A world stage for everyone? The 64-team World Cup and the question of who owns football’s biggest tournament
Stoppage time in Chillán, the 97th minute. Ñublense throw everything into attack, one final shot, and the goalkeeper stretches to his left. Age: 40. Status: an unknown in May 2026, more than 27 million Instagram followers by July. A phenomenon. His name: Josimar Dias. Who? Vozinha! The World Cup effect personified.
Advertisement
That diving save to his left gave Colo-Colo a 2-1 win and the Chilean title. That was last Sunday. Four months earlier, hardly anyone outside Cape Verde knew his name. Then came the World Cup summer and a night in Miami when the tiny island nation pushed defending champions Argentina to the limit. So close that even Lionel Messi looked to the heavens, as if pleading for help. 3-2 after extra time. Cape Verde, eliminated. Football history, enriched by another unforgettable story. And a goalkeeper whose career was rewritten in 120 minutes.
These are the stories fans will tell for generations. The ones that made football the most important of the unimportant things, and that keep renewing it. And, in a way, the breeding ground for an idea many would like to bury as quickly as possible: an XXL World Cup with 64 teams.
Shelved, but not forgotten
The Times recently reported that FIFA has put those plans on ice for now. Until then, the debate had been raging. Perhaps this international break is the perfect time to revisit the issue with a cool head.
Advertisement
Europe has the Nations League, African teams are battling for a place at the Africa Cup of Nations, and South America and Asia are playing friendlies. Right now, national teams are taking to pitches all over the world, many of whom know the World Cup only from television and have never played in one. Should it stay that way?
South America has a clear answer. The day after the 2026 final, CONMEBOL president Alejandro Domínguez posted on X: “Next time, the World Cup is coming home.” The 2030 tournament, he wrote, was “a great opportunity for football to celebrate the World Cup’s centenary with a 64-team competition.” A statement that sent a tectonic shock through the football world.
Domínguez added that the expansion to 48 teams had already shown “that greater participation creates more opportunities, drives football’s development and turns the World Cup into a truly global celebration.”
The verdict on 48: highs and lows
Whether that is rhetoric or prophecy can be measured in numbers, and they do not tell a one-sided story. On the one hand, there was a goal fest: 215 goals in the group stage, an average of 2.99 per match, the highest at a World Cup since the 1950s, according to calculations by AFP. On the other, there is the BBC’s analysis: in 2022, only five group matches were won by three goals or more; in 2026, there were 18. Four teams had already secured top spot in their groups before the final round of matches. More entertainment, but also more one-sided games. More TikTok than cinema.
Advertisement
African teams, in particular, gave supporters of expansion some compelling arguments. Nine of the ten reached the knockout stages. The previous record was two. A continent that had to make do with five places for decades showed it deserved more. Even so, the picture is not entirely clear-cut: four of those nine only advanced as some of the best third-placed teams. And from Asia, only Japan and Australia reached the knockout stages.
Who would have been there in 2026
Apply a hypothetical 64-team format to the tournament in Mexico, Canada and the United States, and the list quickly fills with big names. Italy, for example, missed their third consecutive World Cup. Leonardo Spinazzola later spoke of a blow “for all the children who have never seen Italy at a World Cup.” And yet the Azzurri came from behind to beat France 3-1 at San Siro in the Nations League this week. Denmark and Poland also lost their play-off finals. In Africa, Nigeria and Cameroon were missing. Nobody doubts the quality of these teams, and any World Cup would be better with them.
Then there is Georgia, and with it Khvicha Kvaratskhelia, one of the most exciting attackers in football today, still without a single minute at a World Cup. He joins George Best and Ryan Giggs in a familiar club: world-class, but never on the world stage.
Advertisement
The underrated argument: the format
Things get interesting when you look at the structure. With 16 groups of four, only the top two would advance, and the champions would play eight matches, exactly as many as in 2026. The calculator-driven drama surrounding the best third-placed teams would disappear. This summer showed just how absurd it can become: Senegal reached the knockout stages with only three points. No more waiting days for results from other groups or suspicions of collusion in the final round. Paradoxical, but true: in 2026, two-thirds of the teams advanced; with 64, only half would. The biggest World Cup would have the toughest group stage. The maths seems clear: fewer gifts, more risk, higher stakes.
The other side: workload, quality, the planet
Critics remain unconvinced, and their arguments carry real weight. Perhaps the most prominent voice belongs to the man the German Football Association appointed national team coach this summer. Asked about expansion, Jürgen Klopp told The Athletic: “Honestly, I saw it and thought: oh no, I’m not getting into that.” Speaking to CBS Sports, he went further, saying of the governing bodies: “They never have enough.”
Advertisement
His concern is grounded in data. According to an analysis of player data by the FIFPRO players’ union, the number of matches per season for the three most-used outfield players has risen from 70 to 73, against a recommended maximum of 55. The picture is not beyond dispute: the CIES sports research institute found no clear evidence of an increased workload since the 2000s. But the air is thin at the top, and 128 World Cup matches instead of 104 would not make breathing any easier.
Then there are logistics and the climate: 2030 will already be the first World Cup played in six countries across three continents. Every additional team means more flights, more travel, more emissions. Can that really be justified in football’s name?
The question behind the question
Ultimately, this is less about a number than a principle. Should the World Cup remain an exclusive summit for the best, or a celebration the whole world can join? The 48-team edition did not settle every doubt, but it did disprove the loudest fears. And it showed that the answer lies somewhere between the limits of the human body and Vozinha’s fairytale career.
Advertisement
Perhaps somewhere in Cape Verde, a teenager watched in July as a goalkeeper from his homeland frustrated Messi. Perhaps in 2030, he will be the one knocking on the national team’s door. Perhaps one day he will be the best player in the world.
How wide that door should remain deserves, at the very least, an open debate. Especially now, with tempers cooled and no one under pressure to decide.
This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇪🇸 here.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: Sports.yahoo.com
