Gianni Infantino, who in February succeeded the disgraced Sepp Blatter as FIFA president, would like to expand the World Cup from its present 32 teams to a possible 48. If Infantino gets his wish, the format of the competition could change from eight groups of four teams to 16 groups of three.
Forty-eight teams in football’s biggest tournament is almost a quarter of FIFA’s 211 members. Infantino’s thinking is plain enough: he wants to allow more countries the chance to compete in football’s flagship event. As it stands now, Europe has the lion’s share of World Cup countries with 13; 14 if the host is from Europe like Russia in 2018. Africa, whose players fill the top spots of the best leagues in the world, is next but much further down the list at five countries. South America, which entertains with dazzling football, has only four representatives, with a possible fifth following a playoff. And Asia, the world’s biggest continent, can send only four countries to the World Cup (again, a playoff can bring it to five maximum). Obviously, the qualification system is far from being balanced or fair.
Infantino insists that a larger tournament does not necessarily mean a weaker one, reminding his detractors that in the 2014 World Cup, England and Italy were eliminated by minnows Costa Rica.
Infantino also apparently has the backing of the organization’s highest decision-making body, which supports the idea that an increase will increase the global popularity of the game. The feeling of the FIFA Council is that giving more teams a chance to qualify for the World Cup is beneficial for football development. The argument is that when a team qualifies for the tournament the whole country is in football euphoria. More youngsters want to play the game; companies want to get involved in sponsorships and the benefits to football as a whole become immense.
Infantino insists that even with 48 teams, the games would be played in the usual 32 days of a World Cup, in the required 12 stadiums, and that the two finalists would play seven matches to reach the final, as is presently the case.
But the prospect of 48 teams has clear negatives. Groups of three countries means that some teams will travel from one end of the earth to the other to play just one match and then return home if they lose, an unrealistic and costly exercise.
A three-team group stage would also open the competition up to scenarios whereby a specific result in the final game could be mutually beneficial to both sides involved. The World Cup in Spain in 1982 featured such a situation - the “Disgrace of Gijon” - when Austria and West Germany knew a one or two-goal West German win would secure qualification for the knockout rounds, and accordingly played 90 minutes of lifeless football. As a result of that incident, FIFA changed the tournament’s structure to ensure every group’s final round of matches was played concurrently. However, with three-team groups, it would become impossible for that scheduling to be maintained.
Already the group stage is protracted with too many drab games that depend on moderately well-drilled defenses. An increase to 80 games from the present 64 can only prolong the dreariness.
A decision will be made in January; however, any change would not be likely to take effect before the 2026 World Cup. But accepting 16 more countries cannot but dilute the quality of football. Despite an absolute understanding for the smaller nations outside Europe who have long felt disadvantaged when it comes to World Cup places, the World Cup must not overdo it. The competition would become even more bloated, even more unwieldy.
