The rejection of a 64-team World Cup is a powerful demonstration of the balance of power within FIFA, where the collective will of the council can halt even the most persistent juggernaut of expansion. The decision shows that despite a presidential willingness to listen, the council acts as the ultimate check on radical change, prioritizing stability and perceived quality.
The expansion juggernaut, driven this time by the ambitions of the South American confederation, seemed to be following a familiar path. A proposal was made, and the FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, granted it a formal audience in New York. Historically, such momentum has often led to change.
But this time, the council held the line. An inside source was emphatic that the proposal would fail a vote, revealing a unified bloc of opposition that Infantino could not overcome. The council’s members, representing confederations from around the world, collectively decided that a 64-team format would be a step too far, risking the sporting and commercial health of the tournament.
This act of collective governance was bolstered by public statements from influential vice-presidents from UEFA and Concacaf, who articulated the council’s concerns to the wider world. Their intervention highlighted that this was not an arbitrary decision but a considered position held by a majority of football’s key stakeholders.
The outcome is a victory for the principle of shared governance. It proves that the FIFA Council is not a rubber stamp for presidential agendas or regional interests, but a deliberative body capable of applying the brakes when it feels the world’s biggest sporting event is at risk.