For months, the debate surrounding the FIFA World Cup 2026 centred less on football than on numbers. Critics feared that adding 16 more teams would lower the overall standard, and that too many mismatches would erode the quality of the sport's biggest event. Questions surrounded the new format, uneven scheduling, logistical complications across three host nations, and whether a month-long spectacle with 104 matches could sustain its appeal.
A month later, with four deserving semifinalists left standing -- Argentina, England, France and Spain -- those doubts seem remarkably distant. It is difficult to argue that the expanded World Cup has failed. If anything, it has offered a compelling case that football's greatest competition can evolve without losing its essence.
One can't expect much more from a World Cup than what this edition has already produced.
The quality of football has rarely dipped. Every match seemed to offer something worth watching -- tactical masterclasses, stunning goals, dramatic comebacks, controversial refereeing decisions or stories that extended well beyond the pitch. Even games involving supposed underdogs like Cape Verde carried genuine intrigue, proving that expansion did not necessarily mean predictability.
The biggest success of this World Cup may simply be that football fans found it almost impossible to skip a match, even in this part of the world where compromising with sleep has been a constant challenge. Every day offered a new talking point.
Whether it was Austria and Algeria producing a chaotic 3-3 thriller that buried fears of another "Disgrace of Gijon", Cape Verde announcing themselves to the world, or Egypt pushing holders Argentina to the brink, the tournament continuously rewarded attention.
That does not mean everything worked perfectly. The new format exposed flaws that FIFA can no longer ignore. Uneven scheduling in the group stage allowed some teams to play knowing exactly what results they required after other groups had already concluded. While there was no evidence of manipulation, the asymmetry raised legitimate concerns about competitive fairness.
Then there was the weather. The North American summer repeatedly became an opponent of its own. Matches were played in exhausting heat and humidity, forcing cooling breaks and leaving players visibly drained. With the tournament spread across vast geographical distances, travel also became an unavoidable burden.
Image
Iran's complaints over logistical complications, driven entirely by geopolitical tensions, highlighted how football does not exist in isolation from global politics. Even US President Donald Trump's unprecedented public call for FIFA to review a red card shown to American forward Folarin Balogun demonstrated how political pressure occasionally threatened to overshadow sporting matters.
The Virtual Assistant Referee (VAR), too, remained both indispensable and infuriating. Some decisions restored justice; others generated endless debate. Egypt questioned officiating after their heartbreaking defeat to Argentina, while controversies became almost a daily feature. Yet perhaps that is now part of modern football's identity. Every World Cup seems destined to have its share of refereeing arguments -- and in the age of social media, every decision is dissected, debated and amplified within minutes.
The expansion also produced revealing footballing narratives. Asia entered with a record nine representatives. However, the continent once again found itself searching for answers. Organisation and discipline remained strengths, but the absence of game-changing individual brilliance often proved costly against elite opponents.
Africa, meanwhile, largely justified its increased allocation. Its teams displayed a fierce competitiveness that enriched the tournament -- with nine of 10 progressing beyond the group stage -- proving that expanded representation does not necessarily weaken the competition, even if only Morocco reached the quarterfinals.
The tournament, though, finally prevailed with the powerhouses. Europe and South America ultimately reasserted themselves. France, Spain, England and Argentina remain among football's traditional powers. The road became longer and more demanding, but excellence still prevailed. That is exactly how a World Cup should function. Expansion offered opportunity without compromising merit.
Now the tournament arrives at a fitting conclusion. Spain against France presents the irresistible duel between teenage phenomenon Lamine Yamal and the relentless Kylian Mbappe. Argentina versus England revives one of football's most emotionally charged rivalries, carrying echoes of Maradona, Mexico 1986 and decades of sporting history.
Lionel Messi, pursuing another title, faces England for the first time in his extraordinary international career, while Jude Bellingham seeks to lead England towards a first World Cup final since 1966. These are fixtures worthy of any World Cup.
FIFA president Gianni Infantino has already hinted that expanding the tournament further to 64 teams could be discussed after this edition. Such a proposal deserves far greater caution. The success of this World Cup should not become justification for limitless expansion. Forty-eight teams have proven manageable, though not without questions and concerns, while producing enough memorable football to justify their inclusion. Sixty-four teams may well stretch that balance beyond its breaking point.
For now, however, the verdict is clear. This World Cup has survived doubts about expansion, overcome logistical headaches, endured political distractions and exorbitant pricing, and navigated relentless debates over officiating. More importantly, it has reminded everyone why football's biggest tournament continues to capture global imagination. If the measure of a great World Cup is whether it consistently gives supporters something to remember every single day, then the 2026 edition has comfortably passed the test.
Image
