The concern was straightforward: add teams from outside the traditional elite and the gap between nations would become the defining feature of the group stage.
So far, that pattern has not emerged. The opening fixtures have not turned into a sequence of predictable routs, and the presence of less-established football nations has not automatically produced poor contests. That matters because the expansion will be judged not only by who qualifies, but by the quality of the matches created.
Football also gives underdogs tools that can compress the difference between teams. Compact defensive blocks, set pieces and transition attacks can keep a single game competitive even when the talent gap appears significant.
The early evidence weakens one of the strongest objections to the expanded format, but it does not settle the argument. A tournament can begin competitively and still produce wider gaps as the group phase develops.
The sample remains limited, and stronger conclusions will require more fixtures. The format’s success depends on whether competitive games remain common rather than isolated exceptions. For now, however, the first results have challenged the assumption that more participants must mean weaker football.
The next stage will test whether this balance lasts as teams face opponents with different tactical profiles and greater pressure. If the tournament continues to avoid a repeated pattern of heavy defeats, the debate around expansion will shift from technical dilution to competitive opportunity.
The 48-team World Cup has not proved the critics wrong yet. It has, at least, denied them an immediate argument.