Bigger but Not Better

A 48-team World Cup will raise more cash but will be low on quality

- Keir Radnedge

Sir Stanley Rous would probably have approved of a 48-team World Cup as, for all the colonial baggage that accompanied him on his 13-year FIFA reign, he believed the World Cup was the prime means for taking and growing the game around the planet.

It was Rous, decades ahead of 2002, who urged Japan to set World Cup hosting as a long-term target for the game’s development. And, for all the other contentious issues, a 48-team World Cup can promote the game as never before.

Admittedly anything enacted by FIFA should be treated with skepticism after the corruption-fired years of cosy Blatterism bequeathed such a poisonous legacy of disgust and distaste. But hysterical wailing about the end of the wonderful World Cup as we know it is not merely to ignore the tournament’s history and original purpose but raises suspicions that the twisted power of one-eyed, old-world protectionism lives on.

The World Cup was envisaged as a 16-team event by Jules Rimet in a very different world back in 1930 – although only 13 teams would take part in the first tournament, in Uruguay. Not until 1982 was Joao Havelange empowered to enforce expansion because, essentially, Europe and South America were not prepared to relinquish any slots. And with an ability to expand having been proven, the step up to 32 teams in 1998 was a no-brainer.

In 2026, there will be 48 teams in 16 groups of three, with the top two sides going into the knockout stage. This will mean 80 games instead of 64, but the finals will still only last for 32 days and there will be the same maximum of seven games for the teams who reach the last four.