How a 64-team World Cup could transform football’s economics

The first 48-team World Cup has barely finished, but Gianni Infantino has already acknowledged the possibility that football’s biggest tournament could one day grow larger still, a move that could fundamentally alter the economics of the sport.

Speaking to Swiss television during the tournament, the FIFA president said a 64-team ⁠World Cup was among the ideas that could be examined once the final was over, reopening debate over how large the game’s showpiece event could realistically become.

The logistical implications of another expansion are obvious. A bigger tournament would require more stadiums, more hotels, more transport and, most likely, more time.

But the financial implications could prove even more significant. By making qualification easier for many of the game’s biggest nations, a 64-team tournament ⁠could reduce the commercial value of qualifying competitions while increasing the importance of FIFA’s own flagship event.

If broadcasters place less value on qualifying campaigns, football’s six regional confederations could become increasingly dependent on FIFA’s own distributions, potentially shifting more financial influence – and power – towards the global governing body.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea for the World Cup itself, and it’s not a good idea for our qualifiers either. So I’m not supporting that idea,” UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin said last year. The European governing body’s position has not changed since then.

Asian Football Confederation President Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa has also voiced opposition, questioning last year where further expansion ‌might end.

“I think it is important that when you want to organise a World Cup, you do it for the whole world – not just Europe and South America,” Infantino said when discussing the idea of an expanded tournament. “If you don’t give smaller countries a chance to participate in the World Cup, they’ll lack the incentive to keep improving.”

The 2026 tournament in Canada, Mexico and the United States was the first since 1998 to move away from the 32-team format, expanding to 48 nations and 104 matches over more than five weeks.

If the competition retained the same basic structure with four-team groups followed by a 32-team knockout stage, a 64-team World Cup would comprise 128 matches – 24 more than in 2026 and double the total staged under the old 32-team format.

Unless FIFA compresses the schedule or stages more games simultaneously, that could add roughly another week to a tournament already lasting more than five weeks.

Plans are in ⁠place for Spain, Portugal and Morocco to stage most of the 2030 World Cup with Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay each hosting a single opening-round match to mark ⁠the tournament’s centenary. Accommodating 64 teams across six host nations presents a formidable organisational challenge. Doing so in a single country could prove even more demanding.

Saudi Arabia, due to host the tournament alone in 2034, already faces significant scheduling questions. Ramadan is expected to begin in mid-November that year, making the November-December window used for the 2022 World Cup in neighbouring Qatar difficult to replicate and potentially forcing another unprecedented reshaping of the global football calendar.

A 64-team tournament would magnify those challenges, requiring more ⁠stadiums, training facilities, hotels, transport capacity and volunteers while placing additional pressure on infrastructure in a country still developing its tourism industry.

The Saudis have proposed 15 venues for the existing 48-team format with eight stadiums in Riyadh, four in Jeddah and others in Khobar, Neom and Abha. Construction and renovation work is already under ⁠way before the 2027 Asian Cup.

An expanded World Cup would also place greater strain on an already congested international ⁠calendar and increase pressure on domestic leagues, many of which have aligned themselves with Europe’s traditional August-to-May season.

Japan’s J-League is about to begin its first August-to-May campaign while US Major League Soccer plans a similar switch from next year. Any future winter World Cup would, therefore, disrupt an ever-growing number of competitions rather than primarily Europe’s major leagues, as was the case in 2022.

World Cups can be costly for national federations, even rich ones like France. The French Football Federation had been expecting to spend 24.5 million euros ($28m) at this year’s World Cup with federation President Philippe Diallo saying Les Bleus would probably need to at least reach the semifinals not to lose money.

At the April FIFA Congress in Vancouver, Diallo said FIFA needed to provide greater financial support to participating nations.

If a 48-team tournament is already stretching the finances of participating federations, a longer 64-team event could increase those costs further.

Player welfare concerns would also intensify ‌with ‌more matches adding to the workload of elite players.

A 64-team tournament would give more nations access to football’s biggest stage but could also reignite debate over competitive balance, tournament length, fan costs and whether the World Cup risks losing some of the exclusivity that has long underpinned its appeal.

Whether the idea progresses beyond discussion may depend in part on how the first 48-team World Cup is ultimately judged.