The FIFA World Cup 2026 will be one like never before.

Featuring 48 teams from across six confederations, the tournament will be the biggest in the competition’s 96-year history.

What once started as a mere 13-team World Cup has now expanded by nearly four times.

From minnows to giants, there is a place for one and all in the new expanded format, but how does it benefit the global game, and what are the potential drawbacks of opening the door to more teams?

All to know about the new format before the tournament start on June 11:

How the 48-team format works

The participating nations are divided into 12 groups of four teams each, replacing the previous 32-team, eight-group format.

The top two teams in each of the 12 groups, plus the eight best third-placed teams, will advance to the round of 32.

From there on, it’s a straightforward knockout format, followed by the last-16, quarterfinals, semifinals and the final.

Former Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger, now FIFA’s chief of global football development, thinks expanding the tournament is a step towards making football “truly global” and raising the standards.

Nearly a quarter of the 211 FIFA national member associations worldwide will be represented at the 2026 World Cup.

“It’s a natural evolution. I think we want to make football global all over the world. And if you look at the evolution (from) 1930, in 2030, the next World Cup will be 100 years since the World Cup [existed],” Wenger told a media conference in December.

“We started with 13 teams, after [that], 16… 1982 was the first time with 24 teams. 1998 was the first time with 32 teams. So, the evolution is (that) always more teams want to participate. And now I believe that 48 teams is the right number,” added the Frenchman.

According to a FIFA release in mid-April, the World Trade Organization (WTO) estimated that the expanded tournament will produce $80.1bn in gross output, including $30.5bn to the cohost, the United States.

While that impact is spread across the US economy, the $11bn in FIFA World Cup revenue that the international football body expects to generate this year will be ploughed back into the game, FIFA President Gianni Infantino said.

“That goes in 211 countries all over the world, to allow football projects, academies, stadiums, pitches, competitions for girls, for boys, in 211 countries – more than the UN – to be played and organised,” he said at the CNBC Invest in America Forum in Washington, DC, on April 15.

“Three quarters of them would probably not be able to have organised sport without the advance that they receive from a competition like the World Cup,” Infantino added.

Expansion offers more opportunities for smaller nations

The expanded format has opened new doors for nations that had little to no chance of qualification under the old 32-team format.

Among those are four nations that will be making their debut in North America: Curacao, the smallest nation ever to qualify for a World Cup, fellow minnows Cape Verde, and Asian newcomers Jordan and Uzbekistan.

The four debutants’ entry falls just short of the record of six set at the inaugural edition in 1930 and in 2006 – but as many as nine potential newcomers were in contention for World Cup qualification heading into the March playoffs.

While the men’s World Cup underwent expansion this year, the women’s equivalent was also stretched from 24 to 32 nations three years ago. The idea to expand the Women’s World Cup was initially met with scepticism, but as eight newcomers took part in the 2023 World Cup in Australia, many of the minnows pulled off upsets.

Tokyo 2020 Olympic champions Canada, former world champions Germany and heavyweights Brazil all crashed out in the group stage while Jamaica, South Africa and Morocco made history by advancing to the knockout stage for the first time.

That tournament also reminded fans how the accuracy of the FIFA rankings could be skewed because some of the low-ranked teams do not play as many international matches as their more illustrious opponents.

Risk of low-stakes, one-sided fixtures

While the expanded 2026 tournament has gifted opportunities to more teams, many of whom would not have qualified under the previous format, it could also lead to a new problem: A rise in low-stakes, potentially one-sided match-ups.

It doesn’t take long to glance at the group stage fixtures to identify some potentially lopsided matches. Iran, one of Asia’s strongest sides, will face New Zealand, the lowest-ranked team in the tournament, raising the likelihood of a mismatch that offers little competitive intrigue for the average football fan.

Elsewhere, group-stage meetings between micro nation Curacao and tournament heavyweights Germany as well as Cape Verde taking on the might of UEFA Euro 2024 champions Spain risks turning those fixtures into a route for the European nations.

In the big picture, these potentially uneven contests could dilute the intensity and quality of group stage fixtures that have traditionally defined the World Cup, and risk turning them into predictable, low-engagement affairs for the opening half of the 39-day tournament.

Additionally, expanding the format could lead to easier, boring routes to the knockouts.

For example, a team could draw all three of its group games and still make the cut to the next round. At the very least, expansion from 32 to 48 teams risks altering the competitive dynamics of the group stage.

Short post-World Cup recovery window for players

With 56 days, FIFA has said the total combined number of rest, release and tournament days remains identical to the 2010, 2014 and 2018 FIFA World Cup editions. But what about the post-tournament recovery period?

Most of the top European leagues will begin their 2026-27 season just a month after the World Cup final, leaving players with a short offseason to relax and recover from injuries.

A report by the Football Benchmark group, which used data from the FIFPRO Men’s Player Workload Monitoring (PWM) platform, further highlighted this issue.

“The move from 32 to 48 teams increases the total number of matches from 64 to 104, with the finalists required to play up to eight matches across a 38-day period. Positioned shortly after the European club season and following consecutive summers of major international and club competitions, it also brings additional logistical demands, including long-distance travel, multiple time zones, and varied climatic conditions across host cities,” the analysis read.

“In addition, the window between the World Cup final and the start of the following domestic season is limited, with 34 days separating the final and the start of the Premier League season, leaving reduced time for rest and preseason preparation.”