In July 2026, Gianni Infantino reignited the debate around a potential 64-team World Cup, signaling that FIFA remains open to the idea despite widespread opposition from football’s major governing bodies. The timing is no coincidence : with the 2026 edition already underway in North America at 48 teams, attention is turning fast toward 2030 and beyond.
A bold expansion proposal that divides football’s leadership
The idea of a 64-team World Cup format didn’t emerge from nowhere. Conmebol, South America’s governing body, formally tabled the proposal in April 2025, pushing for the 2030 tournament to double the original 32-team format approved by the FIFA Council back in 2017. No decision has been reached since, but the proposal refuses to die quietly.
Opposition came swiftly and loudly. UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin called it a “bad idea,” citing damage to both the tournament’s quality and the qualifying process. Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa, president of the Asian Football Confederation, went further, warning that such expansion would create outright “chaos.” Victor Montagliani, who leads Concacaf, the governing body for North and Central America and the Caribbean, stated bluntly that the suggestion “doesn’t feel right” and would harm the broader football ecosystem.
That’s three major continental confederations pushing back. Frankly, when UEFA, the AFC and Concacaf all land on the same side, that’s not just a preference, that’s a structural objection from the organizations that actually run football day to day.
| Official | Organization | Position on 64-team expansion |
|---|---|---|
| Aleksander Ceferin | UEFA | “Bad idea” for the tournament and qualifiers |
| Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa | AFC | Would bring “chaos” |
| Victor Montagliani | Concacaf | “Doesn’t feel right,” risks ecosystem damage |
| Andrew Giuliani | White House task force | USA could “handle it” if expanded |
On the other side stands Andrew Giuliani, executive director of the White House’s World Cup task force, who suggested the United States could handle a 64-nation competition and might even consider bidding for the 2038 World Cup under that expanded format. His position carries political weight but no football governance authority.
FIFA’s official stance and the 2030 tournament context
FIFA’s public line has been consistent : the organization commits to discussing expansion ideas with stakeholders and considers itself duty-bound to examine any proposal submitted by council members. That’s a careful diplomatic position, but it keeps the door open without forcing a vote.
The FIFA Council holds the ultimate decision-making power on this question. Right now, there are no concrete signs that a vote is imminent. The proposal exists on paper; it has not been scheduled for formal deliberation.
Understanding the 2030 World Cup setup matters here. The centenary edition will primarily be co-hosted by Spain, Portugal and Morocco, making it the first tournament to span two continents simultaneously. Three opening matches will take place in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, honoring the competition’s 100th anniversary. Uruguay hosted the very first World Cup in 1930, which gives those South American slots strong symbolic weight.
Here’s a quick timeline of how the World Cup format has evolved and what’s at stake :
- 1930 : First World Cup in Uruguay, 13 teams.
- 1998 : Expansion to 32 teams, the format used until 2022.
- 2017 : FIFA Council approves 48-team format, first applied in 2026.
- April 2025 : Conmebol formally proposes a 64-team tournament for 2030.
- 2030 : Centenary edition across Europe, Africa and South America.
For me, the 2030 hosting arrangement is already complex enough. Adding 16 more teams on top of a multi-continent setup would create logistical pressure that no previous edition has ever faced.
What a 64-team World Cup would actually mean for the competition
Let’s be direct about the numbers. Going from 48 to 64 teams means adding a full extra round of matches, likely a round of 64. A 48-team tournament already produces 104 games over roughly 32 days. Scale that up and you’re looking at a competition that stretches past five weeks with 128 matches minimum, depending on the group stage structure chosen.
The qualifying argument is the one that stings most. Currently, European and South American teams face brutal elimination rounds just to reach the finals. A 64-team tournament would effectively hand automatic berths to nations that have never seriously competed at this level, diluting the prestige of the group stage and devaluing the qualification process entirely.
That said, the commercial logic is obvious. More teams means more broadcasting markets, more sponsor activations, more ticket revenue. FIFA generated approximately $7.5 billion in revenue from the 2022 Qatar World Cup, and a 64-team edition would push those figures significantly higher. Whether sporting integrity should bend to commercial appetite is the real question being debated, even if nobody in football governance phrases it quite that bluntly.
The 2038 World Cup angle introduced by the White House task force points toward a longer game. If the United States bids for 2038 and explicitly anchors that bid to a 64-team format, it creates political and economic pressure that FIFA would find difficult to ignore. Infrastructure, stadium capacity and logistical scale all favor a country like the US. Watching how that bid develops over the next few years will tell you far more about where this proposal is actually heading than any statement from a confederation president today.
