South America's 64-Team FIFA World Cup proposal will kill the tournament

Soccer's South American governing body, CONMEBOL, officially proposed a 64-team field for the 2030 FIFA World Cup, according to the Associated Press (via ESPN) on Thursday.

The 2030 tournament figures to be a unique one for a number of reasons; it will be hosted by six countries, Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina. It will also be the tournament's 100-year anniversary, and CONMEBOL president Alejandro Domínguez believes the perfect way to celebrate will be with more teams in the field than ever before.

"We are convinced that the centennial celebration will be unique because 100 years are celebrated only once," Domínguez said. ""This will allow all countries to have the opportunity to live the world experience and so nobody on the planet is left out of the party."

While Domínguez's motives seem noble, make no mistake: this is a colossally bad idea for the sport and the tournament, for a number of reasons.

This tournament is already setting up to be a logistical nightmare. The first matches of the tournament will be held in South America to honor the first World Cups played in the 1930s. After that, you're juggling matches between three countries, and trying to support fan bases from around the world.

Now, add into that more teams than have EVER participated in a World Cup. Odds are good with a field that big you're going to get some first-time participants, and those fan bases are going to show up en masse. Juggling 64 teams, their fans, and multiple countries is the kind of logistical cluster that would keep federation presidents up at night for months on end. You have teams moving not just between countries, but between continents. Even if they're geographically close, Morocco is in Africa. The passports and visas alone are enough to make your head spin, much less the jet lag from pinging between South America, Europe and Africa.

But, even if the logistics go smoothly, there's the competitive aspect to consider. Next year's World Cup will be the first ever to feature 48 teams. That's a LOT of teams, and a lot of teams who are likely to be overmatched against the best sides in the world. Think about your average World Cup as it stands; the group stages are already filled with matches in which a good team absolutely curb stomps a team from Oceania, or Asia, or one of the smaller European or North American sides.

You're not adding high-quality teams to this field. You'll be adding flawed, low-level sides who can't hold up against the might of a Brazil, a France, a Spain, or a Nigeria or Cameroon.

If that's not enough reason, consider this: the field will be so big that in both Americas, and likely Europe, qualification will be the least dramatic it's ever been, if it matters at all. All of CONMEBOL will likely qualify, a good chunk of CONCACAF, and the entirety of the upper halves of both UEFA and the CAF will likely cruise into the field without breaking a sweat. In a world where international teams are already frequently playing in front of partially-full stadiums, taking away the drama of qualifiers would destroy attendance even further.

So what's this about, really? The answer is obvious: the money. More World Cup matches means more airtime to sell, means more money in federations' pockets. This is a cash grab, pure and simple.

It's unclear as of now whether the move would have the votes to pass; UEFA's president has spoken out against a 64-team field, and the Europeans don't figure to be the only opposition here. But if FIFA isn't careful, they may find out it's possible to kill the golden goose, after all.

Home/Soccer