​With the first-ever 48-team World Cup delivering more competitiveness and unpredictability than many anticipated, it was inevitable that talk of further expansion would arise. Now it seems FIFA is seriously weighing a 64-team tournament as soon as 2030, according to remarks made by FIFA President Gianni Infantino to Swiss broadcaster Blue Sport on Sunday. But what would such a rapid expansion actually mean in practice? Here are some potential advantages and drawbacks to consider.
A key criticism of the 48-team format was the reintroduction of third-place finishers from group play into the knockout rounds, a setup that produced confusing math in the final days of the group stage and left several teams waiting days to learn their next opponents. Expanding by 16 more teams would simplify the qualification picture, reducing the number of qualifying slots per group from multiple possibilities to only two per group. This could create a cleaner and more transparent path to the knockout rounds.
An expanded field would likely inject greater urgency into every group match. In this year’s tournament, Germany, Mexico, and the United States clinched group tops after just two games, while Argentina, France, and Norway had already secured spots in the round of 32 with a match to spare. The prospect of more teams vying for a place in the knockout stage could intensify competition from the outset.
Data analysis has sharpened the discussion about a 64-team World Cup. Nate Silver, a well-known analyst, examined what teams might have qualified had the field been expanded to 64 for 2026. Of the 16 additional hypothetical qualifiers, seven would have ranked among the FIFA World Rankings’ top 48 at that time, and 11 would have sat higher than Cape Verde—the debutants who impressively advanced from their group and gave defending champions Argentina a tough test in the round of 32.
Most stakeholders acknowledge that the modern schedule is crowded for elite players. An expanded 64-team format could, in theory, give continental confederations flexibility to streamline their qualifying processes and alleviate some congestion. However, the previous 48-team expansion did not universally deliver such relief. Concacaf adopted a shorter final-round format, while Conmebol retained its traditional 10-team round robin, and the AFC expanded the slate by adding more games as its berths increased.
History shows that hosting a large, multi-country tournament creates additional scheduling challenges. The 2026 World Cup, hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico across three nations and four time zones, still faced strains in the calendar. East Coast audiences sometimes watched matches at midnight local time, while West Coast viewers saw games starting as early as 9 a.m.—a reflection of the logistical complexity involved. Expanding the event to 64 teams would push the group stage from 72 matches to 96, amplifying the daily match load to roughly five to six games per day. In practice, this would make it exceedingly difficult to lock every match into a single, exclusive time window—an arrangement that helps with scheduling efficiency and search engine optimization.
If the field grows, organizers would need to weigh whether the benefits—greater regional representation, more storytelling opportunities, and increased commercial appeal—outweigh the downsides, including a more congested calendar, potential strain on players, and the challenge of maintaining high competitive standards across a larger pool of teams. The decision will hinge on how FIFA and its confederations balance competitive integrity with logistical feasibility and long-term growth objectives.