Too Much Of A Good Thing

It's possible to have too much of a good thing, even too much of 'The greatest show on earth' as the World Cup has been described (although not by me), and in 2026 the already bloated competition will be over-inflated to a mind-boggling forty-eight teams. Rumours had been circulating for some time that new FIFA president Gianni Infantino (who replaced the discredited and banned former incumbent, Sepp Blatter last year) favoured increasing the number of nations competing in the finals by fifty percent: "We have to be more inclusive," he said at a sports conference in Dubai in December 2016. Football federations were "overwhelmingly in favour" of the expansion, he said, adding that a 48-team tournament was the most "financially appealing," which rather gave the game away. Infantino maintains that the decision was "a football decision," and that, "Every format has advantages in financial terms. We were in a comfortable situation to take a decision based on sporting merit." Like his predecessor, Infantino is comfortable with the Orwellian double-speak much loved by bureaucrats and administrators, where language obscures, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.

FIFA president Gianni Infanto

It was no surprise that this week FIFA voted to add sixteen new teams to the finals when they are held in 2026, increasing the total number of finalists to forty-eight and while part of the justification is that it allows more countries to make their dream of competing at the finals come true, my view is that it is about one thing and one thing only...money. For most of the sixteen extra countries that will qualify for wherever FIFA decrees that the 2026 jamboree will be held, this is going to be a chance to play in a World Cup Finals competition that they might not otherwise have had, but most will not be good enough to be able to really compete. And competition is what sport is about; without jeopardy, without the fear of defeat, then victories are cheap.

The current format may have grown - from sixteen in 1978, to twenty-four in 1982 and most recently, to thirty-two in 1998 - but has the competition got better, or is this just another case of 'never mind the quality, feel the width?' The current group stage format, with four teams in each group remains fairly interesting and competitive, but the new format raises the prospect of a group stage that will be a procession not a competition. FIFA's plan for a forty-eight team competition starts with sixteen groups of three countries, so it is entirely likely that in a group that consists of say, Spain, Chile and Senegal (with all due respect to Senegal), if both European nations beat Senegal and play each other in the last game, both know they will have qualified: potentially there are sixteen dead rubbers - one per group. Oh, FIFA have hinted that even group games will be played to an outcome, with penalty shoot-outs possibly deciding drawn games to avoid any non-aggression pacts allowing teams to play out toothless draws in their final games, but the reality is that this format promises more bland, uncompetitive games.

Naturally, increasing the number of finalists makes qualifying a bit less stressful too, but no decision has yet been made on how the extra sixteen places will be allocated, but it is possible that Europe would provide three additional teams, Africa an extra four and that six South American countries would qualify - at present four are guaranteed qualification, with a fifth competing in a play-off against an Asian country. CONCACAF (Central and North America) would gain one additional qualifier. But even three additional European nation still means that with UEFA having twenty-seven of the top fifty football nations in the world, there will still be some top sides watching rather than competing, while so-called minnows are able to take part. On the other hand, and as I already mentioned, making qualification easier takes away some jeopardy; the danger is that in making it harder not to qualify than to do so, the whole thing gets devalued further than it already has been.

The Mane Garrincha Stadium in Brasilia, Brazil (shown here in April 2014), was the most expensive of the stadiums — at a cost of $550 million — and is now being used to park buses.

And where is this shindig going to be held? We've already had immense controversy over the venues for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, which are scheduled for Russia and Qatar respectively, and since those venues debar European or Asian nations from bidding for the 2026 finals, the smart money is on the USA hosting again although a three-national finals with Mexico and Canada also sharing the duties has been mooted. And frankly, the US are one of the few nations that could afford to host a 48 team finals, which would require a similar number of state-of-the-art training centres, and since twelve stadia were needed for the 2014 World Cup, one imagines that around sixteen stadia will be required for a forty-eight nation competition. The 2014 World Cup required Brazil to build seven new grounds; the 2010 World Cup in South Africa needed five new stadia, and the legacy for both countries has been debt and stadiums that are subsequently unused. While the last two World Cups have been significant financial burdens for the host nations, FIFA's gravy train carries on blithely however and sixteen additional teams in the finals means 80 matches instead of 64, which FIFA forecast will generate $1 billion extra income at current rates from broadcasting and sponsor deals, plus ticket sales, compared to $5.5 billion revenue forecast for the 2018 World Cup in Russia; an increased profit of $640 million. The fiction that these plans are driven by anything other than the pursuit of profit is entirely transparent, despite any claims to the contrary from Gianni Infantino.

With 48 squads of 23 players, the Panini sticker album for 2026 is going to be massive!

The World Cup finals used to be essential viewing, but in all honesty, I haven't watched a tournament with anything more than mere passing interest since Italy hosted the finals in 1990 and the prospect of a 48 team tournament does nothing to enthuse me. No doubt FIFA will declare the 2026 World Cup Finals a roaring success regardless, giving them an excuse to expand the tournament still further, until the point is reached when the number of nations reaching the finals exceeds the number not qualifying: fortunately by that point I should be unable to take any interest in it anyway!

England take on Germany in the 1990 World Cup Semi-Final

If FIFA really had the interests of the game at heart and were more concerned with the quality of their 'product' than the amount of money it generates, they would heed the expression, 'less is more' and reduce the number of teams in the finals. I'd like to see them go back to the sixteen nation format that served the competition so well in the days when it was about football and not profit, but sadly I know that there is no possibility of that happening.