The expanded World Cup has brought joy from Scotland to Curaçao - but it comes at a cost

In so many ways, Tuesday evening represented everything that international football is meant to be about. The joy in Glasgow as Scotland qualified for the World Cup thanks to some of the greatest goals ever scored in the service of their country. The celebrations in the Caribbean as Haiti, a country ravaged by civil strife, reached their second finals – and as Curaçao upset incredible odds to become the smallest country ever to reach football’s greatest tournament.

It was a remarkable night which offered a measure of vindication for FIFA’s controversial decision to expand the World Cup to 48 teams – in no small part the reason that many nations which are often stuck on the sidelines of the sport, including debutants Cape Verde, Uzbekistan and Jordan, will be playing on its grandest stage next summer. Countries that rarely reach football’s heights will share the spotlight and their supporters have been provided with moments that will be remembered for years to come.

This was the upside to the changes FIFA have made to the World Cup ahead of the 2026 edition, which will be held jointly in the United States, Canada and Mexico – but is it enough to justify everything that Gianni Infantino has done to bring his vision together in the build-up? Is the joy worth the cost?

Why the 2026 World Cup is a problem for the football calendar

Curaçao and Haiti were able to make it in large part because qualification for the tournament has been made considerably easier by the decision to expand the tournament by 50% - but that decision comes with consequences, of which an increase in matches perceived as being low stakes or as being contested by two ‘smaller’ sides is the least.

The 2026 format will increase the number of matches played at the tournament to 104, with a whole extra round of 32 added into the equation. That’s only one more match but it’s also more time spent at the tournament, adding to the already extensive demands placed on the players. The elite footballing calendar is at breaking point on a global scale, and between the World Cup and the expanded Club World Cup which debuted in 2025, FIFA is only exacerbating the problem.

Players around the world are fatigued, increasingly injured and being asked to play through pain and physical issues that once would have meant a spell on the sidelines. There are plenty of examples in the Premier League alone – take Phil Foden admitting that his poor form last season was partly the result of sheer burnout, for instance, or Enzo Fernández telling the media that he had been playing with a bone edema in his knee for four months prior to the November international break without proper treatment or rest.

More and younger players are suffering serious injuries and while players may be lavishly remunerated for their exhausted efforts at the highest level. A 2024 study suggested that injuries among young players had nearly doubled inside five years as more and more games make their way into the schedule and as clubs become less willing to rest players when required with more money at stake in almost every game. Players’ bodies are being pushed past their limits, and there has been no let-up, with summer breaks now reduced to a bare minimum by ever-growing tournaments.

This isn’t an issue which stops with the biggest teams, either, although they bear the brunt. Take Curaçao’s Tahith Chong, for example, who – if fit – could easily play over 60 matches this season between domestic games with Sheffield United, international matches and cup competitions before he heads to North America for a tournament that will take away any chance of a meaningful break he might have. Then he will be back to Sheffield to do it all again.

Some supporters struggle to find sympathy for the wealthiest players when they complain about their workloads, but a great deal is asked of them and they now go with almost no rest at the highest levels. Their bodies are taking the toll.

This isn’t a problem created solely by FIFA – plenty of football associations and federations could shed games from the schedule to compensate and aren’t doing so lest they devalue their product, and many major clubs are absolutely guilty of adding overseas friendlies at either end of the league season solely to make some money, but FIFA’s greed certainly isn’t helping.

An expanded World Cup may be ideal for Scotland – but it’s all about lining FIFA’s pockets

The ultimate aim of up-sizing the World Cup and Club World Cup isn’t to bring more teams to the top tables and spread the wealth but to create more opportunities for FIFA to make money, something they only do when their major tournaments come around – more games means they can demand more from sponsors and broadcasters (some of which is passed on to fans with ever-increasing costs for TV subscriptions) with the costs of organising the games, travel and so on largely eaten by the host country and the teams taking part.

The same logic has informed UEFA’s decision to expand the Champions League, adding two games which have caused scheduling issues for several leagues including the Premier League. The expanded World Cup is just one of many angles from which football’s schedule is being squeezed.

The players themselves have been looking for ways to make their voices heard on the matter, with Manchester City’s Rodri openly discussing the possibility of a players’ strike in 2024 and FIFPRO, the global umbrella union, filing a legal complaint against FIFA for their abuse of the calendar.

Meanwhile, FIFA has responded to concerns by freezing FIFPRO out of consultation processes, citing “attacks” from the body over their track record on player welfare. At a recent meeting in Rabat to discuss welfare issues, FIFA were accused by FIFPRO of creating “fake” unions to bring to the table to quash players’ voices.

Infantino said after the meeting in Rabat that "[FIFA] remain committed to further enhancing player welfare and working conditions across the world by implementing concrete and meaningful measures with a view to improving football for the future,” but the measures agreed were rather laughable – implementing a 72-hour gap between matches impacts a tiny fraction of games, while their decision to set up a player welfare fund would mean more if such a thing hadn’t already existed until Infantino’s administration scrapped it in 2022.

The meeting drew criticism from Britain as well, with PFA chief executive Maheta Molango saying that it was “sad news when instead of engaging with the people who have been elected to be the voice of the players, the authority decides to pick who they would like to sit at the table with” and describing the situation as “very concerning.” FIFA appears to be doing what it can to sweep the needs of players under the rug.

That is the environment in which the expanded World Cup sits, and the backdrop against which celebrations from Glasgow to Tashkent to Port au Prince are taking place – one in which not only are players having their bodies abused by clubs and federations alike, but in which those theoretically responsible for ensuring their safety and welfare may be actively working against them for their own financial gain.

The expansion of the World Cup will bring teams to the table that rarely have the chance to be there. That’s a wonderful thing, and shouldn’t be dismissed, especially with off-handed commentary on the quality of the matches they will be involved in at the tournament, made as if only the best teams in the world produce excitement and drama. But it all comes at a cost, and it’s one the players themselves must pay. Perhaps it isn’t worth it – not that you’d imagine anyone in Curaçao is worrying about it too much right now.