Infantino’s 64‑Team World Cup Gamble

Gianni Infantino’s decade‑long tenure has been defined by a simple mantra: more is better. More tournaments, more matches, more revenue. This philosophy has driven a series of bold moves, from the revamped Club World Cup to an expanded World Cup format, even a Super Bowl‑style halftime show that lasted 27 minutes and 22 seconds.

The latest push is a proposal to enlarge the World Cup to 64 teams, an idea Infantino argues will give smaller nations a genuine chance to compete. He points to the heroics of Cape Verde, which became the only debutant to progress beyond the group stage, as evidence that football can thrive at a larger scale. The plan would reshape the competition so that the top two sides from each of 16 groups advance, removing the need to carry over any third‑placed teams.

Support and Opposition to Expansion

The idea originated with Conmebol, the South American confederation, which requested a one‑off 64‑team tournament in 2025 to showcase its four additional groups. President Alejandro Dominguez framed the move as an effort to “ensure nobody on the planet is left out of the party.” He later reiterated a push for a 64‑team format for the 2030 edition, which will celebrate 100 years since the inaugural tournament in Uruguay.

Not everyone shares his enthusiasm. UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin labelled the expansion a “bad idea” for both the tournament and its qualifying structure. Concacaf’s Victor Montagliani warned it could damage “the broader football ecosystem,” while AFC president Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa cautioned that further growth could bring “chaos.” The final decision rests with the 37 members of FIFA’s Council, meaning the plan could still be approved despite the criticism.

Competitive Impact and Logistical Challenges

From a purely competitive standpoint, the extra slots would bring in several strong sides. Recent qualifying suggests Indonesia (118), Oman (79), United Arab Emirates (68), Denmark (21), Italy (12), and Poland (36) would be among the newcomers. Six of these are already ranked inside the global top 50.

However, many of the teams earmarked for inclusion have struggled on the world stage. Nations such as Haiti, Iraq, Jordan, Panama, Tunisia and Uzbekistan failed to earn a single point in the recent tournament. Even in regions where expansion appears logical, Asia and Concacaf have shown weakness: only two of nine Asian sides progressed, and just three of six Concacaf co‑hosts advanced.

Organically, a 64‑team format would add four extra groups, meaning 24 additional matches and roughly five more days of play. The most recent World Cup ran for 39 days, exploiting a 14‑hour matchday window across multiple time zones. Future editions will face tighter schedules, especially as climate change makes daytime fixtures increasingly risky, as seen in recent European heatwaves. Stadiums large enough to host exclusive television windows are rare, and many nations lack the covered venues needed for extreme weather.

The infrastructure required is formidable. Hosting 64 teams would demand stadiums in 16 cities, each with capacities between 43,000 and 81,000, plus 64 elite training facilities, hotels for fans, and robust transport networks. Only a handful of countries currently possess the full suite of resources, raising questions about how many future hosts will be able to meet these standards.

The Money Narrative

Infantino’s election promise centered on injecting cash into the sport. Every national federation now receives $8 million over a four‑year cycle, with an extra $1.2 million earmarked for smaller associations. Confederations each get $60 million for development and organization.

These funds are largely sourced from World Cup revenue. In 2017, FIFA projected a 48‑team tournament would generate $6.5 billion. By 2022, after adding 24 games, the expectation rose to $9 billion for a single edition. Expanding to 64 teams is projected to bring additional income from television rights, sponsorships, and ticket sales.

Critics argue that there is a point where expansion no longer benefits the game. With almost a third of FIFA’s 211 member nations potentially present, the group stage could become a glorified qualifying competition rather than a true showcase. The debate centers on whether more football truly serves the sport’s long‑term health or simply pads FIFA’s bottom line.