FIFA World Cup expansion to 64 teams: can the US host?

The 2026 World Cup set new benchmarks for attendance and U.S. broadcast interest, and that momentum has reignited discussion of a FIFA World Cup expansion to 64 teams. Fans, broadcasters and officials are weighing what a jump from 48 to 64 nations would mean for format, scheduling and the list of feasible hosts.

Fox News reported that the 2026 group stage set an attendance record for any World Cup group stage, and that the tournament used 16 venues and staged 104 matches across North America (Fox News). U.S. broadcasts were also notable: the U.S. match against Belgium became the most-watched English-language soccer telecast in U.S. history, according to Fox News’ account of ratings.

FIFA World Cup expansion: how a 64-team tournament would work

Moving to 64 teams would change the tournament arithmetic and logistics. One widely discussed model would add 16 teams to the current 48, boosting total matches to roughly 128 if organizers preserve a 32-team knockout bracket. That implies more group games, more matchdays and a larger knockout phase, with ripple effects across scheduling, travel and broadcast windows.

Format planners could pursue several structures: 16 groups of four advancing to a 32-team knockout round, or alternate group/knockout hybrids. Each choice affects the total matches, rest days and the length of the tournament. Broadcasters and rights holders generally favor more matches and inventory; national leagues, clubs and player unions are concerned about calendar congestion and athlete welfare.

Those numbers illustrate why stadium counts matter. Adding roughly four or more venues beyond the 16 used in 2026 is a practical requirement: more group-stage matches often require simultaneous fixtures across multiple cities. More matches also mean more high-capacity matchdays during the knockout rounds, which raises logistical and security needs.

Why the United States is positioned to host a larger World Cup

Recent reporting highlights the United States as particularly well placed to stage a larger tournament because of the size and number of its stadiums. Estimates cited by Fox News put the U.S. at roughly 75 stadiums with capacities around 60,000, far more than many single European countries. That concentration can reduce the need for stadium upgrades, limit cross-border travel in a continental bid and simplify infrastructure planning.

Practically, a single-country U.S. bid could shorten travel for teams and fans compared with a multi-country European bid that relies on cross-border venues. However, labeling the U.S. as the only feasible host would be an analytical claim; other nations and joint bids could marshal different advantages, including compact geography and dense transport networks. Those perspectives merit consideration and would likely be emphasized by other federations if expansion proceeded.

TV ratings, attendance and competitive impact

Broadcast interest underpins much of the expansion argument. Fox News noted the tournament’s record attendance and the standout U.S. telecast figures, which supporters say prove the market can support additional matches and viewers. More matches translate into more broadcast inventory and potential revenue for rights holders and FIFA.

From a competitive standpoint, expanding the field increases global representation. Reporting pointed to smaller nations producing meaningful results in 2026—for example, Cape Verde’s competitive showing against top teams—as evidence that more teams can raise the tournament’s global competitiveness and unpredictability. That is a stated benefit of expansion, though its long-term impact on tournament quality remains a subject for debate.

Governance, qualifying and objections

FIFA President Gianni Infantino told Swiss broadcaster Blue Sport that expansion would be “looked at and discussed in the relevant committees after this World Cup,” framing broader participation as an incentive for development. Infantino said organizing opportunities should be open worldwide (as quoted in reporting).

Objections are substantial and varied. Critics warn that a 64-team field could dilute qualifying competitiveness for top federations and make qualification less meaningful, a critique often described in coverage as a risk rather than established fact. Clubs and leagues raise calendar and player-welfare concerns, while some federations would oppose any move toward a permanent or de facto permanent host for political and sporting reasons. These positions come from a range of stakeholders and should be weighed alongside commercial incentives.

What comes next

Procedurally, any change would flow through FIFA’s governance apparatus: committees would study formats, calendars and host feasibility before a formal proposal and vote. The balance FIFA must strike is between commercial growth and preserving competitive integrity, alongside practical venue and travel considerations. Stakeholder consultations — including with confederations, clubs, players and broadcasters — are likely to shape the timetable and any final decision.

In short, a move from 48 to 64 teams is technically feasible but raises clear logistical and governance trade-offs. Supporters point to attendance, TV ratings and a strong U.S. venue pool; skeptics cite qualifying value, player welfare and political fairness. Where one stands often reflects whether the priority is commercial expansion, global representation or competitive balance. Opinions in this piece labeled as analysis are distinct from the factual reporting attributed to Fox News.