The 2022 edition of the FIFA World Cup featured 48 national sides, stretching the tournament over a grueling sixteen‑day schedule. As the 2026 competition draws to a close, discussions are already under way about taking the event even larger for its centennial celebration in 2030. Six nations – Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay – have been named as co‑hosts, and FIFA is expected to decide by mid‑August whether the tournament will expand to include 64 teams.
South America’s governing body, CONMEBOL, has been a vocal advocate for a 64‑team format. Their argument hinges on the desire to stage more matches on the continent in honour of the 100‑year anniversary of the inaugural World Cup, which was held in Uruguay in 1930. By adding sixteen extra places, the tournament would provide additional slots for South American nations, thereby increasing the region’s representation and commercial appeal. If the 2030 World Cup does indeed feature 64 teams, the structure of the competition would change dramatically.
The most logical arrangement would be sixteen groups of four teams each, because 64 does not divide evenly into three. This configuration would raise the number of group‑stage fixtures from the current 72 to a staggering 96. Assuming FIFA maintains the average of roughly 4.5 matches per day – the pace set by the 48‑team version – the group phase alone would stretch across three weeks rather than the ten‑day sprint we have become accustomed to. Following the group stage, the knockout rounds would begin with a round of 32, then progress through the round of 16, quarter‑finals, semi‑finals and the final.
The post‑group phase of the 2022 tournament already required about three weeks to complete. Adding another week for the expanded group stage would push the total length of the competition to roughly six weeks. In practice, each of the 1,664 players selected for the squads would need to set aside about two months of their calendar for preparation, travel and the tournament itself. An increase in matches inevitably leads to new statistical records.
The 48‑team World Cup in 2022 produced 308 goals, a jump from the 172 goals scored in 2018, and the average goals per game rose to 2.96 from roughly 2.6 in the previous three editions. The higher scoring rate was partly due to a widening gap between the strongest and weakest sides, as reflected in the FIFA rankings.
Data from Sky Sports shows that when the ranking disparity grows, the higher‑ranked team’s goal difference tends to increase, even though upsets still occur. With 64 participants, the tournament would have to abandon the “best third‑placed teams” qualification route that was introduced for the 24‑team format in 1986 and later adapted for 48 teams.
In a sixteen‑group layout, only the top two sides from each group could advance, producing a clean round of 32. This simplification would eliminate the complex calculations that currently determine how many goals a team like Scotland would need to progress as a third‑placed finisher. However, it would also re‑introduce the phenomenon of “dead‑rubber” matches – games in the final round of group play where both teams are already assured of qualification or elimination.
To preserve competitive tension, FIFA might need to prioritize goal difference over head‑to‑head results when ranking teams tied on points. Logistically, expanding to 64 teams would demand more venues. The 48‑team tournament utilizes 15 stadiums for 104 matches. Scaling up proportionally suggests around 20 stadiums would be required to host 128 fixtures.
For a country like England, this would mean that almost every Premier League ground would be unavailable for club football during the summer, with iconic venues such as Wembley, Old Trafford and the Etihad potentially hosting World Cup matches. The notion of a Brazilian side playing in a coastal English town illustrates the far‑reaching implications of a multi‑nation hosting model.
The trend toward joint bids reflects the growing complexity of staging a global event. Europe’s Euro 2028 will be spread across the United Kingdom and Ireland, while the 2032 European Championship will be shared by Italy and Turkey. Conversely, the 2034 World Cup is slated to be held solely in Saudi Arabia, a decision that underscores the challenges smaller or single‑nation hosts face when the tournament size expands. Qatar’s 2022 experience demonstrated that a 48‑team format was already at the limit of what a single country could accommodate.
From a qualification standpoint, a 64‑team World Cup would open the doors to roughly 30 % of FIFA’s member associations. Using the current allocation percentages as a guide, Europe – which already enjoys the largest share of spots – would likely see its quota rise from 13 to about 21 places, potentially allowing nations such as Italy to qualify automatically. Other confederations would also receive additional berths, though the exact distribution would be a matter of intense negotiation among the global football community. In summary, a 64‑team World Cup in 2030 would transform the tournament’s format, extend its duration, increase the number of venues, and reshape qualification dynamics.
While the concept promises more matches, more goals and broader representation, it also raises questions about scheduling, player welfare and logistical feasibility. Whether FIFA and its partners decide to adopt this ambitious blueprint will depend on how they balance the desire for inclusivity with the practical realities of delivering a world‑class sporting spectacle.