The current 48-team format for the FIFA World Cup has drawn criticism for its structural complexities and perceived fairness issues, prompting some observers to suggest expanding the tournament further to 64 teams. The expanded format, introduced in 2026, replaced the previous 32-team setup, but experts argue that the new system’s transition from 48 teams to a 32-team knockout stage is problematic and may compromise the competition’s integrity.

Under the current structure, the tournament features 16 groups of three teams each, from which 32 teams advance: the group winners, runners-up, and the eight best third-placed teams. This arrangement complicates qualification scenarios and creates uncertainty for some teams until all group matches conclude. For example, Scotland faces significant difficulty securing advancement from Group C, where it stands third with one game remaining against Brazil. Because of the system’s reliance on ranking the best third-placed teams across all groups, Scotland cannot know in advance the points or goal difference required to guarantee progression, leaving them—and other teams in similar positions—unable to strategize effectively during matches.

This uncertainty contrasts with other teams playing later matches who are aware of their precise qualification requirements. Nations such as Croatia, Ghana, Algeria, and Austria may know whether a loss or draw, or a specific goal margin, is sufficient to advance. Such knowledge allows them to tailor their approach accordingly, a competitive advantage unavailable to teams in earlier groups.

Critics also highlight that expanding the tournament to 48 teams risks including nations ranked well below the global elite, which could lead to mismatched contests and a decline in overall quality. For instance, extending an additional berth to the Oceania Football Confederation might admit teams ranked outside the top 150 globally, like New Caledonia, whose players largely compete at low domestic levels. While the tournament has witnessed spirited performances by smaller nations such as Cape Verde and Curaçao, the argument remains that the World Cup should primarily showcase the highest caliber of international football.

To address these concerns, some propose moving beyond 48 teams to a 64-team format. This model would consist of 16 groups of four teams each, with the top two from each group advancing to a round of 32. Under this setup, qualification and progression criteria would be more straightforward, eliminating the need to compare third-placed teams across groups. Additionally, scheduling could be optimized to hold most group stage matches simultaneously, enhancing competitive fairness.

The potential beneficiaries of a 64-team World Cup would include several traditionally strong football nations currently at risk of missing out under the 48-team system, such as Italy, Denmark, and Wales from Europe; Nigeria, Cameroon, and Mali from Africa; and Chile, Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Honduras from the Americas. While some view such expansion as diluting the tournament’s prestige, proponents argue it could restore competitive balance and provide more opportunities for emerging football nations.

However, FIFA officials reportedly have no plans to increase the tournament size beyond 48 teams for the 2030 World Cup. The debate over the ideal tournament format continues, balancing football tradition, competitive fairness, and the organization’s broader goals of global inclusion and commercial growth.