Critics of a 64-team World Cup warn that further expansion risks diluting the quality of the tournament and placing an unsustainable burden on players. With the 2026 edition already pushing the limits of the international calendar, adding another 16 teams would significantly increase the number of matches, potentially leading to player burnout and injury. Many analysts argue that the prestige of the World Cup relies on it being an elite competition featuring the very best teams in the world; a massive influx of participants could lower the overall standard of play and diminish the excitement of the group stage.
There are also concerns regarding the logistical and financial strain on host nations. While spreading the tournament across multiple countries might seem like a way to share the burden, it creates significant challenges for travel, infrastructure, and fan experience. The 2030 tournament is already being held across six nations and three continents, and adding more teams could exacerbate the complexity of managing such a sprawling event. Critics suggest that FIFA should prioritize the quality of the tournament experience over the quantity of matches, as the current 48-team format is already testing the limits of what a single tournament can reasonably accommodate.
Furthermore, there is skepticism about whether the expansion is driven by genuine development goals or simply by the desire for increased revenue. Some observers argue that the focus on constant growth ignores the needs of the players and the traditional fan base, who may find it difficult to follow a tournament that has become so large and fragmented. Accountability-focused voices within the sport have called for a more cautious approach, urging FIFA to evaluate the long-term impact of the 2026 expansion before committing to yet another massive change that could fundamentally alter the character of the World Cup.