With every World Cup, we have become accustomed to the starting whistle being preceded by questions and doubts that are no less exciting than the matches themselves, after this edition appeared different from all that preceded it, not only because it is being held for the first time in countries extending across dozens of cities and thousands of kilometers, but because it represents the largest change in the history of the tournament since its founding. 48 teams and 104 matches attended by fans from all over the world in a version that FIFA wanted to be more comprehensive, broad and profitable, but the expansion, which some considered a victory for the universality of the game, opened the door to questions about the tournament’s ability to maintain its artistic quality and identity that created the magic of the World Cup for many decades. Since the first days, some organizational challenges have emerged related to entry visas and movement between host cities, and the high costs of travel and accommodation, in addition to other logistical burdens, due to the distribution of competitions between three different countries. These are expected challenges given the size of the event, but they raise the question: Has the World Cup become too big to be managed in the traditional way?
On the other hand, it may be considered a great opportunity for countries that did not dream of being in this forum, but the votes became heated in their debate over this number of participants, in the belief that this may lead to a widening of the technical differences, and to some confrontations turning into mere additional numbers in a long and boring schedule. The fear is that the unprecedented size of the tournament will affect its traditional identity, as fans are accustomed to a more focused and cohesive World Cup, while this version imposes a different reality based on geographical spread and a larger number of matches, which makes maintaining public and competitive momentum a real challenge for the organizers.
Despite the validity of these observations, the evaluation and judgment at this stage seem hasty, as the competitions are still in their infancy, and the teams have not revealed their cards, and the value and strength of the World Cup is not evaluated by the problems and disturbed impressions, as much as it is measured by the technical levels that the stadium offers, exceptional moments, and football enjoyment that remain stuck in the memory. Only then will it be possible to know whether this version has succeeded in inaugurating a different future identity, or whether the great expansion came at the expense of the tournament’s privacy. And her usual charm! In your opinion, will the 2026 World Cup be the beginning of a new golden era for football, or will it be a hasty transformation of dreams whose reality becomes more difficult as they grow and their horizons expand?
To read previous articles by the author, please click on his name
Responsibility for what is published in opinion articles lies with the writer alone, and the newspaper does not bear responsibility for the opinions expressed in them.
