FIFA has been quietly kicking around the idea of expanding the 2030 World Cup to 64 teams.
The proposal first surfaced in March 2025 from Uruguay’s FIFA delegate Ignacio Alonso and was pushed hard by CONMEBOL leaders. It was pitched as a one-off centenary celebration — the 100th anniversary of the first World Cup in 1930.
The 2030 tournament is already going to be unusual. Spain, Portugal, and Morocco are the main hosts, with Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay each staging one opening match to mark the tournament’s South American roots. The idea was to expand the planned 48-team format (which debuts in 2026) to 64 teams for this special edition.
As of April 2026, FIFA has decided against it. The governing body has made clear it is not planning a 64-team tournament for 2030. The format stays at 48 teams.
Why the Idea Was Floated
The case for expansion: More nations get a realistic shot at qualifying. As football is growing rapidly in Asia, Africa, and parts of North America, supporters argue that it would spread the game further and give smaller countries a genuine platform.
A 64-team tournament would mean 128 matches instead of the 104 planned for 2026. That brings longer schedules, greater player fatigue, more dead rubbers in the group stage, and a noticeable drop in overall quality. Club managers are already unhappy about the 48-team format. Going to 64 would have made things worse.
Pros vs Cons (Straight Talking)
| Aspect | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Global representation | More countries qualify | Too many mismatches and blowouts |
| Betting opportunities | More group-stage matches | Knockout stages become less competitive |
| Tournament length | Bigger spectacle | Even greater disruption to club football |
| Quality of football | — | Noticeable dilution in early rounds |
| Logistics & fatigue | — | Scheduling nightmare for players and clubs |
What It Would Have Meant for Betting
A 64-team World Cup would have created chaos in the group stage. More minnows mean more potential soft lines and value on underdogs, especially in the first two matches when the market is still catching up.
On the flip side, the knockout stages could have become predictable very quickly if the quality gap widened. The really big betting markets (quarter-finals onwards) might have offered less edge.
Early markets would have been the place to look — before the bookies sharpened up on which of the new teams were actually competitive.
Betfinder Tip: When a tournament expands, the biggest value is almost always in the early group games. The public loves backing big names, which leaves plenty of room on the other side for sharp punters who do their homework.
Our View
It feels like FIFA is chasing growth at any cost. The jump to 48 teams in 2026 is already a big enough experiment. Pushing it to 64 just four years later looked more like greed than good planning.
Sticking with 48 teams for 2030 is the sensible call. Bigger isn’t always better — especially when it risks watering down the one tournament that should still feel special.
