Tapia Wants a 64-Team 2030 World Cup — With Argentina at the Center of It All
The AFA president reveals his plan to expand the 2030 World Cup from 48 to 64 teams and turn Argentina into the host of an entire phase of the tournament.
One guaranteed home game would already be cause for celebration. But Claudio Tapia wants far more than that.
The AFA president revealed, in an interview with TyC Sports, that he is working to have the 2030 World Cup played with 64 national teams — and for Argentina to host an entire phase of the tournament, at zero cost to the state. "We are working to have a complete phase, with 64 teams, and at zero cost to the state," Tapia said.
The current situation is already unprecedented: the 2030 World Cup will span six countries and three continents. Portugal, Spain and Morocco form the main core, while Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay were guaranteed one match each — a tribute to the centenary of the first World Cup, held in those very South American countries in 1930.
But Tapia is not satisfied with the symbolic gesture. His argument has a logic to it: if the tournament grows from 48 to 64 teams, the European and African host nations gain four extra matches to help recoup the billions invested in infrastructure. Everyone wins — at least in theory.
Conmebol president Alejandro Domínguez had already publicly floated the idea of expanding the tournament to 64 teams, according to Olé. FIFA, for now, is sticking with the 48-team format, the same used for the 2026 World Cup.
Tapia also let slip a personal ambition amid his remarks: he wants to remain as AFA president until 2030 to see the project come to fruition — which would require re-election at a general assembly.
While the debate over the format remains open, the Golmetria model places Argentina as one of the favorites for the title in 2026, with a 6.92% chance of being champions. Uruguay, meanwhile, appears in a far more precarious position in the projections.
The centenary of world football is approaching. The question is: who will decide how it is celebrated — history or politics?