The case for World Cup expansion rests on access. The report highlights Cabo Verde and Curaçao as nations given room to make an impression, while pointing to nine African teams reaching the knockout stage. That wider representation gives the tournament more than extra fixtures: it creates meaningful stakes for federations that have traditionally been spectators.
Football’s global depth is the strongest argument for a larger World Cup. Europe and South America remain the dominant forces, but improvement across Africa, Asia and North America has made the competitive map less predictable. A broader field can reward that progress without pretending the old hierarchy has disappeared.
American college sport is expanding inside a market driven heavily by gambling, streaming and broadcast rights. The report contrasts that commercial momentum with a less obvious increase in the available talent pool. A 76-team basketball tournament or proposed 24-team College Football Playoff could create more inventory while weakening the value of qualification.
The danger is not simply lower quality. It is reduced variety. If the Big Ten and SEC continue to command the largest resources, a bigger bracket could still produce a smaller sporting world, with the same powerful programmes dominating more games.
The report also identifies commercial restraint as part of the World Cup lesson. Wider representation works best when the competition remains recognisable and the event does not feel built solely around advertising. Longer formats, intrusive sponsorship and constant interruptions can make supporters feel that sport has become content inventory.
The next test will be whether the 48-team World Cup preserves knockout tension while giving emerging nations genuine opportunity. College leaders should watch closely before approving their next format change: expansion succeeds when it adds pathways, not merely volume.