A 48-Team FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2031?

Update (9-May-2025): The 2031 FIFA WWC will have a field of 48-teams.

On Tuesday, two separate articles were published by British media about a push for FIFA to expand the final tournament of the 2031 FIFA Women’s World Cup to 48 teams, which would match the size of the next men’s World Cup in 2026 .

Absent a change in format, the expansion to 48 teams would introduce an additional knockout round, the Round of Thirty-Two, extend the length of the tournament by several days, and increase the number of matches from 64 (48 group, 16 knockout) to 104 (72 group, 32 knockout). (2026 men’s World Cup – Wikipedia) The expansion may also mean an increase in the roster size for each team.

Read on for the key quotes from each article, plus a discussion of the allocations by confederation for recent Women’s World Cups as well as a potential allocation scenario for a generic 48-team Women’s World Cup. For this specific scenario, a table of the potential pots is also presented.

Additionally, an alternative tournament format is discussed, which would preserve a traditional 32-team format for the final tournament but introduce an intermediate inter-confederation group stage.

Quick Links

The News Articles

Here are those two articles, with a key excerpt from each:

The Telegraph: “Talks held over expanding Women’s World Cup to 48 teams in boost to UK’s planned hosting bid” by Ben Rumsby

Telegraph Sport has been told that senior figures in the global game have been discussing matching the size of football’s flagship men’s event as early as the 2031 edition.

…

Those pushing for such an increase in 2031 are said to want Fifa to begin planning now for it to ensure the additional countries are competitive in time.

Sky Sports: “Potential expansion of Women’s World Cup could boost English-led bid to host tournament” by Rob Harris

Sky News has learned FIFA President Gianni Infantino is being urged from within his ruling council at the world football’s governing body to ensure gender parity by adding 16 teams to the Women’s World Cup.

A senior FIFA source told Sky News: “We are open minded and happy to discuss it with everyone.”

As is typical for these types of scoop articles, the rest of both news articles are mostly filler.

Potential Allocation by Confederation

The following discussion is just one potential scenario, which will likely not be the actual allocation, as that will ultimately come down to FIFA politics and also will be affected by the choice of host(s) for the WWC final tournament.

The Rankings Perspective

For a variety of reasons, the allocation of slots for each confederation has never been significantly proportional to the relative strengths of each confederation, especially when considering the ranks of their best teams.

Based on rankings, historically, UEFA has been the most under-represented confederation while CAF has been the most over-represented. The below table shows what a fair allocation of teams per confederation would be for a 48-team and a 32-team tournament. The table also presents, for perspective, the number of Top 10 and Top 20 teams for each confederation.

Table 1: Current Rankings, Summary By Confederation

Confed.	Top 48	Top 32	Top 20	Top 10
AFC	10	5	5	2
CAF	1	0	0	0
Concacaf	5	3	2	2
CONMEBOL	4	2	1	1
OFC	1	1	0	0
UEFA	27	21	12	5

Source: Counts are based on the FIFA Women’s World Ranking, August 2024

Notable: CONMEBOL has a team just outside the Top 20 (Colombia at #21), the Top 32 (Argentina at #33), and the Top 48 (Paraguay at #49).

Allocation Principles

All of the below principles are unofficial, but mostly capture the rationales for the allocation of teams by confederation, especially since the expansion to 24 teams. Some of the principles are intentionally in conflict with each other, which represents the competing interests of individual federations, confederations, and FIFA.

Principles

There should be an equitable distribution of slots for each confederation based on the rankings of their top teams.
All confederations should be represented at the final tournament.
All teams in the final tournament should be of competitive quality.
Rankings tend to represent the historical strength of a specific team and not necessarily their current strength, so judgment calls should be allowed to adjust the distribution of slots.
In order to encourage the growth of women’s soccer, the distributions of slots may be adjusted to allow less established teams from specific confederations a wider opportunity to qualify for the final tournament.
It should not be too challenging for the best teams from each confederation to qualify.
Ideally, groups should have only one team from a confederation.
At most, groups should have no more than two teams from a confederation.

Principle #3 is subject to growing pains, as witnessed by the USA’s 13-nil victory over Thailand in 2019, Germany’s 10-nil win over Côte d’Ivoire in 2015, and Switzerland’s 10:1 victory over Ecuador, also in 2015.

Principle #6 is a political consideration as well as a financial consideration. For the latter, it could significantly reduce profits if teams representing countries with high media rights fees regularly fail to qualify for the final tournament.

Practically, #8 would limit the number of UEFA teams to no more than 24 total, including inter-confederation play-off spots.

Historical Slot Distributions and a Projected 48-Team Scenario

For the 2015 Women’s World Cup, FIFA expanded the field to 24 teams. After the 2019 WWC, it was expanded to 32 teams, which is where it is expected to remain for the 2027 WWC. Prior to 2015, the tournament had been 16 teams since 1999. The below table shows the allocation of slots for the three-most recent tournaments, along with a projected allocation for a 48-team field.

For those not familiar with all the regional confederations for international soccer, please see the Abbreviations summary at the end of this article.

Table 2: FIFA WWC Slots, 2015 to 2023, Plus Projected 48-Team WWC Slots

Confed.	Projected	2023	2019	2015
Host(s)	2	2	1	1
AFC	8	6	5	5
CAF	6	4	3	3
Concacaf	6	4	3	3
CONMEBOL	4	3	2	2
OFC	2	0	1	1
UEFA	16	11	8	8
Inter	4	3	1	1
Total	48	32	24	24

For the most part, the 48-team scenario has double the allocation of the two 24-team editions. The main exception is that the AFC has only 8 full slots, instead of 10. However, the total number of inter-confederation slots is expanded to 4, which is up 1 from 2023’s 32-team allocation, and four-times what it was under 24 teams.

The OFC is given two full slots, primarily for developmental reasons, although one could easily see either the AFC or UEFA being given an extra automatic slot, with the OFC’s second slot converted to an inter-confederation slot.

Play-Off Slots

For the 2023 WWC, instead of a home-and-away play-off to determine which teams would claim the inter-confederation spots, one of the co-hosts, New Zealand, hosted 10 teams, which were divided into 3 separate groups that played single-elimination knockout matches. One of the groups had 4 teams where each team played in the first round, with the winners of those match advancing to the second round. The other two groups had 3 teams, where 1 team had a bye for the first round. In all three groups the winner of the second round match advanced to the final tournament.

For a hypothetical 2031 WWC with 4 inter-confederation spots, expanding the play-off spots to 12 teams would allow either 4 knockout groups with 3 teams each or 3 round-robin groups of 4 teams each. If a round-robin format is used, then the top 3 teams would advance automatically, along with the best second-place team. A round-robin format would be preferred as it would guarantee all teams in the inter-confederation play-offs three meaning games instead of a minimum of just one. It should also be more fair, as a one-off upset would not automatically eliminate a team from advancing to the final tournament.

Table 3: FIFA WWC Play-Off Slots, 2015 to 2023, Plus Projected

Confed.	Projected	2023	2019	2015
AFC	3	2	0	0
CAF	2	2	0	0
Concacaf	2	2	1	1
CONMEBOL	2	2	1	1
OFC	0	1	0	0
UEFA	3	1	0	0
Total	12	10	2	2

As a concession to the AFC, who would likely feel that they deserve 10 full slots, they will get an extra inter-confederation spot compared to 2023, so they could have up to 11 teams in a 48-slot final tournament, in addition to one or two potential hosts. UEFA would also get 3 slots, up from just 1 in 2023, so they could have up to 19 teams, not counting any hosts. This would allow both confederations to have one team in each potential four-team group.

CAF, Concacaf, and CONMEBOL would all be kept at 2 teams, while the OFC would not be given any slots, as having 2 full slots would already be generous.

On the men’s side, Oceania has traditionally only had 0.5 slots, so, as mentioned earlier, depending on how the political negotiations go, the OFC could just end up with one automatic spot, plus a inter-confederation play-off slot. However, given that the New Zealand women’s national team has arguably been historically stronger relative to its men’s counterpart, along with FIFA encouraging the development of women’s soccer, two full slots to the OFC is a strong likelihood.

A Potential 48-Team Women’s World Cup Field

Depending on which bid ultimately wins hosting rights for the 2031 WWC, there could be up to five co-hosts.

As of September 2024, potential bids include (Wikipedia):

China (solo or with #79 Hong Kong)
Japan (solo)
Morocco (solo)
South Africa (solo)
United States and Mexico (joint, 2 hosts)
England (solo)
United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and #45 Northern Ireland) plus Republic of Ireland

The below lists are based on a generic distribution with two joint-hosts.

The teams that are expected to qualify for the full slots are divided in two categories, “should qualify” and “may qualify”. Those teams in the “should qualify” are, for the most part, considered to be of sufficient quality, both in terms of sporting ability and federation support, that they should readily for a 48-team Women’s World Cup. The “may qualify” teams are either less established and/or in confederations where unpredictable results are more likely. For example, UEFA has a few traditional top teams, plus a few more teams that have been more recently strong. Those teams are in the “should qualify” list. The teams just below them, along with some mid-tier competitive teams are in the “may qualify” list.

The “Play-offs” lists are just the next highest teams for the slots available, while the “Honorable mention(s)” are the bubble teams that would be the last teams out, based solely on rankings.

The number in parentheses after each team’s name is their current FIFA ranking, as of August 2024.

AFC (Asia)

Should qualify (5 teams): Japan (7), Korea DPR (9), Australia (15), China PR (18), Korea Republic (19)
May qualify (3 teams): Vietnam (37), Philippines (39), Chinese Taipei (41)
Play-offs (3 teams): Thailand (47), Uzbekistan (54), Myanmar (54)
Honorable mentions: IR Iran (64), India (68)

CAF (Africa)

Should qualify (4 teams): Nigeria (36), South Africa (59), Morocco (59), Zambia (62)
May qualify (2 teams): Ghana (66), Cameroon (69)
Play-offs (2 teams): Côte d’Ivoire (71), Tunisia (78)

Concacaf (North America plus Caribbean)

Should qualify (3 teams): USA (1), Canada (6), Mexico (30)
May qualify (3 teams): Jamaica (42), Costa Rica (43), Haiti (53)
Play-offs (2 teams): Panama (60), Trinidad and Tobago (77)
Honorable mention: Guatemala (80)

CONMEBOL (South America)

Should qualify (3 teams): Brazil (8), Colombia (21), Argentina (33)
May qualify (1 teams): Chile (38)
Play-offs (2 teams): Paraguay (49), Venezuela (52)
Honorable mentions: Ecuador (65), Uruguay (67)

OFC (Oceania)

Should qualify (1 team): New Zealand (31)
May qualify (1 team): Papua New Guinea (56)
Play-offs: n/a
Honorable mention: Fiji (72)

UEFA (Europe)

Should qualify (6 teams): England (#2), Spain (#3), Germany (#4), Sweden (#5), France (#10), Netherlands (#11)
May qualify (10 teams): Denmark (12), Iceland (13), Italy (14), Norway (16), Austria (17), Belgium (20), Portugal (22), Scotland (23), Republic of Ireland (24), Switzerland (25)
Play-offs (3 teams): Finland (26), Czechia (28), Wales (29)
Questionable: Russia (27)
Honorable mentions: Poland (32), Serbia (34), Ukraine (35)

The Potential Pots for a 48-Team Women’s World Cup Field

For recent Women’s World Cups, pots have been sorted solely by rank, with the hosts in first pot, along with the top-ranked teams. The below pot distribution assumes all the “should qualify” and “may qualify” teams advance to the final tournament, along with the overall top four inter-confederations slot teams. It also assumes that Russia’s football teams will still be suspended from participation by FIFA and UEFA.

For the 2023 WWC, the inter-confederation matches were not played until after the final draw, so those teams were all placed in Pot 4, which introduced a potential imbalance in the pots. For example, the USA was grouped with the eventual Group A play-off winner, which was Portugal. At the time of the draw in October 2022, Portugal was ranked 23rd, and thus would have been the third-highest team in Pot 3 had the pots (outside the host slots) been based solely on the rankings of the the teams that actually qualified for the final tournament.

In the below table, the number in parentheses after each team’s name is their current FIFA ranking, as of August 2024. Also, the probable inter-confederation play-off winners are marked with parentheses.

Table 4: Potential Pots for a 48-Team WWC Field

Pot 1	Pot 2	Pot 3	Pot 4
Host A Host B USA (1) England (2) Spain (3) Germany (4) Sweden (5) Canada (6) Japan (7) Brazil (8) Korea DPR (9) France (10)	Netherlands (11) Denmark (12) Iceland (13) Italy (14) Australia (15) Norway (16) Austria (17) China PR (18) Korea Republic (19) Belgium (20) Colombia (21) Portugal (22)	Scotland (23) Republic of Ireland (24) Switzerland (25) Mexico (30) New Zealand (31) Argentina (33) Nigeria (36) Vietnam (37) Chile (38) Phillippines (39) Chinese Taipei (41) Jamaica (42)	Finland (26)* Czechia (28)* Wales (29)* Costa Rica (43) Thailand (47)* South Africa (50) Haiti (53) Papua New Guinea (56) Morocco (59) Zambia (62) Ghana (66) Cameroon (69)

Note: The rankings (in parentheses) are as of August 2024.

Based on the above pots, the USA could have a “hard” group with the Netherlands, Scotland, and Thailand, or an “easy” group with Portugal, Chinese Taipei, and Cameroon.

If the United Kingdom plus Ireland super-bid is approved, that would bump up Scotland (#23, Pot 3), Ireland (#24, Pot 3) and Wales (#29, Pot 4) to Pot 1, along with #45 Northern Ireland, who most likely would not have otherwise qualified for the 2031 WWC. As Pot 1 already includes England (#2) and two host slots, the bottom 2 teams in Pot 1 would be bumped down to Pot 2, which means a “hard” group for the USA could include France, Colombia, and Thailand.

A more sensible alternative

Author’s note: This is an idea that has been simmering in my brain for years. I do not expect FIFA to adopt this, but it is an useful example to show that expansion of the final tournament is not the only practical option.

Expansion of the final tournament beyond 32 teams for both the women’s and men’s tournament has significant downsides, namely the increase risk to player health and injury prevention, plus the added cost and burdens of hosting a large and long tournament. Also, the move to allowing three or more hosts borders on the ridiculous, especially as it allows an easy backdoor for more struggling and/or lower-ranked teams to qualify automatically, which dilutes the quality of the final tournament.

Instead of a super-sized final tournament, a more sensible alternative would be to have a grand inter-confederation stage of 60 teams divided into 15 groups of 4 that would all play a single round-robin group phase during an extra-long international window in October-November of the previous year. The top 15 qualified teams would host each group. The top 2 teams from each group would advance to a 32-team final tournament, along with up to 2 hosts.

Essentially, this would require the confederations to have their qualification processes wrapped up in May or June, so that the inter-confederation draw could be held in the early summer. A September international window would be used for preparation and finalizing the roster selection for the inter-confederation group stage. After the inter-confederation stage, the final draw would be held in early December. One new rule for the final draw would be that no teams from the same inter-confederation group could be placed in the same final tournament group.

Adding an inter-confederation group stage would truly give the tournament a global feel, as there could be full days of matches, starting in Asia, then Europe and Africa, and ending in Brazil and the United States plus Canada. Allowing the top teams to host these groups would be a useful consolation and reduce the all-or-nothing benefits of hosting the final tournament. Additionally, the media coverage generated by hosting an inter-confederation group should be very useful for promoting the group host’s national team along with (women’s) soccer in the group host’s country.

The addition of an inter-confederation group stage would also create more fairness regarding which teams qualify for the final tournament. For example, 20 to 25 teams from UEFA would have good chances of qualifying for a 32-team field, instead of just having 11 automatic slots plus one potential slot via the inter-confederation play-offs.

The inter-confederation group stage would also give up-and-coming teams from, for example, CAF, Concacaf, and CONMEBOL the chance to prove themselves and earn slots in the final tournament which may not had been available if the final tournament had a stricter allocation of slots. At a minimum, an inter-confederation group stage would allow the lower-ranked teams to see where they stand on the world stage compared to more established teams from other confederations that may not normally face.

An inter-confederation group stage could also create more interesting and more less-common match-ups. For example, the USA could host Finland, the Philippines, and Venezuela.

Additionally, limiting the final tournament to 32 teams clarifies the potential advancement scenarios, as only the top two teams from each group advance. With 48 teams, in addition to the top two teams in each group advancing, so would the eight best third-place teams. In some ways, this is more fair, as it prevents the automatic elimination in the case of points ties (e.g. a 6-6-6-0 scenario where the top three teams are tied or other scenarios where the two middle teams are tied). It also increases the likelihood that all group matches will be meaningful, though at the expense of drama and the individual importance of each group match, especially the first two for each team.

Another benefit of an inter-confederation group stage would be more useful cross-confederation results for the FIFA rankings.

Furthermore, to encourage development for the teams from the inter-confederation stage that did not qualify for the final tournament, FIFA could organize friendly tournaments among those teams during the preparation window for the final tournament. These consolation tournaments would also help provide more useful cross-confederation results for the FIFA rankings.

Abbreviations Guide

Confederations:

AFC: Asian Football Confederation
CAF: Confederation of African Football
Concacaf: Confederation of North Central American and Caribbean Association Football
CONMEBOL: Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol
OFC: Oceania Football Confederation
UEFA: Union of European Football Association

In this article “Inter” is used in tables as an abbreviation for “Inter-Confederation Play-Off” spots.

“WWC” is used as an abbreviation for the FIFA Women’s World Cup.