"As the saying goes, the cake only gets bigger," FIFA President Gianni Infantino said on Monday after a two-and-a-half-hour virtual meeting of representatives of the 211 national associations under football's governing body. Infantino's plan: to hold both the men's and women's World Cups every two years rather than every four years as they are now. The project has the potential to divide international football.  

Who supports Gianni Infantino's World Cup plans?

The African continental confederation CAF has clearly positioned itself in favor of a shorter World Cup cycle. 

"One of the biggest beneficiaries of World Cups every two years are developing countries," CAF President Patrice Motsepe said during a visit to Ghana in October. "My job is to make sure African football grows and succeeds. African football must be put in a position to benefit financially." In late November, the CAF General Assembly in Cairo endorsed the FIFA plan. 

The Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) also views the idea favorably. Back in September, the OFC issued a statement in which it said biennial World Cups could help in "bridging the gap in competitive soccer between Oceania and the other continental federations."  

Many members of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) also feel disadvantaged by the current system. In September, the FAs of Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Maldives, which have never been to a World Cup, openly supported Infantino's plan. In a joint statement, they pointed out that in nearly a century of World Cup history, less than a quarter of AFC members had participated in the finals.

CONCACAF, the governing body of North and Central America as well as the Caribbean, has yet to position itself clearly. Instead, CONCACAF President Victor Montagliani put forward a compromise proposal in early December: Instead of doubling the number of World Cups, the Confederations Cup could be revived, or a global Nations League introduced, the Canadian argued. 

Who is opposed? 

The two continental associations that have provided all 21 World Cup champions to date, the European federation UEFA and the South American federation CONMEBOL are vigorously opposed to a shorter World Cup cycle. 

"There are no reasons, benefits or justification for the change driven by FIFA " the CONMEBOL Council, the federation's highest body, let it be known in late October. "The 10 countries that make up CONMEBOL confirm that they will not participate in a World Cup organized every two years."

UEFA also strongly opposes FIFA's plans. 

"Echoing the clear objections expressed by the European stakeholders on several occasions and the firm and motivated opposition announced by fans' organizations, UEFA believes that radical changes should be proposed only if they result in clear and unquestionable benefits for the game and its actors," the European federation said in a statement issued last week.

Now UEFA and CONMEBOL are working together to oppose the proposal. Even the idea of breaking away from the world governing body is longer considered out of the question. The two continental federations are even working on joint projects – including plans for Brazil, Argentina and Co. to participate in the European Nations League from as early as 2024.

What would the financial impact be? 

Here there are differing opinions. UEFA cites a report it commissioned from British consultants Oliver & Ohlbaum. The report predicts losses for Europe's national associations of between €2.5 billion and €3 billion ($2.82 billion to $3.4 billion) for the period between 2026 and 2030, assuming a two-year World Cup cycle is implemented. The main reason for this is the expected decline in interest from sponsors and the media as a result of the large number of major events. The consultants calculated a particularly striking loss of revenue of up to 57% for the Women's Euros if they were to be held at the same time as men's competitions. 

FIFA counters this with two feasibility studies by market research companies Nielsen and Open Economics. According to the world governing body, they forecast additional revenue of around $4.4 billion for the first four years. The money is to be distributed to the 211 member associations: Instead of the current $6 million they would then receive $16 million from the FIFA Solidarity Fund.

The rest of the money would go to FIFA's "Forward" development program, which has been in place since 2016. According to FIFA, the amount of funds dispersed to the member associations would increase by 50% as a result. 

What are the opponents' other arguments? 

UEFA and CONMEBOL speak of a sporting devaluation of the World Cups through the planned shorter cycle. In addition, they argue that it would put their own continental competitions at risk. The players, UEFA argues, would be threatened by "increasing mental and physical exhaustion." 

UEFA also argues that if World Cup qualifying were to run for about a month at a time in future (as envisioned by FIFA) this would destroy the rhythm of national leagues while also creating a distortion of competition. 

"A month-long activity of national teams would leave non-international players without competition while their international colleagues would play intensively."

The European federation also points to negative consequences for the women's game "despite the announced intention of doubling the number of Women's World Cups, as top tournaments would no longer enjoy calendar exclusivity and full spotlight, with guaranteed negative impacts in terms of exposure and fans' and media interest."

Where do we go from here? 

There are to be further talks in January about the planned new World Cup cycle. The goal of the world governing body is to come up with a proposal by the next regular FIFA Congress on March 31 in Doha. 

On Monday, Infantino claimed that if he were to call a vote tomorrow "probably a majority" would support his plan. Indeed, UEFA and CONMEBOL are outnumbered in both the FIFA Congress (65 of 211 votes combined) and the FIFA Council (14 of 37 members). The current global match calendar runs until the end of 2024, so assuming a majority is found in favor of the new World Cup cycle, it could come into effect starting in 2025.   

This article was translated from German.