The 2026 World Cup was the first with 48 teams and 104 matches, and it was the biggest test of the expanded format. Before the tournament, critics warned that the extra teams would dilute the quality, produce too many one-sided games and make the group stage boring. Four years later, the verdict is more complicated: the tournament had problems, but it also produced some of the best stories in World Cup history, and the lessons of 2026 will shape the 2030 tournament in Spain, Portugal and Morocco.

More teams, more stories

The biggest success of the 48-team format was the new stories it created. Nations that had never played at a World Cup before reached the tournament, and several of them produced memorable performances, beating established teams and winning fans around the world. The expanded format gave the World Cup a genuinely global feel, with strong teams coming from every confederation.

The group stage also produced more meaningful games. With 12 groups of four and the best third-placed teams advancing, almost every team had something to play for in its final group game, and that kept the drama alive until the last day. The format rewarded teams that kept fighting even after a bad start, and several of the tournament's best moments came from teams that needed a result in their last game.

The quality question

The critics had a point too: some group games were one-sided, and the gap between the best and the weakest teams was obvious in a few matches. The early rounds included games that would never have happened in the old 32-team format, and some fans felt the tournament took too long to get to the games that really mattered. The group stage lasted nearly three weeks, and the schedule was demanding for players and fans alike.

But the knockout rounds were as good as any in World Cup history. Once the weaker teams were eliminated, the tournament produced tight, dramatic games, and the final — Spain beating Argentina 1-0 in extra time — was a classic. The lesson is that the expanded format works best once the tournament reaches the knockouts, and the challenge is making the group stage matter as much.

The logistics: three countries, sixteen cities

Organising a 104-match tournament across the United States, Mexico and Canada was an enormous logistical achievement. Teams travelled thousands of kilometres, fans crossed borders and time zones, and the tournament still ran smoothly. The 2026 World Cup proved that a multi-country tournament of this size is possible, which matters for 2030, when the games will be spread across Spain, Portugal, Morocco and three South American cities.

The travel was hard on players, though, and the schedule was relentless. Teams that had to cross the continent between games were at a disadvantage, and the tournament's length tested squad depth more than ever before. Spain's victory was partly a victory of depth and rotation, and future contenders will need to plan for the same demands.

What 2030 should keep and change

The 2030 tournament will use the same 48-team format, and FIFA will keep what worked: the 12 groups, the best third-placed teams advancing and the expanded field that gives more nations a chance. The lessons of 2026 are clear — keep the drama of the final group games, protect player welfare with sensible scheduling and make sure the travel demands are fair.

The format's real test will be whether it can produce another tournament as memorable as 2026. The expanded World Cup is here to stay, and the debate about quality versus inclusion will continue, but the 2026 tournament showed that a bigger World Cup can still be a great World Cup. The 2030 edition has a lot to live up to.

World Cup 2026 proved that the 48-team format can work: more teams brought more stories, the group stage stayed dramatic, and the knockout rounds were superb. The format is not perfect, but it is here to stay — and 2030 will be its second great test.