2026 World Cup - News, Updates and discussions

[RJB]

I think @Free kick is pretty spot on with their assessment of the IC playoff for a 48 team tournament. That said, I think the concept is great, and I think they should offer a bunch of half places per confederation, and let Europe in!

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

22 hours ago, Kent said:

....Bonus stat: In World Cup games contested between 2 of CONCACAF, CAF, or AFC, the confederations have the following points per game.
CONCACAF  1.93
CAF               1.17
AFC               1.13

Guess the counterargument might be that Africa and AFC have more strength in depth in FIFA rankings terms than CONCACAF?

[narduch]

 

[Gian-Luca]

Time to send Australia back to Oceania where they belong if that region gets an automatic spot and half spot into the playoffs on top of that 

[MauditYvon]

Yup and the Guianas should be Conmebol, Israel in AFC with Kazakhstan and Azerbaidjan. 

Edited August 9, 2022 by MauditYvon

[InglewoodJack]

Israel can’t play in AFC, there’s a handful of teams that straight up won’t play them. Oceania getting a guaranteed spot is wild. New Zealand has won OFC qualifying every year since Australia left, and they’ve lost every single intercontinental playoff. In fact, of the four intercontinental playoff games they’ve had, they’ve only scored in one of those, and that’s when they lost 9-3 to Mexico. NZ now effectively has a bye into the World Cup where they’ll likely lose every single game, likely without scoring a goal 

[TOCanada115]

Yeah they should not be getting an auto qualifying spot. Should stay at .5. If I had to change anything it would be:

Asia from 8 to 6

Africa from 9 to 8

Oceania from 1 to just an IC spot.

Europe from 16 to 20

It allows UEFA to keep the same qualifying format, with 1st and 2nd in each group going straight to the World Cup.

Asia, Concacaf and South America with 6 seems fair (South America has 10 teams, otherwise I’d be higher)

Africa getting more spots is due to the depth of countries, compared to Asia and Concacaf. 

[Kent]

10 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Guess the counterargument might be that Africa and AFC have more strength in depth in FIFA rankings terms than CONCACAF?

Yes, that could be a factor. My point with the number of unique teams to make it out of the group stage and with the number of 0-3 records in the group stage was that those are indicators of teams just making up the numbers in the World Cup, and CONCACAF holds it's own in those terms.

It could be rankings, but those are flawed of course. CONCACAF has a couple disadvantages compared to AFC and CAF. First off, with fewer teams in the World Cup, there are fewer teams that get a chance at big World Cup points (but I guess it could wind up going the other way and the extra teams would just lose points in the World Cup). The other things are that in qualifying CONCACAF has the top 8 (previously 6) teams playing in the same group. Which means the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th place teams likely have losing records in the most significant round of World Cup qualifying. And of course there are the non-FIFA teams in CONCACAF, which means you don't get points for the occasional win in the continental championship. I'm not an expert on AFC or CAF, so I am only guessing that they don't have as significant a non-FIFA presence in their continental competitions.

[Kent]

On the topic of the inter-confederation play offs, I got curious about how teams qualifying via that route have done.

Since 1998 there have been 11 teams to go that route.

2 teams finished last in their group. (T&T 2006, Australia 2018)
4 teams came 3rd in their group. (Iran 1998, Uruguay 2002, New Zealand 2010, Peru 2018)
4 teams came 2nd in their group and then lost in the round of 16. (Ireland 2002, Australia 2006, Uruguay 2014, Mexico 2014) 
1 team won their group and then made it to the semi finals (finished 4th). (Uruguay 2010)

So they have been getting to the round of 16 (or further) about half the time. It will be interesting to see if Free Kick's theory holds with the expanded World Cup and the teams qualifying via this route have worse outcomes.

[MauditYvon]

5 hours ago, InglewoodJack said:

Israel can’t play in AFC, there’s a handful of teams that straight up won’t play them. Oceania getting a guaranteed spot is wild. New Zealand has won OFC qualifying every year since Australia left, and they’ve lost every single intercontinental playoff. In fact, of the four intercontinental playoff games they’ve had, they’ve only scored in one of those, and that’s when they lost 9-3 to Mexico. NZ now effectively has a bye into the World Cup where they’ll likely lose every single game, likely without scoring a goal 

This ain't true, they won against Bahrain in 2010 (0-0, 0-1).

For Israel, who cares? They will get easy 3 points.

Edited August 9, 2022 by MauditYvon

[InglewoodJack]

2 minutes ago, MauditYvon said:

This ain't true, they won against Bahrain in 2010 (0-0, 0-1).

For Israel, who cares? They will get easy 3 points.

Yes, that’s true, my bad. In terms of who cares about Israel, a lot of people, as it turns out.

[MauditYvon]

2 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

Yes, that’s true, my bad. In terms of who cares about Israel, a lot of people, as it turns out.

Sorry, I thought FIFA was apolitical. 

[kacbru]

6 hours ago, InglewoodJack said:

NZ now effectively has a bye into the World Cup where they’ll likely lose every single game, likely without scoring a goal

Um... 2010 WC, NZ didn't lose a game, drew all three group matches and scored 2 goals.  So maybe not.

[dyslexic nam]

On 8/8/2022 at 12:16 AM, Free kick said:

Was debating whether to post this given that it is one of those mindless top 5 or top 10 lists 

Opinion │Ranking the five best and worst 2026 World Cup stadiums | Sports | breezejmu.org

But it is content for this thread topic and is sure to stir up discussions 

So the only thing they say is wrong with BC Place is the turf and they say it will be replaced - but it is still 4th worst?  Interesting.  

[Watchmen]

4 hours ago, Kent said:

Yes, that could be a factor. My point with the number of unique teams to make it out of the group stage and with the number of 0-3 records in the group stage was that those are indicators of teams just making up the numbers in the World Cup, and CONCACAF holds it's own in those terms.

It could be rankings, but those are flawed of course. CONCACAF has a couple disadvantages compared to AFC and CAF. First off, with fewer teams in the World Cup, there are fewer teams that get a chance at big World Cup points (but I guess it could wind up going the other way and the extra teams would just lose points in the World Cup). The other things are that in qualifying CONCACAF has the top 8 (previously 6) teams playing in the same group. Which means the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th place teams likely have losing records in the most significant round of World Cup qualifying. And of course there are the non-FIFA teams in CONCACAF, which means you don't get points for the occasional win in the continental championship. I'm not an expert on AFC or CAF, so I am only guessing that they don't have as significant a non-FIFA presence in their continental competitions.

I think maybe a better argument for CAF getting more is that they've probably had a better variety of teams qualifying since 1998.

CAF - Algeria (2), Angola (1), Cameroon (5), Egypt (1), Ghana (4) , Ivory Coast (3), Morocco (3), Nigeria (5), Senegal (3), South Africa (3), Togo (1), Tunisia (5) 

CONCACAF - Canada (1), Costa Rica (5), Honduras (2), Jamaica (1), Mexico (7), Panama (1), US (6), Trinidad & Tobago (1)

AFC - Australia (4), China (1), Iran (5), Japan (7), North Korea (1), Qatar (1 - as host), Saudi Arabi (5), South Korea (7)

Now granted, CAF had an extra spot. But no team qualified for every tournament either.  CONCACAF tended to be mostly represented by 3 sides, with a number of one-offs, though they also had the fewest spots.  AFC had only a half spot less than AFC, but sent virtually the same teams every time, essentially 7 different teams in 4 spots, with the 8th team in Qatar only qualifying as the host.

[Kent]

12 hours ago, Watchmen said:

I think maybe a better argument for CAF getting more is that they've probably had a better variety of teams qualifying since 1998.

CAF - Algeria (2), Angola (1), Cameroon (5), Egypt (1), Ghana (4) , Ivory Coast (3), Morocco (3), Nigeria (5), Senegal (3), South Africa (3), Togo (1), Tunisia (5) 

CONCACAF - Canada (1), Costa Rica (5), Honduras (2), Jamaica (1), Mexico (7), Panama (1), US (6), Trinidad & Tobago (1)

AFC - Australia (4), China (1), Iran (5), Japan (7), North Korea (1), Qatar (1 - as host), Saudi Arabi (5), South Korea (7)

Now granted, CAF had an extra spot. But no team qualified for every tournament either.  CONCACAF tended to be mostly represented by 3 sides, with a number of one-offs, though they also had the fewest spots.  AFC had only a half spot less than AFC, but sent virtually the same teams every time, essentially 7 different teams in 4 spots, with the 8th team in Qatar only qualifying as the host.

This is a good point. One other wrinkle in it in addition to the point you made about them having more spots than us, is that their qualifying is also probably the most random just with how it is set up. I don't follow it, but it seems very draw dependent. I don't know if it has always been the same format (but it always seems at least similar), but this past cycle after weeding out some of the lower ranked teams via 2 legged matches, it was 10 groups of 4 with just the top of each group advancing. Then those group winners are paired up for a 2 leg elimination. There isn't room for error, or any way around a bad luck draw. You have to beat everyone you are drawn against the whole way through (beat meaning finish ahead of them in the group, or over 2 legs, depending on the round). But yes, anecdotally I have the impression that their 5th-ish best teams and down are stronger than ours.

Out of curiosity, if CONCACAF sent the top 5 finishers in the Hex/Oct (since CAF has 5 spots) we would have had these teams qualify.

Mexico (7), USA (7), Costa Rica (7), Honduras (4), Panama (3), Jamaica (2), El Salvador (2), Trinidiad & Tobago (1), Guatemala (1), Canada (1)

Still fewer than CAF. 10 teams for us, 12 for them.

[Free kick]

On 8/9/2022 at 11:43 AM, narduch said:

 

If those number are correct, and there is every reason to believe that they are,  then that means that the IC stays.  That's because those numbers add up to 46.    Given that UEFA wont play in the IC playoffs that means it will be:

UEFA 16 places 

Africa 9.5 places

Asia 8.5 places

CONCACAF 6.5

South America 6.5 places

Oceania 1.5 places

Basically you have rendered WCQ almost pointless in Most regions.  With SA heavily favored in the IC playoffs,  they would be basically playing a two year 10 team round robin to just eliminate 3 teams.  Why would Brazil and Arg ever need to field their A-teams for WCQ.  Its also pointless in Oceania because you could just coronate NZ right now, unless they stick Australia back in Oceania. 

In Asia, it almost assures that China gets in, which is (I am sure) what FIFA wants.  But it makes WCQ much more pointless for the two or three sides that always qualifies.   In Europe, it will be a nice and clean qualifying process with 8 groups where the top two advance and hence this will eliminate that stupidly unjust two legged draw and playoff that they have for the second place team.  But on the other hand, for the traditionally top sides,  there will no need to sweat it (ie.: no incentive to finish 1st) or even need to always callup you best talent because in a six team group,  you are guaranteed to have two minnows  and maybe a lower middle side like Latvia or Bulgaria which should pose no problem.

Essentially, the common denominator is that WCQ is much more pointless and the two year qualifying is not going to have any intrigue and much less interest.  So top level international soccer will be confined only to that 5 week period every four years when the WC finals are held.  

 

PS.:   We would be better off now with a 64 team WC held every two years.  To keep everyone engaged.  

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Free kick

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

5 × 0.5 = 2.5. Would Oceania really be given a second bite at the cherry if they have an automatic qualifier?

[narduch]

5 hours ago, Free kick said:

If those number are correct, and there is every reason to believe that they are,  then that means that the IC stays.  That's because those numbers add up to 46.    Given that UEFA wont play in the IC playoffs that means it will be:

UEFA 16 places 

Africa 9.5 places

Asia 8.5 places

CONCACAF 6.5

South America 6.5 places

Oceania 1.5 places

Basically you have rendered WCQ almost pointless in Most regions.  With SA heavily favored in the IC playoffs,  they would be basically playing a two year 10 team round robin to just eliminate 3 teams.  Why would Brazil and Arg ever need to field their A-teams for WCQ.  Its also pointless in Oceania because you could just coronate NZ right now, unless they stick Australia back in Oceania. 

In Asia, it almost assures that China gets in, which is (I am sure) what FIFA wants.  But it makes WCQ much more pointless for the two or three sides that always qualifies.   In Europe, it will be a nice and clean qualifying process with 8 groups where the top two advance and hence this will eliminate that stupidly unjust two legged draw and playoff that they have for the second place team.  But on the other hand, for the traditionally top sides,  there will no need to sweat it (ie.: no incentive to finish 1st) or even need to always callup you best talent because in a six team group,  you are guaranteed to have two minnows  and maybe a lower middle side like Latvia or Bulgaria which should pose no problem.

Essentially, the common denominator is that WCQ is much more pointless and the two year qualifying is not going to have any intrigue and much less interest.  So top level international soccer will be confined only to that 5 week period every four years when the WC finals are held.  

 

PS.:   We would be better off now with a 64 team WC held every two years.  To keep everyone engaged.  

 

Yes. They have really taken the bite out of qualifying with this many more teams. Especially in South America. 

They have done something similar for the upcoming Women's World Cup. With confederation have 2 playoff spots.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_FIFA_Women's_World_Cup_qualification_(inter-confederation_play-offs)

[Kent]

On 8/12/2022 at 1:48 AM, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

5 × 0.5 = 2.5. Would Oceania really be given a second bite at the cherry if they have an automatic qualifier?

@Free kick I am tagging you as well. It’s 1/3rd spots, not half spots. The plan is to have 6 teams with 2 teams advancing. Some kind of group stage I think. I believe the 6 teams are supposed to be a team from each of CONCACAF, CAF, AFC, OFC, CONNEBOL, and an additional spot for the host confederation.

Sorry, I don’t have a source for this. It was mentioned a couple years ago already I think so maybe not official, but everything from back then seems to be panning out now. I believe this info is in Wikipedia so maybe there is a source listed there.

[PegCityCam]

TSN talking tactics, lineups and doing a bit of a deep dive on our chances at the WC is kind of blowing my mind right now lol.

[Free kick]

On 8/13/2022 at 7:01 PM, Kent said:

@Free kick I am tagging you as well. It’s 1/3rd spots, not half spots. The plan is to have 6 teams with 2 teams advancing. Some kind of group stage I think. I believe the 6 teams are supposed to be a team from each of CONCACAF, CAF, AFC, OFC, CONNEBOL, and an additional spot for the host confederation.

Sorry, I don’t have a source for this. It was mentioned a couple years ago already I think so maybe not official, but everything from back then seems to be panning out now. I believe this info is in Wikipedia so maybe there is a source listed there.

Yes,  you are right, i was able to come across this vid.  By my count, that comes out to an IC tourny of 6 teams for 2 spots.  as you said.

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Free kick

[narduch]

28 minutes ago, Free kick said:

Yes,  you are right, i was able to come across this vid.  By my count, that comes out to an IC tourny of 6 teams for 2 spots.  as you said.

 

They will probably do the same thing they are doing for the WWC.

 

[Treppy2]

28 minutes ago, Free kick said:

Yes,  you are right, i was able to come across this vid.  By my count, that comes out to an IC tourny of 6 teams for 2 spots.  as you said.

 

Is it just coincidence that the numerical digits associated with CONCACAF are 666?!

[Free kick]

Gotta wonder,  with Can/Mex/USA all hosting the WC and presumably getting guaranteed spots, why bother having two confederations in the Americas for 2026 WCQ?  Can/Mex/US cover probably 95-99% of the land mass that makes up North America and everybody else is geographically closer to South America anyways.   You could just take those 6.33 and 6.66 spots and merge the WCQ into one confederation (the Americas) for 13 even spots.  Then you could leave the the IC playoff for the remaining three confederations (i.e..: three teams for one spot)