The 2022 tournament featured 48 national sides and stretched over a grueling fortnight and a half, but the conversation now is turning to an even larger event for 2030. Six nations – Spain, Portugal, Morocco and, as a symbolic gesture, Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay – have been selected to co‑host the centenary edition, and FIFA is expected to decide by mid‑August whether the competition will expand to 64 teams. CONMEBOL, the South American governing body, has been a vocal advocate for a 64‑team format.
Their argument is that a larger field would guarantee more matches on the continent, providing a fitting tribute to the 1930 tournament in Uruguay, the first ever World Cup. The proposal is part of a broader push to make the 2030 event the biggest in football history. If the expansion is approved, the structure of the tournament would change dramatically. A 64‑team World Cup cannot be divided into three groups of equal size, so the most logical arrangement would be sixteen groups of four teams each.
This would increase the number of group‑stage fixtures from the 72 games played in the 48‑team format to 96 matches. Assuming FIFA wants to keep the average of about 4.5 games per day that we saw in the recent tournament, the group stage alone would stretch to roughly three weeks. From the round of 32 onward, the competition would still require another three weeks to complete, meaning the whole event could run for about six weeks. Adding the customary pre‑tournament preparation period for each host nation, the 1,664 players involved would likely need to be away from club duties for close to two months.
The increase in matches would also raise several statistical records. The 48‑team edition already set a new high with 308 goals, surpassing the 172 scored in 2018. Moreover, the goals‑per‑game average rose to 2.96, up from roughly 2.6 in the previous three tournaments.
A 64‑team competition would add 32 extra games, pushing the total to 128, and it is reasonable to expect the goal tally to climb even higher, especially given the widening gap in quality between the strongest and weakest qualifiers. One of the most noticeable side‑effects of a larger tournament would be the elimination of the “best third‑placed” qualification route that was introduced for the 24‑team format in 1986 and later adapted for the 48‑team World Cup.
With sixteen groups, the only straightforward way to produce a round of 32 is to allow the top two teams from each group to progress. This would simplify the knockout qualification but also re‑introduce the risk of “dead‑rubber” matches in the final round of group play, where teams either already have a place in the next stage or are already eliminated. To maintain competitive tension, FIFA might need to prioritize goal difference over head‑to‑head results when ranking teams tied on points. This would give every match a purpose and discourage teams from coasting once they have secured qualification.
Logistically, a 64‑team World Cup would demand considerably more infrastructure. The current 48‑team event uses 15 stadiums for 104 games. Scaling up proportionally suggests that around 20 venues would be required to host 128 matches.
For a single‑nation host like England, this would mean that almost every Premier League ground would be unavailable during the summer months, with iconic sites such as Wembley and perhaps even club stadiums being repurposed for World Cup fixtures. The trend toward multiple host nations is already evident in recent major tournaments. Euro 2028 will be spread across the United Kingdom and Ireland, while the 2032 European Championship will be shared by Italy and Turkey.
The 2030 World Cup’s six‑country model follows this pattern, acknowledging that a single nation – especially one with limited stadium capacity like Qatar in 2022 – would struggle to accommodate a 64‑team event. From a continental allocation perspective, a 64‑team format would open the doors for roughly 30% of all FIFA members to qualify. Using the current distribution as a baseline, Europe, which already enjoys the largest share of spots, could see its quota rise to about 21 teams.
This would likely guarantee qualification for traditional powerhouses such as Italy, which missed out in 2022, and could also give smaller European nations a realistic chance of making the finals. Other confederations would also benefit.
South America, Africa, Asia and North America would each receive additional berths, providing more opportunities for nations that have historically been under‑represented. However, the exact split would have to be negotiated among the confederations and could become a contentious issue, especially for regions that feel they are already over‑ or under‑represented. In summary, a 64‑team World Cup in 2030 would be a monumental undertaking, extending the tournament to six weeks, requiring at least twenty stadiums across six host nations, and reshaping qualification rules. While it would create more matches, more goals, and broader global participation, it would also pose significant logistical challenges and could alter the competitive dynamics of the group stage.
Whether FIFA decides to move forward with this vision will depend on the outcome of the upcoming decision deadline and the willingness of the host countries to accommodate the expanded format.