World Cup every two years? A change in football’s biggest competition could damage the sport
By Jay Lee
The World Cup has long been considered the most significant and anticipated football competition of all time. It features the most incredible teams playing against each other, such as Brazil versus Germany in 2014, which led to one of the most surprising outcomes in the history of the sport: a 7-1 win for Germany!
It also grabs the attention of billions every tournament, with over one-ninth of the population watching the 2006 World Cup final alone. For many footballers, winning the competition is a dream — the greatest footballers would feasibly trade their entire trophy collection for a World Cup medal. Don’t believe me? Just ask Lionel Messi, who stated, "I would trade all of my records for the World Cup trophy".
Photo by Fauzan Saari on Unsplash, courtesy of https://historyofsoccer.info
The World Cup is an international competition organised by the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), featuring 32 of the best international teams at the time from several or all continents. This number will become 46 in the 2026 World Cup. It is played quadrennially on even-numbered years in 2022, 2026, and so on, leaving fans and players waiting for long durations between World Cups. The World Cup is also known for spotlighting less known players. For example, James Rodriguez, who was previously unknown to many, received a transfer to Real Madrid due to his superb individual performance at the 2014 World Cup. Hence, the World Cup could be further appraised as the superlative of all sports competitions.
In May of this year, FIFA began looking into holding the World Cup biennially instead of quadrennially. Further plans have since been made and will likely be established after the 2026 World Cup. Reasons for this change include allowing for more frequent football entertainment, additional chances to raise funds for the development of players, and other benefits. Many North American and African countries support this plan. Still, many football groups and associations like the Union of European Football Association (UEFA) have debated having this plan in place for a multitude of reasons.
Most fans and players despise the biennial World Cup plan due to concerns that it would tire players and clash with other major competitions. The European Championship, informally known as the Euros, is another major international competition held quadrennially on non-World Cup even years like 2024 and 2028 during the summer. However, implementing the biennial World Cup plan means the World Cup would have to be played in the winter or in club football time to accommodate the Euros’ schedule. This would have to occur alongside the Summer Olympics, which is held biennially from mid-July to the start of August after the Euros, and club football, which starts in mid-August. This problem could be solved if club football was to be pushed back a few weeks to accommodate the World Cups, but there are concerns that such a high frequency of competitions would tire out professional players, especially in Olympic seasons. This would lead to fatigue amongst players before club football even commences. The European Club Association (ECA) has stated that “The proposals would put players’ health and wellbeing at risk and dilute the value and meaning of the competition."
Another reason for the biennial World Cup’s potential failure is due to the higher frequency of player injuries while on World Cup duty. In EURO 2021, key players like Leonardo Spinazzola, a football player on Italy’s national team and AS Roma football club, took a major injury that ruled him out for months into the year’s club football campaign. Despite being at a respectable fourth ranking in their league table at the time of writing, AS Roma still lost a significant player who could have potentially brought them to the top of the table. If the World Cup were held biennially, there is likely to be a surge in the number of critical injuries since more games would unquestionably result in more worn-out players, leading to greater chances of getting hurt. This is not only harmful to the well-being of players but would also leave many players missing for their teams, changing entire league tables. However, these changes in the league table can be seen as positive or negative for teams as it constructs unpredictability.
Alternatively, the biennial World Cup plan may allow previously injured players to have more chances of participating in following World Cups and increased opportunities for nations to host the prestigious tournament. It would also play a role in expunging useless friendlies between big and small countries entirely from schedules. Furthermore, the biennial World Cup would lead to two big international breaks instead of five small international breaks. This can be seen as a positive as it means fewer international breaks, yet a negative as it represents a longer wait for fans when the international breaks do arrive.
One might suggest to FIFA that they just hold the World Cup without European countries since UEFA called a potential boycott on the tournament. UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin stated: “[European countries] can choose not to play in [the World Cup]. As far as I know, South American countries are on the same page.” With European and South American countries erased from the competition, the World Cup would garner far less anticipation due to all previous World Cup winners and the most prominent teams being from these two continents. The biennial World Cup plan would surely lose traction since it would make many fans unhappy, with 45% of fans surveyed wanting the four year World Cup plan to remain and only 30% supporting the two-year plan. Arsene Wenger, FIFA’s Chief of Global Football Development, has stated that he is "100% convinced" about the implementation of the biennial World Cup. However, after all the stated implications of this new direction, would Wenger remain with this perspective on the plan?
In conclusion, the biennial World Cup plan may see like a good idea on paper due to the benefits for FIFA, players, and the nations themselves, but delving deeper into the plan reveals that potential disadvantages outweigh the positives.