WEEKLY WHINE

Men’s World Cup expansion: Why?

by Edvard van de Kamp

FIFA, you have made a mistake.

Actually, you have made a large number of mistakes. These mistakes include, but are not limited to, the following: electing João Havelange to the presidency six times; electing Sepp Blatter to the presidency five times; permitting and perpetuating a system of graft, bribery, and corruption stretching back decades; establishing under the guise of “financial aid programmes” a vast slush fund for local executives to enrich themselves at the trough of FIFA’s seemingly unlimited Men’s World Cup cash with no accountability; awarding both the 2018 and 2022 Men’s World Cups to nations with long records of human rights violations, draconian restrictions on the press, persecution of LGBTQ individuals, and a careless disregard for the safety of the construction workers who are building the stadiums that we will all gawp at in admiration without ever thinking about the number of construction workers who are trapped in modern day slavery; and trying to punish Cameroon for daring to wear jerseys without sleeves.

But the mistake that we are going to discuss today is the cash grab of Men’s World Cup expansion. The FIFA council decided, by a unanimous vote, to expand the Men’s World Cup to 48 teams, starting in 2026. We have previously illustrated to you how such a tournament might be conducted.

Now, though, we must examine just why this is a bad idea. The major reasons are the number of matches, the level of play, and the competitive structure.

NUMBER OF MATCHES

As we illustrated, the 2026 Men’s World Cup will begin on THU 11 JUN 2026 and will conclude on SUN 12 JUL 2026. Eighty matches will be played during these thirty two days.

However, the first off day falls on WED 01 JUL 2026, the twenty first day of the tournament. The first twenty days all have at least two matches each, and in fact, the first sixteen days all have four matches each.

Consider that: For sixteen consecutive days, four Men’s World Cup matches will be played per day. Not only that, there are no simultaneous kickoffs. You can watch every minute of every match if you so choose. Sounds delightful, doesn’t it?

For the first couple of days, sure. But can you really watch eight hours of football every day for sixteen consecutive days? I’m absolutely mad for football – I am Dutch, after all – but even I could not manage that. Even I have shit to do.

At previous Men’s World Cups, the last matchday in each group has simultaneous kickoffs. So, for four days, there are four matches per day, but with two being played at a time. Therefore, if you use picture in picture, you can watch all four matches but still use up only four hours of your day.

In 2014, there was one day of the tournament with four nonsimultaneous kickoffs. Such a thing can be stomached once, particularly if it’s a Saturday. But by forcing it down our throats for sixteen consecutive days, you are leaving us with a difficult decision to make: either neglect our real lives, or turn off the television here and there. I anticipate that most people will select the second option, and television ratings – especially for the group phase and round of 32 – will suffer.

LEVEL OF PLAY

Suppose that we divide the world’s footballing nations into tiers of sixteen. According to the current Elo ratings, the top tier would include teams like Brazil, Germany, Portugal, Mexico, and the Netherlands. The second tier would include teams like Ecuador, Korea Rep, Iceland, Wales, and Costa Rica. The third tier would include teams like Senegal, Panama, Venezuela, the Czech Rep, and Egypt. The fourth tier would include teams like Greece, Northern Ireland, Honduras, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco.

Naturally, as we go to the lower tiers, we find teams that have made fewer appearances at recent Men’s World Cups. Expanding the tournament, of course, would make it more likely that these teams will qualify. It will also give teams further down in the ratings table, like New Zealand, Montenegro, Syria, Finland, and China PR, more of a chance to qualify.

We note that teams that are currently in the fourth and fifth tiers are, for the most part, decent squads. For example, five teams in the fourth tier – Algeria, Cameroon, Ghana, Greece, and Honduras – qualified for the last Men’s World Cup. From this we can say that Men’s World Cup expansion is not likely to leave us with a flood of minnows.

However, we should also expect fewer battles between sharks in the group phase. When there are eight groups, we would expect to see two of the teams in the top tier in each group. Indeed, we saw just this at the last Men’s World Cup. Group B featured the finalists from the previous tournament, Spain and the Netherlands, along with the team that would win two Copas Américas in the next two years, Chile. Group D featured three previous Men’s World Cup champions, Uruguay, England, and Italy, along with the team that would dominate them all, Costa Rica.

But with sixteen groups, we would expect one team from the top tier in each group, one team from the second tier, and one team from the third tier. This means that we are more likely to encounter groups in which there is both a clear favourite and a clear outsider. For instance, if a group contains Argentina, Poland, and Uzbekistan, we should expect that Argentina are likely to take one of the two places in the elimination phase, meaning that Poland-Uzbekistan will probably be the most interesting match in this group.

This, I think, will be the most paradoxical outcome of the new Men’s World Cup format. The matches involving the top seed in each group will tend to get higher ratings and more media attention, but the most consequential matches in each group will be the ones between the two lower seeds. This is, essentially, a misdirection: “Hey, look over here! It’s Argentina! You know all those famous players, right? Pay no attention to the teams who are playing for their tournament lives!”

COMPETITIVE STRUCTURE

FIFA have elected to conduct the 2026 Men’s World Cup in sixteen groups of three teams each. This means that each group will still have three matchdays, but only one match will be played on each matchday. Thus, one team per group sits out each matchday.

For example, suppose my Dutch squad is drawn into a group with Costa Rica and Egypt. This would be a challenging group on its own. Costa Rica have played very well of late: they reached the quarterfinals in 2014, where they took the Netherlands to penalties, and they currently lead the CONCACAF final round of 2018 qualifiers. Egypt, despite not having qualified for the Men’s World Cup since 1990, are also a good side: they have won the Men’s African Nations Cup seven times, are in the semifinals of the current tournament, and lead their 2018 qualifying group.

Let us further suppose that the Netherlands are team C1 in our schedule, Egypt are C2, and Costa Rica are C3. Therefore, the group opens with Netherlands-Egypt on THU 11 JUN 2026, followed by Costa Rica-Netherlands on MON 15 JUN 2026, and a finale of Egypt-Costa Rica on FRI 19 JUN 2026.

Now, suppose that my Dutch squad is victorious in both matches. The Oranje players have a well earned rest knowing that they have secured first place in group C and may remain in Edmonton for a week whilst they await their round of 32 opponents. Meanwhile, Egypt and Costa Rica have it all to play for, knowing that only one of them can advance. Furthermore, based upon their goal differences against the Netherlands, they will know what will happen in the event of a draw. One team, therefore, will not have the option of settling for a draw. This is, of course, a recipe for high tension that is exactly what we love about football.

Alternatively, suppose that the Pharaohs defeat the Netherlands on opening day. The Dutch, therefore, will have their backs to the wall and will almost certainly need three points against Costa Rica. But the Ticos, of course, will be playing their first match and will be eager to make a positive start. Furthermore, they will have seen the Netherlands lose to Egypt. Since all group matches are in Edmonton, in fact, they will most likely have been in attendance. They will therefore know that the Oranje are beatable, and more to the point, they will know exactly how Egypt beat them. Should Costa Rica rise to the occasion and finish the job, the Netherlands, with zero points from two matches, will be eliminated from the competition. Through my tears, I will watch helplessly as Egypt and Costa Rica play a match with little to no meaning, since both are assured of their places in the round of 32 and are only playing for the right to avoid travelling to Chicago.

Or, as another possibility, suppose that the Oranje open with a draw against Egypt and then lose to Costa Rica. The Ticos are already safely through to the next round, and Egypt are currently tied with the Netherlands [but ahead on goal difference]. A draw between the Pharaohs and Ticos puts both teams through and eliminates the Dutch. Likewise, goalless draws in the first two matches will mean that a scoring draw between Egypt and Costa Rica will see both of them through to the round of 32 on goals scored, at the Netherlands’ expense.

So, let us take a step back. In a three team group in which team 1 plays team 2 and then team 3, and teams 2 and 3 play one another last, here are the possibilities for the last match:

• Team 1 loses both matches: Team 1 is eliminated. Both teams 2 and 3 advance, and the last match decides first place.
• Team 1 draws once and loses once: The team that defeated team 1 advances. The team that drew with team 1 can also advance with another draw in the last match.
• Team 1 wins both matches, or wins once and draws once: Team 1 advances. The winner of the last match advances; if it is a draw, the team that performed better against team 1 advances.
• Team 1 draws twice: Both teams 2 and 3 advance with a draw in which sufficient goals are scored to overcome team 1’s goals scored.
• Team 1 wins once and loses once:
  • If team 1 has a positive goal difference: Team 1 advances. The team that lost to team 1 can advance by winning the last match by a sufficient number of goals.
  • If team 1 has a negative goal difference: Both teams 2 and 3 advance with a 1-0 win by the team that lost to team 1.
  • If team 1 has a goal difference of zero: Both teams 2 and 3 advance with a win by the team that lost to team 1, provided that it is by the same margin, and sufficient total goals are scored in the last match to overcome team 1’s goals scored.

As we see, if the team that plays in the first two matches ends up with a goal difference of zero or less [by either a loss and a win, a loss and a draw, two draws, or two losses], there exists a possible outcome in the last match that will see those teams through to the elimination phase.

What does all this mean? In sixteen groups, we can expect that a number of them will end up in this situation. That is a lot of opportunities for arranged outcomes. Teams would be very unlikely to make such an arrangement explicitly, but we should be prepared to see them develop as that last match progresses and teams are less willing to risk a place in the last 32 that they have already earned.

SUMMARY: WHAT CAN WE EXPECT?

So, to conclude, the 2026 Men’s World Cup will overwhelm us with a sixteen day period of four matches per day, during which many of the matches will be of little consequence, and some will bore us with arranged outcomes.

Assuming we survive that onslaught of supersized junk food football, we will thank FIFA for finally illustrating to the entire world that less really is more.