Sporting expansionism is a worldwide problem - tournaments are out of control

As is so often the case, FIFA led the way. Back in 2017 when football's world governing body decided to increase the number of teams competing at the World Cup from 32 to 48, its president Gianni Infantino found it easy to justify the seismic change.

"We are in the 21st century and we have to shape the World Cup of the 21st century," said Infantino of the first change since 1998 to the structure of the world's most perfect sporting event. A change that will come into effect at the next renewal, the 2026 tournament in the United States, Canada and Mexico.

"It is the future. Football is more than just Europe and South America, football is global."

Infantino, bolstered by the unanimous backing of his council, was easily able to frame this as a democratic and inclusive move, rather than the watering down of FIFA's showpiece event to bolster TV rights and secure backing in future elections, as campaign group New FIFA Now argued.

"The football fever you have in a country that qualifies for the World Cup is the biggest promotional tool for football you can have," said Infantino, ignoring the counter-argument that a bloated tournament featuring more weaker teams may struggle to retain its allure.

For the neutral viewers (among which we in this country have had to count ourselves since 2002, alas) it also becomes a less attractive product. The memorable 2022 tournament in Qatar - which was not without its own issues - consisted of 64 games. The next World Cup will feature 104 games, as will the 2030 tournament, which will bizarrely be hosted in six countries across three continents.

How quaint to think Jack Charlton qualified Ireland for a 24-team World Cup and before the 1980s it was a 16-team tournament.

It may be a trend-setter, but