It’s a World Cup year! The biggest and most-watched spectacle in the sporting world returns for its quadrennial appearance. But while there’s usually a significant accretion of anticipation and excitement as the tournament approaches, this edition feels a bit lacking in that fervour.
There’s a fair number of factors causing the relative listlessness, ranging from geopolitics to the fan experience, but the biggest change from recent times has been the revision of the format.
EXPANDED FORMAT
Since 1998, when the Fifa World Cup was expanded to 32 teams, it has followed the same structure — the teams split in eight groups of four to start off with, before the top two from each group proceed to a knockout bracket starting with the Round of 16.
It was a format that worked well because of its symmetry — teams halved with each passing round — and because of its balance between the ease of following and last-round drama. Finish in the top to qualify, no best third placed teams or anything. It was a format that worked well because of its longevity and universality.
Excitement is missing in the build-up to the upcoming Fifa World Cup. The changed format, the US disconnect from football, absurdly steep pricing and uncertainty of an American welcome are all playing their part…
The qualification process has remained the same over the years, too. Thirteen teams from Europe, five from Africa, four from both Asia and South America and three from North/Central America. Now, if you’ve done your arithmetic and are thinking this doesn’t add up to 32, it’s because the hosts qualified automatically and two positions were filled up through intercontinental playoffs contested by the ‘nearly there’ teams, as in teams that barely missed out on qualification from the Asian Football Confederation (AFC), the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF), South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) and Oceania Football Confederation (OFC).
This ensured a healthy balance between teams qualifying for every tournament and those making their debuts or returning after absences. Similarly, this would ensure the presence of nations from across the globe, hence making this a World Cup, while still maintaining the competitiveness one would associate with a prestigious competition.
All of that has changed now.
The expansion to 48 teams means 12 groups of four, wherein the top two qualify to the brand new ‘Round of 32’ knockout. To complete the bracket, we’ll have the top eight third placed teams going through as well. And to cater for the 48 teams needed for the tournament, the number of qualification spots awarded to each confederation has been increased. So, now we’ll have 16 from Europe, nine from Africa, eight from both Asia and CONCACAF, six from CONMEBOL and a permanent spot for Oceania.
A more global tournament allows for more countries to make their debuts, a chance taken up this year by Cabo Verde, Curacao, Jordan and Uzbekistan. This high number builds into Fifa’s confidence that expansion is the right thing to do, even if it dilutes the experience wherein every match is hard fought and meaningful to the bigger picture of the tournament.
And while a higher number of teams does make it easier to qualify for the big tournament, it doesn’t guarantee it. This was evidenced by Italy who’ve made it three World Cups in a row where they won’t be partaking, after they lost their playoff to Bosnia and Herzegovina on penalties.
Then there are the number of matches and duration of the tournament itself. There were 64 matches spanning over 27 days for the World Cup in the previous format. The new version will have 104 matches spread over 48 days.
This change has received criticism from both players and supporters. The players’ governing body has protested against the increased workload for players, while it is ironic that Fifa is increasing the number of matches in an age where attention spans are decreasing.
AMERICANISING FOOTBALL
If I had to explain what Americanisation of the World Cup means in one word, I’d ask you to Google Lighter, the official song of the 2026 World Cup. Where previous editions featured classics such as Waka Waka and Colours among others, this year’s song has been subjected to widespread criticism and ridicule.
A World Cup song has one purpose: bringing people together. Songs in the past have done that through a few common ways, such as being upbeat, best characterised by The Cup of Life for 1998, and being universal, best characterised by Wavin’ Flag for 2010. Lighter is neither; it’s a country song with no real emotional connection with football. And that is where a lot of issues most people have with 2026 come from — that there is no attachment to football in anything that’s being done by either Fifa or the host cities.
Take pricing as an example. The first World Cup not to sell tickets at fixed rates on a first-come-first-serve basis, 2026 used a balloting system based on dynamic pricing to sell tickets. Even for the balloting, the base price was almost two times as much as Qatar 2022 for the group games and almost six times higher for the final. Some tickets for the final cost as much as $33,000 on the Fifa website! Listings on the resale platform featured seven figure values. A tournament as commercialised as the American market.
There are three major expenses for a supporter travelling to a World Cup: match tickets and merchandise, accommodation and travel. Accommodation has always been expensive in the US and Canada. The third leg, travel, has also been taken out of reach of the common fan. Bus and train rides to stadiums have been set at around $100, almost 12 times their normal price. Parking spots at stadiums are being sold in excess of $250. In comparison, all public transport in Doha was free for match ticket-holders throughout the 2022 World Cup.
Fan experience is already a significant talking point for the 2026 World Cup, even before the tournament has begun. Football is the game of the common man; World Cups are unique because of the atmosphere created by loyal supporters travelling thousands of kilometres to support their nations. When the opportunity to attend their nation’s matches in the flesh is taken away from them, there is no ‘fan-zone’, a word Fifa has prided itself on so much for the past 20 years or so.
GEOPOLITICAL UNCERTAINTY
Getting to the 2026 World Cup is not only expensive, but it may also be impossible for some people.
US President Donald Trump has already announced that the infamous Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will continue operating during the World Cup, which might see a lot of people travelling to the country for the tournament getting deported.
Further, four qualified countries currently sit on Trump’s Travel Ban List — Iran, Haiti, Ivory Coast and Senegal. While the teams and their officials were granted exceptions for visa processing, the same does not apply for their supporters, which could mean that there are no people from these countries attending the World Cup. And even for people from countries not on the list, visa wait times are so excruciatingly long that it just might not be possible to get a visa after one has been allotted a ticket.
And finally, there is no clarity on whether Iran will be playing in the tournament. One of the first teams to qualify for the World Cup but now embroiled in a war with the US and Israel, it is unclear whether Iran will be willing to travel to the US in these circumstances. And even if they do, will they be allowed to enter the US?
In such a backdrop, there have been multiple threats of blocs boycotting the tournament altogether, due to the involvement of the US in the Israeli aggression in Gaza and over the treatment of immigrants in the country.
Fifa President Gianni Infantino awarding Trump the Fifa Peace Prize in these times does not paint the governing body in a positive light. Let’s hope that football compensates for all the commotion off the field.
The writer is a sports enthusiast with a background in supply chain management. X: @tahagoheer
Published in Dawn, EOS, May 17th, 2026