1. only 11 players actually play

A national team doesn't put its entire population on the field. You need to produce a relatively small group of elite players.

like for example look at cabo verde and how good they did at this year world cup they fought their hearts out in every single game they played.

2. player development matters more

The important question isn't:

"how many people live here?"

it's

"how many talented kids are playing football, and how they're being developed"

Countries with strong academies, coaching, youth leagues, scouting, facilities, and competition can turn a smaller population into excellent players.

3. talent isn't distributed evenly

having more people increases the potential number of talented players, but it doesn't guarantee that those players will become professionals.

Think of it like having a bigger lottery pool. More tickets can increase your chances, but you still need to develop the winning tickets.

4. football culture is huge

If football is deeply embedded in a country's culture, children are more likely to play from a young age, watch professional games, join clubs, and develop naturally.

That's one reason countries such as cabo verde can compete internationally despite having a population of only a few million.

>

i think a 3 year world cup is better than a 4 year cycle and a 2 year cycle because a 4 year cycle is a bit too long and players miss their prime years. And making fans wait too long between world cup tournaments. A 2 year cycle is too short, leading to tournament fatigue, oversaturation, increased injuries, fixture congestion, and a decline in the world cup prestige.

i think 3 year cycle imo strikes the ideal balance by keeping the world cup special while giving more generation of players more chances to get their hands on the world cup trophy. still Maintaning high anticipation, fitting more naturally into the international calendar, and revenue without diminishing the tournament