The 48-team World Cup was supposed to be a disaster. The group stage proved the doubters wrong

It is worth remembering how loudly the alarm bells rang. When FIFA confirmed the World Cup would balloon from 32 teams to 48, the reaction from much of the football world ranged from weary resignation to outright dread. More teams meant more mismatches, the critics warned. More groups meant more dead rubbers. And the new format, with eight of twelve third-placed teams advancing, seemed almost designed to reward mediocrity and invite the kind of cynical, mutually convenient results that corrode a tournament's soul. The expansion was cast as a money grab dressed up as inclusivity, a dilution of the one tournament that did not need fixing.

Now that the group stage of the 2026 World Cup is complete, it is time for an honest verdict. And the honest verdict is this: the doom-mongers, for the most part, were wrong.

The minnows came to compete, not to make up the numbers

The central fear was that the smaller nations would be cannon fodder, humiliated on the biggest stage and dragging the standard down with them. Instead, the opposite happened. Curacao, the smallest nation ever to reach a World Cup, did not merely turn up; they scored against Germany and held Ecuador to a goalless draw, earning a historic point. Cape Verde frustrated Spain. DR Congo took something from their group too. These were not flukes or freak nights, but the product of organised, drilled, fearless football from teams who refused to be overawed.

That matters beyond the romance. The gap between the elite and the emerging has long been used as the argument against expansion, yet this tournament suggested that gap is narrowing, not widening. Modern coaching, data, and the global spread of elite-level experience mean a well-prepared underdog can frustrate anyone over ninety minutes. The expanded field did not expose the minnows; it gave them a stage to prove they belong.

History was made, and that is the whole point

For all the talk of integrity and structure, a World Cup lives or dies on its stories, and this group stage produced them in abundance. Ivory Coast, a nation of genuine footballing pedigree, finally escaped a World Cup group for the first time in their history. South Africa reached the knockout stage of a World Cup for the first time ever, Thapelo Maseko's strike sending a proud football nation into uncharted territory. Ecuador came from behind to beat a full-strength Germany and book their place in the last 32.

None of these moments would have carried the same weight in a smaller tournament, because many of these teams would not have been there at all, or would have gone home before the drama could build. The expansion did not cheapen the achievement of reaching the knockouts; for these nations, it made that achievement possible, and the joy was unmistakably real.

The favourites still had to be very good

A common worry was that expansion would let the big sides coast, that a bloated group stage would become a procession for the seeds. It did not quite work out that way. France looked imperious, yes, and Argentina rode the genius of a record-breaking Lionel Messi, but both had to earn their passage. Spain were held by Cape Verde and had to respond. Germany, already through, were beaten by Ecuador. The format did not hand the favourites an easy ride so much as it gave them more banana skins to avoid, and a few of them slipped.

That is healthy. A tournament should reward sustained excellence, and the early evidence is that the sides who top their groups have generally had to play well to do so. The cushion of a likely third-place qualification did not breed complacency among the contenders; if anything, the expanded knockout bracket has raised the stakes by ensuring more genuinely competitive teams survive into the last 32.

The legitimate concern that remains

None of this is to say the format is flawless. The most reasonable criticism, and one worth taking seriously, is the structural risk created by the best-third-placed system. When two teams in a final group game can both progress with a particular result, the temptation toward a mutually beneficial draw is real, and the integrity of a contest can suffer. FIFA has tried to mitigate this by tweaking the tiebreakers, with head-to-head record now taking precedence over goal difference, but the underlying incentive has not been eliminated.

So far, the tournament has largely avoided the nightmare scenario of a blatantly engineered result, but the danger is baked into the maths rather than wished away. It is the one area where the sceptics retain a strong case, and FIFA would be wise not to declare total victory. A format that depends on the goodwill of competing nations to stay honest is a format with a latent flaw.

The verdict

On balance, though, the expanded World Cup has justified itself where it counts: on the pitch and in the stands. The football has been competitive, the upsets genuine, the new nations a credit to the competition, and the drama relentless. The fears of a diluted, processional, cynical tournament have, by and large, not materialised. What we have instead is a bigger tent that has, so far, mostly delivered a better party.

There is a lesson in that for football's instinctive conservatism. Not every change is a betrayal, and not every expansion is a cash grab at the expense of quality. Sometimes giving more nations a seat at the table produces exactly the kind of joy and jeopardy the game is supposed to be about. The knockouts will be the real test of whether this World Cup becomes a classic, but the group stage has already answered the loudest pre-tournament question. The 48-team experiment, against the odds, is working.

For every fixture, result and story as the World Cup knockouts unfold, follow the latest football news.