64-team World Cup proposed for 2030 sparks debate across FIFA

A proposal to expand the FIFA World Cup to 64 teams for the 2030 edition has moved from concept to formal discussion, drawing support from some regional blocs and sharp skepticism from others. The idea, raised initially as a spontaneous suggestion and later formally presented, would mark the World Cup’s centenary with a significantly larger tournament than the 48-team format set to debut next summer.

The 2030 World Cup will be a milestone event staged across three continents to celebrate the tournament’s 100-year anniversary. Spain, Portugal and Morocco are lined up as main hosts, with Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay hosting opening-round matches. The expansion proposal comes as FIFA and its confederations weigh how to balance growth with sustainability, competition quality and the logistical demands of a larger event.

Conmebol, the South American governing body, presented the 64-team idea at a FIFA congress in April after it was initially floated by the Uruguayan Football Federation president Ignacio Alonso during a FIFA Council meeting in March. FIFA has said it will discuss all expansion ideas with its stakeholders and remains duty bound to consider proposals from its council members, but there are no indications a decision is imminent. The FIFA Council would ultimately decide whether to pursue any expansion, and a timeline for a final decision remains unclear.

The proposed expansion would be seismic. Since the sport settled on a 16-team format in 1982, the World Cup has steadily grown: 24 teams in 1982, 32 in 1998, and 48 for the upcoming tournament next year. Adding 16 more teams for 2030 would effectively double the 1998-2022 size within eight years and would push participation to more than 30% of FIFA’s 211 member associations. The sheer scale raises questions about group-stage formats, scheduling, and the ability of players and fans to travel to and support a larger tournament.

[IMAGE1]

Support for the idea is led by Conmebol president Alejandro Dominguez, who argues that expanding to 64 teams for the centenary would ensure that “nobody on the planet is left out of the party.” FIFA president Gianni Infantino has said that “every idea is a good idea,” but the notion has exposed a sharp split across the confederations. European federation president Aleksander Ceferin has dismissed the proposal as a “bad idea” for both the tournament and the qualifying process, while Concacaf president Victor Montagliani said the idea “doesn’t feel right” and could damage the wider football ecosystem. The Asian Football Confederation’s Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa echoed concerns about potential “chaos” from further expansion.

The argument in favor centers on potential benefits in revenue, reach and inclusion. More games could translate to bigger television deals, sponsorships, ticket sales and broadcast revenues. FIFA projects high earnings for the current 2022-26 cycle, and proponents contend a larger World Cup would multiply such financial opportunities. In addition, a bigger field would likely bring more nations into the World Cup landscape for the first time, broadening the sport’s global footprint. If expanded, nations that have not yet qualified for a World Cup could gain a pathway to the finals, and more of the world’s top players would participate.

Proponents also argue that expanding the field would reflect football’s evolving global reach. For example, the upcoming 2026 World Cup in North America already features a broader slate of teams and hosts, and a 64-team format for 2030 could accelerate broader participation and development. The prospect of more teams competing at the sport’s premier event could help spur investment in football infrastructure in emerging markets and provide a platform for rising teams and players to showcase their talent on one of the world’s largest stages.

[IMAGE2]

Opposition centers on the practicalities and risks of a larger tournament. Critics worry about the competitive balance of the event, arguing that more teams could lead to a higher likelihood of lopsided matches. They also caution that the current congested football calendar is already a point of contention among players, clubs and leagues, and that additional travel demands would amplify sustainability concerns regarding flights for teams, fans and media. Qualifying would become more complex and lengthy, with more nations pressing for spots and travel budgets ballooning for federations with fewer resources.

From a logistical standpoint, there is little precedent for such a large, multi-host finals format in top-tier international sport. If a 64-team World Cup were approved, organizers would need to decide whether to maintain a two-stage format, introduce more groups of four, or rethink the knockout structure to avoid an unwieldy schedule. The 2030 edition would potentially feature 128 matches, double the 64-match count that characterized the World Cup from 1998 through 2022. By contrast, the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Canada and Mexico is expected to generate a large but more manageable number of games under a 48-team format, with 104 matches planned for the tournament.

Scheduling implications would also be significant. FIFA has signaled that the finals window would run from early June to late July, with the possibility of extending the tournament considered unlikely given the already tight football calendar. If the field grew to 64 teams, organizers would face questions about daily match density during the group phase and the need for additional stadiums—both in terms of capacity and sustainability.

[IMAGE3]

On the qualification front, expanding to 64 teams would alter the calculus for the world’s top nations. It is almost inconceivable that the globe’s strongest teams would be excluded entirely, but there would likely be a broader cohort in contention for qualification. Conmebol could gain more slots, potentially up to seven teams, while other confederations would need to negotiate expanded qualification pathways. The net effect would be a broader, more inclusive field but also a rebalancing of regional power dynamics and travel demands for teams and fans alike.

A 64-team World Cup would also reshape player access to the event. A larger finals field would increase the chances that top players from around the world would compete at the tournament, which is attractive to fans and broadcasters. Yet critics warn that the balance between elite competition and meaningful match play could suffer if group-stage matches become routine, potentially diluting the prestige attached to World Cup qualification and performance on football’s biggest stage.

As talks proceed, FIFA officials stress that any move to expand would require careful planning, stakeholder consensus and a clear calendar that minimizes disruption to domestic leagues, international fixtures and the broader football ecosystem. The discussions are not expected to yield an imminent decision, and officials say the governing body will continue to consult with member associations before determining a path forward.

Ultimately, the question remains whether a 64-team World Cup would reflect football’s current global reality or strain the sport’s competitive, logistical and financial foundations. In the weeks and months ahead, FIFA and its confederations will weigh the potential benefits of greater inclusion and revenue against the risks to tournament quality, travel logistics and the sustainability of the global football calendar. For now, the 2030 centenary edition remains a concept under consideration, with no official commitment to move forward at this stage.