Algeria
The current format needs more African teams. I think we’re missing consistent development across the continent. The African nations need to keep helping grassroots football develop. Shireen Ahmed
Argentina
This is a very bad idea. In my opinion the best format is a 16-team World Cup. Qualification should be held intercontinentally, which could be done in play-off phases or mini-tournament from which winners are promoted. The expanded format will decrease quality of games. This was vividly evident during the last Euros. Wales v Northern Ireland anyone? Andrzej
Australia
It should make qualification for the tournament a little more certain. In terms of hosting the World Cup, Australia’s chances would be diminished. I can’t see that we’d have enough suitable stadia – not many countries would. How anyone will be able to afford to host this behemoth of an event I do not know. Paul Kish
Belgium
It’s difficult to image any benefits coming from this change. Lowering the barrier for participation will decrease the overall quality of the tournament, but the main problems arise from the practical implications. Playing in groups of three, and allowing two teams to qualify, leads to pretty much every third game having a certain result that will allow both teams involved to progress. This opens the door for all sorts of “gentleman’s agreements.” Eliminating the concept of draws, by reverting to a sort of NASL-throwback style of penalty shoot-outs after regular time, would be a solution worse than the problem, reducing the World Cup to a sad circus. And even then, in groups where every team wins one game and loses one all sorts of problems would arise. Fifa’s desire to wring ever more money out of their cash-cow and complete disregard for the state of the game is hardly shocking any more. Flor Van der Eycken
Brazil
I can’t get enough World Cup football so this expansion doesn’t bother me at all. It will mean more time watching football and it will encourage nations who couldn’t participate before. The smaller nations will have more to play for and the only way to improve their own footballing prospects is by matching themselves against the bigger nations. Who will the next Iceland be? Victor DeAzevedo
Canada
We might actually have the faintest hope of qualifying once more in my lifetime! All the teams in the world are already entered anyway, so this is really just a debate about how many get to the final phase. The more the merrier as far as I’m concerned. Tell me that Germany, Brazil, Italy and Argentina aren’t going to be in the last eight even with this change. It’s a lot of fuss over nothing from purists who worry too much. Allan Castle
Chile
I worry more about how many countries will have the facilities to host such a huge tournament. A pre-World Cup tournament to further dilute all the dull teams would have been preferable. Sixteen teams was more than enough. Javier Rodriguez
Colombia
South American qualification is quite tough, so with more spots and only 10 teams competing, we will probably qualify most of the time. The qualifiers should be modified though. What’s the point of having a three-year league competition if more than 50% of the teams will qualifiy? I think it will decrease the level and the expectation of the World Cup in the end. Julian Sanint
Costa Rica
The current format is absolutely fine, although I’m open to a reallocation of places. In the new system qualifiers will be useless. If 6.5 places are given to Concacaf, it will be nearly impossible not to qualify. If a merger with Conmebol is agreed, there could be some attractive fixtures against the likes of Brazil or Argentina. Andrés Mora
Denmark
The expansion is a positive step. With the increase of European teams, Denmark’s chances of competing at the finals will hopefully be guaranteed. I also relish the idea that more countries from around the world will have a chance to compete, which makes room for more diversity at the World Cup. I’m all for the expansion as long as the maximum number of matches for each team does not exceed the current number and Fifa seem to have solved this problem with the new three-group format. I don’t see what all the fuss is about. David
Egypt
With the current format, Africa is being severely under-represented in the World Cup. Egypt is generally one of the top nine teams in Africa and increasing the African representation in the World Cup will make it easier for us to qualify. Omar Aly
England
The expansion cheapens the quality of the tournament. Teams already go through a lengthy qualifying process to reach the finals so surely the best teams should be there? Gianni Infantino merely wants to curry favour with the smaller nations with this strategy, but I don’t see the point in countries turning up to play a knockout match then go back home just for the experience of sampling the World Cup atmosphere. Leave the current format alone! Richard Whitter
Finland
While Finland may have a slightly better chance of qualifying, I don’t support the move at all. The team needs to improve to realistically compete with the likes of Germany and Argentina, otherwise we’ll see some very embarassing matches. Iceland showed at Euro 2016 that any small country can reach the top with the right team and conditions. The change will also mean huge additional costs for host nations, making it almost impossible for even countries such as Brazil to host the tournament, despite possibly being the greatest contributor to the game in recent years. There are already too many phantom stadiums in countries such as South Africa, who have previously hosted the tournament without having many competitive teams in the area. This expansion will lead to more unused stadiums and more corruption. Matti
Germany
I think 32 is too many already. There are not enough quality sides around to make each match essential viewing. And that’s what the World Cup should be. Group matches will matter very little, if only 16 of the 48 teams are eliminated. There will be even more of an incentive to grind out ties in the group stages. This means more tedious matches for Germany against teams who will be parking the bus and little else. Henning
Ghana
Europe is over-represented in the current format. It would be good for others teams to get a look in. European teams would usually beat them anyway so this expansion is unlikely to change the outcome of the competition overall. But it’s good for national teams to get on the world stage once in awhile. Ghana are a good team and would qualify for the World Cup anyway. Stuart Bolus
Greece
Greece usually has difficulties in qualifying for the tournament, so an expansion would benefit us and other Balkan nations like it did in the last 24-team European Championship. Having said that we didn’t actually qualify for that either, so there are no guarantees and expansion will automatically mean Greece will be at the tournament! I don’t like the idea of three teams in each group and think 16 groups of four teams (64 teams in total) would be better. That way the top two teams of each group will qualify for the knockout round of 32. Maybe something to consider for the 100-year anniversary World Cup in 2030? Mike K
Guatemala
We’ll finally manage to make it to a World Cup competition. Well, maybe. Lennin
Holland
The expansion has destroyed a prestigious competition completely. More rubbish teams competing in more rubbish games. At least we’ll have no excuses not to qualify. Bas Ruten
Iceland
While the expansion increases our chance of reaching the tournament, it feels like it diminishes the competition as a whole. You only need to look back to the Euros last summer. Many people said we were one of the teams that only made it due to the expansion to 24 teams. That was not true, as we would have made it with ease in the old 16-team format and we showed people our real quality this summer in reaching the quarter-finals. But this expansion really sounds like a money-making exercise rather than trying to improve the spectacle. Sveinn Thor
India
Football in my country is just starting to bloom, with commercial support and with India set to host U-17 World Cup this year. The decision to expand the World Cup gives us hope for the future. It could help the development of football and political support for the sport in our country. The decision to expand the Euros didn’t end up badly, with Iceland giving us a memorable tale to remember for years. S. Rajaselvam
Indonesia
The quality of the tournament will no doubt suffer. It’s not as if Indonesia will ever have a chance of getting through anyway. I was more than happy with the current format. Aditya
Ireland
From an Irish perspective the extra three European spots will help our chances, as we’re usually “touch n go” during the qualifiers. But if the last Euros were anything to go by, the increase may dilute the quality of the competition overall. My problem is with the three-team group format. That is just asking for trouble. Countries not in the last round of group games could be left feeling hard done by, if the other two collude to secure their own process. On the balance of things I’m probably in favour – just! Sean Quinn
Israel
This is good for Israel. We might qualify again for the first time since 1970. But the expansion is bad for football overall. Fifa are thinking of countering safety-first scoreless draws with staged penalty shootouts to award extra points. I can’t think of anything worse than manufactured drama like that. We’re basically one step closer to “multiball madness”. Michael Schuermann
Italy
Having 48 teams is a good idea but Europe should have been given more spots than the 16 places that are up for grabs. Europe has a greater percentage of the top 48 ranked national teams after all. For Italy the expansion means an even easier route to the World Cup final. Domenic
Jamaica
I’m desperate for another World Cup for Jamaica, having been starved of any sort of success since our appearance at France 98. But I’m not sure diluting the entire competition is a price worth paying for it. Shemar
Lebanon
I can understand why Fifa would want to expand the tournament and offer a lifeline to nations who have potential to develop in the sport. But for well established national sides this will be an irritant and for Lebanon it really doesn’t matter. We’re nowhere near the standard required to become one of the 48 teams going through. Fangis
Malaysia
It would need to be expanded to 200 teams to get my national team competing there. I’m happy with the current format. The best compete with the best – as it should be. Bob Libau
Namibia
I’m not very happy with the new format. The only silver lining is that we might have a chance to qualify for a major tournament. But the chances of Namibia gracing the World Cup in 2026 are very slim. Nick Mukanda
New Zealand
The 48 team World Cup would very likely have a positive effect on our national team. We’d be strong favourites to win the Oceania Group qualification spot, though based on past experience we certainly could not take for granted. The “All Whites” have only qualified for two World Cups in our history. Michael Leggat
Nigeria
I can’t see anything wrong with Fifa wanting more teams to participate in the World Cup. There are countries who would love a chance to experience the gamour of the big tournament and this new format might inspire them to kick on. It gives my country a better chance too. Darnell Uchay
Northern Ireland
I would have preferred a reduction of teams. The World Cup should be prestigious, representing only the elite of world football, it’s not about “giving everybody a chance to experience it.” Just like the Champions League, the inclusion of extra teams will be to the detriment of the competition. The joy of competing at these competitions should stem from how tough it is to qualify for them. This is a decision based on money and nothing more. Paul McVeigh
Norway
Norway now have a very realistic chance of qualifying. By the time 2026 comes around we’ll have been away from football’s top table for 26 years. With the expanding popularity of football and a globalised world, the middle-tier teams will decrease the gap to the best teams. The great powers of football will still be more consistent and have a higher maximum potential, but in 10 years all the top 60 teams in the world will be able to beat the other teams on a good day. This was evident in the Euros last year, with matches being less predictable than ever. Viktor
Poland
I’m more than happy with the 32-team format. With 48 teams, smaller nations will find it easier to qualify. This will slow down Poland reaching our highest level going into a tournament. Francis
Puerto Rico
This may give my country a real chance of finally making it to the greatest football competition in the world. Even if we were eliminated in the opening round, which would more than likely be the case, reaching the group stages would represent an enormous victory for us. Also, for this particular sporting event, it would be truly amazing to be able to root for our own country instead of again having to cheer on any national team playing against the USA. Julian
Scotland
I’m not so sure about the expansion, but I’m happy to see how it pans out before rubbishing it. It might be beneficial for Scotland’s chances of qualifying but the general standard of international football might be somewhat diminished as a result. So while it might result in a long overdue trip to a major tournament for the Tartan Army, Fifa are nothing if not incompetent, so there’s a good chance of this being an ill-thought out farce. Adam
Serbia
Our chances of qualifying have been made easier but only slightly. Our national team is under-performing. We failed to qualify for the past campaign, when Europe had a 13-team allocation, but might fare better if it’s raised to 16. From the European point of view I don’t think expanding the allocation by three teams will dilute the quality. That’s for other confederations to worry about. Leo
Slovakia
I loved the 32-team format. It divided everything perfectly and gave a good mix of countries while making qualifying hard. No one just waltzed in automatically. Looking at Concacaf, the US just have to show up to get through qualifying now. In Asia right now Syria would qualify automatically and they’re ranked 96th in the world. Who benefits from watching Germany thrash Syria in the group stages? Maybe Slovakia will qualify more often, but it won’t mean anything. When we made it in 2010 it really meant something and it was an incredible achievement to get to the knockout stage. Now the group stage will mean almost nothing and the potential for lousy matches will be very high. Dan
South Africa
The expansion means we may qualify without having to spend billions to host the tournament. We’re still saddled with a lot of debt after 2010. It may also give us a bit of confidence to improve if we get to play similarly bad teams from other parts of the world. The World Cup will have a really global feel. Hamish
South Korea
It’s good news for us and good news for Asian football in general. I’m confident that by 2026 we have a real chance of reaching a World Cup final. Derek Choi
Spain
If you want to give other teams more experience, let Fifa create a tournament that does not include the top sides in the ranking and let the remaining sides get some experience playing a mini World Cup format, so you can get experience and confidence. There’s no point getting hammered 15-0 by Argentina. This expansion just ups the goals tally for the tournament for all the wrong reasons and it disenchants viewers from developing football nations from following their teams’ progress any further. Krishna
Sweden
The qualifying campaign will be rendered useless and there will be less glory getting through to the tournament. Fifa have killed the last really meaningful football tournament. Stephan
Switzerland
I was happy with the current format and fear that this expansion will result in a lot of boring matches where teams set out to defend and frustrate more creative, attacking opposition. We should have no trouble getting through at least. Mario
Thailand
Asia currently only has a few slots in the finals but, as a football region, has the most countries. Therefore current qualifying campaigns in Asia are unfair; giving more slots to Asian countries would help rectify this. South America and Europe might have a better standard of football, but allowing more small nations to qualify will undoubtedly enhance the tournament’s global appeal. Turbo
Trinidad and Tobago
What’s done is done and football fans will just have to get on with it. At least we’ll have a much better chance of qualifying for the first time since 2006 in Germany. With only three direct qualifiers from Concacaf, USA and Mexico are almost a shoe-in. Then we have to battle it out with Costa Rica, Panama, Jamaica, Honduras, Cuba, Haiti etc. for the one remaining place. It’s proven to be too much of a challenge for us. For many “bigger” footballing countries it’s old hat to qualify for the World Cup, but for tiny nation states it would mean a lot to play on a world stage. Yes – even if it means being badly beaten. Jamette
USA
This expansion will ensure our team qualifies every time. Ultimately we will be able to get through qualification with less stress. We’ll not need to rely on our best players. But on the other hand that means the best XI won’t have time to bond and form a cohesive unit. This will not be good when the team is in the final tournament and faces tougher opposition. Jon
Vanuatu
A 64-team tournament would have been better. Eight leagues of eight and a straight knock-out from the group stage, with the top four teams in each group going through. I don’t ever imagine seeing us in a World Cup though, no matter how many expansions Fifa plan in the future. Wally
Wales
The current format is too diluted. Just because teams qualify from weak groups doesn’t mean they should be allowed to participate in the finals. They should be made to qualify through a vigorous play-off system to weed out the poor teams. What is the point of Africa getting extra places? Let’s be honest – apart from Cameroon Italia 90, African teams have flattered to deceive. The qualifying groups should not be confined to regions as this format is obviously not working. It should be the best 16 teams in the world playing at the World Cup. That’s why it doesn’t bother me one iota if Wales don’t qualify. Teams should be there on merit, not because Fifa needs more money. Robert Jones
Zimbabwe
I was happy with the current format, despite us never qualifying. I don’t think expanding it to 48 teams will help Zimbabwe one bit. How about expanding it to 64 teams and have a straight knock-out competition? Bob
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion