This is the XL World Cup, much in the image of the main co-host, the United States, where everything is supersized—from food portions to the NFL stadiums where most of the matches have been played.
According to Fifa president Gianni Infantino, this World Cup is bigger and better than ever. Indeed, his expansionism will allow him to channel ever-more revenue to the 211 member associations and consolidate his power.
But the first 48-team tournament—played in three countries, another first—is simply too bloated. At every match, from Mexico City to Vancouver and from San Francisco to Boston, Fifa welcomes spectators to “The greatest show on Earth”. But the progress of that show has been slow and meandering. It took 72 matches to eliminate 16 teams from the group phase.
Yet, the stage offered some dramatic moments—like when Folarin Balogun, a player of Nigerian descent, scored a brace for the US in the opening match, when Morocco’s 18-year-old Ayyoub Bouaddi orchestrated the midfield against Brazil, and when Lionel Messi and Ousmane Dembélé scored hat-tricks against Algeria and Norway.
Every World Cup stages David-and-Goliath battles, too. In 2026, Cape Verde are playing David with aplomb. Alongside Iceland and Curaçao, the island nation ranks among the minnows of World Cup history. But manager Bubista, goalkeeper Vozinha and centre-back Pico have become household names, engineering Cape Verde’s progress from the group stage with three hard-fought draws, including holding mighty Spain in their opening match. However, that fairy tale has been somewhat tainted after accusations of rape against team captain Ryan Mendes.
Cape Verde is part of the story of Africa, the continent that has benefitted most from the tournament’s expansion, as nine of its 10 teams—double the number represented at previous World Cups—advanced to the knockout stages. The only disappointment was Tunisia, who dismissed their manager halfway and exited early with a goal difference of -10.
The North Africans belonged to a class of teams that perhaps had little business being at the World Cup. Scotland, Czech Republic, Türkiye, New Zealand, Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Curaçao, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Uzbekistan, Jordan and Panama, too, demonstrated large gaps in quality.
It brings us back to the point that Fifa’s World Cup expansion was always about generating revenue, with the 2023-26 cycle projected to bring in $13 billion. The sport’s global governing body can achieve its mission—to develop football around the world—without diluting the quality of its main tournament. After all, under Infantino, Fifa has already distributed more than $5 billion in development money.
But this isn’t all. The South American nations, spearheaded by regional confederation Conmebol’s boss Alejandro Domínguez, have been advocating for a 64-team World Cup in 2030 as a centenary celebration of the tournament, whose first edition was held in Uruguay in 1930. It’s perhaps a leverage to stage more group matches, but other confederations have opposed the idea.
Ghana manager Carlos Queiroz summed up the format controversy: “The number of teams that qualify for this competition can turn it into something vulgar and ordinary. When so many teams can qualify, is the value still rare? That would seem debatable to me, but it’s only my opinion.”
For now, the smaller nations will have to survive the round of 32 to back up their credentials. Meanwhile, Asian powerhouse Japan showcased their development under manager Hajime Moriyasu’s possession-based game.
The Moroccans benefited from both the diaspora and talent developed at home. They went up against five-time winners Brazil and three-time finalists Netherlands, who have industrialised talent development. Brazil resemble Carlo Ancelotti’s Real Madrid: disjointed but with flashes of genius that are often delivered by Vinícius Júnior. At a deeper level, they have fallen behind Europe.
However, Germany and England, previous winners from Europe, failed to impress in the group stage. Spain retain great quality, but need to reproduce the directness—provided by Lamine Yamal and Nico Williams on the wings—that propelled them to victory at Euro 2024.
Which leaves France, the 2018 winners, and Argentina, the defending champions. Neither have been perfect, but they don’t need to when Messi is playing with the vigour of a teenager or when Dembélé, Désiré Doué, Michael Olise and Kylian Mbappé are attacking relentlessly. Messi and Mbappé can exude their star power for a host nation that values celebrities and for a tournament whose cultural significance is dwindling.
Today, if the World Cup is in danger of relinquishing its status as football’s pinnacle event, the XL format is certainly to blame. Fifa has eviscerated the tournament’s great commodities: scarcity and risk. No longer does every single World Cup game hold global attention. Viewing is no longer compulsive.
Interest has been lacklustre in Europe. In Asia, the time difference with North America hasn’t helped. Previous generations marked the passing of time by World Cup matches. Everyone knew where they were when, say, Dennis Bergkamp equalised against Argentina with a stunningly elegant goal in the 1998 quarter-finals. Will Gen Z remember where they were on July 19 (early hours of July 20 in India) when a new world champion will be crowned?
Samindra Kunti | Football and investigative journalist based in Belgium
(Views are personal)