FIFA-гийн ерөнхийлөгч Жанни Инфантино хөлбөмбөгийн дэлхийн аварга шалгаруулах тэмцээний цар хүрээг 64 баг хүртэл өргөжүүлэх боломжийг судалж эхэллээ.
АНУ-д зохион байгуулагдсан 48 багийн бүрэлдэхүүнтэй энэ удаагийн дэлхийн аварга шалгаруулах тэмцээн 10 тэрбум гаруй долларын орлого олж, спортын түүхэн дэх хамгийн том арга хэмжээ боллоо. Жанни Инфантино тэмцээнийг “асар том амжилт” хэмээн үнэлж, жижиг улс орнуудад өрсөлдөх боломж олгох нь хөгжлийн түлхүүр гэдгийг онцолсон юм. Тэрээр 2030 оны тэмцээнийг угтан энэ асуудлыг холбогдох хороодоор хэлэлцэхээр төлөвлөжээ.
Өмнөд Америкийн хөлбөмбөгийн холбоо (CONMEBOL) 2030 оны тэмцээнийг 64 багтай зохион байгуулах санал дэвшүүлсэн нь тус бүс нутгийн улсуудад илүү олон тоглолт хүлээн авах боломж олгох зорилготой юм. Хэрэв энэ санаачилга хэрэгжвэл тэмцээний тоглолтын тоо 128 хүртэл өсөж, арилжааны болон маркетингийн шинэ боломжууд нээгдэх юм. Гэвч энэ нь тэмцээний чанар, өрсөлдөөнийг сулруулж болзошгүй гэсэн болгоомжлол байна.
УЕФА-гийн ерөнхийлөгч Александр Чеферин болон Азийн хөлбөмбөгийн холбооны удирдлагууд энэ төлөвлөгөөг эрс эсэргүүцэж, тэмцээнийг хэт өргөжүүлэх нь эмх замбараагүй байдал үүсгэнэ гэж үзэж байна. Одоогоор FIFA-гийн зөвлөлөөс энэ асуудлаар албан ёсны санал хураалт явуулаагүй байгаа бөгөөд 64 багтай тэмцээний зохион байгуулалт, техникийн нөхцөлүүд тодорхойгүй хэвээр байна.
Дэлгэрэнгүй эх сурвалжийг харах
Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
In a land that tends to believe bigger is better, FIFA president Gianni Infantino has been pondering the World Cup’s future.
This summer’s tournament, concluding in the United States this weekend, was the first to include 48 teams — but further expansion to 64 nations is not being ruled out for 2030.
“It is definitely an issue that will be examined and discussed in the relevant committees after this World Cup,” Infantino told Swiss outlet Bluewin over the weekend. “When organising a World Cup, it’s important to organise it for the whole world.”
Pitches have already been made to make the 2030 World Cup a 64-team event to mark a century since its first edition, and the door remains ajar for further expansion.
The Athletic analyses where the World Cup goes from here.
Why is this being discussed now?
The World Cup has grown into a beast like no other event in sport. This summer’s tournament has been forecast to generate more than $10billion (£7.4bn) in revenue, touching every corner of the globe with its appeal. Even the Olympic Games has now been left trailing in its wake.
FIFA has capitalised on football’s booming international popularity in recent times and has successfully built out a tournament that involved just 16 teams as recently as 1978 and 24 in 1994. Seven World Cups since then kept the number of participants consistent at 32, but an expansion to 48 teams for this year’s event has left FIFA wondering if this thing can go bigger still.
Why has the World Cup expanded to 48 teams?
Matt Slater and Reuben Pinder
The past month might well have emboldened the expansionist view. Infantino has called the first 48-team World Cup a “huge success”, with debutants including Cape Verde holding their own against the established order. Nine out of Africa’s 10 teams advancing to the last 32 has also been highlighted as a metric for progress.
“Every nation should be allowed to dream of participating in the World Cup,” Infantino told Bluewin. “If you don’t give the smaller countries a chance to participate in the World Cup, they’ll lack the incentive to keep improving.”
Gianni Infantino, pictured at a pre-tournament press conference on June 10 (Carl Recine/Getty Images)
FIFA will always point to its responsibilities in growing the game around the world and further expansion, widening their own income streams in the process, and it is something they will at least discuss ahead of the next World Cup in 2030. That will be co-hosted by Spain, Morocco and Portugal (with the three opening matches held in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay).
The timing of Infantino’s comments, though, will attract cynicism. At the end of a week where he and FIFA faced intense criticism and scrutiny over the suspension of Folarin Balogun’s one-match ban, beginning a conversation over an expanded tournament had a political feel before the governing body’s presidential election next year. It would be one way of strengthening his already formidable supporter base.
Who is behind the proposal?
The biggest cheerleaders to date have been CONMEBOL, the governing body of South American football. Three of their member associations — Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay — will help host the centenary World Cup next time around and they put forward a proposal at a FIFA council meeting in March 2025 for a one-off expansion to 64 teams.
Alejandro Dominguez, president of CONMEBOL and a FIFA vice-president, has subsequently spoken of his “dream” to see an expanded tournament and met with Infantino at Trump Tower in New York to discuss the matter in September.
The motivations are clear. The current plans for 2030 would see Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay each host just one game, with the remainder shared out between primary hosts Spain, Portugal and Morocco. CONMEBOL would then be ineligible to host a World Cup until 2042 under FIFA rules.
Expanding from 48 teams to 64 would raise the prospect of each South American nation being able to host a group, with six games apiece. It would also open the door for more CONMEBOL nations to feature in 2030, with six taking part in this summer’s event after Bolivia lost to Iraq in an intercontinental play-off.
There would be attractions for FIFA, too. An additional 16 teams would see their reach broaden into more territories, increasing commercial opportunities and audiences. A potential, albeit far from guaranteed, beneficiary from expansion would be China, home to the world’s second largest population and economy. They have qualified only once for the World Cup, in 2002.
How would it work?
That is currently unclear, but the logical step would be 16 groups of four teams, with the top two in each advancing to a round of 32. That could be a tidier option than the current format, which saw the eight best third-placed teams advance, but it would take the tournament up to 128 games — double the number of Qatar 2022.
France supporters pictured in Times Square in New York (Leonardo Munoz/AFP via Getty Images)
The growth path from 36 teams to 48 teams was not straightforward. It was first discussed in 2016 and then unanimously approved for the 2026 World Cup by the FIFA council the following year. The hosts for 2026 had not even been confirmed by that point, but FIFA announced that there would be 16 groups of three, with the top two from each advancing to a knockout round of 32.
That promised to ensure teams would play no more than seven games during a 32-day tournament, but those plans did not last. By 2023 it was decided the format should be 12 groups of four, increasing the total number of games from 80 to 104. FIFA said scrapping groups of three teams mitigated the “risk of collusion” and also guaranteed three games for each nation. The tournament’s duration, though, had ballooned to 39 days, irritating players’ unions.
The logistics behind hosting a 64-team event would also be challenging. Adequate bases would need to be found for all 64 teams, as well enough suitable stadiums to cope with the additional matches.
And who is against it?
Plenty. Critics see further expansion as risking the life of the goose that lays golden eggs. More would be less.
UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin called it a “bad idea” after the proposal caught him off guard last year. “It’s not a good idea for the World Cup itself and it’s not a good idea for our qualifiers as well,” he said at a UEFA congress.
UEFA is not the only dissenting voice. Asian Football Confederation (AFC) president Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa has made his opposition known, questioning last year where the expansion might end.
“Someone might come along and demand raising the number to 132 teams,” he said at an AFC conference in April 2025. “Where would we end up then? It would become chaos.”
UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin, pictured in February (Pau Barrena/AFP via Getty Images)
CONCACAF president Victor Montagliani is on the same page, believing the proposed expansion would be hasty.
“It’s not a great idea,” he said. “They can study all they want, but it just doesn’t feel right.”
For all that Cape Verde captured imaginations when holding Spain and Argentina over 90 minutes, others crashed and burned at this year’s tournament. Haiti, Iraq, Panama, Uzbekistan and Jordan lost all three games they played, suggesting there is a limit to the talent pools in those countries. Many more mismatches like Germany’s 7-1 win over Curacao would undeniably be bad for business.
There is also a scarcity value to consider. A 64-team tournament would likely see 96 group games played, saturating the opening two weeks and diluting the spectacle. Maintaining interest levels would then become a challenge not previously faced by the World Cup.
How likely is it to happen?
That’s still unclear. While there are three confederations all publicly opposing expansion for 2030, FIFA is not at the stage where the proposal can yet be dismissed. This, after all, is a governing body that once pushed to have the World Cup every two years, rather than four. Opportunities to increase bottom lines are always explored.
FIFA still sees this as an idea worthy of discussion, effectively holding the party line outlined by general secretary Mattias Grafstrom in May 2025. “All ideas are welcome, but no specific ideas have been discussed,” he said.
The FIFA council, consisting of 37 members, would have to approve the expansion, but there are no current plans for this to be put to a vote.
Might the promise of it being a one-off to mark the World Cup’s centenary pacify the doubters? Possibly. But would a successful 64-team tournament in 2030 then convince enough to continue down that road as the new norm?
FIFA has a balance to strike. For all that there would be short-term gains through broadcast and commercial rights, as well as ticketing and hospitality, an expanded tournament could also bring a long-term threat to the viability of sport’s most lucrative event.
One man’s dream is another man’s bad idea.
