FIFA President Gianni Infantino has confirmed the organization will examine a 64-team World Cup format, just as the next world cup game cycle kicks off with a record 48 teams in 2026. CNN and Fox News report the proposal is under active consideration.
The 2026 tournament, co-hosted by the US, Canada, and Mexico, is already the largest in history. Infantino now eyes an additional 16 teams. Critics argue this dilutes competition quality. Proponents see a growth opportunity for emerging soccer nations.
| Metric | Current (2026) | Proposed (64-Team) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Teams | 48 | 64 |
| Total Matches | 104 | 128 (estimated) |
| Format | 12 groups of 4 | 16 groups of 4 (likely) |
| Tournament Duration | ~32 days | ~38-40 days (projected) |
The US as a permanent host is a separate, radical track. The country already possesses world-class stadiums, robust transportation, and a proven track record from 1994 and the upcoming 2026 edition. A permanent US rotation would simplify FIFA’s planning and unlock the lucrative American market.
Logistical and economic feasibility favor the US. No other nation can currently match its existing infrastructure for a 64-team, month-long event. The counterargument is cultural loss. The “global rotation” tradition, which gives Africa, Asia, and Europe their turns, would effectively end.
Players face increased fatigue. A 64-team tournament with a US base would demand significant travel across time zones. Match congestion becomes a real risk. FIFA’s calendar is already bloated.
Fan reaction is mixed. Supporters of expansion cite the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where 32 teams delivered high drama. Detractors point to potential lopsided group-stage games. Brazil vs. a 64th-ranked debutant is not a compelling draw.
The next world cup game schedule hinges on these decisions. If approved, the shift from 48 to 64 teams would require FIFA to rewrite its competition regulations. The FIFA Council holds the final vote. No timeline has been set for a formal decision.
Infantino’s proposal signals a transformative era. The permanent US host idea, while speculative, removes the need for costly rotating bids. It also centralizes the sport’s biggest event in a single, predictable market.
For now, the 2026 World Cup remains the immediate focus. The 2030 edition is already slated for a six-nation bid across South America, Europe, and Africa. The 2034 tournament is expected to be awarded to Saudi Arabia. A permanent US host would disrupt this entire cycle.
💡 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- Q: What is the proposed 64-team World Cup format?
- A: FIFA is considering expanding the World Cup from 48 to 64 teams, which would increase total matches to an estimated 128 and extend the tournament duration to around 38-40 days.
- Q: Could the US become the permanent host of the World Cup?
- A: Yes, FIFA is exploring the US as a permanent host due to its world-class stadiums, transportation infrastructure, and proven track record from 1994 and the upcoming 2026 edition.
- Q: What are the main criticisms of a 64-team World Cup?
- A: Critics argue it would dilute competition quality, increase player fatigue from extensive travel and match congestion, and end the tradition of rotating the tournament among different continents.
Extended Reading
Ben Church, CNN. “Could the next World Cup have even more teams? FIFA is considering it.” WISN, July 13, 2026. Fox News/OutKick. “FIFA eyes World Cup format expansion from 48 to 64 teams: Should the US be the permanent host?”