FIFA World Cup 2026 — Does a 48-team tournament promise a more competitive tournament?

‘The more the merrier’ – FIFA President Gianni Infantino and US President Donald Trump would high-five this phrase as the 2026 World Cup kicks off with a staggering 48-team roster, expanding from 32 teams in the 2022 Qatar edition.

The dress rehearsal for such a move is already behind us: last year’s FIFA Club World Cup, which expanded from seven to 32 teams, generated revenues of $2.16 billion, compared to $76 million from the previous two editions.

For this year’s World Cup, which already appears aggressive in terms of monetization (FIFA listed tickets worth more than $2 million for the final), the larger roster appears to have been planned along similar lines.

According to FIFA research, turnover for this World Cup is expected to rise to £5.29 billion, with a potential profit increase of £521 million. But more than just money is needed for such an event. There are millions of fans who travel to watch their favorite players. That adds nuance to this quadrennial spectacle.

For the 2026 edition, the biggest X-factor is its diversification. Small countries such as Curaçao, Cape Verde and Haiti have earned a place in the largest show in the world.

More room for ideas

For Africa, which boycotted the 1966 edition in protest at the lack of a direct venue, the expansion is pure bliss, providing a new stage for moments like ‘Bafana Bafana’ in 2010, the roar of the Lions of Teranga in 2002 and Morocco’s semi-final in 2022.

Asia will also rejoice at the prospect of a 48-team World Cup, with nine teams, including two debutants, able to score their tickets.

Matches against European sides will not only allow these teams to rub shoulders with the traditional elite, but also leave the door open to setbacks, such as Cameroon in 1990 or South Korea in 2002.

A larger table offers space for more ideas, going beyond the ‘Total Football’, ‘Catenaccio’ and ‘Tiki Taka’ archetypes.

Roger Milla dancing past Romanian defenders or Salem Al-Dawsari humiliating Argentina reflected a more pragmatic approach from emerging footballing nations.

Senegal’s run to the 2002 quarter-finals was featured prominently in an article by Raffaele Poli entitled ‘Understanding Globalization Through Football’, in which he argued that expansion is helping to create a global market for footballers, with clubs and leagues playing complementary, increasingly integrated roles beyond national borders.

The move benefited both players and coaches, with Ji Sung Park moving to the Netherlands (PSV Eindhoven), Asamoah Gyan to the Premier League (Sunderland), while Guus Hiddink returned to Europe after his impressive spell with South Korea in 2002.

According to economists John Horne and Wolfram Manzenreiter, ‘mega-events’ in sports are important elements in the orientation of countries towards international or global society.’ A bigger tournament not only makes the game beautiful, it also makes it global in spirit and ethos.

Dilution of competitiveness

However, there are two sides to a coin. American economist Simon Rottenberg had once explained that fan interest is closely linked to competitive equilibrium: the greater the uncertainty about the outcome, the greater the appeal.

Walter C. Neale further argued that «the demand for competition will decrease if spectators can predict the outcome.»

At the Club World Cup in 2025, this uncertainty was lacking in several matches. When Bayern Munich scored ten goals against meek Auckland City, or Juventus scored five goals against Al Ain, there was little tension in the stands. Fans noticed the stark difference in quality, and the more dedicated fans flocked to tighter matches instead.

The match between Bayern and Auckland City attracted 21,152 spectators, compared to the almost capacity crowd of 80,619 for Paris Saint-Germain against Atletico Madrid. This raises the question of whether an expanded field will follow the same pattern at the 2026 World Cup. Matches like Brazil vs. Haiti or England vs. Panama cast doubt on whether they can really live up to the billing. The final days of matches in the group stage, often known for their blockbuster matches, could become a formality.

Add to that the United States’ travel bans, and attendance at lopsided games could drop even further. Haiti and Iran face full bans, while Ivory Coast and Senegal face partial restrictions.

It is also worth noting that outbursts are not new at World Cups: Germany’s 8-0 demolition of Saudi Arabia in 2002 and Portugal’s 7-0 victory over North Korea are clear examples of this. But further expansion risks making such outcomes the norm rather than the exception.

Former German football president Reinhard Grindel had opposed expansion, citing the “significant weaknesses” highlighted in FIFA fact sheets.

“We at the DFB are fundamentally convinced that the proven model of 32 participating countries should be maintained,” he had said in 2017.

The paradox of expansion

João Havelange, with Sepp Blatter as secretary general, oversaw the evolution of the World Cup from 16 to 24 teams in 1982 and then to 32 in 1998.

Spain ’82 loosened up the game: the number of goals per match increased (2.68 to 2.81), but the matches were not balanced. El Salvador’s 1-10 defeat by Hungary remains one of the most one-sided matches in the history of the tournament.

On the other hand, France ’98 has tightened the rules. The number of goals per match fell from 2.71 to 2.67, despite an increase in the total number of goals (141 to 171). Margins fell too: Spain’s 6-1 win felt dominant, not overdone.

Infantino would know that expansion does not follow a script as he looks to build his legacy with a bigger World Cup. 48 teams will play 104 matches over more than a month, with players arriving after grueling domestic seasons.

The question is no longer whether expansion is necessary; that ship has sailed. What remains is this: at what point does more start to feel like less?

Published on May 12, 2026

More stories from this issue