⚽ FIFA World Cup 2030: Morocco, Portugal, Spain, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay ⚽

[changaa]

New countries that you say will have opportunity to participate can do it already now. All they need to do is to perform better and win games in their qualifications. World Cup suppose to be a final tournament for those who are strongest. Not strongest + several countries that lost their qualifications but still managed to be in the tournament. Instead of showing best performance, countries will play with idea "it is enough to finish third or fourth in overall ranking, anyway we will get a place in World Cup because now more countries qualify".

"More teams means more matches, more broadcasts, more sponsorships, more ticket sales and overall more revenue" + more chances of getting injured. Top players might have increased chances to get injured and skip rest of tournament. Why not allow every country to participate? After all it is called World Cup so whole world must qualify. It will be even more revenue/sales/sponsors.

I hope it doesn't end up like this and that FIFA stops having to constantly change these game modes.

They have always been like this, for many years, i really don't see the need to change this system, which has always worked and given prestige to the tournament itself. Increasing the number of teams would significantly diminish the impact of the World Cup itself.

[Cossyblack]

You have captured their true purpose. More teams means more matches, more broadcasts, more sponsorships, more ticket sales and overall more revenue. The entertainment that football provides and the brotherhood it creates is no longer there. The current World Cup has moved away from its original purpose. As a result, the exclusivity and quality of competition of the World Cup is decreasing due to so many teams. And this is not a fear but a reality. The positive aspect I see here is that new countries have an opportunity to participate. But they could have done it differently. Besides, some of their critics say that it would not be right to completely close this opportunity just to increase FIFA's income, to implement this plan. However, FIFA should maintain a balance between commercial profit and the quality of the game and work towards improving the quality of entertainment, the quality of the game and the quality of football and give more importance to this aspect.

I'm wondering what kind of money that FIFA is looking for that they haven't made before that would warrant them to increase the number of teams to 64. The world cup is for teams that has made it through the qualifiers so increasing the numbers is not the best way to increase revenue rather it will make the competition look boring and alot people may probably not find it interesting anymore. I think FIFA should look for a better alternative to generate revenues because this Idea won't be good for the competition. They should be no need of increase the number of participates just because of revenue.

[aipercoin]

Yes 64 teams seems to be brutal. This World Cup felt like it was going on forever. However, besides making more money for the FIFA, I think that giving some more teams the chance to participate is not a bad thing per se. It shouldn't be all about luck where a person is born and I expected a much worse World Cup. I think it is clear that they still won't have a chance to win that title, but giving them an international stage and visibility can help foster football in those countries, too.

And as I said before, I think the quality of the matches was higher than I expected. But the question is whether it is interesting at all for most people to see some of the lower quality teams to fight for a draw.

Obviously having more teams participate is not a bad thing, but at the same time it loses all that part of meritocracy that makes that tournament different. It's a bit like if all the teams, even conference teams, came to play in the Champions League, it's clear that it would make the tournament more boring, less competitive and also less interesting to watch.

[martinom]

I've been seeing rumors in a few places today suggesting that David Beckham could become the next FIFA president. While that would make sense in terms of his global status, I wonder if he could actually handle managing Inter Miami and running FIFA at the same time.

We definitely need a real former player, preferably a true legend of the game, to lead FIFA moving forward. I guess we just have to wait and see who gets the position, especially since that leadership decision will impact whether they expand the World Cup to 64 teams in the future.

Personally I really hope they leave the format alone and do not expand it any further or preferably reverse back to 32 teams. I'm not a fan of the best third placed teams advancing and seven games to win the trophy is more than enough. The players already reach the finals extremely tired with the current format!

I don't know if Beckham is the best suited to fill the role of president of FIFA, as he already owns and owns an American football club. The fact remains that certainly, being a footballer, he has a different vision of football than Infantino or Chepherin, who for me are only serving their interests and damaging football.

[verdinio]

That way of seeing it is good; I wish it were like that. That's how I see my country in a World Cup, and there isn't so much suffering. But there are those who believe that things should be won by fighting and participating. For many, it's inconceivable that things are like that, but if we stick to your words that the World Cup encompasses the world, then it's fine, and the negotiations, the businesses in the countries involved grow, the injuries and everything that comes up, that's already something normal in sports.

If Italy didn't deserve to go to the World Cup, it's because they didn't know how to transform their team into a competitive team. Consequently he doesn't deserve to go to the World Cup. As well as many other teams that did not participate. The World Cup, i repeat, is a prestigious tournament where only the best teams can access it. Even if you are one of the teams that has won the most World Cups and from which much more is expected.

[Gost ms]

You have captured their true purpose. More teams means more matches, more broadcasts, more sponsorships, more ticket sales and overall more revenue. The entertainment that football provides and the brotherhood it creates is no longer there. The current World Cup has moved away from its original purpose. As a result, the exclusivity and quality of competition of the World Cup is decreasing due to so many teams. And this is not a fear but a reality. The positive aspect I see here is that new countries have an opportunity to participate. But they could have done it differently. Besides, some of their critics say that it would not be right to completely close this opportunity just to increase FIFA's income, to implement this plan. However, FIFA should maintain a balance between commercial profit and the quality of the game and work towards improving the quality of entertainment, the quality of the game and the quality of football and give more importance to this aspect.

I'm wondering what kind of money that FIFA is looking for that they haven't made before that would warrant them to increase the number of teams to 64. The world cup is for teams that has made it through the qualifiers so increasing the numbers is not the best way to increase revenue rather it will make the competition look boring and alot people may probably not find it interesting anymore. I think FIFA should look for a better alternative to generate revenues because this Idea won't be good for the competition. They should be no need of increase the number of participates just because of revenue.

Yes I agree with you and I myself would not have been interested at that time. This decision may cause a lack of audience participation during the World Cup. Especially if bad teams are playing against a big team, then there may be rumors of fraud against FIFA as we saw against Argentina during this World Cup. Because Argentina is a weak opponent in the group, many people think that this time Argentina may have bought FIFA and because of this, Argentina's opponents may be very weak. I think it is better to start with 32 teams again like before.

[WatChe]

Yes I agree with you and I myself would not have been interested at that time. This decision may cause a lack of audience participation during the World Cup. Especially if bad teams are playing against a big team, then there may be rumors of fraud against FIFA as we saw against Argentina during this World Cup. Because Argentina is a weak opponent in the group, many people think that this time Argentina may have bought FIFA and because of this, Argentina's opponents may be very weak. I think it is better to start with 32 teams again like before.

FIFA has increased number of teams from 32 to 48, yet we saw some good performance from teams who are playing the world cup for the very first time like Cape Verde. In 2026, more teams from Asia and Africa region were able to play the world cup and this will help them in  getting exposure of FIFA world cup. There is study going on to check impact on world cup, if teams are further increased from 48. Regardless of how many teams play the world, FIFA must make sure that only teams with good football standards will play the world cup. 

[sergiorus]

Yes I agree with you and I myself would not have been interested at that time. This decision may cause a lack of audience participation during the World Cup. Especially if bad teams are playing against a big team, then there may be rumors of fraud against FIFA as we saw against Argentina during this World Cup. Because Argentina is a weak opponent in the group, many people think that this time Argentina may have bought FIFA and because of this, Argentina's opponents may be very weak. I think it is better to start with 32 teams again like before.

FIFA has increased number of teams from 32 to 48, yet we saw some good performance from teams who are playing the world cup for the very first time like Cape Verde. In 2026, more teams from Asia and Africa region were able to play the world cup and this will help them in  getting exposure of FIFA world cup. There is study going on to check impact on world cup, if teams are further increased from 48. Regardless of how many teams play the world, FIFA must make sure that only teams with good football standards will play the world cup. 

Although what you said is true, there's still an elephant in the room: there were Curaçao and New Zealand, but no Italy, Serbia or Poland.

They pursue the diversity, so even very weak teams end up qualifying from exotic regions, but they ignore how hard it is to qualify from Europe.

We wouldn't lose anything if there was no New Zealand's and Curaçao's teams in the last World Cup but we all would gain tremendously if there were Italy and say Poland with Lewandowski instead.

[Hispo]

..., in the sense of not creating too many changes that this sport does not require.

You know. I could not help but to think on the current state of some sports and disciplines in western countries, in which there is a long of controversy with transgender people participating in sports leagues and teams which don't match with their assigned gender at birth.

It makes me wonder, how long it would take before the FIFA get pressured into accepting such a thing into the World Cup.

That would be a huge change which many people would classify as unnecessary, that is for sure.

[danadc]

If Italy didn't deserve to go to the World Cup, it's because they didn't know how to transform their team into a competitive team. Consequently he doesn't deserve to go to the World Cup. As well as many other teams that did not participate. The World Cup, i repeat, is a prestigious tournament where only the best teams can access it. Even if you are one of the teams that has won the most World Cups and from which much more is expected.

You're right, positions have to be earned because that's what makes them more valuable. Besides, when things are achieved through one's own effort, it's much more dignified and deserved. Everything achieved through hard work will always have its reward, and in the end, that's the best thing. If a team goes with little preparation, they'll just make a fool of themselves, because a thrashing wouldn't look good at all. Sometimes the selection system is good, so it's best to keep it.

[ArabBTC]

You have captured their true purpose. More teams means more matches, more broadcasts, more sponsorships, more ticket sales and overall more revenue. The entertainment that football provides and the brotherhood it creates is no longer there. The current World Cup has moved away from its original purpose. As a result, the exclusivity and quality of competition of the World Cup is decreasing due to so many teams. And this is not a fear but a reality. The positive aspect I see here is that new countries have an opportunity to participate. But they could have done it differently. Besides, some of their critics say that it would not be right to completely close this opportunity just to increase FIFA's income, to implement this plan. However, FIFA should maintain a balance between commercial profit and the quality of the game and work towards improving the quality of entertainment, the quality of the game and the quality of football and give more importance to this aspect.

I'm wondering what kind of money that FIFA is looking for that they haven't made before that would warrant them to increase the number of teams to 64. The world cup is for teams that has made it through the qualifiers so increasing the numbers is not the best way to increase revenue rather it will make the competition look boring and alot people may probably not find it interesting anymore. I think FIFA should look for a better alternative to generate revenues because this Idea won't be good for the competition. They should be no need of increase the number of participates just because of revenue.

I don’t really feel that why FIFA is intending to increase the number of teams to 64 is all because of money, just as you clearly mentioned FIFA has already made a lot of money so why change the number of team’s now just because of money? Which money are they looking for that they haven’t seen in the past? To me i feel FIFA wants a wider spread awareness and participation, if the number of teams playing in the World Cup is very low there are chances that some countries might never get the opportunity to play till the end of time because other bigger countries in their continent will always surprise them and they can’t qualify through the group stages but if a wider slot of teams will be given chance to participate this smaller countries might have hope of participating, there are certain countries that played in this just concluded FIFA World Cup that i am not so familiar with and am sure most people too ain’t familiar with but thanks to the increased slot of 48 this countries got the opportunity to play in the World Cup, same way if the number is moved to 64 teams more countries we ain’t so familiar with would get the chance to play and it will be a plus to the country and FIFA.

[martinom]

By the way Pochettino has extended his contract until 2030. So he stays as the USA coach in 2030 World Cup also.

I think they've taken a reasonable step by keeping him for longer. Qualifying for Round of 16 is a pretty good job. They were horrible against Belgium maybe but anyway. 

Pochettino also did a good work by being a national coach. He was quite decent with the clubs he managed so far. He won trophies only with PSG though but I don't see him as a weak coach.

Pochettino had a good World Cup together with his players, we'll see if he can improve. He had a good World Cup with the United States and they also played well, certainly against Belgium it didn't go well but it could be okay. Pochettino has experience and has coached strong teams including Paris Saint-Germain, of course Paris Saint-Germain was strong and won also for this reason, but he is a good coach.

[Daniel91]

That way of seeing it is good; I wish it were like that. That's how I see my country in a World Cup, and there isn't so much suffering. But there are those who believe that things should be won by fighting and participating. For many, it's inconceivable that things are like that, but if we stick to your words that the World Cup encompasses the world, then it's fine, and the negotiations, the businesses in the countries involved grow, the injuries and everything that comes up, that's already something normal in sports.

If Italy didn't deserve to go to the World Cup, it's because they didn't know how to transform their team into a competitive team. Consequently he doesn't deserve to go to the World Cup. As well as many other teams that did not participate. The World Cup, i repeat, is a prestigious tournament where only the best teams can access it. Even if you are one of the teams that has won the most World Cups and from which much more is expected.

I agree with you.
The failure of former four-time world champions Italy to qualify for the third consecutive World Cup is actually an indicator of a long-term and very serious crisis in Italian national and club football that has been going on for 20 years.
Yes, the World Cup should be a prestigious competition, in which only the best national teams in the world will participate, but that is actually no longer the case.
With a format of 48 national teams, and soon 64 national teams, we will see increasingly weaker competitions, with many bad and boring matches and low-quality national teams.
On the other hand, FIFA's strategy has clearly become to make as much profit as possible at each subsequent World Cup and to commercialize this competition to the maximum, while the sporting aspect of the competition becomes less and less important.

[Rubuchi]

I'm wondering what kind of money that FIFA is looking for that they haven't made before that would warrant them to increase the number of teams to 64. The world cup is for teams that has made it through the qualifiers so increasing the numbers is not the best way to increase revenue rather it will make the competition look boring and alot people may probably not find it interesting anymore. I think FIFA should look for a better alternative to generate revenues because this Idea won't be good for the competition. They should be no need of increase the number of participates just because of revenue.

before I watched a video about the rackets happening within the FIFA leadership and the entire system I only viewed the increase in the number of teams from a positive viewpoint which includes unity: inclusion of more teams mean more nations now have the chance to also participate in the competition which brings about more inclusiveness in the generality of the game. I also looked at it from the angle of revenue generation positively as the more the teams the more the tickets sold and others. But I failed to also look at it from the angle of the loopholes in the system and the corruption that is said to be practiced by the leadership where teams are being over charged and bribes being collected by the leadership system to allow some country teams participate in the competition and I now see it as more reason why they brought in teams like that.

[Different patterns]

By the way Pochettino has extended his contract until 2030. So he stays as the USA coach in 2030 World Cup also.

I think they've taken a reasonable step by keeping him for longer. Qualifying for Round of 16 is a pretty good job. They were horrible against Belgium maybe but anyway. 

Pochettino also did a good work by being a national coach. He was quite decent with the clubs he managed so far. He won trophies only with PSG though but I don't see him as a weak coach.

Pochettino had a good World Cup together with his players, we'll see if he can improve. He had a good World Cup with the United States and they also played well, certainly against Belgium it didn't go well but it could be okay. Pochettino has experience and has coached strong teams including Paris Saint-Germain, of course Paris Saint-Germain was strong and won also for this reason, but he is a good coach.

He is actually a good coach. and one thing is very important for any coach regardless of where you are coaching, build a chemistry with your players, many coaches from my observations, like to just give players instructions which is good but when chemistry is built beyond the instructions, the player has the same mentality of the coach and the mindset of how he can effectively implement the coach instructions and bring home the positive results. Many players will put in more effort when they sincerely respect their coach and are willing to play for him. But when that chemistry is not there. the inconsistency sets in and the joy that brings the player to a state of playing consistently becomes weak. So being a coach is beyond the instructions and strategies, clear understanding of each other makes the team perfect, even though they have weaknesses. And it reduces the pressure players players put in themselves because they want to make a name for themselves but rather when the chemistry is there, they play for the badge.