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

With the World Cup coming to an end, we look back at the new 48-team format which made its debut in this edition. There were a lot of speculations before the tournament around the increased matches, an additional Round of 32 and whether it would lead to more one-sided encounters.

Below we take a look at what worked and what didn’t and deliver our verdict on the extended format – 

Pros:

Increased Representation and financial success

The extended 48-team format saw many new teams debuting at the World Cup stage. This increased the representation from lesser-known countries like locations like Cabo Verde and Curaçao and countries like Jordan and Uzbekistan who had failed to qualify earlier with the 32-team format. European countries like Norway and Scotland that hadn’t qualified for 28 years due to a challenging qualification process in Europe could also fulfill their World Cup participation dream, thereby bringing their incredible fanbases to the World Cup. This led to increased popularity of the sport worldwide. 

The increased participation also has positive financial implications for the tournament hosts as more teams led to more games. Consequently, more earnings from match tickets, bigger TV broadcasting deals, higher sponsorship revenues and large earnings from tourism as well.

Major upsets and stunning results

The increased participation also witnessed some beautiful underdog stories with the smaller nations competing and challenging the continental heavyweights. The prime example of those surprises were Cabo Verde’s draws against Spain and Uruguay and reaching the knockout stage. DR Congo holding Portugal to a draw, Iran drawing against Belgium and Australia defeating Turkey in the group stages. Additionally, the knockouts saw two more big upsets in Norway defeating Brazil and Paraguay defeating Germany.  

The format gave the smaller nations a chance to participate against the best teams and players on the planet and also provided them the exposure to pressure of big games at the biggest stages. This will definitely benefit them in the long run, knowing what all improvements they need to make in order to compete at the top level consistently. Playing against one’s idols is also a lifelong dream for some players and with global superstars like Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Mohamed Salah, Harry Kane and Kevin de Bruyne must have been a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for some of those players from the teams making their debut on the big stage. 

Cons:

Less to no jeopardy in the final group stage game

One massive issue seen at this World Cup was the qualification for the Round of 32. With top two teams participating from each of the 12 groups and eight best-positioned third-placed team to secure qualification to make 32 participants, there wasn’t much jeopardy for qualification, especially the final group game. 

For context, if we looked at two specific groups, Group F which had Netherlands, Japan, Sweden and Tunisia. Netherlands topped the group 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 was enough to help them both qualify, hence hardly any jeopardy for either to ensure knockout qualification. 

Similarly, for Group D, both Australia and Paraguay were on three points, going into the last group game. Both knew that four points would have been enough to take them through as one of the third-place qualifying slots. The match ended in a 0-0 draw. As a result, both teams qualified for the Round of 32 without any real jeopardy going into the last group game. 

The format with 48 teams led to this issue and there are further speculations that FIFA is thinking of a 64-team format going forward where two teams can qualify from each group and this problem would be resolved. 

Potential Dead Rubbers in the Group Stage

Due to the eight third place qualifying spots, there were some great fixtures that actually ended in a dead-rubber since the top two teams had already qualified before the final group game. Several examples of this can be quoted here – France vs Norway (Group I), and Portugal vs Columbia (Group K). By the time, the final group game arrived, these teams had more or less ensured qualification and what was earlier seen as the most anticipated group stage fixtures became an encounter without any real consequence. 

Again, lack of jeopardy led to these situations. If the 48-team format was confirmed, this particular scenario should have been envisioned and the big games should have been scheduled first instead of last to keep the excitement alive. 

Teams could play for favourable fixtures

Since all final group stage games couldn’t be played simultaneously, the teams playing later had an unfair advantage. The fixtures for the third-placed teams were determined by which groups provided the qualifiers. If two teams played early, they didn’t know who they were going to play in the knockouts but for teams playing later, they had a clear idea of who they could get in the Round of 32. 

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 now, who will the third-placed team in Group J play? They could either play the Group L winners which was England or Group B table-toppers Switzerland. 

Since the fixture between Austria and Algeria was scheduled later, they knew their possible opponents. Hence, the scenario was clear for them where finishing third was more favourable than ending in second place. 

Final Verdict:

We understand that it’s great to have a larger representation at the World Cup and also maintain financial viability but it’s also important to ensure that the tournament remains competitive. Not saying that it was a boring World Cup campaign as we witnessed a couple of incredible underdog stories with the likes of Cabo Verde, Paraguay and possibly Norway causing some massive upsets, many of the group stage and knockout encounters were rather predictable. 

Also, with a 48-team extended format, there were too many group stage games scheduled on a single day which made it impossible for spectators to watch most games, they had to pick and choose. Due to more than 100+ games, it has felt like a long tournament with interest waning midway due to too many matches, and seemed more financially-driven. 

Despite having a few major upsets, the quality was also impacted as the smaller teams played a more defensive style of 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 it gave an opportunity to the lesser-known nations to participate in the global spectacle, we believe the 32-team format was superior. Compared to the 2026 edition, the 2022 FIFA World Cup had more exciting group stage encounters and even the knockouts were highly entertaining. 

With speculations arising that FIFA may propose a 64-team format for the upcoming edition, it could reduce a few of the problems with the current format but it may come with its own set of issues related to logistics, scheduling, a longer tournament which could impact league football and reduced quality with much lower-ranked teams playing one-sided encounters against continental heavyweights. 

With the World Cup about to conclude on 20th July, we would hope FIFA could return to the 32-team format as we believe only the best and most deserving teams on the planet should compete on the grandest stage as it happens in other sports. Football is the most popular sports in the world and should be treated as such. Instead of expanding the format of the tournament with more teams, FIFA should prioritize developing football in lower-ranked nations, enabling them to raise their standard. 

If FIFA shifts its focus from maximizing financial gain to improving the overall standard of football, the sport would become more competitive and unpredictable right from the qualification stages to the main tournament. This would lead to a more exciting World Cup, where a wider range of nations may have a genuine chance of success instead of the same historically dominant teams winning every four years. Consequently, football will see a 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, we hope FIFA returns to the previous 32-team format and rather than extending the format, focuses on the necessary steps to promote the beautiful game to places far and wide.