How big should a World Cup be?

When the USA, Canada and Mexico jointly organised the football World Cup in the summer of 2026, it was not only the first tournament with three host countries, but also the beginning of a new era for the most popular sport in the world. The number of participants had been increased from 32 to 48 teams, whereby the number of matches rose from 64 to 104, and the tournament lasted almost six weeks. The matches were spread across 16 cities, of which eleven are in the USA, three in Mexico and two in Canada, with the distances between the most distant stadiums exceeding 4,000 kilometres. The opening match was played at the legendary Estadio Azteca in Mexico City, which thus became the first stadium in history in which matches from three World Cups had been played.

In order to reduce the enormous distances, FIFA divided the group matches by region, so that teams and fans did not have to cross the continent constantly in the first phase. Nevertheless, the players had to cope with several time zones and, in some locations, with summer heat which, according to warnings from health experts, poses a serious risk to athletes at temperatures above 30 degrees. Although several stadiums have a roof that can be closed, in the open arenas players and spectators were exposed to the heat almost without any protection.

At least in terms of infrastructure, the organisers could rely on already existing facilities. Because almost all stadiums already existed, it was not necessary to build new arenas, as had been the case in Qatar or in Brazil. Many of the arenas, however, were built for American football, so natural grass had to be laid for the tournament.

The pricing policy of FIFA caused far greater discontent. The organisation used so-called dynamic pricing for the first time, in which the ticket price changes depending on demand. Thus, for the most attractive matches, especially in the final stage, some tickets reached prices of several thousand dollars, which many saw as the exclusion of ordinary fans. Defenders of the model, on the other hand, argue that in this way at least part of the revenue does not end up with black-market resellers.

However, the fiercest disputes were not about the infrastructure, but about the format itself, on which FIFA had decided back in 2017. All 48 teams were divided into twelve groups of four, with not only the top two of each group but also the eight best third-placed teams advancing to the newly created round of the last 32. Supporters of the reform argue that the expansion has given football federations from Africa, Asia and Oceania, which were often under-represented at previous tournaments, a real chance of taking part. Critics, on the other hand, warned even before the tournament that the group stage could lose some of its tension, because even third place in the group would often be enough to go through. In addition, a team that reaches the final now has to play eight instead of seven matches, which further burdens the already overcrowded calendar of top players.

For FIFA, whose revenue depends heavily on television rights and on sponsorship deals, the expansion is above all a lucrative business, as every additional match means additional income too. At the same time, the clubs and leagues, which pay the players' salaries, are watching with concern how international tournaments take up an ever larger part of the season. The next World Cup, in 2030, will stretch across as many as six countries on three continents, although most matches will be played in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. Whether football really needs such a big tournament, or whether its appeal could suffer in the long term precisely because of this gigantism, only the coming years will show.