Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The biggest FIFA World Cup in history is over, and many would agree that Spain deserved to win – of course the last thing against Argentina.
The 2026 edition had an added note given that one of the countries that hosted – and the group that is doing the last – the United States, participated in a joint war with Israel on one of its rivals, Iran.
Recommended Articles
list of 4 itemsend of series
Despite the cease-fire that was agreed the day before the tournament, the political turmoil dominated the headlines, and the visa issues also show difficulties not only for the Iranian team, but also for fans from around the world.
The length of the massive 48-team tournament makes many of the titles feel old-fashioned, even though the war between the US and Iran has resumed, long after Iran’s team exited the group.
Football news took center stage as the World Cup began, although – as ever – the tension between sport and politics was never far away.
With things on the field now out of the question, however, Al Jazeera looks at the five biggest things that remain as the game progresses.
Should the FIFA World Cup have 48 teams – instead of 64?
There is no doubt that the biggest problem for football in this edition of the World Cup was the number of teams and games.
It was a lot less stressful for everyone, and it also gave us some of the highlights of the race.
From start to finish, the 2026 edition has proven that the gap between the best teams in the world and the rest has narrowed considerably.
In practice, it was only one more game in the finals than it had been since 32 teams were drawn in 1998 in France.
It seems strange now to think that the World Cup was contested by less than 32 teams in the 1994 edition due to the development and improvement of professional sports around the world.
It is so difficult that now there is no murmur that the 2026 edition had 48 teams.
For fans it means more games, more stories, and new players to watch. Bigger, however, for competitors means more opportunities – and that’s something the sport shouldn’t give up.
Cape Verde won the hearts of the players after an initial group of traveling and young professionals held off Spain and Uruguay to draw and force Argentina into extra time.
FIFA insisted, criticizing not only the expansion but also the cost of fans, that the World Cup was their chance to get the money they needed to continue the growth of the game around the world.
In yet another game to be won, and in what should be a major concern, any odds seem like odds.
The discussion has now turned to 64 teams for the World Cup in the 2030 edition. This, in particular, will not increase the number of games in the finals because only two teams have advanced from the 16 to the last 32 groups.
In fact, this does not change anything from the knocking stage onwards. It is hard to imagine that countries like Italy, Nigeria, Cameroon and Ireland would be against another expansion – especially the former, who missed out on the last World Cup final.
Hydration breaks – should they stay, or should they go?
The debate over the water break was two-fold: Were the players required and, as some claimed, simply informed to give more advertising time to their broadcast partners?
Whatever his reasons, the response from the fans in the stadiums was overwhelming. Boos always greet hydration breaks. The feeling at the game was that in two 45-minute halves, breaks disrupted the flow of the game significantly.
Scientists, coaches and FIFA must strongly oppose the continuation of this summer’s World Cup, with global temperatures reaching dangerous levels for players.
There are no plans for the break to begin at home games, where games are played in the winter. But whether a world championship will follow, at their summer games, remains to be seen.
Rules and regulations should be fixed for the 2030 World Cup
The most controversial moment of the competition was undoubtedly red card suspension which was shown to American actor Folarin Balogun.
The striker was sent off in the 2-0 win against Bosnia and Herzegovina in the last 32, but his ban was suspended by FIFA for a one-year trial period.
The USA crashed out of the tournament in the last 16, arguably ending the biggest controversy surrounding the suspension, when they were beaten 4-1 by Belgium.
The case against FIFA was that they broke the rules to please US President Donald Trump.
The world football body announced it had suspended the red card after Trump urged FIFA president Gianni Infantino to review the case.
The elimination of the United States in the next round meant that the anger, which included opposition from the Belgian football association, the top football organization in Europe, the former boss of FIFA and many former players, died down quickly.
A major league cannot have a gray area when it comes to rules and regulations, and FIFA should not allow such a dispute to be repeated and eliminate any possibility that Balogun’s return could be the starting point.
Should the black art exhibited in Argentina be eradicated?
Most of the time, the last game of football falls on the ground. The speed, excitement, skill and display of skill of the players are often crushed by the final pressure, both sides are eager to avoid defensive mistakes and stick to the strict measures established to avoid them.
It is difficult to change this, because they often have the attitude of the finalists, who are reluctant to set foot in the final stages of the competition, unless they are following suit.
One thing that FIFA can look at – especially in individual games – is how teams set up to defend use “black” to help them.
There is no better example than what they did in the semifinal and final against Argentina, but they are not alone. Manchester City have been praised for their lackluster form under manager Pep Guardiola – however, they were seen as a team that could push for success. This included pulling small shirts or trips to end the opposition game that made them able to issue yellow cards.
Argentina were not smart at all with their approach. Both in the last four games and for the last timeThe South Americans faced huge challenges at the start of both games which the player did not allow.
One of the greatest opponents, if not the greatest, Pierluigi Collina was famous for establishing the rule at the beginning of the match during his time in the late 1990s and early 2000s – a time of intense fighting on the pitch.
FIFA would be advised to promote a similar approach, so this beautiful game has a chance to shine in the current era of low blocks and late challenges.
Are the US and Canada here to stay as the top teams at World Cups?
The final decision should go to the allies, not only the US, but also Canada and Mexico.
Men’s soccer in cohost Canada has struggled for years to make the cut, but the team’s progress to the last 16 shows that may be changing, with investment in the sport increasing and the sport attracting more audiences.
In contrast, soccer is well established in Mexico. The stadiums were (mostly) full and the fans were happy, especially when Mexico played. But Mexico’s first World Cup victory in 40 years left four people dead in mass parties as fans celebrated, and there has been little sign of economic support for a long time. Thoughts are needed from the pitch, but in the game Mexico remains a force to be reckoned with.
USA fans were disappointed that their team was eliminated in the round of 16, but the team lived up to their expectations.
The US has become the final destination for soccer fans, and there is no doubt that this tournament has helped raise awareness across the country. Major League Soccer (MLS), headlined by Lionel Messi, continues to grow. But in the end – to open up an American audience – the US will probably need its own star to lead the band to the pinnacle of international glory.
Then, maybe the song “USA” will be heard around not only in US stadiums, but around the world.
