48 Teams: Was the Expanded Format a Success? The Verdict After 5 Weeks
More upsets. More nations. More stories. The 48-team World Cup delivered drama at every stage. But critics still have a point about the early group-stage bloat.
When FIFA announced the expanded 48-team format in 2017, the reaction from the football world was predominantly negative. More teams, critics argued, meant more mismatches. More group-stage matches meant more fatigue. A bigger competition did not automatically mean a better one. Five weeks into World Cup 2026, with eight teams remaining, it is time to deliver an honest verdict — and the result is more nuanced than either side predicted.
The first round of group games was, as feared, occasionally grinding. New Zealand 1–0 Fiji. Ecuador 5–0 El Salvador. Panama 0–4 Brazil. The matches that produced early mismatches were numerous, and the scheduling of three simultaneous games per evening created a fragmented viewing experience unlike anything previous World Cups had offered.
But by the second round of group games, something shifted. The 48-team format generated genuine footballing stories that a 32-team competition would never have created. Morocco's run from qualification through the group stage represented an entire continent's pride. Iran's dramatic qualification for the knockout stages from Group D brought a different dimension to Pulisic's eventual match-winning goal against them in the round of 16.
The knockout stages have been magnificent. Sixteen matches. Eleven decided by a single goal. Three going to extra time. The quality of football in the round of 16 arguably surpassed previous tournaments precisely because sixteen nations arrived with more recent match experience and sharper tactical preparation. The eight remaining teams are eight of the best football nations on earth. Nobody serious is arguing the wrong teams are left. The format worked.