FIFA earlier today "voted unanimously in favour of expanding the World Cup from 32 to 48 teams, with the changes set to be introduced" at the '26 tournament, according to Jack de Menezes of the London INDEPENDENT. The FIFA Council confirmed that it had "unanimously voted in favour of the new format, which will involve 16 groups of three teams that sees the top two qualify for a knockout round of 32." The new 48-team option will "see 16 extra qualification spots created" for the '26 World Cup, which is "likely to be held in North America." The plans will see see the total number of games "increase from 64 to 80," and the new format is expected to generate around $1B (all figures $U.S.) extra for the governing body from the World Cup alone (INDEPENDENT.co.uk 1/10). The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Joshua Robinson writes approving expansion will be the "easy part," as FIFA must now "wade into a political morass: figuring out how to allocate the 16 extra spots." While the risk of diluting the field "remains a concern," FIFA "believes that a few blowouts could be a reasonable price to pay for soccer development." For "would-be hosts, the prospect of welcoming 50% more teams complicates the logistics of an already gargantuan event" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 1/10). In N.Y., Andrew Keh writes this is an "enormous expansion of soccer’s showpiece tournament that was hailed by supporters as a victory for inclusion but that was derided by critics as the latest money grab by an organization still emerging from a series of financial scandals." The decision to expand was "both political and financial." Any plan to increase the size of the field "seemed specifically tailored to appeal to smaller soccer nations, particularly those in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean who often feel underrepresented" (N.Y. TIMES, 1/10).
ON THE UP & UP: In London, Martyn Ziegler noted a 65-page confidential report sent to FIFA members contains a "detailed financial analysis that forecasts revenues" for the '26 World Cup being $6.5B if there are 16 groups of three teams in the event, compared with $5.5B for next year's tournament with 32 teams in Russia. FIFA would "make a surplus" of $4.2B instead of $3.5B (LONDON TIMES, 1/9). ESPN's Shaka Hislop said the expansion "devalues the tournament and there are better ways to be more inclusive and that is in restructuring qualifying campaigns." ESPN FC's Alejandro Moreno added, "Not only does it devalue the tournament, it devalues the qualification processes." Moreno: "It's FIFA trying to make some more money and when they sell it as 'We're just trying to grow the game,' that's when people have to take a step back and understand what the real situation is" ("ESPN FC," ESPNews, 1/9). In N.Y., Rory Smith writes the "prime beneficiary" of FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s plan would "appear to be Infantino himself." It would "place much of soccer’s developing world in Infantino’s debt, cementing his position and securing a power base." Smith: "There is nothing wrong with the current format. But sometimes, hard as it is to admit, FIFA is right to change" (N.Y. TIMES, 1/10).
OTHER MOTIVATIONS? In Belfast, Ian Herbert writes, "Goodbye to the notion of World Cup qualification being a privilege; something for which nerves would be shredded." Herbert: "Let there be no doubt that this is about Infantino seeking re-election to his post in 2019 and needing to convince the 211 to vote for him, as an agent of better times for the smaller countries. Let there be equally little doubt that it's all about the money" (BELFAST TELEGRAPH, 1/10).
