The decision on the World Cup’s size is a lesson in the art of the possible in football politics. The expansion to 48 teams was politically possible because it offered something to everyone, while the further leap to 64 has been rejected because it is seen as benefiting one region at the expense of the tournament’s overall health.
The move from 32 to 48 teams, championed by Gianni Infantino, was a masterful piece of political negotiation. It created 16 new spots, which were distributed among all confederations. This built a broad coalition of support, as almost every region saw a tangible benefit. It was a win-win that was easy to sell to the FIFA Council.
In contrast, the 64-team proposal, pushed by Conmebol, was seen as a much more self-interested play. While it would create more spots, the primary beneficiary would be the 10-nation South American confederation, which could potentially see all its members qualify. This failed to build the broad coalition needed for success.
Instead, it triggered a powerful counter-coalition. Confederations like UEFA and Concacaf saw little benefit and significant downsides, such as a diluted competition and a more crowded calendar. They had already secured their extra spots in the 48-team expansion and had no incentive to support a further change that could damage the tournament.
The art of the possible at FIFA requires building a wide base of support. The 48-team format achieved this. The 64-team proposal did not, and its rejection was the inevitable political consequence.
