FIFA World Cup 2026: Verdict on the extended 48-team format

With the 2026 FIFA World Cup coming to an end, here we look back at the new 48-team format that made its debut in this edition.

There was a lot of speculation before the tournament began regarding the increased number of matches, an additional round of 32, and whether it would lead to more one-sided encounters.

Here, we take a look at what worked and what didn’t, and deliver our verdict on the extended FIFA World Cup format.

Pros

Increased representation and financial success

The extended 48-team format saw many new teams debut at the World Cup stage, bringing representation from lesser-known countries such as Cabo Verde, Curaçao, Jordan, and Uzbekistan from around the world.

Even European countries like Norway and Scotland, who hadn’t qualified for the tournament in decades due to a challenging qualification process in Europe, got to fulfil their World Cup participation dreams and bring their incredible fan bases to the World Cup. This led to increased popularity of the sport worldwide, with casual fans taking a particular liking to star Norwegian forward Erling Haaland.

The increased participation also resulted in positive financial implications for the tournament hosts, as more teams led to more games, thereby resulting in more earnings from match tickets, bigger TV broadcasting deals, higher sponsorship revenues, and a massive tourism boost.

Major upsets and stunning results

The increased participation also witnessed some beautiful underdog stories as the smaller nations took the fight to the heavyweights. The prime examples of those surprises were Cabo Verde’s draws against Spain and Uruguay to reach the knockout stage, the DR Congo holding Portugal to a draw, Iran drawing against Belgium, and Australia defeating Türkiye in the group stage. Additionally, the knockouts saw two more big upsets as Norway beat Brazil and Paraguay defeated Germany.

The format gave the smaller nations a chance to participate against the best teams and players on the planet, providing them with exposure to the pressure of big games at the biggest stage. This will definitely benefit them in the long run, giving them an idea of what improvements they need to make in order to compete at the top level consistently.

Playing against one’s idols is a lifelong dream for most players, and facing global superstars like Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Mohamed Salah, Harry Kane, and Kevin De Bruyne fulfilled a once-in-a-lifetime dream for several players, many of them making their debut on the big stage.

Cons

Less to no jeopardy in the final group stage games

One massive issue seen at this World Cup was qualification for the Round of 32. With the top two teams going through from each of the 12 groups alongside the eight best-positioned third-placed teams, there wasn’t much jeopardy surrounding qualification, especially going into the final group games.

For context, let’s look at two specific groups. While the Netherlands topped Group F with two wins and a draw, Japan had one win and a draw going into the final group game against Sweden, who had a win and a loss. Both teams knew a draw would be enough to see them both qualify.

Similarly, in Group D, both Australia and Paraguay were on three points going into the last group game, knowing that four points would be enough to take them both through even if either side had to rely on third-place qualification. Their match ended 0–0, with both making the last 32.

Expanding the tournament to 48 teams while keeping a four-team-per-group first round necessitated third-place qualification, leading to this issue. With speculation regarding FIFA thinking of expanding the tournament further to 64 teams already gathering pace, at least that would solve this issue.

Several dead rubbers in the group stage

Third-place qualification not only led to less jeopardy, but also more dead rubbers. Some examples of this are the France–Norway game in Group I and the Portugal–Colombia affair in Group K. By the time the final group game arrived, these teams had already ensured qualification, and what was earlier seen as some of the most anticipated group stage fixtures became encounters without any real consequence.

When the 48-team format was confirmed, this particular scenario should have been taken into account, and the big games should have been scheduled in a way that would see some of these dead rubbers avoided.

Teams could play for favourable fixtures

Each group’s final two games were played simultaneously to avoid a Disgrace of Gijón situation, but some groups were concluded before the others. This meant that teams playing their final group stage games later on had the benefit of knowing which teams they could face in the Round of 32, thereby having the chance to virtually pick a weaker-on-paper opposition.

For example, the runners-up in Group J were to play the winners of Group H. Spain were the table-toppers in Group H, so going into their final Group J game, both Austria and Algeria knew that a third-place finish would hand them a more favourable tie against Group B-topping Switzerland.

Verdict

One understands the need for larger representation at the World Cup and maintaining financial viability, but it’s also important to ensure that the tournament remains competitive. That’s not to say that this was a boring World Cup campaign, as we witnessed some incredible underdog stories, with the likes of Cabo Verde, Paraguay, and arguably even Norway causing upsets, but one can’t deny that many of the group stage and even knockout encounters were rather predictable.

Also, with a 48-team format, there were too many group stage games scheduled on a single day, which made it near-impossible for spectators to watch most games; they had to pick and choose. With over 100 games played, this felt like a long tournament where interest waned midway due to the sheer number of matches on offer, and that seemed driven by reasons more financial than sporting.

Despite having a few major upsets, the overall quality was also impacted, as the smaller teams opted for defence-first football and played more to survive than to win. This set the tone for the knockouts, with most games panning out the same way: either ending in low-scoring, cagey encounters or leading to extra time and penalties.

Although this World Cup provided a platform for more lesser-known nations to participate in the global spectacle, I believe the 32-team format was superior. Compared to the 2026 edition, the 2022 World Cup had more exciting group stage encounters, and even the knockouts were significantly more entertaining.

Given the increased speculation regarding FIFA looking to propose a 64-team format for the upcoming edition, such expansion could actually reduce a few of the problems with the current format, but it will come with its own issues related to logistics and scheduling, impacting club football and leading to more cases of lower-ranked teams playing one-sided encounters against the heavyweights.

I hope FIFA considers returning to the 32-team format, as only the best and most deserving teams on the planet should compete on the grandest stage, as happens in other sports. Football is the most popular sport in the world and should be treated as such. Instead of expanding the format of the tournament to accommodate more teams, FIFA should prioritise developing football in lower-ranked nations, enabling them to raise their standards.

If FIFA shifts its focus from maximising financial gain to improving the overall standard of football, in time the sport will become more competitive and unpredictable right from the qualification stages. That in turn will lead to more exciting World Cup finals, with more teams having a genuine chance of success instead of the same historically dominant teams winning every four years. Consequently, football will see rapid growth in those countries, as there’s no better way to promote a sport than achieving success.

Hence, for the greater good of the game, FIFA should return to the previous 32-team format instead of sticking with the new one or expanding it further, while also taking the necessary steps to promote the beautiful game to places far and wide.