Even before the World Cup final has kicked off in New York on Sunday, world footballing governing body FIFA is already looking forward to the 2030 tournament, to be hosted – in the main – by Spain, Portugal and Morocco.

I say in the main, because to coincide with the centenary of the competition, there will be three early games in the tournament in Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay respectively.

I get the Uruguay link, they were the first hosts and winners back in 1930, but Argentina and Paraguay? Yet another FIFA financially driven detour?

Aside from effectively a six-country-hosted tournament, there is increased speculation that the 2030 event will see the number of competing countries rising from 48 to 64, so 16 groups of four, with the bottom two eliminated before the first knockout round of 32.

Cape Verde have been one of the stories of the World Cup in 2026 - but would allowing another 16 nations into the 2030 tournament be a step too far? (Photo by Michael Reaves/Getty Images)

placeholder image — Cape Verde have been one of the stories of the World Cup in 2026 - but would allowing another 16 nations into the 2030 tournament be a step too far? (Photo by Michael Reaves/Getty Images)

That would give us a staggering 128 matches in total – great for the TV companies, but is it diluting the product even further?

To a degree the achievement of Cape Verde in their group and their subsequent feat of taking Argentina to extra time in the first knockout round has enhanced the whole romance of the competition.

But will having even more smaller countries taking part create a danger of some very one-sided games?

On the subject of TV, last weekend I was lucky enough to travel to the US for the England quarter-final, and while on a stopover at Charlotte Airport, North Carolina, on Friday afternoon, I was watching the Spain vs Belgium game on Fox TV.

Imagine my surprise (NOT!) when at the start of the first hydration break the TV network went to a commercial break.

The same thing happened on Saturday night when I was watching Argentina vs Switzerland.

All credit to ITV for not going down a similar route with their coverage in this country.

I have to say, and clearly England winning helped, my whole 72-hour or so experience ‘across the pond’ was excellent.

The game, while not quite the World Cup classic I was hoping for, was incident-packed.

Were England lucky? No, they had the rub of the green at times, and on another day Norway could have won, and we would have had little room for complaint.

Off the field, the Yanks were perfect hosts. My previous experience in a NFL stadium was a very cold day in November at the Soldier Field in Chicago, but the Miami Dolphins’ sun-drenched Hard Rock Stadium was almost a perfect venue.

The concession prices weren’t cheap, but you’re at a World Cup quarter-final!

Most of all, 20 years after I took him to the England v Portugal quarter-final at Gelsenkirchen, it gave me a weekend of lifetime memories with Harty Junior.

But returning to FIFA’s proposals to extend the competition in four years’ time, unfortunately it is what it is, it’s their ‘ball’ so they can do what they want, at least they hopefully won’t have the respective heads of state of the three hosts getting involved to ‘overturn’ suspensions?

Donald Trump’s intervention over Folarin Balogun’s red card, was not only embarrassing, long-term it’s made FIFA look both weak and stupid, which is the last thing all football fans around the globe, regardless of their respective national allegiance, want.

Without wanting to wish my life away, with a readymade base in Spain, I’m already looking forward to the finals in 2030, but as much as I, like millions of others, love the beautiful game, bigger is not always better.

Would 128 games actually turn fans off rather than winning new ones over? It remains to be seen, but if Gianni Infantino stays as FIFA President, don’t bet against it!