There has been debate for some time about whether the World Cup still represents the pinnacle of football, but FIFA's proposal to expand the tournament to 48 teams settles the argument.
The European Champions League now represents the highest-quality football on the planet, and a bloated 48-team World Cup will only fall further behind.
The decision-makers have put the desire for profits — more games means more ticket sales and TV money — ahead of any concerns for the integrity of the tournament itself.
FIFA politics also plays a part. The governing body's top dogs, supposedly representing a new start after a series of scandals rocked the organisation, can gain political leverage by promising World Cup spots to a higher number of countries.
Yes, it may give more fans a cheap endorphin hit with more teams qualifying, but how satisfying will it be for those same fans to see their team humiliated by far-superior opponents in front of a global audience?
In tournaments, bigger is not better
On just a basic, logistical level, 48 teams does not work anywhere near as well as the current 32-team system.
After decades of tinkering, FIFA found the right balance at the 1998 France World Cup when it settled on 32; eight groups of four teams, with the top two in each group going through to the round of 16.
It makes perfect sense and the mix of teams is optimal. Most groups are tough, some are brutal and there are still enough minnows in the mix to allow for the occasional fairy tale.
Instead, FIFA is now proposing a convoluted, swollen glob of a tournament in order to shoe-horn in an extra 16 teams.
Read about how it will work in detail if you like, but the machinations (including a six-team mini-tournament beforehand, Heaven help us) will probably put you to sleep.
The quality of the competition will deteriorate, that is a given. With 16 teams from Europe, eight from Asia, one from Oceania, nine from Africa, six from South America and six from North and Central America, we are no longer talking about the creme de la creme of world football.
Sorry, but there are going to be some serious duds in there.
Euro 2016 peddled mediocrity and the World Cup is heading the same way
You may have already blocked out much of the dullness from your mind and only have a few highlights to remember it by, but Euro 2016 was overall an overly long and boring edition of the European Championships.
The tournament was expanded from 16 to 24 teams and it turned out, not surprisingly, to be too many.
The group stage lacked the intensity of past editions. The big teams were not tested so there were no true shocks early on. Portugal were horrible, eking out three draws against Austria, Iceland and Hungary in Group F. It was still enough to see them through and they went on to win the whole thing.
In one of the toughest groups on paper, Italy beat the much-vaunted Belgium, then Ireland upset Italy. But, hey, all three teams progressed anyway, so it was hard to get too excited.
But what about 'little' teams like Iceland and Wales fighting through to the quarter and semi-finals respectively? Both would have qualified under the old system and would likely have done just as well, being quality teams. It was the likes of Romania and Russia who stank up the place and didn't need to be there.
Expect much more of the same in 2026.
An easier run to the World Cup isn't necessarily good for Australia
The qualifying process for 2026 will also be damaged under the new proposal.
Australia battled for years to be included in the Asian confederation and one of the main reasons for that was to ensure more frequent competitive matches in order to help the team develop a sharper edge.
Proposed qualifier format:
- Europe: 16 teams (up from 13)
- Asia: Eight (up from four and a play-off spot)
- Oceania: one (up from a play-off spot)
- Africa: Nine (up from five)
- South America: six (up from four and a play-off spot)
- CONCACAF: six (up from three and a play-off spot)
With eight spots available for Asian teams under the proposed system, qualifying would lose all semblance of competitiveness. Australia could qualify without playing particularly well at all. And that is not a healthy way to be come tournament time.
The same problem is mirrored across the other confederations. South American sides traditionally perform well at the World Cup, but there are only 10 of them and up to seven could now qualify.
The best performing and ever-present CONCACAF sides, Mexico and the United States, have never made it beyond the quarter-finals since the US's surprise semi-final appearance in 1930. So opening up places for an extra three teams from the region hardly sets the pulse racing.
Champions League now represents the best of the best
There is a prestige attached to the World Cup that will never be matched by another tournament, but in terms of quality, it has arguably been surpassed by the Champions League and the best of club football from across the top leagues.
The World Cup was once a showcase for the finest footballers to perform in front of the entire planet, with many fans seeing these 'exotic' stars or fresh tactical systems for the first time when the tournament rolled around every four years.
Now just about anybody can watch them go about their business several times a week.
That glint of prestige might still be there but FIFA's foolhardy idea to expand the World Cup weakens it further and dulls its gloss just that little bit more.