Not bad at all. The problem has been that the FIFA ranking systes is bollocks. The one you're using is much better.
World Cup 2026 - 48 teams
- Thread starter top1whoisman
- Start date
Not bad at all. The problem has been that the FIFA ranking systes is bollocks. The one you're using is much better.
That shows it's not going to be this huge gulf in quality
doesnt this mean that the final match of each group will be played with the third team having played all 3?
Why stop at 48? I have a better idea. No boring qualifications, just 1 massive World Cup in a simple knockout format featuring all the ranked teams. Now that would be exciting 
so doesnt that create incentives like in 1982?
Maybe that's FIFA's goal - more corruption potential.
Just ran a crappy little excel simulation using these football match goal distributions from 0-0 to 3-3. My simulation is therefore based on random results, where all teams have the exact same chance of winning ie. no teams are better or worst than anyone else. These are crappy simulations, but based on those;
Scenario 0: There is a 13-15% chance of team A losing their first two games, leaving team B and team C to fight it out for first place in the final match. 0-3-3 after two games. No collusion is necessary as Team A are already out.
Scenario 1: There is an 18-20% chance of team A drawing one, and losing one game, leaving them with 1 point, whilst team B and C have 1 point and 3 points. 1-1-3 after 2 games. Team B and C can collude to draw and send Team A home, regardless of score.
Scenario 2: There is a 6-7% chance of team A drawing their first two matches, leaving them with 2 points, whilst team B and C have 1 point each. 2-1-1 after two games. Team B and C can collude to have a higher scoring draw to send Team A home. i.e. A 1-1 sends Team A home if Team A had two 0-0 draws so far. A 2-2 draw sends Team A home if they had two 1-1 draws so far.
Scenario 3: There is a 27-29% chance of Team A winning one of their first two games, and losing the other. 3-3-0 after two games. Team B and Team C can collude, only if Team A's loss is greater or equal to their win. I.e. if Team A won 3-0 and lost 1-0, they are topping the group over all, and cant be caught on goal difference by both teams. If the reverse is true, they will be losing the group with -2 GD (compared to -1 for the team they beat), and the two teams can collude by allowing the team that Team A beat, to beat the other team by anything less than six goals! There is around a 70% chance of this (Team A losing by more goals than they won by, or having the same GD is both matches) occurring in Scenario 3, although that includes the chance that in both games the goal difference was the same (40%) meaning that, only a result with the same goal difference again, but higher scoring, will send both teams through.
Scenario 4: There is an 18-20% chance that Team A wins one and draws one. 4-1-0 after 2 games. Team A can't be caught by both teams, so no collusion is possible.
Scenario 6: There is a 13-15% chance that Team A wins both games. Team A can't be caught by both teams, so no collusion is possible.
Overall, I calculate there is a 45% chance that Team B and Team C can collude in their final game to cause Team A to come last. This does include some situations where it would unlikely if they could collude in such a manner, but the possibility is there.
For example:
After a 3-3 draw in Match 1, and a 0-0 draw in match 2, a -4 draw will send Team B and C through - but this would seem to be unlikely
After a 2-0 win by Team A in match 1, and a 3-1 loss for Team A in match B, Team B and C can collude in Match C, team B and C can collude by allowing Team B to win 4-2.
tl;dr There is a 45% chance that collusion is possible in the third and final match in any group.
Scenario 0: There is a 13-15% chance of team A losing their first two games, leaving team B and team C to fight it out for first place in the final match. 0-3-3 after two games. No collusion is necessary as Team A are already out.
Scenario 1: There is an 18-20% chance of team A drawing one, and losing one game, leaving them with 1 point, whilst team B and C have 1 point and 3 points. 1-1-3 after 2 games. Team B and C can collude to draw and send Team A home, regardless of score.
Scenario 2: There is a 6-7% chance of team A drawing their first two matches, leaving them with 2 points, whilst team B and C have 1 point each. 2-1-1 after two games. Team B and C can collude to have a higher scoring draw to send Team A home. i.e. A 1-1 sends Team A home if Team A had two 0-0 draws so far. A 2-2 draw sends Team A home if they had two 1-1 draws so far.
Scenario 3: There is a 27-29% chance of Team A winning one of their first two games, and losing the other. 3-3-0 after two games. Team B and Team C can collude, only if Team A's loss is greater or equal to their win. I.e. if Team A won 3-0 and lost 1-0, they are topping the group over all, and cant be caught on goal difference by both teams. If the reverse is true, they will be losing the group with -2 GD (compared to -1 for the team they beat), and the two teams can collude by allowing the team that Team A beat, to beat the other team by anything less than six goals! There is around a 70% chance of this (Team A losing by more goals than they won by, or having the same GD is both matches) occurring in Scenario 3, although that includes the chance that in both games the goal difference was the same (40%) meaning that, only a result with the same goal difference again, but higher scoring, will send both teams through.
Scenario 4: There is an 18-20% chance that Team A wins one and draws one. 4-1-0 after 2 games. Team A can't be caught by both teams, so no collusion is possible.
Scenario 6: There is a 13-15% chance that Team A wins both games. Team A can't be caught by both teams, so no collusion is possible.
Overall, I calculate there is a 45% chance that Team B and Team C can collude in their final game to cause Team A to come last. This does include some situations where it would unlikely if they could collude in such a manner, but the possibility is there.
For example:
After a 3-3 draw in Match 1, and a 0-0 draw in match 2, a -4 draw will send Team B and C through - but this would seem to be unlikely
After a 2-0 win by Team A in match 1, and a 3-1 loss for Team A in match B, Team B and C can collude in Match C, team B and C can collude by allowing Team B to win 4-2.
tl;dr There is a 45% chance that collusion is possible in the third and final match in any group.
Last edited:
Has this actually been confirmed? This is a terrible idea. I'm assuming its primarily a money making exercise which will reduce the overall quality of the tournament not to mention the value of qualifying.
What's wrong with keeping it at 32?
yikes. thats even worse than i expected
Surely it will create more attacking football as you will have to try and win your matches and goal difference will be a major factor?
On the plus side, there is around a 42% chance that Team A will be uncatchable by at least one of the two teams, making Game 2 a knockout match between B and C.
In the other ~ 14%, Team A lost both matches and is out
In the other ~ 14%, Team A lost both matches and is out
I thought they might be planning 12 groups of 4, meaning a tonneload more games, and a ridiculous 8 3rd placed teams through.
That wouldn't have been great, and on first glance groups of 3 does keep the games the same.
But a team's world cup can be over after 2 games, you get 2 qualifiers out of 3 teams, and the obvious risk of the last game being a carve up. The whole point of having the last group games kick off together is to reduce the risk of cheating, so that's a backwards step.
The biggest issue though is obviously, you're adding another 16 teams who weren't good enough to qualify under the usual format.
If Saudi Arabia, Iceland, Panama, Tunisia and Costa Rica managed to qualify, how poor are these extra 16 teams going to be?
That wouldn't have been great, and on first glance groups of 3 does keep the games the same.
But a team's world cup can be over after 2 games, you get 2 qualifiers out of 3 teams, and the obvious risk of the last game being a carve up. The whole point of having the last group games kick off together is to reduce the risk of cheating, so that's a backwards step.
The biggest issue though is obviously, you're adding another 16 teams who weren't good enough to qualify under the usual format.
If Saudi Arabia, Iceland, Panama, Tunisia and Costa Rica managed to qualify, how poor are these extra 16 teams going to be?
Is there still talk about eliminating draws and have penalty shootouts?
Surely it will end up with 12 groups of 4 teams. Expand the tournament with 4-5 days and have 4 matches per day during the group stage
Surely it will end up with 12 groups of 4 teams. Expand the tournament with 4-5 days and have 4 matches per day during the group stage
There are definitely positive's and negatives.
Their format increases the knockout matches from 16 to 32 matches plus there is more chance the final group game will effectively be a knockout game too.
On the negative side, collusion, and fans waiting around only to find out they've been knocked out
That's one I hadn't thought of. Would be at least 3-4 days. Wonder if FIFA has given this any thought?
There are some decent or semi decent teams not participating in the current 32 - Italy, Netherlands, USA, etc.
Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Ghana, Chile, Paraguay, Ecuador, Wales, Czech Republic, Scotland, Greece, Ireland
Lots of big names, or recently big names, that you wouldn't begrudge making it.
Then nations like Canada, New Zealand, India, China where the game is developing or has the potential to
One of the major problems I have with it is just the fact there’s no need. The current format is working fine.
It’s coming to the states AND it’s gonna be supersized?
This is getting better and better!
This is getting better and better!
At least the commentary improves.
I'd wager if this is the chosen setup there would be 12 group winners joined by the 4 best second-placed sides, similar to how it was with 6 groups of 4 which sent 12 sides plus 4 third-placed sides into a knockout round.
If they do decide to send 12+12+8 it should only add one additional match - likely an additional knockout game after the group stage.
Seeing as it's FIFA they'll likely do something utterly bizarre.
They've already chosen 16 groups of 3, as that adds the fewest amount of games overall. (Maintains the 48 group games, only adding 16 knockout games).
12 groups of 4 would be 72 group games, larger than the whole world cup is now
12 groups of 4 would be 72 group games, larger than the whole world cup is now
I don't see any issue with that, instead of the current 3 matches per day, they could easily play 4 or 5 each day early on in the competition.
As pointed out somewhere near the top of this page, it leaves the 2 teams playing on the final matchday a big possibility of collusion under plenty of scenario.
Also, 3 team groups needs 3 matchdays, 4 team groups need also 3 matchdays, it's farcical to go with 16 groups of 3, 12 groups of 4 at least makes some sense.
All these ideas for groups are crazy. Better to just stick with 32 teams, which is perfect as it is. I hate when 'best runner ups/best 3rd place' is a thing and groups with 3 teams is just ludicrous on many levels. God I wish FIFA could get some common sense.
There are already some really poor teams in the 32 team format, can't imagine what 48 will be like.
Scotland may even qualify
It pretty much ends there. I suppose Austria, Ukraine, Turkey, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Chile are all absent. Still leaves room for plenty of dross.
Scotland may even qualify
The Euros expansion kept the 4 team groups and it just doesn’t work. Teams can qualify without even winning a match and there are so many dull games with teams just playing for a draw. At least with the 3 group format a draw is more useless and goal difference will become a big factor.
The 1982 World Cup used 3 team groups for the second round of the competition and any team that drew both games were eliminated and back then a win was much less valuable (only 2 points). Teams will have to go for the win right from the off.
I’m also open to there being more nations. It didn’t work at the Euros but I think that’s to do with the 4 team group format. At the World Cup there are always great teams and nations that miss out.
Plus we get another round of knockout football which is fun.
There are obviously problems with that format as many in here have pointed out and it does seem a little unnecessary given how well the current format is working.
The 1982 World Cup used 3 team groups for the second round of the competition and any team that drew both games were eliminated and back then a win was much less valuable (only 2 points). Teams will have to go for the win right from the off.
I’m also open to there being more nations. It didn’t work at the Euros but I think that’s to do with the 4 team group format. At the World Cup there are always great teams and nations that miss out.
Plus we get another round of knockout football which is fun.
There are obviously problems with that format as many in here have pointed out and it does seem a little unnecessary given how well the current format is working.
Just pointing it out, but 2/3 points for a win makes no difference whatsoever in a 3 team group.
Heck it barely makes a difference in a four team group. I think in the last four world cups, only one group would had changed in the slightest if we used 2 points for a win instead of 3... And that only change was to decide who came bottom.
Three points for a win means two wins is better than a win and two draws... So a 6-5-1-1 group becomes 4-4-1-1. But we haven't had a 6-5-1-1 group lately.
Or a win is better than two draws.. so a x-x-3-2 groups becomes x-x-2-2. But that's a rare one as well, and usually to decide who comes last
The United North American bid could easily accommodate that many matches. One would think FIFA would want more matches as it equals more revenues, more story lines, etc.. The key is limiting the additional matches on each nation. Adding an extended knockout round adds potentially one additional match to nations that advance deeper into the knockout round.
The only other option I'd see somewhat feasible to keep an even number for advancement (i.e. 8/16/32) would be to seed the top 16 nations and award them byes to the group stage, then have the remaining 32 nations compete in a knockout match for entry to the group stage, which this round could kickoff the tournament and could be played over four days (unless it's a two-leg knockout of course, then it would take a full week). This would then pit 32 nations in the group stage and carry forward with current format. Seeing as nations are playing 2-4 friendlies prior to the World Cup this knockout round is easily doable.
They want all teams to have a guaranteed two games, though.
8 groups of 6 is the way forward for me (with incomplete round robin's)
8 groups of 6, all playing 3 games. Top 4 go through.
Round of 32
Round of 16
Re-rank the remaining 8 teams here teams that have won 5 games have the easiest route to final
Quarter final, semi final, final
8 groups of 6, all playing 3 games. Top 4 go through.
Round of 32
Round of 16
Re-rank the remaining 8 teams here teams that have won 5 games have the easiest route to final
Quarter final, semi final, final
The world cup itself had 24 teams in it for a few editions and it still worked okay back then. Having 3 team groups is just plain stupid.
Incomplete rounds are also a terrible idea, the more the draw affects the outcome of a competition, the less desirable.
Totally against this, it affected the quality of the last Euros and it will make the WC worse not better, just a nice way to win more votes.
Did you just watch France and Denmark?
I’m surprised you are moaning about the last Euros especially being Portuguese.
Not like Portugal did well in their group. Even against Iran and Morocco you weren’t really great to watch.
We can belittle all the small teams. But the big boys like France, Spain and Portugal have been boring to watch.
And why being Portuguese has anything to do with a opinion? We had yesterday more than 600 hundred passes and Iran not even 200 hundred and suddenly they deserved to win?
So what about the last Euros? There were others were we played great and didn't won nothing, I am talking more teams less quality.
By the way Spain Portugal was one the best games to watch, feel free to enjoy your exciting teams.
So next time think twice before saying others are moaning and stick up with your mates.
Last edited:
600 passes?
And what exactly did you create with those 600 passes? Morocco should have beaten you. They created more chances and bossed you that game.
You do realise the game is more than passing around the back.
Portugal are one of the worst teams to watch, so don’t tell me to think twice. One game against Spain doesn’t change that. Funny how you mention 600 passes. When against Spain you barely could keep the ball and basically looked to do what Iran and Morocco did to you which was hit you on the break. Sadly for them they don’t have Ronaldo. So stop being a hypocrite.
If Ireland don’t qualify can we be the 49th team?