Gianni Infantino has revived the idea of a 64-team World Cup. Had this radical change been implemented as early as 2026, sixteen new nations would have joined the tournament under a completely overhauled format.
The idea still seemed little more than a provocation a few months ago. However, Gianni Infantino has confirmed that FIFA will indeed be examining, in the coming weeks, the possibility of a World Cup featuring 64 teams. Whilst the 2026 tournament already marks a historic shift with the expansion from 32 to 48 participants, the FIFA president believes that the momentum gained must not be allowed to stop. In his argument, the Swiss leader advocates a global vision for the competition, explaining that every football association must retain the hope of one day reaching the finals. In his view, the rise of many nations from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean demonstrates that the gap between teams at international level is continuing to narrow, and that football can no longer be viewed solely through the prism of the major European and South American powers. This stance is in line with the strategy he has pursued since taking the helm at FIFA, which has involved expanding competitions, increasing the revenue redistributed to football associations and a clear commitment to opening the doors to major tournaments more widely.
Despite the widespread criticism voiced ahead of the tournament, the 2026 World Cup produced several inspiring stories, with Cape Verde, Curaçao, Jordan and Uzbekistan all making their debut appearances, whilst several African teams confirmed their progress by reaching the round of 16. Gianni Infantino is drawing precisely on these examples to argue in favour of a further change to the format. If a 64-team World Cup were to be introduced, it would also significantly simplify the tournament’s structure. The competition would be organised into sixteen groups of four teams – four more groups than the format adopted for 2026. The top two teams from each group would progress directly to the round of 16, resulting in a final draw of 32 teams. FIFA would thus abandon the ‘best third-placed teams’ system, which has regularly been criticised for its complexity and the tactical manoeuvring it can encourage on the final day of the group stage. The competition would thus return to a more straightforward and easier-to-follow format for the general public, although such a change would further extend the schedule and inevitably raise new questions regarding the physical strain on players, the necessary infrastructure and the overall balance of the tournament.
An edition featuring Tahiti and New Caledonia?
If FIFA had adopted this formula as early as the 2026 World Cup, it would have had to carry out a thorough review of the allocation of quotas to each confederation. This projection is based on a principle of proportionality in relation to the quota allocation already adopted by FIFA for the 48-team format. The additional places should be allocated by prioritising those confederations that already have the largest number of representatives, whilst offering a significant increase to rapidly developing continents such as Africa, Asia and Oceania. The nations selected are the best teams that failed to qualify at the end of the 2026 World Cup qualifiers. This is, of course, merely a projection exercise, based on known qualifying results and on a hypothetical expansion to 64 teams, which has not, to date, been the subject of any decision by FIFA.
Under this arrangement, Europe’s representation would have increased from sixteen to twenty, Africa’s from ten to fourteen, Asia’s from nine to twelve, CONCACAF’s from six to eight, and CONMEBOL’s from six to seven, whilst Oceania would have secured three places. Europe would have welcomed back Italy, absent for the third consecutive World Cup despite its status as a former world champion, as well as Kosovo, Denmark and Poland. Africa would have sent Nigeria, Cameroon, Burkina Faso and Gabon. Asia would have been represented by the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Indonesia, in addition to the nine teams that had initially qualified. In the CONCACAF zone, Suriname and Jamaica would have secured their places. In South America, Bolivia would have returned to the World Cup finals. And finally, Oceania would have added Tahiti and New Caledonia to its contingent thanks to a significantly strengthened representation. The final line-up would thus have brought together 64 nations spread across all six confederations.
To put it more clearly, CONMEBOL would have fielded Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia. Europe is said to have fielded Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech Republic, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Italy, Kosovo, Denmark and Poland. Africa would have included Algeria, Cape Verde, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, Morocco, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon and Burkina Faso. Asia would have been represented by Australia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Uzbekistan, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Indonesia. CONCACAF would have included Canada, Curaçao, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, the United States, Suriname and Jamaica. Oceania would have sent New Zealand, Tahiti and New Caledonia. A hypothetical picture that would perfectly illustrate the philosophy championed by Gianni Infantino, with a World Cup even more open to emerging nations.
2026 World Cup: English criticism of Lionel Messi causes a scandal in Argentina
Ahead of the 2026 World Cup semi-final between Argentina and England, Joe Cole took a dig at Lionel Messi that did not go unnoticed. His comments were widely reported by the Argentine media, which spurred on the Albiceleste.
With just a few days to go before the semi-final between Argentina and England, Joe Cole has decided to kick off the hostilities. “Is this the first time Messi is going to face England? Well, we’re going to send him to bed. Yes, 100 per cent. I’m saying it now: England will reach the final. We’ve far too much pace for Argentina’s strengths and we’re going to beat them.” A comment that immediately sparked a reaction across the Argentine press and set the place alight with just two days to go before the clash.
Indeed, the Argentine media have widely reported this comment. Several outlets have described it as “provocative”. MDZ Online believes that Joe Cole has “stirred things up ahead of the match” and already reckons that this little remark will force Lionel Messi, the tournament’s joint-top scorer, to respond on the pitch. Many media outlets have picked up on this statement and believe it could well serve as extra motivation for the world champions. “Depending on the result of the semi-final, this remark could well become one of the most memorable – or most ridiculous – statements of the tournament,” adds Clarín.
The Argentine press comes to Messi’s defence
“Cole’s scathing remarks about Leo are surprising, given that he has repeatedly showered him with public praise and even ranked him well above Cristiano Ronaldo,” TyC Sports even quipped, whilst other comments from England were also targeted, particularly regarding the form of centre-backs Cristian Romero and Lisandro Martínez. And on social media, many Argentine fans are even thanking the British commentators for providing the perfect pep talk for Lionel Scaloni’s dressing room.
“The rivalry between Argentina and England is thus enriched by a new chapter. The answer, as is often the case in this sort of match, will be found on the pitch. There, Messi will attempt to demonstrate once again why he remains the man everyone wants to stop and whom almost no one can silence,” adds TN. With just a few days to go before the clash in Atlanta, Joe Cole may well have already given Lionel Messi and his team-mates yet another reason to approach this semi-final with extra motivation.
