2026 World Cup - News, Updates and discussions

[TGAA_Star]

Best format to use for this tournament:

48 teams

12 groups of 4 teams...every team gets to play 3 group games

Top 2 teams advance; 8 best 3rd place teams advance into Round of 32

 

It isn't like FIFA has a choice here because they don't 

[Free kick]

A third option that is emerging and its the best one I heard so far.  It goes like this:

1. 12 groups of 4 teams.
2. The top 2 from each group advances.   That means 24 teams out of 48 advance.
3. Of those 24 teams,  8 of the 12 teams that finished first, will get a bye and advance directly to the round of 16.  The 8 that get a bye will based on  the 8 first place teams that had the best record amongst the 12 first place finishers.
4. The remaining 16 teams (i.e.: the 4 first place finishers who didn't get a bye plus all the teams who placed second in their group) will square off against each other for the right to advance to t the round of 16 and face those 8 teams in point 3 who got bye.

 

This is is the best proposal that I have heard.   The benefit:   its 4-team groups so no conspiracies,  there is no stupid wild card third place teams advancing,  and it incentivizes teams to try to finishing first and win all their games.   

Its perfect IMHO.  If i can find the link where I read this, I will post it here.  

 

Here

How World Cup 2026 will work with 104 matches, six games a day and 48 teams in biggest tournament ever | The Sun

 

quote:"....The easiest way would be the top two in each group, plus the eight best third-place teams, reaching the final 32 and eight games, instead of seven, required to win.

There are some arguments, though, that the best eight group winners should automatically go to the last 16, with the other four group winners plus the eight runners-up, playing off to join them.

That would mean 96 games not 104 — still the biggest World Cup.."

Edited December 21, 2022 by Free kick

[CanadianSoccerFan]

 

 

 

 

[An Observer]

8 hours ago, Free kick said:

A third option that is emerging and its the best one I heard so far.  It goes like this:

1. 12 groups of 4 teams.
2. The top 2 from each group advances.   That means 24 teams out of 48 advance.
3. Of those 24 teams,  8 of the 12 teams that finished first, will get a bye and advance directly to the round of 16.  The 8 that get a bye will based on  the 8 first place teams that had the best record amongst the 12 first place finishers.
4. The remaining 16 teams (i.e.: the 4 first place finishers who didn't get a bye plus all the teams who placed second in their group) will square off against each other for the right to advance to t the round of 16 and face those 8 teams in point 3 who got bye.

 

This is is the best proposal that I have heard.   The benefit:   its 4-team groups so no conspiracies,  there is no stupid wild card third place teams advancing,  and it incentivizes teams to try to finishing first and win all their games.   

Its perfect IMHO.  If i can find the link where I read this, I will post it here.  

 

Here

How World Cup 2026 will work with 104 matches, six games a day and 48 teams in biggest tournament ever | The Sun

 

quote:"....The easiest way would be the top two in each group, plus the eight best third-place teams, reaching the final 32 and eight games, instead of seven, required to win.

There are some arguments, though, that the best eight group winners should automatically go to the last 16, with the other four group winners plus the eight runners-up, playing off to join them.

That would mean 96 games not 104 — still the biggest World Cup.."

This has the same weakness of the best 3rd place teams advancing as it arbitrarily gives preference to the top 8 teams finishing first in the group getting a bye, no matter the strength of the group. It also means the 8 “best” teams play one less game which means fans (and tv deals and sponsors) have less opportunity to see some of the better teams. I prefer the best 3rd place teams advancing for this reason. 

[An Observer]

17 minutes ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

 

 

 

 

Based on the Athletic article from last week which seemed to have a lot of inside knowledge, this seems like the format they will use which will also mean an extra week of games.  I would post it here but it’s behind a paywall. 

Mark

[Unnamed Trialist]

12 hours ago, Free kick said:

A third option that is emerging and its the best one I heard so far.  It goes like this:

1. 12 groups of 4 teams.
2. The top 2 from each group advances.   That means 24 teams out of 48 advance.
3. Of those 24 teams,  8 of the 12 teams that finished first, will get a bye and advance directly to the round of 16.  The 8 that get a bye will based on  the 8 first place teams that had the best record amongst the 12 first place finishers.
4. The remaining 16 teams (i.e.: the 4 first place finishers who didn't get a bye plus all the teams who placed second in their group) will square off against each other for the right to advance to t the round of 16 and face those 8 teams in point 3 who got bye.

 

This is is the best proposal that I have heard.   The benefit:   its 4-team groups so no conspiracies,  there is no stupid wild card third place teams advancing,  and it incentivizes teams to try to finishing first and win all their games.   

Its perfect IMHO.  If i can find the link where I read this, I will post it here.  

 

Here

How World Cup 2026 will work with 104 matches, six games a day and 48 teams in biggest tournament ever | The Sun

 

quote:"....The easiest way would be the top two in each group, plus the eight best third-place teams, reaching the final 32 and eight games, instead of seven, required to win.

There are some arguments, though, that the best eight group winners should automatically go to the last 16, with the other four group winners plus the eight runners-up, playing off to join them.

That would mean 96 games not 104 — still the biggest World Cup.."

The problem is that whoever wins of those 8 will forever hear "yeah but you played less games." And then "yeah but you got a bye because your group was easy".

If everyone play 8 matches it makes it equal. You could argue the Cup is "easier " because of weaker teams but the extra game compensates that.

The only problem is then minor, which best 3rds had the weakest last place team in the group.

I'm in favour of making the WC a bit longer, also for reasons of travel, and adding a game.

[Free kick]

Well the problem with with advancing third place teams is that its going to favour teams that are in a group with one very weak team.   If you have in your group the weakest team in tournament and you can pad your goal differential against them then you are certain to grab one of those best third place teams spots without breaking a sweat.  

And furthermore, its creates another problem,  If you are ingroup G or H,  as opposed to A & B, then you can choose the side of the bracket that you want to be in the round of 16.   So you can basically play out your final group stage match so as to choose your opponent or opponents in the next round.   Thats because the group winners go in one side of the bracket,  the runners up on another side, and the third place finishers in a third section.  

Don't get me wrong,.  this is still preferable to the 16 groups of 3 option.  But has tons of flaws.  

Edited December 21, 2022 by Free kick

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 minutes ago, Free kick said:

Well the problem with with advancing third place teams is that its going to favour teams that are in group with one very weak team.   If you have in your group the weakest team in tournament and you can pad your goal differential against them then you are certain to grab one of those best third place teams spots without breaking a sweat.  

And furthermore, its creates another problem,  If you are ingroup G or H,  as opposed to A & B, then you can choose the side of the bracket that you want to be in the round of 16.   So you can basically play out your final group stage match so as to choose your opponent or opponent in the next round.   Thats because the group winners go in one side of the bracket,  the runners up on another side, and the third place finishers in a third section.  

Don't get me wrong,.  this is still preferable to the 16 groups of 3 option.  But has tons of flaws.  

I appreciate the merits of that other proposal to only allow the top 2 to go through and do a play in. Mind you, many in Spain laughed thinking they did not push that hard in the group vs. Japan (total ball control, horizontal passing) because it gave them Morocco instead of Croatia, and look how that worked out.

The point, as I see it, is to ensure:

-real and image of fairness

-ensure success is as strongly based on merit as possible

-reduce trickery and manipulation

-don't do anything gimmicky

-that it works in the context of a massive event over a large territory where fans are not going to be able to travel that readily (ie responding to where your knockout round matches will be played and getting to them).

[Free kick]

10 hours ago, An Observer said:

This has the same weakness of the best 3rd place teams advancing as it arbitrarily gives preference to the top 8 teams finishing first in the group getting a bye, no matter the strength of the group. It also means the 8 “best” teams play one less game which means fans (and tv deals and sponsors) have less opportunity to see some of the better teams. I prefer the best 3rd place teams advancing for this reason. 

I would argue that it is not so much the strength of the group that is the worry because the ranking system kind of takes care of that (ie.: making sure that the groups are balanced).  The problem is if you get a very weak team in one group.  For example,  what if two teams from Oceania are awarded slots?   That second team could be a tiny south pacific island nation that (due to population, demographics, infrastructure, geography) can't  possibly compete with with the rest of the teams fielding professionals.   

Your point about not all teams playing the same number of games is valid.   But one could argue that you will end up playing more games if you didnt play as well during the group stage as the team that did get the bye.   

Edited December 21, 2022 by Free kick

[CanadianSoccerFan]

With 104 games in this rumoured format change, I wonder if this could reopen the discussion on venues. A lot more games to go around.

[Free kick]

1 hour ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

With 104 games in this rumoured format change, I wonder if this could reopen the discussion on venues. A lot more games to go around.

I think they wont.  If they managed with 8 venues in a 32 team tournament in Qatar,  then you have to think that 16 venues in a 48 team tournament should be more than enough.

it might be interesting to see what they do with the intercontinental playoffs.   For 2022 they played the games in Qatar.  If they replicate that for 2026,  then which venue will host them?   They might choose a city that wasnt part of the winning bid.  Who knows?

 

Edit.:  Also, its only three and half years away.   It would seem way too late to get organizational and planning aspect in motion for just about any city.   Not to mention the regulatory and Gov't approval and funding processes.  

Edited December 21, 2022 by Free kick

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, Free kick said:

I would argue that it is not so much the strength of the group that is the worry because the ranking system kind of takes care of that (ie.: making sure that the groups are balanced).  The problem is if you get a very weak team in one group.  For example,  what if two teams from Oceania are awarded slots?   That second team could be a tiny south pacific island nation that (due to population, demographics, infrastructure, geography) can't  possibly compete with with the rest of the teams fielding professionals.   

Your point about not all teams playing the same number of games is valid.   But one could argue that you will end up playing more games if you didnt play as well during the group stage as the team that did get the bye.   

If Canada is top seed for our group, then most likely our group will be one of the weakest groups on paper. 

So I'd be careful about pointing to the unfairness of weak groups in 2026, because it could be ours.

[Free kick]

2 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

If Canada is top seed for our group, then most likely our group will be one of the weakest groups on paper. 

So I'd be careful about pointing to the unfairness of weak groups in 2026, because it could be ours.

I am not looking at it from a Canada or Canada fan perspective.   I am looking at it from the neutral perspective of competitive fairness. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Free kick

[Unnamed Trialist]

3 minutes ago, Free kick said:

I am not looking at it from a Canada or Canada fan perspective.   I am looking at it from the neutral perspective of competitive fairness. 

We have not been confirmed as a top seed yet anyways. Though it would be highly unfair, considering Qatar got a seed.

Looking at this WC, however, or at another case where the host was a top seed, South Africa, who were ranked 85th at the time, their group had Mexico, Uruguay and France, who came last. Uruguay got to semis, Mexico was beaten by Argentina in R16. In Qatar, the teams getting out of that group did not get further than quarter finals. I am not sure what to conclude, but both hosts did not advance and the groups were not necessarily easy or soft.

[Free kick]

A couple of key points from the piece below:

Quotes from the piece:  

• Yes, Can, Mex and US will automatically qualify.   That isn’t quite 100% official, however, because the allocation of World Cup berths by confederation haven’t yet been confirmed, but the U.S., Canada and Mexico will qualify automatically.
•  Organizers are wary of a few potential issues:  Heat,  Guns and Travel.
• Montagliani said in June that a schedule shell was “being worked on." It could be released in late 2023 or early 2024, and should reveal both the dates and locations of every game from the opener(s) through the final.
• Two sources told Yahoo Sports earlier this year that the two favorites to host the final were AT&T Stadium in Texas and MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.
• Format: The likely solution would be 12 groups of four, with the top eight third-place teams advancing alongside the top two. A better solution would be 12 groups of four with only the top two advancing, and the eight best group winners getting byes to the Round of 16. But it’s unclear if FIFA has considered the latter option.
• Fifa will decide on and finalize the format sometime in 2023.

 

With Qatar out of the way, the next men's World Cup begins in North America in 2026 (msn.com)

[CanadianSoccerFan]

11 minutes ago, Free kick said:

A couple of key points from the piece below:

Quotes from the piece:  

• Yes, Can, Mex and US will automatically qualify.   That isn’t quite 100% official, however, because the allocation of World Cup berths by confederation haven’t yet been confirmed, but the U.S., Canada and Mexico will qualify automatically.
•  Organizers are wary of a few potential issues:  Heat,  Guns and Travel.
• Montagliani said in June that a schedule shell was “being worked on." It could be released in late 2023 or early 2024, and should reveal both the dates and locations of every game from the opener(s) through the final.
• Two sources told Yahoo Sports earlier this year that the two favorites to host the final were AT&T Stadium in Texas and MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.
• Format: The likely solution would be 12 groups of four, with the top eight third-place teams advancing alongside the top two. A better solution would be 12 groups of four with only the top two advancing, and the eight best group winners getting byes to the Round of 16. But it’s unclear if FIFA has considered the latter option.
• Fifa will decide on and finalize the format sometime in 2023.

 

With Qatar out of the way, the next men's World Cup begins in North America in 2026 (msn.com)

Poor journalism. FIFA Council confirmed the allocation already

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20170618072825/http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news/y%3D2017/m%3D5/news%3Dfifa-council-prepares-congress-takes-key-decisions-for-the-future-of-t-2883353.html

[Free kick]

6 minutes ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

Poor journalism. FIFA Council confirmed the allocation already

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20170618072825/http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news/y%3D2017/m%3D5/news%3Dfifa-council-prepares-congress-takes-key-decisions-for-the-future-of-t-2883353.html

Yes,   I think it was several months ago.   I recall even posting a map image showing the allocations

Edited December 21, 2022 by Free kick

[lamptern]

My two cents:

1, The best 8 third place teams could be decided by the pionts they got from  playing with first two place teams in the group only.  This could eliminate the “minnow factor”.

2, Instead of preset all the allocation of knock out stage, only the top 16 teams (12 group winners + 4 best group runner ups -another perk to encourage teams being play for a better runner up) have a preset allocation (upper or lower section, city or area). The other 16 teams will be drawn before round of 16 begins.

[Sal333]

What are the drawbacks of having 8 groups of 6 teams and the top two teams move on? Keep the knockout stage at 16 teams.

[narduch]

17 minutes ago, Sal333 said:

What are the drawbacks of having 8 groups of 6 teams and the top two teams move on? Keep the knockout stage at 16 teams.

It's too many games

[TGAA_Star]

[Unnamed Trialist]

22 hours ago, lamptern said:

My two cents:

1, The best 8 third place teams could be decided by the pionts they got from  playing with first two place teams in the group only.  This could eliminate the “minnow factor”.

2, Instead of preset all the allocation of knock out stage, only the top 16 teams (12 group winners + 4 best group runner ups -another perk to encourage teams being play for a better runner up) have a preset allocation (upper or lower section, city or area). The other 16 teams will be drawn before round of 16 begins.

1. That is done for second group rounds in basketball championships, for example, but it opens up weird manipulation on a final match day. If you need points the last day and play the minnow, you are being discriminated for beating them. When the only reason they stayed the minnow is because you beat them. 

2. I don't understand this enough to have an opinion.

As for the idea of @Sal333 I like the idea of everyone playing 5 matches, but apart from that system meaning 9 games to win the cup, you''d have last day matches, and maybe even 2nd to last match day, that are meaningless. Because teams would already be eliminated.

If I am not mistaken, only Canada and Qatar were eliminated by matchday 3 this time around.

Edited December 23, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[Ansem]

This is from an account from someone working for the Montreal Canadiens.

If true... what a shame

Stade Olympique, Montréal - if they hosted the World Cup

 

 

[Joe MacCarthy]

What's the deal with the blue flag?  I'm reading the comments (which don't say much about the drawings) and wondering about where this came from and the circumstances behind it

[Fresh Prince of MTL]

34 minutes ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

What's the deal with the blue flag?  I'm reading the comments (which don't say much about the drawings) and wondering about where this came from and the circumstances behind it

I’m pretty sure they are AI generated images