.

While FIFA says the move was to expand the access for more teams to get the chance to compete in the biggest stage - the reality is clear and sadly is all about the money.

The expanded World Cup means FIFA will offer 16 more games for its television partners and that means larger broadcasting deals, ticket sales, advertising revenue and so forth.

The other reason behind it is the politics. By giving more countries a shot at the World Cup, and larger payouts gives the FIFA president the opportunity to use that as political leverage to gain and maintain support from most of the 211 member associations.

As fans of the beautiful game, we find ourselves at a crossroads - we’re in the eve of the final 32-team World Cup in Qatar. However, the controversies surrounding the middle eastern country - such as human rights violations, the poor conditions foreign workers have endured, and the allegations of corruption surrounding the vote to reward Qatar the World Cup back in 2010 - make it difficult to get excited about what could very well be the last ‘great’ World Cup.

The first 48-teams World Cup will take place in 2026 here in North America and we’ll simply have to wait and see how that will play out to get more definitive answers about the future of the greatest sports tournament in the world.

THE BENEFITS

I want to keep an open mind and optimistic view - so I'll lay down the positive aspects of expansion first before going through the longer list of cons.

New opportunities

As a fan of the game I like to follow the qualifiers for the World Cup and get a better understanding of the talent in each confederation and also to follow exciting storylines that develop long before the World Cup begins.

One of the things that lead to intrigue is when teams make their debut on the biggest stage. And in recent tournaments the number of new teams has dissipated. In 2010 - no team reached the world cup for the first time. Serbia appeared for the first time since the split of Serbia and Montenegro - and was in the past competing as Yugoslavia.

In 2014 - another nation that was once part of the former Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina was the sole debutant in 2014.

Russia 2018 marked the debut of Iceland and Panama.

This year, only the host Qatar will be the only new team taking part for the first time.

The declining number of debutants qualifying for the tournament and the fact that strong teams fail to qualify every four years, is an indication that we may be at a point in which expansion is necessary.

Players at the biggest stage

Think about this list of players: Luis Diaz, Jorginho, Gianluigi Donnarumma, David Alaba, Alexander Isak, Emil Forsberg, Juan Cuadrado, Mohamed Salah, Victor Osimhen, Wilfred Ndidi, Erling Haaland, Riyad Mahrez and Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang.

None of them will be at the World Cup as their national teams failed to qualify - the game has evolved and grown over time meaning that more talent is coming from unexpected places, and it happens every four years that great players miss out because they don’t have enough support and quality around them.

Growth

While the quality of the product would suffer - having more teams in the tournament consistently gives more national teams and their players a path to continue growing and developing the game in their country.

We’re at a point in world soccer in which the European game is dominating and in order to get better, you need to have players based in European clubs to bring that experience into your squad.

Having players from smaller nations shine during the World Cup can result in new opportunities at the club level - further giving them a boost to their careers and ultimately helping their national teams become more competitive.

THE CONS

While there are a lot of benefits to an expanded field, being honest there are more questions and unresolved concerns with this new format.

Access goes both ways

While an expanded World Cup provides more access to more countries to take part - that creates another issue.

FIFA has tough requirements for countries seeking to host the World Cup, which are only going to get more difficult to satisfy with a field of 48. Currently FIFA requires hosts to have venues with a minimum capacity of 40,000, and a minimum capacity of 80,000 for the Final.

Traditionally, the host country would need 10 to 12 stadiums for the World Cup and now that number may need to be closer to 16 - it will make it harder for any underdeveloped country to aspire to become hosts of the World Cup.

In nearly a century of World Cups, Africa has hosted the tournament only once, this year’s World Cup in Qatar is the first in the middle east and second in Asia, South America has hosted only one in the past half century and Oceania remains the only region that has never hosted it.

So now that we’re here, what are the chances that the World Cup can be held in North Africa, West Africa, South East Asia?

Diluted quality

Without question one of the biggest concerns is how the quality of the games will be affected with an expanded field. The expansion will not impact all confederations the same way, the additional representation from Europe and South America shouldn't be a problem - but under the proposed expansion teams like: Panama, Jamaica, Australia, UAE, Oman, Egypt, Nigeria, Algeria Mali and New Zealand would’ve qualified to the tournament.

As we’ve seen in the expanded Euro and Women’s World Cup, the quality can improve with time but how much better it can get is the big question.

The format itself

Even if the quality turns out to be better than expected, the format of the 48-team World Cup will make it difficult to see a good product on the field. Since it will be made up of 16 groups of 3 teams - with the top two teams advancing, there will likely be more teams playing to avoid a loss rather than to play to win.

The other issue this generates is that in the final round of the group stage one of the teams will be watching as its two opponents are playing - meaning that they could happily go for the draw if it's mutually beneficial.

FIFA has alluded that a penalty shootout could be introduced if games end in a draw to avoid that potential issue, but is not a definitive solution.

Sets up for future expansion

One concern this format generates is that if it becomes obvious that groups of three don’t work - it will be too tempting to correct that issue with a further expansion to 64 - rather than going back to the drawing board.

Takes excitement away from Qualifying

One of the biggest impacts this will have is how it will diminish the qualifying games across the world. The biggest example will be the rivalry between Mexico and the United States.

What makes this rivalry great is the fact that we get two see at least two official games between the two in high-pressure games with little room for mistakes. As only three teams of the region qualify automatically, every game matters and a loss to your fiercest rival could put you in a very difficult position.

Both teams will qualify automatically for the 2026 World Cup, meaning that the next next qualifying cycle for 2030, there will be six guaranteed spots along an additional berth to the intercontinental play-off. So what does CONCACAF do? Do you copy the qualifying format from South America and have the top 10 play each other at home and away to ensure the two continue to play each other every cycle? and if that happens a loss wouldn't no longer put you in such a difficult position, meaning the rivalry would undoubtedly suffer.

The other option could be even worse - do you split the top 12 teams into two groups so only the top 3 qualify, that could make games more meaningful but at the same time, matches between Mexico and the U.S. would no longer be guaranteed - though if Canada sustains its recent success it could still be a somewhat intriguing format.

South American has the most intense qualifying campaign which is now going to be watered down due to expansion - and with six automatic qualifying spots and a seventh team going to the playoff - would mean that 7 of ten nations could qualify - meaning that it will make it more difficult on top teams to endure the pressure the current format brings - a team like Chile would made the playoff by winning five of 18 games.

One idea I proposed to make Qualifying more interesting will be to guarantee the top team from each region to be one of the 16, No. 1 seeds with the exception of Oceania (Sorry New Zealand). The host country(ies) the best team from five regions and the next set of 8 to 10 best ranked teams should be the top seeds, it will incentivize top teams not to rotate players at the end in hopes of getting an easier draw.

It changes the hosting nature of the World Cup

It’s concerning to think that the world cup in Qatar could potentially be the last one hosted in a single country.

In 2026, the United States, Canada and Mexico will jointly host the tournament - the bid was constructed this way in order to garner enough support from other member associations - as the selection process took place during the presidency of Donald Trump, and Mexico and Canada were included as a way to portray unity in the region.

But that has set a precedent - and the early candidates to host the 2030 tournament are a group of joint bids.

Even before the North American bid was first announced, Uruguay had announced its intention to bid for the 2030 World Cup to commemorate the 100-anniversary of the World Cup, the first which was hosted by Uruguay in 1930.

Uruguay planned to join forces with Argentina, in following years Paraguay and Chile have also joined the bid.

As for the other candidates those include:

Spain and Portugal

Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania

Morocco who may join forces with Algeria, Tunisia - or may be Spain and Portugal.

A previous bid made of England, Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales was abandoned.

Countries such as Spain and England are capable of hosting the tournament on their own, but the costs and logistical challenges of an ever growing and expanding World Cup are choosing to do it as part of a joint bid or in the case of England - rather pursue hosting rights for the Euro rather than the World Cup.

Conclusion

The club game is quickly taking over international soccer and big decisions such the expansion of the World Cup and even the consideration of hosting it every two years - will only accelerate that trend.

And World Cup fans should be worried about reaching a point when players will opt to skip the World Cup to focus more on their club - as the FIFA World Cup loses its prestigious status in the minds and hearts of everyone in the world of soccer.