World Cup 2030: UEFA Declares War on FIFA as Čeferin Raises His Voice

FIFA’s proposal to expand the 2030 World Cup from 48 to 64 teams has ignited a fierce backlash, with UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin leading the charge against what he calls a “reckless and destabilizing” plan. The idea, floated internally as part of the tournament’s centenary celebrations, aims to honor the first World Cup held in 1930 but has instead exposed deep fissures within global football governance.

Čeferin’s criticism came swiftly after reports of the proposal surfaced. In a fiery interview with The Guardian, he accused FIFA of sidelining continental federations, stating, “This proposal shocked me more than anyone. Expanding to 64 teams isn’t just impractical—it disrespects the integrity of our qualifiers and the players.” His remarks underscore a growing rift between FIFA and UEFA, reminiscent of the tensions during the failed European Super League crisis.

FIFA’s vision for a 64-team tournament, dubbed a “centenary tribute,” would mark the largest World Cup in history. President Gianni Infantino has framed it as a “gift to global football,” emphasizing inclusivity and opportunities for smaller nations. However, critics argue the move prioritizes spectacle over sustainability, with logistical nightmares looming for the six host nations: Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay.

The logistical challenges are staggering. A 64-team format would require 104 matches—up from 80 in the 2026 edition—and extend the tournament to nearly 50 days. Host nations already face unprecedented coordination hurdles, including cross-continental travel and staggered time zones. Morocco’s organizing committee privately admitted concerns about strained infrastructure, while Uruguay fears budget overruns for its opening-match responsibilities.

Europe’s qualifiers would face particular chaos. UEFA’s current system, which includes Nations League fixtures and Euro playoffs, has no room for additional games. A UEFA insider warned, “This isn’t football—it’s greed. Where do we fit extra qualifiers? Players aren’t robots.” Clubs are equally alarmed, with Premier League executives warning of a “summer of burnout” for stars already overwhelmed by congested schedules.

The proposal also risks alienating South America. CONMEBOL, though initially silent, has grown skeptical. A senior official anonymously criticized the plan: “This isn’t a World Cup—it’s a circus. It dilutes the prestige of the competition.” Meanwhile, the Asian and African federations cautiously support the idea, seeing it as a chance to secure more slots for their teams.

Čeferin’s opposition highlights a broader power struggle. FIFA’s expansion would dilute Europe’s influence, as UEFA’s 55 member associations currently occupy just 16 World Cup slots under the 48-team format. By contrast, smaller federations view the 64-team plan as a long-overdue democratization. “Why should Europe dominate every decision?” asked a CAF delegate. “This is a World Cup, not a European Cup.”

Player welfare has emerged as a critical concern. Global union FIFPRO threatened action if FIFA ignores workload limits, citing rising injury rates. A leaked chat among Premier League stars called the proposal “insane,” with one writing, “We’re exhausted. When does it end?” Infantino’s claims of “unity” ring hollow to many players, who feel sidelined in the debate.

Host nations are scrambling to respond. Spain’s Prime Minister called for emergency talks with FIFA, while Portugal’s football federation warned of “unmanageable costs.” Argentina, set to co-host the final, remains publicly supportive but privately questions the feasibility. The tournament’s unprecedented six-nation structure was already a gamble; adding 16 teams could tip it into chaos.

Infantino’s legacy ambitions are central to the debate. The FIFA president, who spearheaded the 48-team expansion for 2026, sees the 2030 plan as a crowning achievement. However, historians note the irony: the inaugural 1930 World Cup featured just 13 teams. “Calling this a ‘tribute’ is revisionist,” said a football historian. “It’s about inflating FIFA’s revenue, not honoring history.”

Geopolitical tensions within FIFA’s council threaten to derail the proposal. European and South American delegates are mobilizing against it, while Africa and Asia rally support. The vote, set for April 15, could hinge on Oceania’s stance. Čeferin has vowed to unite UEFA’s 55 members to vote “no,” but FIFA’s procedural rules favor Infantino, who needs only a simple majority.

The fallout could be severe. If UEFA loses the vote, Čeferin hinted at drastic measures, including boycotting FIFA committees or even withdrawing European participation in non-World Cup events. Such a scenario would destabilize global football, mirroring the political brinkmanship of the 2018 World Cup bidding scandal.

Smaller nations, however, are rallying behind FIFA. The Pacific Island nations, Caribbean states, and lower-ranked African teams argue that expansion offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. “We deserve to dream too,” said the coach of Mauritius’ national team. “Why should only the elite compete?”

As the debate rages, the clock is ticking. The 2030 World Cup is meant to celebrate unity, but it risks becoming a symbol of division. With UEFA and FIFA at loggerheads, and players and hosts caught in the crossfire, the tournament’s centenary threatens to be overshadowed by conflict.

The final decision rests with FIFA’s council, but the damage to its relationship with UEFA may already be irreversible. As one European delegate grimly noted, “This isn’t just about 64 teams. It’s about who controls football’s future.” With stakes this high, the beautiful game’s governing bodies are playing for more than trophies—they’re fighting for survival.