In a rare move for modern sports governance, a major organization has effectively chosen a ‘smaller’ path. FIFA’s decision to reject a 64-team World Cup and stick with the 48-team format is a notable act of restraint in an era where “bigger is better” is the unquestioned mantra for leagues and federations worldwide.
The push for bigger came from South America’s Conmebol, whose proposal for a 64-team centenary tournament followed the typical expansionist logic. They argued for more inclusivity, more games, and a grander event, a formula that has driven the growth of everything from the Olympics to the Champions League.
However, FIFA’s decision-makers opted for a different path. The overwhelming consensus within the FIFA Council was that the proposed expansion would be a step too far, harming the very qualities that make the World Cup special. They chose to preserve the tournament’s competitive balance and prestige rather than chase the perceived benefits of scale.
This act of saying “no” to growth is remarkable. It demonstrates a recognition that there is a point of diminishing returns, where a bigger event does not necessarily create a better or more valuable one. It is an acknowledgment that scarcity and exclusivity have value, a concept often lost in the relentless commercialization of modern sport.
While the World Cup is still expanding to 48 teams, the rejection of 64 is a significant moment. It’s a statement that even the world’s most powerful sports body understands the wisdom of limits, making FIFA an unlikely champion of the “less is more” philosophy.