When it Comes to the World Cup, Bigger Does Not Mean Better

This article originally appeared on VICE Sports UK.

Not long ago it was widely believed, especially in western Europe, that FIFA's problems would all be solved with the ousting of president Sepp Blatter. Out went Blatter, in came Gianni Infantino, the first FIFA president from UEFA since 1974. And yet now some of those same people howl in outrage at Infantino's World Cup expansion, an idea very unlikely to have been favoured by Blatter.

Why has Infantino done it? There are obvious economic advantages to a bigger World Cup – the competition that already accounts for some 89% of FIFA's income – but the leading force here has been less financial than political.

There is a reason that Europe lost control in 1974. Immediately after World War II, Europe accounted for more than half of FIFA's membership. By 1974 it was down to a third. Europe's footballing power, in the shape of the appalling English president Sir Stanley Rous, proved unable to respond to the post-colonial era. The World Cup of Rous only had space for 16 teams, with very little opportunity for Africa and Asia – in 1966 these two vast continents fought for just one World Cup slot. The Brazilian Joao Havelange beat Rous in 1974 on a pro-developing world ticket. He would expand the competition, with more places for Africa and Asia, a policy continued by Blatter, his hand-picked successor.

Football is run by old men with long memories. Infantino, then, needed to show that he was different, inclusive – and he had to do it quickly. His first mandate is a short one, completing the term of office that Blatter renounced. Infantino is up for re-election in 2019. He had to have something to offer Africa and Asia – the two continents which between them account for almost half the FIFA membership, but which have less than a third of World Cup slots. Hence the speed with which he has tabled his proposal for an expansion.

Blatter would almost certainly not have taken this step for two reasons. One is that he did not need to. His level of support, especially in Africa, made such a move unnecessary. Moreover, he would have seen the possible pitfalls.

The obvious one – seized on by every opponent of the expansion and even some of its supporters – is the dilution of quality. Within living memory the World Cup once represented the very pinnacle of the game in terms of standards of play and tactical innovation. That crown has since passed to European club football, which assembles the best players from the four corners of the globe and works with them on a daily basis, permitting tactical innovation. The national team game still has unrivalled power to mobilise people, to make them feel involved in the event. But the battle for standards has been lost – and the inclusion of so many mediocre teams in the World Cup will widen still further the gulf between the tournament and the Champions League.

As an aside, it is also worth noting that the expansion will do little for the national team game on a day to day level, at least in football's two traditional continents. World Cup qualification in Europe will become even less interesting, while it will also suffer across the other side of the Atlantic. Fiercely competitive and dramatic, the South American World Cup qualifiers have been one of international football's success stories of recent times. But, with almost everyone qualifying, they will inevitably lose some of their appeal.

In compensation, there will be a giant party every four years. Perhaps too big.

Given its size, it is necessary to ask who will pay for the tournament. Remember all of those protests in Brazil a year before the last World Cup? The people were angry about the level of spending on the 2014 tournament. The new format, with 80 games as opposed to 64, will mean more resources funnelled towards the construction of unnecessary stadiums. It makes the World Cup so huge that very few countries will be able to stage it on their own.

And so, having seemingly forgotten the lessons of 2002, when the split between Japan and South Korea proved problematic, the idea of co-hosting is back on the agenda. There is talk of 2026, the first expanded World Cup, going to the United States, Mexico and Canada. This is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. Firstly, fans are getting fleeced. While those on FIFA expense accounts can doubtlessly afford to go from Mexico City to Toronto and then down to Los Angeles to follow their team, the average supporter will not be so pleased. Also, imagine the visa problems. Will fans have to scale a wall to get between two of the host nations? And anyway, spreading things out over so wide an area dilutes one of the very best aspects of a tournament: the coming together of the world to celebrate a common passion.

That passion is also undermined by the dismal science of mathematics. The numbers do not work well. A competition with 48 teams will inevitably be unwieldy.

The musical stave has five lines for a reason. There is a limit to the amount of information the brain can process, and 16 groups surely exceeds that limit. Who on earth will be able to follow the action in 16 groups? Three teams per group is another problem, as the group cannot end with all the teams in action simultaneously. And, even if every loophole that could lead to result manipulation is closed, there is another defect.

Many will say that the group phase is little more than a glorified preliminary, and that the real stuff gets undwerway when the field has been reduced to 32 – a splendid number – who then meet in a straight knockout format. Indeed, this phase does whet the appetite, but it cannot take place on a level playing field. Those sides who got their two group games out of the way early will have had more time to rest for the decisive clash than opponents who played the final game in their group. The knockout phase is flawed from the start.

And so it would seem that the expanded 48-team World Cup is a shining example of the wisdom of an old phrase: be careful what you wish for, lest it come true.

@Tim_Vickery