2026 World Cup - News, Updates and discussions

[TGAA_Star]

Which is why it makes more sense to have 12 groups of 4 teams and top 2 teams go into the Round of 32 and the 8 best 3rd place teams also go into the Round of 32

[Obinna]

I assume that 48 teams is set in stone, but do we know the formation will be 3-team groups for sure? How concrete is that? 

I would much, much, much rather have the format TGAA_Star laid out.

What is the benefit of having 3-team groups from FIFA's perspective?

[El Diego]

57 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I assume that 48 teams is set in stone, but do we know the formation will be 3-team groups for sure? How concrete is that? 

I would much, much, much rather have the format TGAA_Star laid out.

What is the benefit of having 3-team groups from FIFA's perspective?

 

2 hours ago, CanadaFan123 said:

Such a joke .. never mind the fact that a two game tournament is ridiculous, 3 team groups will mean an unbalanced schedule with the team that plays on MD 1 & 3 having a distinct advantage.

I agree with you guys. In Football Manager the WC moves to 3 team groups and it all seems so Mickey Mouse. There are massive advantages knowing other results, teams that play 'back to back' are ravaged by fitness issues, and only having two games and potentially being kicked out is so anticlimactic.  

[Corazon]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

I assume that 48 teams is set in stone, but do we know the formation will be 3-team groups for sure? How concrete is that? 

I would much, much, much rather have the format TGAA_Star laid out.

What is the benefit of having 3-team groups from FIFA's perspective?

I'm not going to go too much into the details but

1) More money

2) This will help expand the game globally

There will be the same amount of games played as previous World Cups but the 3rd group game will now be put into a round of 32 knockout phase.  One less group game, one more set of knockout games.  The majority of the "top 32 teams" will get their minimum of 3 games anyways.  I do worry about some lesser teams really making some round robin games ugly to sneak through as 2nd place.  Football is always changing and the World Cup is no exception.  The World Cup continues to expand every couple of decades.  Let's not forget that the World Cup started with 13 and 16 teams and was using a 24 team format up until 1998.  I personally think the 32 team format is ideal but I understand the desire to change as historically weaker countries continue to develop.

Many opposed the recent Euro Tournament expansion but that hate has subsided a bit as well.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Corazon

[SpursFlu]

I would like a larger play in round perhaps. I dont mind more teams but having more than 32 at once might dilute the focus of the World Cup. Too much going on at once. I also think 32 teams is an ideal structure 

Maybe take the 8 last teams to qualify and play a play in round with the next 8. Not sure

I also like the emphasis on qualifiers because as we're finding out, it gives a chance to watch big games at home stadiums 

[TGAA_Star]

But if anything my format is more practical and more logical too of having top 2 teams advance into the Round of 32 and the 8 best 3rd place teams advance right along with them into the Round of 32

[Free kick]

3 hours ago, Obinna said:

What is the benefit of having 3-team groups from FIFA's perspective?

I dont know,  but its  terrible.  you could easily end up like Canada's group in the 2000 Gold cup where everyone ends up 1-1-1 and you have to go to a coin flip to determine who advances.  

What I find weird is:  if you are going to go to a 48 team WC then you might as well go to a 64 team WC.  With 64 you could have 16 groups of 4 and you would have cut down on a lot WCQ games.   With 64 you still have a knock out stage of 32, just like the current 48 team proposal.  or have a second group stage where you carry over your result with the other advancing team.  Just like FIBA

Edited November 23, 2021 by Free kick

[Free kick]

1 hour ago, TGAA_Star said:

But if anything my format is more practical and more logical too of having top 2 teams advance into the Round of 32 and the 8 best 3rd place teams advance right along with them into the Round of 32

There is no fair and just manner to determine a "best third place team".  That's what i hate about 24 team tournaments.   You could be in a group with a minnow that everyone beats up on and pads their differential. And, you get to advance with three points  but another team in tough group, also with three points,  gets eliminated.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Free kick

[Kent]

12 minutes ago, Free kick said:

There is no fair and just manner to determine a "best third place team".  That's what i hate about 24 team tournaments.   You could be in a group with a minnow that everyone beats up on and pads their differential. And, you get to advance with three points  but another team in tough group, also with three points,  gets eliminated.

It's a catch 22. There is no fair way to pick the best 3rd place teams, and there is no fair way to schedule the games of a 3 team group, especially in a condensed schedule where the number of days of rest are significant (as opposed to, say, weekly games like Champions League or something like that).

[shorty]

As a fan, I agree with a lot of the sentiments here, but logistically adding more group games while retaining a knockout phase of 32 adds another ~24 games to the schedule, depending on how you do it.  More money, yes, but realistically adds another 3-4 days to the tournament and other logistical headaches to the tournament organizers.  I think they were trying to keep a cap on the total number of games overall (right or wrong).

[TOCanada115]

If this horrible 48 tournament format has to be played, I’d run with like this. 

12 groups of 4

Best 8 group winners go directly to the round of 16. 
 

4 worst group winners, plus 12 runner ups play round of 24. Winners in this round get a group winner in the round of 16. 
 

At least this way, it rewards you for finishing 1st in your group, and you don’t have to worry about 3rd place teams bullcrap. If you finish top 2, you move on. If you get 9 points in group, you probably get directly into the round of 16. 

[EJsens1]

11 minutes ago, TOCanada115 said:

If this horrible 48 tournament format has to be played, I’d run with like this. 

12 groups of 4

Best 8 group winners go directly to the round of 16. 
 

4 worst group winners, plus 12 runner ups play round of 24. Winners in this round get a group winner in the round of 16. 
 

At least this way, it rewards you for finishing 1st in your group, and you don’t have to worry about 3rd place teams bullcrap. If you finish top 2, you move on. If you get 9 points in group, you probably get directly into the round of 16. 

It’s a good idea for sure.  Couple problems I see.  First, tiebreakers are simply on goals with the group play?  Very unfair to base it on that if you can’t play the teams you’re competing with for positioning.  Second, I don’t think some teams will be too happy with such a layoff between games between winning their group and having to wait until the ‘round of 24’ sorts itself out.  I guess the option there is to cram that round of 24 in a couple days so the tournament does drag on if that makes sense  

[SpursFlu]

I always love the logic of looking at something that is so frigging awesome and thinking.. you know what we need to do? Change it

[Obinna]

I wish the format never had to change, and I wish the tournament was not expanded, but seeing how expansion is inevitable I am in favor of just going to 64 teams, just as @Free kick suggested. You expand the tournament, but keep the current format and just stack on an additional knock out round.

I mean, does anyone doubt they'll eventually expand to 64? Just get it over with and expand up to 64 so we don't have to change the format AGAIN a few more cycles from now.... 

[TOCanada115]

12 minutes ago, EJsens1 said:

It’s a good idea for sure.  Couple problems I see.  First, tiebreakers are simply on goals with the group play?  Very unfair to base it on that if you can’t play the teams you’re competing with for positioning.  Second, I don’t think some teams will be too happy with such a layoff between games between winning their group and having to wait until the ‘round of 24’ sorts itself out.  I guess the option there is to cram that round of 24 in a couple days so the tournament does drag on if that makes sense  

No, the first tiebreaker is points. There’s probably a 0% chance that all 12 group winners finish with 9 points. 
 

In 2018, 3 of the 8 group winner got 9 points. So if you get 9 points in this format, you will 95% be moving on the round of 16. 
 

The teams with 7, it will probably come down to GD. 6 and under, and you’re playing in the round of 24. 

[Free kick]

2 hours ago, Kent said:

It's a catch 22. There is no fair way to pick the best 3rd place teams, and there is no fair way to schedule the games of a 3 team group, especially in a condensed schedule where the number of days of rest are significant (as opposed to, say, weekly games like Champions League or something like that).

Given that it is a 48 tournament.  What i think that they have in mind is this:

First Group stage - 

Group A-Edm.......................Group B-Tor

A1...........................................B1

A2..........................................B2

A3..........................................B3

Matches 

A1-A3...................................B1-B3

A2-A3..................................B2-B3

A1-A2...................................B1-B2

 

Second Group stage - (Top 2 from each group advances and carries over their result against the other advancing team)

Group Q- Edm & Tor (50-50)

A1

B1

A2

B2

Matches

A1-B2-Edm

B1-A2-Tor

A1-B1-Edm

B2-A2-Tor

 

TOP 2 from group Q advances to R16

This is the only way to ensure that you can have 5 games in both Toronto and Edmonton

As for ensuring that canada plays in both Tor and Edm, you can always switch one match from grp A to B and one match from B to A. 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Free kick

[TGAA_Star]

20 minutes ago, Free kick said:

Given that it is a 48 tournament.  What i think that they have in mind is this:

First Group stage - 

Group A-Edm.......................Group B-Tor

A1...........................................B1

A2..........................................B2

A3..........................................B3

Matches 

A1-A3...................................B1-B3

A2-A3..................................B2-B3

A1-A2...................................B1-B2

 

Second Group stage - (Top 2 from each group advances and carries over their result against the other advancing team)

Group Q- Edm & Tor (50-50)

A1

B1

A2

B2

Matches

A1-B2-Edm

B1-A2-Tor

A1-B1-Edm

B2-A2-Tor

 

TOP 2 from group Q advances to R16

This is the only way to ensure that you can have 5 games in both Toronto and Edmonton

As for ensuring that canada plays in both Tor and Edm, you can always switch one match from grp A to B and one match from B to A. 

 

I actually think this format is actually not that bad

[Free kick]

9 minutes ago, TGAA_Star said:

I actually think this format is actually not that bad

except that when we lost a city (Van or Mon) we lost the chance to get a R16 game.  i think initially we were hearing that we would have one R16 game.  Then we would have had 3 grps/cities with 3 games each and 1 city with one R16 game

[nfitz]

4 hours ago, Free kick said:

Given that it is a 48 tournament.  What i think that they have in mind is this:

If I remember correctly, the bid-book didn't have cities hosting groups as such, and had each (first round) match for a group in a different city. And each city not hosting the same group twice.

Of course though, there's not predicting what FIFA will actually do. Especially if Covid is still a significant factor a year from now.

Edited November 24, 2021 by nfitz

[Free kick]

2 hours ago, nfitz said:

If I remember correctly, the bid-book didn't have cities hosting groups as such, and had each (first round) match for a group in a different city. And each city not hosting the same group twice.

Of course though, there's not predicting what FIFA will actually do. Especially if Covid is still a significant factor a year from now.

I dont know, you might be right.  I skimmed through the bid book (Its massive).   But that would surprise me because there were two big criticisms that came up worldwide about the WC USA 94 and the U20 WC Canada 2007 and it was that:

1) everybody hated the vast distances that they had to travel between venues.  Unlike Europe, for example, you cant travel by train to any venue within one day.

2) the little amount of awareness and appreciation for event/soccer that there was in the cities outside of the actual stadiums and venues.   There were stories about Cab drivers in certain cities not having a clue about the event.  

These are two unique problems that we have with the US and Canada.  They are: vast territory where soccer is growing but but is still somewhat niche compared to Hockey, Basketball, Football and Baseball.  

Thats why it would surprise me that they would rotate 1st round matches within a group around different cities. The travel would be insane .

 

 

Edit>;  yes,  now i seem to recall that.   i think they were talking about 3-4 nearby cities having  games  3-4 groups. forming a kind of regional group.

BTW:  here is the bid book again: w3yjeu7dadt5erw26wmu-pdf.pdf (fifa.com)  and @nfitz was correct (see pages 140-142).   But now with only two cities,  i dont know what they do?

Edited November 24, 2021 by Free kick

[Approve My Account Pls]

5 minutes ago, Free kick said:

1) everybody hated the vast distances that they had to travel between venues.  Unlike Europe, for example, you cant travel by train to any venue within one day.

I was thinking about this, and depending on how many venues they select, I could see them almost having like regional groups. For example, Group A and B are on the East Coast, C and D in the midwest etc etc where a team plays 2/3 matches in 2/3 different cities but still somewhat close together. For example, maybe Toronto, Boston, and New York are one geographical trio while Edmonton, Seattle, and another city (Vancouver would have been ideal here) could be another trio.

[Free kick]

22 minutes ago, Approve My Account Pls said:

I was thinking about this, and depending on how many venues they select, I could see them almost having like regional groups. For example, Group A and B are on the East Coast, C and D in the midwest etc etc where a team plays 2/3 matches in 2/3 different cities but still somewhat close together. For example, maybe Toronto, Boston, and New York are one geographical trio while Edmonton, Seattle, and another city (Vancouver would have been ideal here) could be another trio.

True.  I think that was what @nfitz was alluding to but even that will annoy many ppl.  Whether we like to admit it or not.   Canada and the US are terrible countries for this kind of event.  When the world cup is in Europe (ie>; or even during the euros) you hear stories of ppl  driving or taking the train from one venue to another to follow their teams within a day.   You just cant do that in Canada or the US.   If i were European and a fan of one side,  there is no way i would bother coming if there is a possibility that my team could be playing one day in Toronto and in three days in either San Francisco or Dallas for the R16.   it just doesnt work.  

Edited November 24, 2021 by Free kick

[Approve My Account Pls]

34 minutes ago, Free kick said:

True.  I think that was what @nfitz was alluding to but even that will annoy many ppl.  Whether we like to admit it or not.   Canada and the US are terrible countries for this kind of event.  When the world cup is in Europe (ie>; or even during the euros) you hear stories of ppl  driving or taking the train from one venue to another to follow their teams within a day.   You just cant do that in Canada or the US.   If i were European and a fan of one side,  there is no way i would bother coming if there is a possibility that my team could be playing one day in Toronto and in three days in either San Francisco or Dallas for the R16.   it just doesnt work.  

I don't disagree, but I have a feeling that with the expansion of the WC one nation tournaments may be a thing of the past. Even with multiple nations, a continental WC in North America is wild travel though

[Bison44]

How did they work in in Russia?? There were cities 3000km apart there.  Or Brazil....damn near the same distances...

[Free kick]

25 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

How did they work in in Russia?? There were cities 3000km apart there.  Or Brazil....damn near the same distances...

Other than Manaus (sp) which was deep in the amazon.  all the cities were fairly close. mostly along the coast.   Thats for Brazil.  Manaus did not get very many games.   

Not close like Italy or Germany for example but nothing compared to Canada, Mexico & the US.

Dont know about Russia.

Edited November 24, 2021 by Free kick