Bigger is not always better
The world governing body of soccer, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), recently voted unanimously to expand the World Cup from 32 to 48 teams in 2026.
While, in theory, it is exciting to allow more countries access to the elite event, it puts the quality of the World Cup in jeopardy.
If done right, the expansion could prove to be the right move. However, the format that has been proposed is more likely to slow down the excitement value of the event until the knockout stages of the tournament, meaning the group stage could potentially amount to very little.
The new structure will see 16 pools, each made up of three teams with the top two teams from each group moving on to the next stage. This could see top teams facing off against the lowest seeds in the group stages, arguably lowering the quality of the round-robin stage. However, it does also provide an opportunity for the beloved underdog story that all sports fans adore.
If these underdog teams are given the right platform to succeed, including fair media coverage and more funding, then this expansion has the opportunity to prove me wrong. Unfortunately, I do not believe that FIFA has the best interest of the fans or the players at heart in making this decision.
Despite FIFA’s interests, the expansion does provide more opportunities for countries outside of Europe and South America to compete on the world stage. Asian and African countries have increasingly talented teams as well as growing fan bases and deserve a fair opportunity to play in the World Cup. However, I think this could have been achieved had the tournament remained at 32 teams by changing the bid allocation system.
As it stands right now, Europe has 14 spots compared to Africa’s five in the 2018 World Cup in Russia. With a change in how the bids get distributed, it would not only give more chances for undervalued nations to compete, but it would also place a higher value on qualification in Europe. Teams such as England who have performed poorly in the last several World Cups would have to make serious changes and efforts in order to qualify.
The expansion to 48 teams and squeezing 80 games into 32 days is, in my opinion, not the way to celebrate the fair play model that FIFA prides itself on. I do sincerely hope that I am proved wrong, and come 2026 we see underdog nations rising to the occasion. My worry is that the same rich countries will continue to thrive and FIFA will continue to do what is in FIFA’s interest.
FIFA is set to make an income of roughly one billion dollars from the expansion. For me, this continues to bring into question the motivations behind the decisions that the governing body of soccer make. FIFA’s integrity has been questioned many times over the last couple years, as they have been plagued by scandal and corruption.
FIFA’s new president, Gianni Infantino, is desperate to prove that he is not cut from the same cloth as his corrupt predecessor Sepp Blatter. With the expansion, Infantino will likely gain favour from most member associations, as out of 211 member associations, 135 of them have never played in a World Cup. With an increased opportunity for World Cup play and additional revenue for certain associations, how could these countries possibly vote against an expansion?
For me, the reality is and always will be; bigger is not always better. As quantity has become a priority over quality, I believe that the cracks in FIFA’s new expansion and the governing body itself are beginning to show once more.
Photo courtesy of Andrea Contino CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0.