Why Not 48?

I will admit it: I was not initially persuaded by the case for expanding the FIFA World Cup to 48 teams.

The concern seemed obvious enough. A larger field risks diluting the quality of the competition, producing too many one-sided matches and making the tournament feel less like a search for the world's best team than another triumph of commercial ambition over sporting integrity.

Those concerns have not disappeared.

But after watching Cabo Verde's performances in this World Cup, I have found myself reconsidering.

They were not a novelty act or a sentimental underdog story. They played disciplined, technically accomplished and fearless football against some of the world's strongest opposition. They demonstrated that qualifying for the World Cup is no longer simply about rewarding traditional football powers; it is about recognising how much the global game has evolved.

That may be the strongest argument for expansion.

Increasing the field almost certainly lowers the average pedigree of the teams involved. But pedigree is not the same as quality, and opportunity has a way of exposing assumptions that reputation has long protected.

For decades, many smaller football nations simply lacked the opportunity to prove themselves on the biggest stage. When they finally receive that opportunity, some discover they belong there.

Cabo Verde deserve enormous credit. They defended intelligently, attacked with conviction and played without fear. More importantly, they showed that the gap between football's traditional powers and its ambitious challengers is narrower than many of us assumed.

I am still not completely convinced that a 48-team World Cup is superior to the 32-team tournament.

The commercial motivations behind expansion remain impossible to ignore, and FIFA must ensure that growth never comes at the expense of competitive integrity. The tournament should expand because football is genuinely becoming more competitive — not simply because more matches generate more revenue.

Yet it is becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss what we are seeing on the pitch.

Football's global middle class is improving.

Nations that once arrived simply hoping to avoid embarrassment now expect to compete. Tactical organisation, coaching, player development and global scouting have raised standards almost everywhere. The world's elite remain elite, but their advantage is no longer as overwhelming as it once was.

That is good for football.

Stronger competition creates more compelling tournaments, more unpredictable matches and more opportunities for new football cultures to inspire the world.

Whether history ultimately judges the 48-team World Cup as an improvement remains to be seen.

But if expansion reveals that the world's footballing talent runs far deeper than we imagined, perhaps the question is no longer "Why 48?"

Perhaps it is simply:

Why not?