Expansion is easy to defend on principle.
That matters. The World Cup should not become a closed shop for the same powers every four years. Part of its appeal is discovery: a new team, a new star, a new story that cuts through.
The issue is not representation. It is competitive tension.
A group stage works best when every game carries risk. With 48 teams, the fear is that the gap between the strongest and weakest sides becomes too visible too often. On paper, pairings involving established European or South American sides against less proven qualifiers can look like formalities before a ball is kicked.
That has two consequences:
The World Cup does not need every match to be a classic. But it does need enough jeopardy to keep neutral audiences engaged across a long schedule.
has sold expansion as growth, and commercially that is understandable. More teams create more markets and more broadcast inventory. But bigger is not automatically better. If the early rounds produce too many one-sided contests or low-energy occasions, the format itself will become the story.
The next tournament will be the real test. If smaller nations turn these matches into live contests, the criticism will fade quickly. If not, debate over the shape of the World Cup will only grow louder before the next cycle.