The proposal for a 64-team World Cup was a calculated risk, and FIFA’s council, acting as the organization’s board of directors, has chosen to play it safe. The decision to reject the plan was a classic example of risk management, where the potential downsides to the tournament’s brand and finances were deemed to far outweigh any potential benefits.
The potential “reward” of the proposal, as pitched by South America, was greater inclusivity and a grander centenary event. For FIFA, this could have translated into political goodwill and possibly new revenue streams from more markets.
However, the council’s risk assessment clearly identified more significant threats. The primary risk was brand dilution. An insider confirmed the fear that a lower-quality tournament would “damage the World Cup” brand, an invaluable asset built over decades. A second major risk was financial. The same source noted the potential to “damage the business model,” suggesting that broadcasters and sponsors might pay less for a watered-down product.
A third risk was logistical. The 2030 tournament is already a high-risk venture due to its multi-continent format. Adding another 24 teams and 64 matches would have exponentially increased the operational risk, with a higher chance of organizational failures.
Faced with this risk-reward analysis, the FIFA Council made a conservative choice. They decided to stick with the known quantity of the 48-team format, which is itself an expansion but one that has already been planned for and politically agreed upon. They rejected the bigger gamble, opting to protect their most valuable asset rather than risk it for uncertain gains.
