South America proposes 64-team 2030 World Cup

[Bigpokey24]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/arti ... jegenyx3vo

An official proposal to expand the men's 2030 World Cup to 64 teams has been put forward by South American governing body Conmebol.

The tournament will be hosted by Spain, Morocco and Portugal, after the opening matches are held in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.

The 2026 World Cup will be the first with 48 teams but Conmebol wants to expand further for 2030 to mark the competition's 100-year anniversary.

"This will allow all countries to have the opportunity to live the world experience and so nobody on the planet is left out of the party," said Conmebol president Alejandro Dominguez at the body's congress on Thursday.

"We are convinced that the centennial celebration will be unique because 100 years are celebrated only once."

The idea was first "spontaneously raised" at a Fifa Council meeting in March by Uruguayan Football Federation president Ignacio Alonso.

In a statement on Friday, Fifa said it had a "duty to analyse any proposal from one of its Council members".

Gianni Infantino, the president of Fifa, participated in Thursday's Conmebol Congress and highlighted the "exceptional milestone" the 2030 tournament would represent.

The decision to expand the 2026 World Cup to 48 teams was taken in 2017 following a unanimous vote at a Fifa congress.

Fifa's 75th congress will be held in Paraguay on 15 May, when Conmebol's proposal could be discussed.

Should the proposal eventually be accepted, the 2030 edition would include 128 matches - up from the 64-game format played between 1998 and 2022.

Critics of the expansion say it devalues the qualification process, while Environmental group Fossil Free Football said the decision to host the tournament across three continents was a "climate nightmare".

Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin described the proposal as a "bad idea" earlier this month.

"This proposal was maybe even more surprising for me than you. I think it is a bad idea," Ceferin said at a news conference.

The 2030 World Cup is being held across three continents for the first time.

Spain, Portugal and Morocco were named tournament hosts in 2024, with matches to be held in Argentina and Paraguay to mark the 100-year anniversary of the first World Cup tournament.

Uruguay - the inaugural winners of the competition in 1930 - have since been announced as co-hosts, with the country to host one game.

[joao]

If this continues, no need for qualifiers; just show up if you can afford to.
And every team that can make the trip gets a trophy of sorts - best jersey,
best dribblers, ...etc.

[ANC]

If this continues, no need for qualifiers; just show up if you can afford to.
And every team that can make the trip gets a trophy of sorts - best jersey,
best dribblers, ...etc.

lol

[vancity eagle]

If this continues, no need for qualifiers; just show up if you can afford to.
And every team that can make the trip gets a trophy of sorts - best jersey,
best dribblers, ...etc.

We may not even qualify for a 64 team World cup.

[vancity eagle]

If this continues, no need for qualifiers; just show up if you can afford to.
And every team that can make the trip gets a trophy of sorts - best jersey,
best dribblers, ...etc.

We may not even qualify for a 64 team World cup.

[delisyomie don]

If this continues, no need for qualifiers; just show up if you can afford to.
And every team that can make the trip gets a trophy of sorts - best jersey,
best dribblers, ...etc.

We may not even qualify for a 64 team World cup.

It's like you read my mind.

[Enugu II]

Personally, it makes little or no difference for me.

Here is the thing, the idea of having a final tournament where teams meet to play is ONLY necessary because there is just a huge number of teams that enter a competition and there are cost factors involved. If the cost factor is such that you can have a tournament of 64 teams or 100+ teams then go for it. To me, it is a question of affordability, in the main.

For me the best scenario is a DISPERSED WORLD CUP where each region provides a host and teams from each of the confederations and drawn to play in each of the dispersed zones with about six teams (Winners from each zone) converge at a center to determine the overall World Cup winner. This gives far more people the opportunity to watch a World Cup event involving teams from each confederation.

[delisyomie don]

Our football or admin is terrible, really gone down the drain. When it was a 3-team qualification from Africa, we were there, even in 5 teams we do manage, now that is 9 to 10 teams. We were no longer sure of making it. We are waiting for a miracle to happen.

[Enugu II]

Our football or admin is terrible, really gone down the drain. When it was a 3-team qualification from Africa, we were there, even in 5 teams we do manage, now that is 9 to 10 teams. We were no longer sure of making it. We are waiting for a miracle to happen.

Kai!!!!!!

[Orion]

Our football or admin is terrible, really gone down the drain. When it was a 3-team qualification from Africa, we were there, even in 5 teams we do manage, now that is 9 to 10 teams. We were no longer sure of making it. We are waiting for a miracle to happen.

Kai!!!!!!

That's the reason why even a 64-team WC would not bring any assurance of qualification. The players are not even trying at this point.

[bushboy]

Personally, it makes little or no difference for me.

Here is the thing, the idea of having a final tournament where teams meet to play is ONLY necessary because there is just a huge number of teams that enter a competition and there are cost factors involved. If the cost factor is such that you can have a tournament of 64 teams or 100+ teams then go for it. To me, it is a question of affordability, in the main.

For me the best scenario is a DISPERSED WORLD CUP where each region provides a host and teams from each of the confederations and drawn to play in each of the dispersed zones with about six teams (Winners from each zone) converge at a center to determine the overall World Cup winner. This gives far more people the opportunity to watch a World Cup event involving teams from each confederation.

We have that already. It's called WC qualifying.

[Enugu II]

Personally, it makes little or no difference for me.

Here is the thing, the idea of having a final tournament where teams meet to play is ONLY necessary because there is just a huge number of teams that enter a competition and there are cost factors involved. If the cost factor is such that you can have a tournament of 64 teams or 100+ teams then go for it. To me, it is a question of affordability, in the main.

For me the best scenario is a DISPERSED WORLD CUP where each region provides a host and teams from each of the confederations and drawn to play in each of the dispersed zones with about six teams (Winners from each zone) converge at a center to determine the overall World Cup winner. This gives far more people the opportunity to watch a World Cup event involving teams from each confederation.

We have that already. It's called WC qualifying.

Yep but world cup qualifying is only necessitated by costs. If costs can bear a larger group in the finals, then that ought to be the way to go. Each country deserves to enjoy the trappings if costs make that possible.

[bret- hart]

I miss Sepp Blatter.

[The YeyeMan]

Personally, it makes little or no difference for me.

Here is the thing, the idea of having a final tournament where teams meet to play is ONLY necessary because there is just a huge number of teams that enter a competition and there are cost factors involved. If the cost factor is such that you can have a tournament of 64 teams or 100+ teams then go for it. To me, it is a question of affordability, in the main.

For me the best scenario is a DISPERSED WORLD CUP where each region provides a host and teams from each of the confederations and drawn to play in each of the dispersed zones with about six teams (Winners from each zone) converge at a center to determine the overall World Cup winner. This gives far more people the opportunity to watch a World Cup event involving teams from each confederation.

The World Cup isn’t just a solution to a logistical problem like too many teams or budget constraints. It’s a global event because it brings the best together in one place, at one time. That intensity, that drama comes from everything being concentrated. You lose that if you start spreading it out too much.

Expanding to 64 or 100+ teams sounds inclusive but will lower the quality. You end up with a bloated tournament where mismatches are more common and group stages (if they even exist) feel like a drag. Just because something is affordable doesn’t mean it’s good or worth doing.

A huge part of the appeal is having fans, media, and teams all in one place feeding off the same energy. As someone who has been to five World Cup events I can tell you there's nothing better than the feeling of sharing a unique event in a single place.

Bigger isn’t always better - sometimes it’s just bigger.

[The YeyeMan]

Personally, it makes little or no difference for me.

Here is the thing, the idea of having a final tournament where teams meet to play is ONLY necessary because there is just a huge number of teams that enter a competition and there are cost factors involved. If the cost factor is such that you can have a tournament of 64 teams or 100+ teams then go for it. To me, it is a question of affordability, in the main.

For me the best scenario is a DISPERSED WORLD CUP where each region provides a host and teams from each of the confederations and drawn to play in each of the dispersed zones with about six teams (Winners from each zone) converge at a center to determine the overall World Cup winner. This gives far more people the opportunity to watch a World Cup event involving teams from each confederation.

We have that already. It's called WC qualifying.

Yep but world cup qualifying is only necessitated by costs. If costs can bear a larger group in the finals, then that ought to be the way to go. Each country deserves to enjoy the trappings if costs make that possible.

No. You deserve the trappings if your team is good enough; not if it's affordable. This is competitive sport, not a free for all.

I suppose the NFF should stop naming squads too. Just allow as many Nigerians to show up for 'open camp' if the costs allow it.

[Enugu II]

Personally, it makes little or no difference for me.

Here is the thing, the idea of having a final tournament where teams meet to play is ONLY necessary because there is just a huge number of teams that enter a competition and there are cost factors involved. If the cost factor is such that you can have a tournament of 64 teams or 100+ teams then go for it. To me, it is a question of affordability, in the main.

For me the best scenario is a DISPERSED WORLD CUP where each region provides a host and teams from each of the confederations and drawn to play in each of the dispersed zones with about six teams (Winners from each zone) converge at a center to determine the overall World Cup winner. This gives far more people the opportunity to watch a World Cup event involving teams from each confederation.

We have that already. It's called WC qualifying.

Yep but world cup qualifying is only necessitated by costs. If costs can bear a larger group in the finals, then that ought to be the way to go. Each country deserves to enjoy the trappings if costs make that possible.

No. You deserve the trappings if your team is good enough; not if it's affordable. This is competitive sport, not a free for all.

I suppose the NFF should stop naming squads too. Just allow as many Nigerians to show up for 'open camp' if the costs allow it.

Are you writing about the finals or competing in the World Cup? Currently, almost every nation competes in the World Cup. However, the finals is limited because of the points that I noted. Overtime, as finances improved, more teams have been admitted to the finals. I anticipate that shall continue. The dispersed finals used recently by the Euros is a blueprint for the future. I have absolutely little doubt about that. The only doubts lie with finances at the moment but that will be increasingly overcome.

Let me peedict: if South America pushes through the 64 team event, FiFa shall find it difficult to go to a lower number afterwards. Bet on it.

[The YeyeMan]

Personally, it makes little or no difference for me.

Here is the thing, the idea of having a final tournament where teams meet to play is ONLY necessary because there is just a huge number of teams that enter a competition and there are cost factors involved. If the cost factor is such that you can have a tournament of 64 teams or 100+ teams then go for it. To me, it is a question of affordability, in the main.

For me the best scenario is a DISPERSED WORLD CUP where each region provides a host and teams from each of the confederations and drawn to play in each of the dispersed zones with about six teams (Winners from each zone) converge at a center to determine the overall World Cup winner. This gives far more people the opportunity to watch a World Cup event involving teams from each confederation.

We have that already. It's called WC qualifying.

Yep but world cup qualifying is only necessitated by costs. If costs can bear a larger group in the finals, then that ought to be the way to go. Each country deserves to enjoy the trappings if costs make that possible.

No. You deserve the trappings if your team is good enough; not if it's affordable. This is competitive sport, not a free for all.

I suppose the NFF should stop naming squads too. Just allow as many Nigerians to show up for 'open camp' if the costs allow it.

Are you writing about the finals or competing in the World Cup? Currently, almost every nation competes in the World Cup. However, the finals is limited because of the points that I noted. Overtime, as finances improved, more teams have been admitted to the finals. I anticipate that shall continue. The dispersed finals used recently by the Euros is a blueprint for the future. I have absolutely little doubt about that. The only doubts lie with finances at the moment but that will be increasingly overcome.

Let me peedict: if South America pushes through the 64 team event, FiFa shall find it difficult to go to a lower number afterwards. Bet on it.

The Euros' multi-country setup in 2020 was planned to celebrate the tournament’s 60th anniversary. It wasn't a blueprint - Euro 2024 was held in a single country.

Expanding to 64+ teams isn't just about money or fairness or logistics; it's about time. The World Cup can't stretch forever. Players need rest, clubs need their stars back, and fans can only follow so much. A bloated tournament either drags on too long or packs too much into a tight window - and with players pushing back over the amount of football they have to play I don't see greater expansion on the cards. Something has to give.

Sure, expansion may be financially inevitable — FIFA rarely says no to more — but that doesn’t make it better as I said in my earlier post.

[Bigpokey24]

I think it will eventually get to 64 teams. It is all about money. I don't mind it, however I won't sit down and watch newzeland vs san marino Africa should get an additional 4 to 5 spots. I most definitely want a league format for CAF alas south America. 16 teams in a group top 7 or 8 qualifies. CAF teams will only get stronger

[Enugu II]

Personally, it makes little or no difference for me.

Here is the thing, the idea of having a final tournament where teams meet to play is ONLY necessary because there is just a huge number of teams that enter a competition and there are cost factors involved. If the cost factor is such that you can have a tournament of 64 teams or 100+ teams then go for it. To me, it is a question of affordability, in the main.

For me the best scenario is a DISPERSED WORLD CUP where each region provides a host and teams from each of the confederations and drawn to play in each of the dispersed zones with about six teams (Winners from each zone) converge at a center to determine the overall World Cup winner. This gives far more people the opportunity to watch a World Cup event involving teams from each confederation.

We have that already. It's called WC qualifying.

Yep but world cup qualifying is only necessitated by costs. If costs can bear a larger group in the finals, then that ought to be the way to go. Each country deserves to enjoy the trappings if costs make that possible.

No. You deserve the trappings if your team is good enough; not if it's affordable. This is competitive sport, not a free for all.

I suppose the NFF should stop naming squads too. Just allow as many Nigerians to show up for 'open camp' if the costs allow it.

Are you writing about the finals or competing in the World Cup? Currently, almost every nation competes in the World Cup. However, the finals is limited because of the points that I noted. Overtime, as finances improved, more teams have been admitted to the finals. I anticipate that shall continue. The dispersed finals used recently by the Euros is a blueprint for the future. I have absolutely little doubt about that. The only doubts lie with finances at the moment but that will be increasingly overcome.

Let me peedict: if South America pushes through the 64 team event, FiFa shall find it difficult to go to a lower number afterwards. Bet on it.

The Euros' multi-country setup in 2020 was planned to celebrate the tournament’s 60th anniversary. It wasn't a blueprint - Euro 2024 was held in a single country.

Expanding to 64+ teams isn't just about money or fairness or logistics; it's about time. The World Cup can't stretch forever. Players need rest, clubs need their stars back, and fans can only follow so much. A bloated tournament either drags on too long or packs too much into a tight window - and with players pushing back over the amount of football they have to play I don't see greater expansion on the cards. Something has to give.

Sure, expansion may be financially inevitable — FIFA rarely says no to more — but that doesn’t make it better as I said in my earlier post.

Time is definitely an issue that cannot be ignored and will be a controversial one as the tournament expands. It might be what will create a balance of how far the WC would expand. However, at the moment, expansion should be expected until the time issue becomes a critical one to checkmate expansion. One thing is clear is that the tournament shall at least be 64 teams or more if the South American proposal goes through. My feeling is that a dispersed WC that involves, for instance, an African country playing against CONCACAF, UEFA etc instead of playing against other African teams at an early stage will be the way to go in the near future if the funds are available and schedule can accommodate the time issue that you raise. We are far from that optimum or a limit at this time.

[donadoni]

Maybe they need to have the Europa conference league version of the World Cup - so teams who end up 4th and 5th in their qualifying group can say they went to a World Cup

[akamoke]

The question is, with this proposed format, will Nigeria still qualify

On a serious note, its not such a bad one time idea for the centenary celebrations