FIFA Made the Right Decision to Keep the 2022 World Cup at 32 Teams…But for the Wrong Reasons

FIFA announced Wednesday that it has decided not to expand the 2022 World Cup in Qatar from 32 to 48 teams. Soccer’s international governing body cited concerns about the ability to prepare another nation to co-host the event in time, a necessity with the change, and the possible logistical and human rights impacts on the region as reasons against a 48-team tournament.

Certainly, FIFA has made the correct decision here. There simply wasn’t enough time to create a feasible plan to pull off an expanded World Cup, a push that was only publicly made this year. But it wasn’t for a lack of trying – FIFA President Gianni Infantino even held talks in Kuwait last month in an attempt to get the country to host matches in 2022. If Infantino could have made things work, he would have. And therein lies the problem.

Applaud FIFA for their decision to keep the 2022 World Cup at 32 teams all you want. It only prolongs the inevitable move to a 48-team tournament already slated for 2026, despite the fact that a World Cup with 48 teams is a terrible idea.

Infantino first announced his ambition back in late 2016 to expand the World Cup to 48 teams starting in 2026. The proposal was then unanimously agreed upon by the FIFA council in January 2017. Back then, I was strongly against the idea. The reasons why have not changed in the time since.

Disguised as a plan to satisfy fans globally by allowing more countries to be represented during soccer’s biggest event, World Cup expansion is a play by FIFA for money and power. FIFA can expect to generate an extra $1 billion in revenue from the 2026 World Cup alone while adding teams will satisfy individual regions by giving them more World Cup spots and more cash.

Even worse, it comes at a cost to the quality of the tournament itself. The 48-team World Cup results in 16 groups of three teams, of which the top two teams in each advance to create a 32-team field for the tournament’s knockout phase. This new group format is where the issues arise.

First off, the addition of 16 teams will dilute the overall quality of play in the group stage, leading to situations where one team will be clearly weaker than the other two and subjected to blowouts.

One might ask, “but isn’t there hardly any difference between the 32nd and 33rd-best teams in the world?” Unfortunately, that isn’t how it plays out.

Each region (or continent, effectively) is given a specific number of spots in the tournament. This allows each region to be represented but does not ensure all the best 32 nations compete in the World Cup. Even if all 32 of the world’s best came from UEFA (Europe; and a good number of them do), only a fraction of those teams would make the field.

In 2018, Japan made the World Cup despite a world ranking of 61. Adding 16 teams would only further this issue, leaving many groups to have predictable results. Some matches might even be practically pointless, as I explained back in 2016.

“A three-team group requires three matches to be played: A vs. B, A vs. C, and B vs. C. Let’s say, for example, that in the first two group games, team A loses to both B and C. In this scenario, by the time B and C play each other, they are both guaranteed to advance. This could lead to the teams resting their best players, placing a higher emphasis on staying healthy and fit for their Round of 32 matches than winning the current game.”

This three-match group stage also invites a problem of some teams having a rest advantage over others. In the current World Cup format, each group plays a round-robin against three other teams for a total of six games. These games are played in pairs, happening on either the same day or within one day of each other. The final two matches of each group are played on the same day.

Having only three games means one team is resting while the other two teams play. Consider the above situation, where a three-team group plays the following games: A vs. B, A vs. C, and B vs. C. In the second match, C has an advantage over A because A has played recently while C got to rest and scout A. In the third match, B has this same advantage over C.

Overall, B benefits from having a rest gap in between their two games, a luxury not given to the other teams. C is aided once and harmed once, and A is only harmed by having to play back-to-back in the group’s first two matches.

Even worse, team A might suffer from match-fixing as a result of their group schedule. Again, here’s how I put it back in 2016.

“What would happen if… team A drew 1-1 against both B and C? Team A would be left with two points, while B and C would each have just one entering the match with each other. Should one team win the game, the other would be eliminated from the tournament. To ensure both squads advance, they could agree to draw 2-2, leaving all three teams with two points, but giving B and C the edge in terms of goals scored for the tiebreaker.”

Infantino has suggested replacing ties with penalty kicks to help deal with this issue, but it wouldn’t fully solve the problem, as teams could still finish with one win and loss each and with identical numbers of goals scored and conceded. Plus, is an idea really worth taking on if it means eliminating ties completely, replacing them with arbitrary shootouts?

Reducing the group stage from three games to two would also increase variance, meaning that one bad performance could leave teams all but eliminated. This concern doesn’t quite rise to the level of match-fixing, but it’s worth noting that just two games is arguably an inadequate amount of time to determine the best teams in a group.

The existing 32-team World Cup format has proven itself to be perfect since its inception in 1998. While more nations may be able to experience the joy of participating in the World Cup by expanding the field to 48 teams, doing so would wreck the structure of the tournament, leaving the group stage susceptible to lopsided matches, unfair rest advantages, and potential match-fixing. The quality of play would decrease, and variance would increase.

If holding the best tournament is your objective rather than making the most money, World Cup expansion isn’t the way to go.