The biggest FIFA World Cup in history has come to an end, and most would agree that Spain deserved to win – most definitely against Argentina in the final.
The 2026 edition had an added spotlight on the United States, one of the host countries and the team staging the final, given that it is embroiled in a joint war with Israel against Iran, one of its competitors.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Despite a cease-fire agreed on the eve of the tournament, political turmoil has dominated the headlines, with visa issues posing problems not only for the Iranian team but also for fans around the world.
The length of the expanded 48-team tournament makes many of these headlines feel like a long time ago, but hostilities between the United States and Iran have now resumed, long after the Iranian team was eliminated from the tournament in the group stage.
As the World Cup progressed, football issues took center stage, but as always, the blurring between sport and politics was never far away.
However, the on-field issues are over now and Al Jazeera looks at the five biggest issues at stake as the match progresses.
Is the FIFA World Cup worth having 48 teams instead of 64?
There is no doubt that the soccer world’s biggest concern during this World Cup was the saturation of teams and matches.
It wasn’t much of a concern for anyone and certainly provided us with some of the highlights of the tournament.
From debutants to top performers, the 2026 edition proved that the gap between the world’s best teams and the rest has narrowed dramatically.
In fact, since the 1998 tournament in France expanded participation to 32 teams, the eventual finalists have only been able to play one more match.
Considering the rapid expansion and improvement of professional baseball around the world, it now seems surprising that fewer than 32 teams participated in the World Cup in 1994.
That is exactly the case, and there are now few complaints that the 2026 edition had 48 teams.
For fans, that meant more games, more stories, and more new players to watch. But importantly, for those athletes, it means more opportunities, and it’s something the sport should never turn its back on.
Cape Verde won the hearts of their supporters after their debut team of journeyman professionals and raw youngsters held Spain and Uruguay to draws and sent Argentina to extra time.
FIFA has argued that the World Cup is an opportunity to raise the funds needed to continue growing the game around the world, amid criticism not only of expansion but also of the cost to fans.
One more game left and that must be the biggest concern for the eventual winners, but any downside seems foolhardy.
The topic now shifts to the 64-team World Cup to be held in 2030. Crucially, the number of matches for the finalists will not increase, as only the top two teams will advance from the first group of 16 to the final 32 teams.
In fact, nothing will change after the knockout stage. It is hard to imagine countries like Italy, Nigeria, Cameroon and Ireland, especially the former having failed to reach the last three World Cup finals, to oppose further expansion.
Hydration breaks – should you keep them or stop them?
There were two sides to the debate over hydration breaks. Were the hydration breaks necessary for the players, or were they simply introduced to give television broadcast partners more advertising time, as some have claimed?
Whatever the reason, the response from fans in the stadium was overwhelming. Boo always greeted the hydration break. The feeling throughout the game was that the two breaks in the first and second halves of 45 minutes disrupted the flow of play too much.
Scientists, coaches and FIFA are likely to insist that the summer World Cup continues as global temperatures reach levels that are dangerous for players.
There are no plans to introduce breaks in domestic leagues whose games are primarily winter sports. However, it remains to be seen whether international tournaments will follow suit in terms of holding summer tournaments.
Rules and regulations need to be tightened for the 2030 World Cup
The most controversial moment of the tournament was undoubtedly the red card suspension given to USA forward Folarin Balogun.
The striker was sent off during the 2-0 win against Bosnia and Herzegovina in the last 32, but FIFA controversially handed him a one-year suspended suspension.
The U.S. left the tournament in the last 16 with a 4-1 loss to Belgium, which arguably ended any further fallout surrounding the suspension.
The allegations against FIFA were that it bent its rules to please US President Donald Trump.
The international football federation announced it had suspended the issuance of red cards after President Trump urged FIFA chief Gianni Infantino to reconsider the matter.
America’s elimination in the next round meant that the uproar, which included criticism from the Belgian Football Association, Europe’s top soccer body, a former FIFA president and several former top players, quickly subsided.
There should be no gray areas when it comes to rules and regulations in major competitions, and FIFA must not allow such controversies to repeat themselves or eliminate steps that Balogun’s suspended sentence could have set.
Is it necessary to suppress Argentina’s emphasis on the dark arts?
Major soccer finals often end in failure. Pace, joy, skill and the expression of a player’s talent are often crushed by the pressure of a final, with both teams desperate to avoid defensive mistakes and sticking to strict tactics set to avoid them.
This is largely due to the mentality of the finalists, which is difficult to change given their reluctance to step on the gas in the final stages of a tournament unless they follow suit.
One thing that FIFA could look at, especially in the single-game knockout stages, is how defending teams use the “dark arts” to aid their objectives.
There is no better example than Argentina’s performances in the semi-finals and final, but they are not alone. Manchester City were praised for their short passing game under manager Josep Guardiola, but were also seen as a team that would stop at nothing to win. This included tugging at his shirt and moving his feet to break up opposition play on pitches where referees were less likely to wave a yellow card.
Argentina’s approach was less cautious. In both the best-of-four matches and the final, the South American team stalled in the early stages of both matches, but was denied permission by the referee.
One of the greatest referees, if not the greatest, Pierluigi Collina was famous for laying down the rules early in the game during what was a more combative era on the field in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
FIFA would be well advised to encourage a similar approach. As such, this beautiful game has a chance to shine in a modern era of low blocks and sneaky endgame challenges.
Will the USA and Canada remain the top teams in the World Cup?
Last but not least should be the United States, as well as co-sponsors such as Canada and Mexico.
Men’s soccer in co-host Canada has long struggled to break through at the top level, but the team’s progress to the last 16 suggests things may be changing, with investment in the sport accelerating and games drawing record crowds.
In contrast, soccer is well established in Mexico. The stadium was (almost) full, and the fans were especially excited when Mexico played. But as fans celebrated Mexico’s first World Cup finals victory in 40 years, four people were killed in a crowd push and there were few signs of long-term economic benefits. Off the field, there is a need for reflection, but on the pitch, Mexico remains a force to be reckoned with.
Although American fans were dissatisfied with their team being eliminated in the round of 16 again, the team performed in line with expectations.
The United States has proven to be the final frontier for soccer audiences, and there is no doubt that this tournament helped raise awareness across the country. Major League Soccer (MLS), headlined by Lionel Messi, continues to grow. But ultimately, to truly captivate American audiences, America will probably need a homegrown superstar to lead the team at least to the brink of glory on the world stage.
Perhaps then, chants of “USA” will be echoed even more widely, not just in U.S. stadiums, but throughout the soccer world.
