Update, October 2026: The biennial idea reached the 71st FIFA Congress in May 2021 as a Saudi Arabian Football Federation proposal for a feasibility study (Inside World Football). Arsène Wenger, then FIFA’s head of global development, had revived it earlier that year, and UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin said Europe could choose not to play in a biennial World Cup (Dawn). At the Congress in Doha on March 31, 2022, FIFA president Gianni Infantino said FIFA had “not proposed a biennial process” and that a consultation would follow (Reuters). We are not aware of any vote to adopt it, and the 2026 World Cup, the first with 48 teams and 104 matches, was played June 11 to July 19 in Canada, Mexico and the United States on the usual four-year cycle (NBC New York; Britannica).
Prefer to watch? Here is our video take on the proposal.
The Implications of a Biennial World Cup: A Deep Dive
In 2021, trouble started brewing in the world of international football, and it caused quite a stir among fans, players, and experts alike. Imagine this: instead of waiting four long years for the most celebrated tournament in football, the World Cup, we’d only have to wait two. Sounds intriguing, doesn’t it? But hold your horses! While the notion of a biennial World Cup might tickle the fancy of some, it’s a topic riddled with controversy and complexities.
Are the financial gains worth the potential compromises? Will the increased frequency dilute the quality of football on the world stage? How will already jam-packed football calendars accommodate yet another major tournament? Buckle up as we dive deep into the pros and cons and the resounding implications of this bold proposal. By the end of this article, you may just find yourself a little bit closer to forming your own informed stance on whether a biennial World Cup could be beneficial—or a looming disaster—in the grand tapestry of international football.
The Biennial World Cup Proposal
The idea of holding the FIFA World Cup every two years instead of the traditional four has been floated sporadically over the years. The most recent push came in May 2021, when the Saudi Arabian Football Federation took it to the 71st FIFA Congress with the backing of Arsène Wenger. Financial incentives, increased global engagement, and the aspiration to provide more frequent high-stakes football are driving this bold proposal. Advocates argue that a more frequent tournament can elevate the sport, offering fans more opportunities to witness their national teams in high-level competition. It’s a tantalizing dream for every football aficionado—more ‘GOOOAAALLL!’ moments, more electrifying upsets, and frequent displays of national pride.
However, dreams don’t always translate smoothly into reality. Critics are quick to point out the myriad of challenges, ranging from player burnout and tight schedules to the potential dilution of the tournament’s prestige. After all, isn’t part of the World Cup’s magic its rarity? Its very anticipation, that long wait interspersed with frantic qualification rounds, builds up the ultimate crescendo every four years. Proposals like these naturally evoke a wide array of emotions—curiosity, excitement, skepticism, and even outright opposition. So, what lies behind this push toward a biennial World Cup?
The Financial Motivations Behind a Biennial World Cup
When it comes to altering the calendar of the world’s most cherished football tournament, it often boils down to—surprise, surprise—money. FIFA, the global governing body of football, stands to gain significantly from a more frequent tournament. The World Cup is a cash cow, raking in billions through broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals, merchandise, and ticket sales. FIFA’s own figures show how big the pot is: US$7.57 billion in revenue for the 2019–2022 cycle, up 18% from US$6.42 billion in 2015–2018, with television rights the largest share at US$3.43 billion (FIFA). FIFA’s president cited an extra US$4.4 billion in revenue from a biennial World Cup (Reuters). That is real money, but it is not a doubling.
FIFA revenue vs. the biennial promise
Opponents have numbers of their own. A study by KPMG and FTI Delta Partners, commissioned by MLS, leagues in Mexico, Japan and South Africa, and Europe’s big five leagues, estimated losses of about €8 billion per season for those leagues and UEFA, with about €5 billion of that from broadcast deals (Reuters). Because the groups that paid for the study have a stake in the answer, we treat it as an estimate, not a verdict.
For many football associations, particularly in developing nations, the allure of additional income is hard to resist. Increased funding could mean more resources for grassroots programs, better facilities, and opportunities to nurture young talent. On the flip side, critics argue that this financial windfall could inadvertently prioritize profit over the sport’s integrity. Are we risking the sanctity of the world’s most prestigious tournament in the pursuit of more dollars and cents?
Moreover, this financial motivation is not lost on the fans, many of whom support their national teams with unyielding passion. Casual fans, in particular, are drawn to the spectacle of the World Cup. But will the commercial push to attract these fans come at the cost of alienating the sport’s die-hard followers who cherish the competitions for their quality and rarity?
The Impact on Competition Quality
There’s no denying that the World Cup’s four-year cycle adds a layer of mystique and prestige to the tournament. It’s a stage where legends are born, dreams are shattered, and history is made. However, by shortening this cycle, are we risking a drop in competition quality?
Not all national teams are on equal footing. The disparities between powerhouse teams like Brazil, Germany, and France and smaller football nations could become more pronounced with a biennial format. The lengthy build-up and rigorous qualification process are meant to ensure that only the best make it to the grand stage, though the field has already grown from 32 teams to 48 for 2026. If the frequency were increased, would it dilute this quality? Moreover, the relentless pace could mean less time for teams to develop and rejuvenate, possibly leading to more predictable and less thrilling tournaments.
The tournament has been growing for decades: 24 teams and 52 matches in 1994, 32 teams and 64 matches at every World Cup from 1998 to 2022, and 48 teams and 104 matches in 2026. In our view, putting a biennial schedule on top of a bigger field would stretch the product from both ends.
The World Cup keeps getting bigger
Furthermore, the World Cup often serves as the pinnacle of a player’s career. The extended cycle allows for significant build-up, with players working diligently over years to reach their peak just in time for the tournament. If the event is held every two years, there’s a risk that players may not always be at their best, leading to a potential decline in the quality of football on display.
Scheduling Challenges and Calendar Congestion
Ah, the football calendar—a delicate and complicated beast. Club football, international friendlies, continental championships, domestic leagues, and cup competitions all vie for space in an already congested schedule. Cramming a biennial World Cup into this mix is akin to trying to squeeze one more person into an already packed subway car during rush hour.
Players are not machines; they’re human beings who need rest and recovery. The additional tournament means less downtime, higher risks of injuries, and increased fatigue. Clubs will be particularly impacted as their star players might miss significant parts of the season due to international commitments. This disruption can lead to a knock-on effect where clubs might resist releasing their players, thereby affecting the cohesion and performance of national teams. A February 2022 poll by the players’ union FIFPRO found that three-quarters of 1,000 professional footballers wanted to keep the four-year cycle (Reuters).
Moreover, other major international competitions, such as the UEFA European Championship, the Copa América, and the Africa Cup of Nations, could face scheduling conflicts. These tournaments, each with their unique history and charm, might get compressed or sidelined to make room for the World Cup, detracting from their own prestige and importance. Balancing all these elements without compromising the quality of football will be a Herculean task. UEFA and CONMEBOL, the governing bodies for Europe and South America, did not back the idea, and UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin called for a pan-European boycott of a biennial tournament, according to Reuters.
Conclusion: Reflecting on the Future of International Football
The proposal for a biennial World Cup is a double-edged sword that offers tantalizing prospects but also presents a plethora of challenges. While the financial motivations are evident and could indeed bring several benefits, the concerns over competition quality, player welfare, and scheduling conflicts cannot be ignored. This bold idea demands a balanced, well-thought-out approach that takes into account the views of all stakeholders—players, clubs, associations, and most importantly, the fans.
As Vince Douglas Gregory has argued, this is not just about adding another tournament. It’s about ensuring the sustainability and integrity of the sport we all love. The loud part of the debate has passed, but the pressure on the calendar has not. In our view, the case against a World Cup every two years is simple: FIFA’s revenue is already growing, the field has just expanded to 48 teams, and players, leagues and two confederations have said no.
So, dear readers, reflect on these points and engage in the conversation. Do you think the potential benefits outweigh the risks? Will a biennial World Cup elevate the sport or undermine its core values? Let’s hear your thoughts. The beautiful game needs your voice.
Vince Douglas Gregory is the ‘petulant puppet master’ of a sports media landscape addicted to scripted rage and performance art. As the architect of VDG Sports, he bypasses the corporate talking heads to expose the unfiltered truth behind the narratives.
An unstable thinker and astute scholar, Vince thrives on dismantling the mediocre click-bait addicts who trade reality for engagement. If you want boring stats, go elsewhere. If you want the raw reality of the game, you’re in the right place. Consider yourself warned.