'Every idea is a good idea' - how would 64-team World Cup look?

Sixty-Four Teams: A World Cup Dream or a Demographic Deluge?

The whispers have grown louder, and now they're almost a roar. FIFA is seriously considering a seismic shift for the 2030 World Cup, contemplating an expansion to a staggering 64 teams. It’s a proposition that sparks immediate debate: is this the ultimate celebration of global football, or a dilution of the tournament's prestige? BBC Sport delved into what a 64-team World Cup might actually look like, and whether the romantic notion of "every idea is a good idea" truly applies to the world's biggest sporting spectacle.

The All-Inclusive Dream: More Nations, More Dreams

The allure of a 64-team World Cup is undeniable, particularly for nations that rarely, if ever, get a sniff of qualification. Imagine the joy, the national pride, the sheer unadulterated excitement if countries like, say, Luxembourg, or perhaps even a burgeoning football nation from the Pacific, could realistically dream of gracing the World Cup stage. It’s a powerful narrative, one that speaks to the global reach and unifying power of football.

For many, the current 32-team format, while offering a certain quality control, can feel exclusive. "It's about inclusivity," argues one observer close to the discussions. "Football is a global game. Why should so few get to participate in its pinnacle event?" This sentiment resonates with the core values often espoused by FIFA itself. A larger tournament could, in theory, foster football development across a wider geographical spread, encouraging investment and participation in nations that might otherwise be left behind.

The financial implications are also a significant driver. More teams mean more matches, more broadcast rights, more sponsorship opportunities, and ultimately, more revenue for FIFA and its member associations. It's a business model that, from a purely commercial standpoint, makes a lot of sense. Think of the potential for new markets, new fan bases, and a more diverse range of commercial partnerships.

The Practicalities: A Logistical Labyrinth?

But let's pump the brakes for a moment. While the idea of 64 teams sounds grand, the practicalities are, to put it mildly, daunting. The 2026 World Cup, already set to expand to 48 teams, is already pushing the boundaries of what’s feasible. Adding another 16 teams for 2030 would require a monumental logistical undertaking.

What about the stadiums? Would existing infrastructure be sufficient? Or would there be a rush to build new, potentially underutilized, venues? The environmental impact of such an expansion also needs serious consideration. And then there's the scheduling. Fitting 64 teams into a reasonable timeframe without diluting the tournament too much is a Herculean task.

Consider the current 32-team format. It typically runs over about a month, with multiple rest days between matches. A 64-team tournament, even with a more condensed group stage, would inevitably lead to a longer event. This could clash with domestic league schedules, a perennial headache for both clubs and national teams. The risk of player fatigue and injury also increases significantly with more matches being played.

The Quality Question: Dilution or Development?

Perhaps the most significant concern for purists is the potential impact on the quality of football. While the expansion to 48 teams was justified by the argument that even lower-ranked nations can produce exciting football, adding another 16 would undoubtedly bring a higher proportion of teams with less international experience. Would this lead to a World Cup littered with one-sided matches and disappointing performances?

"It's a delicate balance," admits a former international coach who preferred to remain anonymous. "You want to be inclusive, but you also want to see the best teams competing at the highest level. We've seen in past tournaments that when the gap in quality is too large, it can be detrimental to the spectacle."

The proposed format for a 48-team World Cup involved 16 groups of three teams, with the top two progressing to a knockout stage. This format itself has drawn criticism for potentially leading to dead rubbers in the final group games. A 64-team World Cup would likely necessitate a similar, or even more complex, group stage structure. Imagine 16 groups of four, for instance, requiring a significant number of matches before even reaching the knockout rounds.

The 2030 Vision: A Unique Anniversary

The 2030 World Cup holds particular significance as it marks the tournament's centenary. FIFA has hinted at a desire to make this edition truly special, potentially with a geographically diverse hosting arrangement that spans continents. This context adds another layer of complexity to the expansion debate. How would 64 teams, spread across multiple host nations, integrate seamlessly?

The idea of matches being played in South America, Europe, and Africa for the opening stages, for example, is a bold and potentially unifying concept. But then consider the travel demands for teams and fans alike. Would the romantic notion of a global celebration be overshadowed by the logistical nightmare of constant travel and jet lag?

So, is Every Idea a Good Idea?

The phrase "every idea is a good idea" is often used to encourage brainstorming and creativity. In the context of a World Cup expansion, however, it’s a sentiment that needs rigorous scrutiny. While the intention behind a 64-team tournament – to be more inclusive and celebrate the global nature of football – is commendable, the practical and sporting implications are significant.

The challenge for FIFA will be to find a format that truly balances inclusivity with quality, a logistical framework that is manageable, and a tournament structure that maintains the excitement and prestige that makes the World Cup the pinnacle of the sport. The dream of a 64-team World Cup is certainly an interesting one, but whether it can be translated into a successful reality remains a question that will undoubtedly dominate football discussions for years to come.