Over a decade with Gianni Infantino leading Fifa, the trend is clear: expansion is favored.

More events, more fixtures, more income.

The revamped Club World Cup, the larger World Cup, the higher ticket costs.

And, naturally, the Super Bowl-style spectacle that stretched the half-time interval in the World Cup final to 27 minutes and 22 seconds.

But why halt progress there?

Infantino seems to have opened the possibility for a 64-team World Cup.

"Without offering smaller nations a path to join, they lose motivation to progress," he stated.

Yet smaller nations already have opportunities. Strong performances earn qualification, as shown by Cape Verde, Curacao, Jordan and Uzbekistan.

From a format perspective alone, the idea holds logic.

The leading pair from each of the 16 groups would advance directly to the knockout rounds. This removes any need to promote select third-placed sides.

Still, are there genuine reasons beyond that to reach 64 teams?

Consider the background.

The 2030 World Cup will celebrate a century since the inaugural event in Uruguay.

Primary hosting duties fall to Morocco, Portugal and Spain, while Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay stage the opening three fixtures as centenary hosts.

Conmebol seeks additional matches.

In April 2025, the confederation proposed a single 64-team edition to accommodate four extra groups.

Its leader, Alejandro Dominguez, claimed this would ensure "no one on Earth misses the celebration".

Support from other regions remains limited.

Uefa chief Aleksander Ceferin labeled it a "poor concept" for both the finals and qualifiers.

Victor Montagliani of Concacaf warned last year that it would harm "the wider football structure".

AFC president Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa concurred, noting further growth might cause "disorder".

That does not guarantee it will fail, since the Fifa Council of 37 members decides.

A 64-team event offers two clear benefits: a cleaner structure and wider access for developing sides.

Infantino emphasizes the second point, particularly following Cape Verde's achievements.

Fifa drew criticism ahead of the event, with claims extra entrants would struggle.

Cape Verde then tied with Spain and Uruguay to finish second in their group. The Blue Sharks pushed Argentina to extra time in the last 16 before a 3-2 defeat.

Yet inspirational tales must be weighed against overall competitiveness.

Haiti, Iraq, Jordan, Panama, Tunisia and Uzbekistan earned no points, while this summer's group phase offered little threat to leading sides.

Further expansion would likely prevent repeats of top seeds such as Belgium (2022), Germany (2018), Spain (2014), Italy (2010) and France (2002) missing the knockout phase.

Allocation of extra spots also raises questions.

Using this year's qualifiers, the additional qualifiers for a 64-team 2026 World Cup (with rankings at the start) would include:

AFC: Indonesia (118), Oman (79), United Arab Emirates (68).

Uefa: Denmark (21), Italy (12), Poland (36).

Concacaf: Honduras (65), Jamaica (71), Suriname (125).

Conmebol: Bolivia (77), Venezuela (49).

OFC: New Caledonia (151).

Africa: Burkina Faso (62), Cameroon (44), Gabon (86), Nigeria (26).

Six of these rank inside the global top 50 - three from Europe, two from Africa and one from South America.

This highlights the issue. Asia and Concacaf proved weaker, as results confirmed.

Nine of Africa's 10 sides advanced from groups, but only two of nine Asian teams progressed and just three of six Concacaf entrants - the co-hosts - moved on.

New Zealand, with one point and last in their group, remain Oceania's sole top-150 nation.

One view holds that further growth should favor Europe for balance.

Conversely, others claim more entrants help football develop in those regions.

Infantino will frame expansion as beneficial globally, yet doubts persist about its value to the event itself.

Nearly one-third of Fifa's 211 members would attend.

Might the group stage turn into little more than a broad qualifying round for an essentially knockout competition?

Expanding to 64 teams simply adds four more four-team groups.

More groups require more time.

This year's event spanned 39 days. Twenty-four extra matches would need 20 schedule slots, or five further days.

Yet this summer was distinctive due to multiple time zones and indoor venues.

Fifa stretched each matchday across 14 hours to fit broadcast windows.

Future editions, even at 48 teams, will face greater constraints.

Climate shifts complicate daytime fixtures, evident in recent European heat records.

Few nations possess covered stadiums like those in Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and Vancouver.

The Saudi Arabia World Cup may shift to January 2035, but solutions elsewhere remain unclear.

Until this year, only Japan and South Korea in 2002 had shared hosting.

Single-nation hosting now seems improbable, even for Saudi Arabia.

Could future events involve the UK with Scandinavia, or Eastern Europe?

How might an Asian or African nation finance such an event?

A few practical matters stand out.

This summer featured 16 host cities with capacities from 43,000 to 81,000. More venues would be essential.

Sixty-four high-quality training sites would be needed.

Accommodation and transport for supporters must also be arranged.

Expansion involves more than simply including additional countries.

One of Infantino's main pledges upon election was increased revenue for the sport.

Every association now receives $8m over four years, plus $1.2m for smaller members.

Confederations obtain $60m for development and organization.

This explains Infantino's likely unopposed re-election next year.

Funds derive mainly from the World Cup.

In 2017, Fifa estimated a 48-team event would generate $6.5bn.

By 2022, with 24 added matches, projections rose to $9bn this year.

A 64-team tournament would likely yield more via broadcasting, sponsors and tickets.

Fifa claims a duty to grow the game through ever-greater volumes of matches.

Critics insist expansion must eventually stop benefiting the sport.