A bigger World Cup than ever before, with more teams, more matches and more host nations, is raising a familiar question: where is the limit?
The tournament, hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico, will stretch the global game to new extremes, testing how far football’s biggest event can expand before cracks begin to show.
From player workload concerns in an already congested calendar to growing talk of strike action among top stars, and from fan fatigue in an era of near-constant televised football to soaring ticket prices and rising costs for basic access such as parking, the pressure points are stacking up.
Expanded to 48 teams from 32 and stretching across nearly six weeks, the World Cup’s new format is also fueling concerns that FIFA’s flagship product could lose its edge through sheer size.
“I personally think it’s kind of taken a little bit of the excitement and quality away from the tournament, and it’s almost like it doesn’t start until the round of 32,” former U.S. forward Clint Dempsey told The Associated Press (AP).
The expanded format has effectively removed the possibility of several top teams being drawn in the same group, known in football vernacular as a “group of death.”
Much of the jeopardy traditionally seen in the early stages of the tournament has been reduced until the round of 16 because the eight best third-place teams also advance to the round of 32.
“The biggest danger is dilution of spectacle,” said Jonathan Wilson, author of The Power and the Glory: A New History of the World Cup.
“Maybe FIFA gets away with it this time because it’s the first expanded tournament and because ticket prices are enormous. But eventually broadcasters and fans may stop caring if the tournament doesn’t become interesting until the last 16,” Wilson said. “A World Cup game should feel almost must-watch. Nobody is watching 90 out of 104 games. It’s just too much.”
FIFA President Gianni Infantino says expanding the tournament will make the game “truly global” and create opportunities for countries that “would never have dreamed” of participating in a World Cup.
The theory is that, with a greater chance to qualify, more nations would increase grassroots funding and improve the standard of football around the world.
Four nations will make their debuts next month, including Curaçao, the smallest by population ever to qualify.
“It’s a big achievement for us to make it, but we also want to show that we can play and that we deserve to be there,” Curaçao goalkeeper Eloy Room said.
Jordan, Cape Verde and Uzbekistan are the other debutants. Haiti has qualified for the first time since 1974.
“As children, we all watched the World Cup. We all dreamed of playing in the World Cup. But it was just a dream, a fantasy when you’re a child,” Haiti midfielder Yassin Fortune said. “Qualifying and being able to participate is unimaginable.”
There are feel-good stories, such as Haiti goalkeeper Josue Duverger, who will swap regional football in Germany for a chance to face Brazil stars like Vinícius Júnior. New Zealand has called up defender Tommy Smith from Braintree Town, which was relegated from England’s fifth tier this season.
Maheta Molango, chief executive of England’s Professional Footballers’ Association, has been among the leading voices warning about the impact of asking top players to play more football.
He says the quality of the product is being diminished and that football should follow the lead of the NFL and embrace the “value of scarcity.”
The NFL averages nearly $11 billion in revenue per season from its media deals, with teams playing 17 regular-season games and up to 21 if they reach the Super Bowl.
The English Premier League is the world’s richest and most-watched football league, yet its financial figures do not match those of the NFL. Its teams play 38 matches each season, and its latest domestic broadcast deal was worth $9 billion, at current exchange rates, over four years. Its international deals from 2022-25 were reportedly worth $7.2 billion. Even combined, its annual broadcast revenue is less than half that of the NFL.
Considering football’s greater global reach, the sport needs to think more carefully about the quality of its output, Molango said.
“We target China, the U.S., India. So this, in my view, should make us reflect on the value of scarcity because sometimes we always think that more is more, but I disagree,” he said. “The starting point has to be: let’s put the quality of the show at the center of our project.”
Not only is the product in question, but players’ unions are also concerned about the physical and mental strain on top stars, who are getting less rest. After this World Cup, many will have played three consecutive years of major tournaments following the European Championship and Copa America in 2024 and the expanded Club World Cup last summer.
In December, global players’ union FIFPRO said Chelsea had seen a 44% spike in injuries after winning the Club World Cup.
Several top players, including Brazil stars Rodrygo, eder Militão and Estêvão, have been ruled out of the tournament after picking up injuries in recent months.
“The top players get treated a little bit like cattle,” former Liverpool player Jamie Carragher said. “If they start getting criticism for performances at certain stages of the World Cup, we’ve got to remember how much football they’ve played and the conditions they’re playing in. It just doesn’t seem like anyone who organizes football ever thinks about the demands physically and mentally on top players.”
The World Cup is FIFA’s main revenue generator, and the financial upside of expansion is significant.
More matches, 104 in total, mean more tickets to sell, with prices rising to thousands of dollars for the best seats at marquee games.
When tickets went on general sale in January, they ranged from $140 to $8,680. Since then, some have been made available for less and others for significantly more, with face-value prices reaching $32,970 for the final.
FIFA also earns revenue through its resale marketplace, where it takes a 30% commission on each sale. In April, the platform listed four tickets for the final at just under $2.3 million each.
Fans have accused FIFA of a “monumental betrayal” over its pricing strategy, but demand appears strong, and the governing body says the money is reinvested into the sport.
Football can still expect a major windfall from the tournament, with more than $9 billion in revenue anticipated this year.
It remains to be seen whether the supersized format will turn off fans. Audience measurement company Nielsen says interest in international football in the United States is rising.
The most-watched game on U.S. television between 2023 and 2025 was Spain vs. England in the Euro final, with an average audience of 6.6 million. Second was the Copa America final between Argentina and Colombia with 6.5 million.
At the time of reporting, FIFA had struck media deals in 180 territories to broadcast the tournament, with more expected, suggesting strong global demand despite wider concerns.
