Notably, Argentine President Javier Milei was also invited to attend the high-level leadership summit on Tuesday. However, amid Argentina’s efforts to tackle a rapidly escalating economic crisis, he instead met with U.S. President Donald Trump that day.
The Finance Director of the Argentine Football Association (AFA) criticized Milei’s absence on social media, accusing him of “hating football” and “abandoning the continent’s efforts.”
Had Milei attended, he would have met with two of FIFA’s most powerful figures: President Gianni Infantino and Secretary-General Mattias Grafström.
How Big Is the World Cup Now?
In 1982, the number of World Cup participants increased from 16 to 24 teams; in 1998, this was adjusted to 32 teams—doubling the tournament’s scale in just eight years.
There were 32 teams in the 2022 World Cup. The 2026 edition will feature 48 teams, and the 2030 World Cup is proposed to have 64 teams.
The 2026 World Cup, co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, has already been confirmed to include a record 104 matches. A 64-team format would mean over 30% of FIFA’s member associations qualify for the tournament.
The 2030 World Cup will span the largest geographical area in the event’s history: the main hosts are Spain, Portugal, and Morocco, while group-stage matches during the centenary celebrations will be hosted by Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay.
Who Wants Expansion—and Why?
The first part of the answer is straightforward: CONMEBOL (Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol) and its member associations are driving this idea. Currently, a maximum of 7 out of South America’s 10 teams can qualify for next year’s World Cup.
FIFA’s hosting rules state that a continent can host the World Cup only once every three editions. Therefore, if only three matches are held in South America in 2030, the continent will not be eligible to host the tournament again until at least 2042.
This means the football-crazed continent would have hosted just one World Cup (Brazil 2014) in a 64-year span.
Under CONMEBOL’s proposal, the 2030 World Cup would feature 64 teams, with more group-stage matches held across the American continent. There have even been suggestions that Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay could each host all matches of a full group.
FIFA officials never tire of emphasizing that they represent all 211 member associations, not just the roughly 50 that qualify for the World Cup on a semi-regular basis. Expanding the tournament to 64 teams would give half of these member associations a realistic chance of qualifying.
Who Opposes It?
Most notably, there is Aleksander Čeferin and UEFA. One key concern is whether the vast gap between top teams and weaker sides would harm on-pitch quality.
For example, according to FIFA rankings, the 64th-ranked team in the world is Burkina Faso—a nation that has never qualified for the World Cup, never won the Africa Cup of Nations, and in the past two months, has lost to Tanzania (107th), Madagascar (108th), and Mauritania (110th).
Major football associations have also voiced doubts. To preserve relationships, the CEO of one association—speaking on condition of anonymity—highlighted economic risks: many countries rely on broadcasting rights from World Cup qualifiers to fund their operations between World Cup cycles.
If expansion diminishes the value of qualifiers, the knock-on effect would be financial troubles for these nations. This issue is further complicated by the fact that broadcast deals are negotiated long before the final tournament format is confirmed.
Finally, the proposal is likely to draw more criticism from environmentalists, who have already condemned the decision to split the 2030 World Cup across three continents. They argue it violates FIFA’s commitments to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040 and cut emissions by half by 2030.
Due to travel and logistics demands, the 2030 World Cup already has the largest carbon footprint in the tournament’s history—a figure that would rise even further if the event is expanded.
