The FIFA World Cup is the most watched sporting event there is. Being held every four years there is usually an excitement as another event approaches. Even though only eight countries have won the World Cup in 22 tournaments, and only two of those eight World Champions have won the World Cup once.
Yet prior to the start of the 2026 FIFA World Cup friends and fans online appeared to be less enthusiastic than usual. One comment that resonated was by a fan who wrote, ” I wish I could recapture the feeling I had as an eleven year old waiting for the World Cup to start.” This was a comment that this writer could relate to, The first World Cup I have recollections of was 1970, but I think that was because we had just acquired a colour television rather than because of the football; Mexico 1970 was the first World Cup to be broadcast live across the World and also in colour. The first World Cup I appreciated for the football as a child was four years later.
So why were so many people not looking forward to this tournament with the same enthusiasm?
Was it because it was being hosted by three nations for the first time? Was it because of the political climate in the USA? Was it because there was so much written about the ticket prices, visas, accommodation costs, etcetera, that it felt like other issues were taking centre stage, and not the football? Or was it because the tournament has ballooned to 48 teams?
Certainly the last fact has impacted many true lovers of the game. Many of whom would religiously watch every single game at a FIFA World Cup have conceded that this is no longer possible. That they have been forced to pick key games, and then watch highlights of the other matches. So their quadrennial experience has changed. No doubt they were having to be selective before the tournament started to decide which games to watch in full, and which to only view the highlights.
There has been plenty of criticism that 48 teams are too many. Questions have also been asked as to why FIFA had to expand the tournament. Various reasons have been trotted out, but apart from the financial windfall for FIFA the main reason was clearly political. The more teams that are part of the “greatest show on earth,” the more who are likely to re-elect those at the top of the sport, from the FIFA President to the Confederation Presidents.
It is interesting to reflect that it was Michel Platini who was preparing to run for FIFA President who tabled the idea back in 2013 and then when he was prevented from running, his replacement, current FIFA President Gianni Infantino stuck with the idea, one that many credit with winning him the election.
The expansion by 16 teams is a huge one and many feared that it would affect the quality of the matches, but so far the “minnows’ have acquitted themselves well, and despite being outplayed, have as expected shown spirit and competitive resolve.
What will be interesting to watch is the impact the extra matches will have on the top teams. These teams tend to include players who have already gone through long seasons with their club sides playing in the Champions League, so will the extra games open the door for an outsider to crash the party?
To give this question some context the total number of matches played at the tournament has increased from 64 to 104, and the number of matches played by teams reaching the final four will increase from 7 to 8.
Of course another factor that will mean many nations will not speak out against the expansion will be the prize money on offer. By simply playing in the group stage and not progressing each nation receives USD$9million. Teams that exit in the round of 32 will receive USD$11million, while those whose tournament ends in the round of 16 will receive USD$15million. Losing quarter finalists receive USD$19million and fourth place USD$27million, third place USD$29million, the losing finalist USD$33million and the winner USD$50million.
While the numbers look great, the question that few will ask of those eliminated in the first two stages is how much of that money will filter back into the game when they get home? Often this money is chewed up by the cost to attend the World Cup, wages and bonuses to players and coaches. Then one must not forget the support staff that each nation takes sometimes including chefs. For example the Australian team at this World Cup has 32 support staff for a squad of 26; this 32 does include the coaching staff. Sadly, in many nations this money will not be seen at all by the local game. The benefits remain with those at the top.
With the tournament underway concerns about the stadia being empty have evaporated. While Scotland and Norway fans have stolen the limelight with their antics, and have shown that the World Cup is a festival to be enjoyed. ‘
One thing that has been under fire is the coverage of the games. Understandably the “Hydration breaks’ in every game – even those played in air-conditioned stadia – have really irritated many. These do appear to be no more than an advertiaing opportunity for the broadcasters. One fears for what lies in store come the final…
Many high profile individuals managers and ex players alike have spoken out against the four quarters which the game has become. What these additional breaks in play have shown is that these three minute breaks give coaches an extra opportunity to get their players around them and make tactical changes that can have an immediate impact the game. Often a team that has been on top leading up to the hydration break finds that they have lost that momentum when the game restarts.
Some may argue that this is a good thying, as it has evened up the contest, however if it was the underdog that had the momentum and an upset may have been on the cards, those three minutes could change the match. Maybe if the hyrdration breaks are to continue the players must stay on the pitch and the drinks are taken to them and the coach is not allowed to talk to his players?
The VAR has also been extremely questionable, appearing to look at some games and incidents with a Nelsonian eye. If figures are to be believed, that allegedly these officials average around USD$75,000 for the tournament plus bonuses the further into the tournament they go, one has to say that this definitely needs to be reviewed based on their current performance.
Another part of this world cup that has appeared to get under the skin of many is the coverage. Obviously the games are being produced by an American broadcaster. This would explain why they constantly pan on the VIP area. However, it would appear that many across the world do not have a clue who these American celebrities are. It would be helpful if they put names underneath for the global audience, – so they can google who they are and what they do – or maybe simply only pan on individuals who are actually global superstars. One individual stated the other day that “we seem to spend more time on these so called stars than the players.” A slight exaggeration, but you get the point.
Another factor that seems to be upsetting many judging by social media and conversations with fans, is the commentary. While it is comforting to hear the voices of many of the football commentators we are familiar with and trust, some of the new breed need to listen and learn from them.
The commentators are there to build excitement but some seem to just want to spew out fact after fact, rather than focus on the game and what is happening on the pitch. Scotland fans would no doubt have been sick of constantly hearing throughout their opening game with Haiti the commentator continually inform viewers that it was 28 years since their last World Cup appearance! As one fan stated, “I wish we had had a sweepstake on how many times he mentioned it.”
The “experts” have often been incredibly bland, many offering no insight into the game whatsoever. However it must be hard tyrying to feed of someone who is only spouting facts rather than commentating on the action. They expert is there to share wisdom with us viewers, be it tactical or from personal experience. Sadly what we are being served up is banal.
There has also been criticism of former USA players having such roles. This could be viewed as football snobbery. Many other english speaking football nations fans failing to take the USA’s former players seriously, as America as a football nation still struggles to be taken seriously, despite the success of the MLS and the dominance of the US Women’s national team.
One feels for the former players as America has produced some World class players who have played for some of the big clubs or in the biggest leagues in the world. The criticism that they are receiving may not be all their fault, as it could well be simply down to the way the game is covered in the US, and how their role is perceived compared to other countries where the sport is played.
One thing that is clear is that football and FIFA have fallen into the same trap as the International Olympic Committee and many other sports, who believe bigger is always better. That more teams means more money. More teams means more games, and more games means more TV coverage, which it turn means more revenue. Yet more games can also dilute you audience especially if there is a lack of quality on the pitch and off of it.
The problem is for the vast majority who are sat at home and want to watch these events is that they have now become too big to be able to watch all of them, You have to be selective as a viewer.
Whether you like it or not if you increase the number of teams participating you dilute the value of the event. The uniqueness and how special it is to qualify is diminished. From 1954 to 1978 only 16 teams qualified for the FIFA World Cup Finals. So those who did qualify were held in high esteem and rightly so. It is interesting that to many true fans of football, those who respect the history of the game, this is a golden era in World Cup history in terms of the calibre of the teams and the players who graced the tournament.
For only four tournaments (82- 94) did the tournament host 24 teams. From 1998 until this year’s event 32 teams at the World Cup FInals became the norm. With 48 teams one feels that there will be very hard for the tournament to have a sole host; time will tell with 2034! One feels that it will continue to have multiple hosts to cope with the number of games, and as we have seen with this event that raises logistical and political issues. In 2030 it will again be three countries hosting in Portugal, Spain and Morrocco, this too will bring challenges. Following this event Saudi Arabia is set to be the sole host in 2034. Hopefully common sense will prevail by then and we will see the number of finalists reduced.
What is interesting to note is that there are 211 nations listed as members of FIFA, more than the United Nations who only recognise 193. So having 48 nations compete at the World Cup Finals we are witnessing less than the top 25% of all of those football nations vying for the title of World Champion, Based on those numbers should 48 become the new normal number for a World Cup Finals?
While not exclusive, as qualification games give all nations the opportunity to qualify, the World Cup Finals should always be about the best competing to be crowned World Champion. The big question is how many of the best teams should compete at the final tournament? In the USA we have the best 48 teams, should that number remain or should it be reduced? It would appear that a large number of fans would like to see it reduced.
Whatever the decision will that magic feeling return? That feeling that so many were saying that they were lacking as this tournament approcahed. There can be no denying that the scandal surrounding the hosting of the 2018 and 2022 in Russia and Qatar has left a big scar on the game, and that may well have played a part in why so many lost that loving feeling. Or was it the joint hosting, the number of teams participating, or the appearance that greed and money were the focus rather than football?
Maybe FIFA would be wise to recall the view of Plato who attended the ancient Olympic Games and shared his observations which revealed that of those attending he ranked spectators at the top of his hierarchy, athletes came second and vendors at the bottom.It would appear that the Football World has turned this upside down.
