Is a 48-team World Cup a good idea?

For all that people were critical of the decision to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, there was a general sense by the end of the tournament that people had put aside their objections and enjoyed the football. By the end of the final game, there were more than a few of us already feeling impatient for the next tournament - there has probably never been a more absorbing World Cup Final than the 3-3 draw followed by penalties that ended with Argentina triumphing over France. So… if you liked that 64-game World Cup, you’re going to love the tournament in 2026, which will feature 80 matches, right?

For many people, the answer is an unironic “yes”, but there are people with misgivings about a World Cup that has more matches, more teams and will presumably go on for longer than any previous version. There’ll be more underdogs, which means more underdog betting for fans at sinlicencia.org, and more newcomers in all likelihood. You can prepare yourself for the time, three years from now, when pundits start to ask whether the expansion is actually good for football, or whether it will ruin the overall event.

“Do they even belong here?”

When an underdog is hammered by a bigger team, there is a sense that the bigger brains in the world of football are more irritated by the underdog’s presence than they are excited to see the goals fly in. Never mind that Saudi Arabia were the only team at this tournament to beat Argentina, or that Morocco eliminated Spain, Portugal and Belgium. Some people would be happier if the World Cup was a closed shop of the best eight teams in the World - but some of us want to see teams there that have never qualified before. Surely that’s the point of a global footballing event - to see as many countries as possible take part?

“More matches means it’s an injury trap”

There is certainly merit to the idea that too much football is being played. Players are experiencing more soft tissue injuries. Exhaustion is leading to underperformance. Players may be well-paid and there may be a swell of opinion that they should just put up with it, but a longer World Cup does present the risk of more injuries. At the same time, it means maybe one more game for each player involved. The plans for a European Super League - which promises each team within it a minimum of fourteen games - are a much worse idea if player fatigue is an issue for you. And we reiterate, it should be. But maybe we need to look at club tournaments first.

“It’s all just a way to make more money”

Well, yes. FIFA is not expanding the World Cup because the heads of football federations want to see Zambia finally get the chance to strut their stuff on the world stage (more fool them, Zambia are one of the most interesting teams never to have qualified). But if we were to start peeling out elements of world football that were only there to line the pockets of people with more than enough money already, we’d never stop. With an expanded World Cup, teams who have never been at the top table before will have a greater chance to get there. For those of us who like a bit of a change once in a while, that’s no bad thing.