Grading FIFAs Changes to…

The FIFA World Cup stands as the most significant and costly sporting event globally, serving as a crucial indicator of the evolution of the game, including advancements in technology and rule modifications. The 2014 tournament was the first to implement goal-line technology and vanishing spray. The 2018 edition introduced the video assistant referee (VAR), while the 2022 tournament allowed for five substitutions including a concussion substitute.

The 2026 World Cup notably mirrored the ongoing changes in the sport, marking the tournament’s first expansion since 1998, accompanied by fundamental shifts in ticket pricing, hydration breaks, and tiebreaker rules.

Despite FIFA’s relentless pursuit of profit being a central theme behind many of these alterations, some changes yielded tangible benefits while others did not enhance the experience.

With the tournament now concluded, it’s time to reflect on the key changes and their effects on the game. (We’ll bypass discussions regarding VAR usage, as it is constantly evolving and I personally prefer to avoid it.) Some changes were successful; others, not so much.

---

– World Cup reflections: Argentina let Messi down; England have regressed
– Borden: How the 2026 World Cup was unparalleled in its inspiration and controversy
– Marsden: Why Spain leads in both men’s and women’s soccer

---

Expansion to 48 Teams

To begin, let’s break this down into two parts: the concept of expansion, and specifically the implications of a 48-team format.

General Expansion

FIFA’s decision to allocate more bids to emerging federations over the past fifty years has encountered its share of difficulties. For instance, at the 1970 World Cup, El Salvador was outscored 9-0 in its three matches, and in 1974, Haiti suffered a 14-2 aggregate score, while Zaire famously faced a 14-0 defeat. As the tournament expanded to include 48 teams, these historical losses resurfaced in debates about potential blowouts dampening the competitive spirit.

Indeed, Germany did thrash Curaçao 7-1 in the early matches; however, such instances were relatively rare, as the overall level of play significantly improved since the past.

The world was ready for this expansion. Congo DR (previously Zaire) got the chance to redeem its 1974 experience, drawing with Portugal in the group stage and nearly upsetting England in the knockout phase. Likewise, Curaçao secured a point from Ecuador, which eventually defeated Germany. Meanwhile, Cape Verde achieved significant success, advancing to the knockout rounds and almost defeating defending champions Argentina. (Although two other debutants, Jordan and Uzbekistan, didn’t fare as well, they at least got to experience scoring goals.)

Expanding the World Cup brought more potential ‘Cinderella’ stories to light. While it also increased broadcasting opportunities and revenue — with FIFA’s motivations often obscuring genuine benefits — the tournament was undeniably enriched by its larger scope.

Grade: A+

Logistics of 48 Teams

The choice to include 48 teams did introduce certain awkward dynamics. With 32 teams advancing from 12 groups of four, two-thirds of teams that placed third moved on as well.

Teams with three points and a positive goal differential advanced, meaning only two teams finished the tournament without a win and still qualified. This lenient threshold allowed teams to feel complacent entering the final matchday, resulting in many lackluster matchups that lacked the anticipated intensity. Notable was Algeria‘s late dramatics against Austria. Logistical issues necessitated instances, such as Scotland having to linger days past their elimination in case of a miracle qualification.

This system was, however, preferable to FIFA’s original structure for 48 teams, which proposed 16 groups of three, each playing only two matches. Such an arrangement would detract from the narrative depth and enjoyment the expanded tournament aimed to deliver.

Ironically, a feasible solution to maintaining drama while exploring expansion futility is to consider further increasing the number of teams.

FIFA appears to be mulling the possibility of a 64-team format (with the top two teams advancing from 16 groups of four). Given the substantial adjustments necessitated by the 48-team approach — which led to an increment of 24 group stage matches and 16 knockout matches — accommodating an additional 24 matches while retaining a cap of eight total matches per team would likely be manageable.

The hosting arrangement for the 2030 event supports this strategy: Argentina, Paraguay, and original host Uruguay are set to host initial matches before handing over to Spain, Portugal, and Morocco for the remainder. By kickstarting the group stage in South America for a few days, time can be allotted for early participants to travel and recharge ahead of knockout rounds.

(It should be noted that the prospect of Saudi Arabia hosting the 2034 event while possibly needing additional stadiums poses its own set of challenges. Some have even suggested a temporary 64-team model for 2030, but rarely does an organization willingly reduce the size of a tournament; normally, once expanded, the format stays that way.)

Is the 64-team setup excessively diluted in terms of quality? That’s debatable. An analysis of the 2026 qualification indicates that a 64-team tournament could have included teams such as Bolivia (FIFA ranking: 76), Cameroon (57), Denmark (21), and more. It’s reasonable to assume some of these teams would struggle to compete with the top teams, yet many possessed similar rankings to those of Congo DR or Cape Verde. Some could have defied expectations.

Financial considerations may hamper this plan if crucial stakeholders conclude that a 64-team event could yield less media revenue per team than a 48-team tournament, leading to pushback. Nevertheless, at this point, the chances appear favorable. And rest assured, fans will still enjoy it, while FIFA continues its pursuit of profit.

Grade: B

---

Dynamic Ticket Pricing

This change was the starkest embodiment of FIFA’s exploitative nature. They essentially declared, We can charge whatever we wish for our coveted product, and we intend to extract every penny from you. FIFA President Gianni Infantino even asserted that this event was tantamount to “104 Super Bowls,” an outrageous exaggeration. As a result, ticket prices soared, making them unaffordable for anyone below the upper middle class — as long as someone could be found to purchase them.

While not every match achieved a sellout — with visible empty seats at several later rounds — nearly every ticket was sold, resulting in a staggering 6,810,966 tickets sold — an average of 65,490 per match. This marks a 22% increase in ticket sales per match compared to any World Cup since the U.S. last hosted in 1994, although the 1994 World Cup did see higher attendance per game.

Although fans may express discontent over FIFA’s blatant greed, the organization still proves that the allure of the World Cup is resilient, regardless of their tactics.

Due to FIFA’s success in extracting maximum revenue, this change cannot be considered a complete failure. Yet, it remains egregiously disappointing.

Grade: D-

---

Hydration Breaks

Hydration breaks in soccer have become a norm with the increase in matches played in hotter climates. When temperatures reach alarming levels, these breaks make sense from a player welfare standpoint. However, instituting them in every World Cup game — even those held indoors or in cooler conditions — stirred up traditionalists’ dismay, primarily because the rationale was blatantly apparent. In this distinctly American World Cup context, we witnessed elements prevalent in American sports: divided games and additional commercial breaks.

As these breaks serve as opportunities for media companies to generate revenue, it would not be surprising if such breaks became increasingly commonplace in major events. Nonetheless, audience reactions were often negative as teams took advantage of these time-outs for strategy discussions. Certain teams capitalized upon these breaks significantly better than others.

Utilizing an adjusted goal differential metric (70% expected-goal differential, 30% goal differential in 11-vs-11 situations), here are the top ten teams performing best following hydration breaks:

1. Argentina (plus-0.50 adjusted GD per game)

2. Canada (plus-0.44)

3. Ecuador (plus-0.31)

4. Ivory Coast (plus-0.29)

5. Iran (plus-0.28)

6. Austria (plus-0.26)

7. Türkiye (plus-0.24)

8. France (plus-0.23)

9. Uruguay (plus-0.22)

10. Scotland (plus-0.21)

This mix of teams includes both successful and less successful squads. Only France and Argentina also ranked among the top 10 in adjusted goal differential for the other 70 minutes of their respective matches. After hydration breaks, Argentina outscored opponents 5-0, considerably influencing their strategy in tight matches.

On the opposite end, here are the bottom ten:

48. Jordan (minus-0.76)

47. Qatar (minus-0.69)

46. Iraq (minus-0.59)

45. New Zealand (minus-0.58)

44. Haiti (minus-0.49)

43. Saudi Arabia (minus-0.40)

42. Uzbekistan (minus-0.33)

41. Tunisia (minus-0.31)

40. Curaçao (minus-0.30)

39. United States (minus-0.28)

The results featured primarily struggling teams, with the U.S. finding itself among them, ranking 14th in the other 70 minutes but, for reasons unknown, failing to showcase its best play post-hydration breaks. Notably, three of the U.S.’s eight goals conceded arose during the 28th, 31st, and 33rd minutes of matches.

Did hydration breaks ruin matches? No. Still, the addition of extra commercial breaks is regrettable.

Grade: C-

---

Head-to-Head Results as Tiebreakers

FIFA opted to prioritize head-to-head results over goal differential as the primary tiebreaker for teams ending up equal in group play. This new rule significantly influenced Group D standings.

After two rounds, the standings were as follows:

1. USA (6 points, plus-5 goal differential)

2. Australia (3 points, even goal differential)

3. Paraguay (3 points, minus-2 goal differential)

4. Türkiye (0 points, minus-3 goal differential)

With the U.S. facing Türkiye and Australia playing Paraguay on the final day, numerous outcomes remained possible under the old system. The U.S. still had a strong chance of topping the group, barring a heavy loss, while Türkiye stood a good chance of finishing third and advancing to the knockout rounds, which would have necessitated fielding first-string players despite coach Mauricio Pochettino’s decision to rest most starters. However, due to the head-to-head rule, the U.S. clinched first place early, and Türkiye’s elimination rendered the match largely an exhibition. (It turned out to be a very entertaining exhibition, nevertheless.)

Moreover, with numerous third-place teams advancing, Australia and Paraguay entered their match aware that even a draw would suffice for both to advance. While this situation was not directly linked to head-to-head tiebreakers, the combination resulted in an agreeable environment for numerous group-stage matches.

Even should future World Cups expand further, head-to-head tiebreakers can curtail late-stage drama in group play. Ultimately, we crave more excitement.

Grade: C-

---

Quick Substitutions and Restarts, plus Delayed Reentry

The implementation of measures to accelerate gameplay, such as players exiting the field within 10 seconds for substitutions, throw-ins and goal kicks within five seconds, and a player requiring medical attention needing to exit for a minute before reentering, went smoothly. The intentions of these changes were commendable, and referees were not overly stringent in their enforcement. All in all, no issues arose.

Grade: A

---

Red Cards for Mouth-Covering

The Prestianni Rule was designed to eliminate the ambiguity surrounding players covering their mouths during confrontations. Violation resulted in immediate dismissal. Paraguay’s Miguel Almirón became the first notable incident of this rule, drawing considerable attention.

The potential repercussions were highlighted when Lionel Messi appeared to lightly touch the face of Spain’s Marc Cucurella during a non-confrontational moment in the final, which brings forth interpretative concerns. Nevertheless, the objective behind this rule is viewed positively.

Grade: B