The 2022 edition of the FIFA World Cup featured 48 national sides and stretched over a demanding fortnight‑plus schedule. While the tournament has already been earmarked for a further expansion in 2030, the exact shape of that growth is still under debate.
Six nations – Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay – have been selected as co‑hosts, and a decision on whether to increase the field to 64 teams is expected by mid‑August. CONMEBOL, the South American governing body, has been a vocal advocate for a 64‑team format.
Their argument is rooted in the desire to host more matches on the continent in honor of the 100‑year anniversary of the inaugural World Cup, which took place in Uruguay in 1930. By adding more slots for South American teams, the confederation hopes to celebrate that centenary with a larger, more inclusive tournament. If the 2030 World Cup does indeed expand to 64 participants, the structure of the competition would undergo a major overhaul.
The most straightforward solution for the group stage would be to create sixteen groups of four teams each, because 64 does not divide evenly into three. This arrangement would raise the number of group‑stage fixtures from the 72 matches played in the 48‑team format to a total of 96.
In the 48‑team edition, those 72 matches were crammed into a 16‑day window, averaging roughly 4.5 games per day. Maintaining a similar daily cadence for a 64‑team group phase would stretch that portion of the tournament to about three weeks. Adding the knockout rounds – which would still require three weeks to progress from the round of 32 to the final – would push the overall length of the competition to roughly six weeks. Such an extended timetable has practical implications for the players as well.
With 1,664 athletes on the rosters of 64 squads, each participant could be required to be away from club duties for close to two months, including pre‑tournament camps and the tournament itself. This is a significant commitment for clubs and national associations alike. From a statistical perspective, more matches inevitably generate more goals.
The 2026 World Cup, which will feature 104 games, already set a record for total goals scored, surpassing the 308 goals tallied in this year's 48‑team event. The average goals per game also rose to 2.96 in 2022, up from around 2.6 in the previous three tournaments. Analysts attribute this increase partly to a widening gap between the strongest and weakest sides, as reflected in the FIFA ranking differentials.
Data from Sky Sports confirms that larger ranking gaps tend to produce bigger goal differences, even though upsets remain a thrilling part of the competition. A 64‑team format would also simplify the qualification mechanics for the knockout stage. In the current 48‑team set‑up, the four best third‑placed teams from the groups also advance to the round of 32, creating a complex set of scenarios for teams on the brink of elimination.
With sixteen groups of four, the only logical path to a round of 32 would be to allow the top two finishers from each group to progress, eliminating the third‑place qualification route entirely. This would mean that calculations like "how many goals Scotland needs as a third‑placed team" would become irrelevant. However, the removal of the third‑place qualifier could reintroduce the phenomenon of "dead‑rubber" matches, where the outcome of the final group games has no bearing on advancement because both teams are already through or already eliminated.
To preserve competitive tension, FIFA might need to prioritize goal difference over head‑to‑head records when breaking ties, ensuring that every match retains significance until the very end of the group phase. Logistically, expanding to 64 teams would demand more venues.
The 48‑team tournament uses 15 stadiums for 104 matches; a proportional increase would suggest roughly 20 stadiums to accommodate 128 matches. For a single nation like England, this would mean that almost every Premier League ground would be requisitioned for the summer, with iconic venues such as Wembley and possibly even club stadiums like Old Trafford or Anfield hosting World Cup fixtures.
The idea of a Brazilian side playing in a coastal English town illustrates the scale of venue sharing that would be required. The trend toward multiple host nations is already evident in recent major tournaments. The Euro 2028 will be spread across the United Kingdom and Ireland, while the 2030 World Cup will be co‑hosted by six countries across two continents. The 2032 European Championship will be shared between Italy and Turkey.
Conversely, the 2034 World Cup is slated to be held solely in Saudi Arabia, a scenario that would have been impossible under a 48‑team format due to stadium capacity constraints. Beyond venue considerations, the allocation of qualification spots would need to be revisited.
With 64 places available, roughly 30 % of FIFA’s member associations would qualify, a substantial jump from the current 48‑team model. Europe, which already receives the largest share of slots, could see its representation rise to about 21 nations, potentially allowing traditionally strong sides like Italy to return after missing out in recent editions. Other confederations would also see increased berths, though the exact distribution would depend on FIFA’s percentage‑based formula and political negotiations among the confederations. In summary, a 64‑team World Cup in 2030 would transform the tournament’s format, length, and logistical footprint.
It would create a larger, more inclusive competition that honors the sport’s global reach and the centenary of its first edition, but it would also pose challenges in scheduling, venue allocation, and qualification fairness. Whether FIFA decides to adopt this model will hinge on balancing the desire for broader participation with the practical realities of hosting the world’s premier football event.