The first 48-team World Cup, reviewed: Spain's triumph and a tournament like no other

After years of following major tournaments, I have learned to let the dust settle before passing judgement. Now that the 2026 World Cup has ended and the confetti has been swept away, a clearer picture emerges. This was not just another edition; it was the largest in the tournament's history and the first ever shared across three nations. And beyond the champion's name, what fascinates me most is how a competition this enormous actually held together.

A tournament of record scale

The numbers alone marked a turning point. For the first time, 48 teams took part, up from the 32-team format that had been in place since 1998. Jointly hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico, the event ran from June 11 to July 19, spanning 16 venues across 16 host cities, eleven of them in the United States. In total, 104 matches were played, making this comfortably the most sprawling World Cup ever staged.

From the Azteca to the Meadowlands

The journey had a fitting shape. It opened on June 11 with Mexico facing South Africa at the historic Estadio Azteca in Mexico City, a stadium steeped in World Cup lore. Five weeks later, the tournament reached its climax far to the north, at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. That arc, from one of the game's oldest cathedrals to a modern American arena, captured the sheer geographic ambition of this shared tournament.

Spain's hard-earned crown

In the end, it was Spain who lifted the trophy. In a tense final on July 19, they edged Argentina 1-0 after extra time, with Ferran Torres striking the only goal in the 106th minute. It was Spain's second World Cup title, following their first in 2010, and a victory built on patience rather than spectacle. Beating an Argentina side of such pedigree, and doing so deep into extra time, made the achievement feel all the more substantial.

Did the bigger format work?

The lingering question, for me, is whether the expanded format truly delivered. A larger field meant more nations tasted the world stage, which is genuinely valuable for the global game, yet it also raised fears of lopsided matches and tournament fatigue. The new structure of twelve groups, with the best third-placed teams advancing, added fresh intrigue to the group stage. Whether it diluted the overall quality is a debate that will run for years to come.

My measured take

Looking back, I resist both the hype and the cynicism. A 48-team World Cup was always going to be unwieldy, and not every match justified the scale. Yet the tournament crowned a worthy champion, reached new corners of the host nations, and largely delivered the drama supporters had hoped for. The real test now is whether football's governing bodies can keep this giant format meaningful, rather than letting sheer size become an end in itself.