I find the story of the World Cup expansion to 48 teams very interesting. I’m old enough to remember every recent enlargement, from 1982 when it went from 16 to 24 and people thought that was sacrilege, to 1998 when it jumped up to 32 and people thought that would dilute the quality, and now the majority of voices are saying that 32 was the perfect number so why change it?

Is 48 the perfect number? It may or may not be, but things do evolve. The world is a bigger place now, there are far more countries in the world and certainly far more footballing countries and members of FIFA than ever before, and so it is natural that things move on.

I’m not necessarily saying that it is utopia to have a 48-team World Cup, but it is a decade away and who knows how many members of FIFA there will be at that time or what the overall landscape will look like.

I think that FIFA are far too often people’s favourite punching bag. Gianni Infantino got himself elected on a panel of expanding the World Cup, so he’s only done what he said and I have no problem with that.

The most strident critics it seems are associations, journalists and pundits from countries who are fairly well guaranteed to be in every World Cup.

It’s easy to talk about wanting the World Cup to be an elite tournament, but I didn’t know that football was about elitism.

There have been people contacting me on social media, and Scots among them to be fair, who do not like the idea. That’s fine, people are entitled to their opinions. But things do move on, nothing stays forever, and it is the World Cup after all. If it brings more people to the party, then great.

My concern would be as someone from a middle-ranking European country, which is maybe being generous, I would say that the likes of Scotland are not really being catered for.

Going to 48 is fine, but if only three more places are going to go to Europe then it’s still going to be very hard to qualify, whereas in some Confederations it is already very straightforward.

CONCACAF is the one that always jumps out at me. There are countries there who can pretty well take it for granted that they will be in every World Cup, even though their standard of football isn’t higher than mid-ranking European countries. It might make it even easier in that part of the world, but it doesn’t really in Europe.

If I was UEFA I’d be kicking up a row about this, because I’m not sure that if you are only giving Europe another three places that it is fair.

Why not hold back guaranteed slots for the very best on each continent, and have truly inter-confederation play-offs on a grand scale? If everyone is confident that Europe is stronger – as is my own belief – then that will come out in these play-offs.

I think play-offs would be a huge money-spinner, and I think it would be a meritocracy. The play-offs against Australia back in 1985 were tense matches, but we did go through.

People say it is all about money, but that is what makes the football world go round. Talk to the SFA, talk to any association who has been starved of that World Cup money as we have for two decades.

It would make a massive difference to our country’s football, facilities, and youth development if used the right way.

The problem is that the already strong and already rich get richer with each tournament, so I applaud any move that is designed to bridge that gap.