The evolution of AFCON formats from 3 nations to 24: Has bigger been better?
In 1957, the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) kicked off with just three nations. Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. It was short, simple, and intimate (CAF Official History, cafonline.com).
Over the decades, the tournament grew in bites and leaps: eight teams by the late 1960s, 12 in 1992, then 16 in 1996 (RSSSF Archive, rsssf.org).
And in 2019, it expanded to 24 teams. A format that continues today (CAF Press Release 2017, cafonline.com).
Why the growth? Big reasons.
More teams mean more nations plugged into the event. That means more TV eyeballs, more sponsors, more stadiums, more money.
The Confederation of African Football (CAF) and others argued that giving smaller nations a shot boosts football growth across Africa (BBC Sport 2017, bbc.com/sport).
Also, modern football demands a bigger stage, global appeal, more product to sell.
But bigger comes with sharp trade-offs.
Quality can dilute. Throwing eight extra teams into a finals stage increases mismatches and one-sided scorelines (Opta/CAF Match Data 2019–2023, opta.com).
Critics warned that the product on the pitch risked becoming bloated and less compelling for neutral viewers.
Logistics bite, too. Not every African country has the stadiums, transport links, or hotel capacity to host an enlarged event without costly upgrades or co-hosting deals (Reuters 2023, reuters.com).
Those practical problems fuel debate over whether expansion’s benefits outweigh its costs.
The new AFCON format also complicates calendars. The June-July switch eased tension with European clubs but created heat and travel problems in some host regions (FIFA Calendar Report 2018, fifa.com).
More teams mean more matches, which raises operational bills and the carbon footprint of travel across vast distances. Those are real-world costs that expansion supporters sometimes underplay (UNEP Sport & Environment 2022, unep.org).
Has bigger been better?
Yes, in terms of reach. Today’s tournament includes teams that once would never have made the cut.
For example, the Southern African (COSAFA) region will send six confirmed nations in 2025’s edition, with a seventh possible via playoffs (CAF Qualifiers Standings Nov 2025, cafonline.com/qualifiers).
Thanks to the 24-team format, the platform widened.
But not always in terms of elite quality. Some purists argue the tournament’s bite has softened when we dilute the field.
The nail-biting tension of a compact competition? Maybe some of it’s gone. In short, we traded intensity for inclusivity.
The verdict
If you measure success by national exposure, dream participation and football’s spread across Africa, expansion wins.
If you measure by razor-tight competition and streamlined excellence, you’ll question the trade-off.
Moving forward, the trick will be to pair size with structure: strong qualifying, smart scheduling, robust host infrastructure, meaningful legacy. Because big isn’t enough unless it’s built to last.
Bottom line: AFCON’s evolution tells a story of growth, ambition and risk. Bigger has been better but only if the quality, infrastructure and organisation keep pace.
The next challenge? Making sure the hype fuels lasting progress, not just one-off spectacle.
