The reported format features 12 groups of four, with the top two teams and the eight best third-placed sides advancing to a 32-team knockout phase. It guarantees wider representation, but it also gives teams more routes through the opening round.
Sadlier used Netherlands-Japan as his example, arguing that a fixture which might once have carried decisive importance can lose some of its edge when third-place qualification remains available. The report says he warned that the structure could produce too many games with limited sporting consequence.
That concern will be familiar to traditionalists. Group-stage drama depends on the possibility that one mistake can change everything. If several teams remain alive until the final round, the format may create late suspense-but it can also make earlier matches feel less urgent.
Cunningham reportedly accepted that the tournament has become bloated, but offered a striking solution: expand it further to 64 teams. His proposal would create 16 groups of four, with only the top two advancing.
The logic is straightforward. More countries would gain access, while every group would have a clean competitive incentive. Finish in the top two and continue; finish below them and go home.
Cunningham also reportedly joked that supporters may want to “pular” straight to the round of 32 under the current system. Sadlier’s counterargument was that a further expansion could bring in more teams without strengthening the overall standard.
Both positions expose the difficult balance facing modern international football. Expansion can open the door to emerging nations and create new rivalries, but too much protection for teams in the group stage risks making qualification feel automatic.
The next storyline will be whether matches such as Netherlands-Japan deliver genuine pressure. If the early rounds produce upsets and must-win drama, the expanded model may win over critics. If not, Cunningham’s unlikely proposal will keep the debate alive.