I guess it depends on what the point of expansion was*. Cabo Verde were definitely a positive addition to the tournament, but they might have got in anyway, their record in AFCON is pretty good. I don't think many would miss Uzbekistan, Panama, Jordan, Iraq or Haiti though (all 0 points in the group phase). Qatar didn't seem to serve much purpose on 1 point, and Tunisia also left with zero points - though they might have made it in anyway, as they have done seven times before (never got out of the group stage). Curacao got a single point, but were quite fun. There were bigger teams that also did badly but the top two in each group looked pretty much like you might expect. Scotland actually managed to score a goal and win a match, and other than everyone thinking their fans were good fun, didn't look like they actually belonged in a World Cup.
So what positives might there have been?
- Some footballistically speaking small countries got in that otherwise never get there. That might help them develop the sport, but in the case of some of the Arabian nations I think the issues are more structural than that** , and with Cabo Verde and Curacao there's probably limited potential due to the low populations (though the diaspora may provide).
- Some teams that sometimes qualify but don't often get out of the group stage maybe had a chance at a knockout game - which is quite a big deal, though without looking it up I think most teams that got there were teams that had probably had a go recently or were expected to get there.
- Some smaller football federations got more money coming in for participating / going a bit further. Hopefully they don't piss it up the wall (I might be looking at you, Scotland)
- Some of the extra cash generated might actually come out of FIFA and into those smaller federations, if it isn't needed to gold-plate the White House or pay a load of bribes or something
The negatives are manifold though
- An extra game needed to get to the final - for top teams their players are already playing untold matches per season. These players will either have to miss some pre-season training & early matches, or carry on into exhaustion as the new season starts. Don't forget this also comes on top of the FIFA Club World Championship of Money Spinning last summer
- An extra week to hold the event - makes it more difficult for travelling fans if they get to the final, and again, less time for players to recuperate for the new season ahead. Fans at home might get a little jaded as well.
- It's impossible for most countries to host a World Cup now. 2022 had eight stadiums in five cities, 2026 has SIXTEEN stadiums spread across a continent. That almost certainly means that future world cups will have multiple hosts, major distances between venues and a bigger environmental impact because of it. I don't think we'll ever be able to see e.g. a World Cup in South Africa again.
- That also means more reserved places for host teams, who - let's face it - might not be very good. I might be looking at Scotland again, if a hypothetical UK & Ireland bid to host succeeded....***
- It's just too big and unwieldy, which effectively just channels money upwards to bigger countries, bigger organisations, bigger media partners, bigger sponsors. And with those come bigger lawyers, bigger requirements, bigger concessions, bigger grifters, bigger corruption cases
*money, obviously, but it can be argued that it did some other worthwhile things
**Qatar, for instance have used a fast track naturalisation process to create a fairly mercenary team - spare a thought for the Cabo Verdean guy who naturalised to play for them and saw his birth nation delight the world, reach the knockouts, and neeeeearly beat Argentina
***Look, it's not a very strong point, but I squeezed it in for the banter, OK?
