World Cup Expansion to 48 Teams (Update: FIFA Council Agrees 2026 Slot Allocation)

The 3-team groups can create both some awful scenarios and some interesting dramatic scenarios. With 16 groups, hopefully at least some of them are good.

The best case scenario for neutral observers is when the team that is sitting out the last game gets at least four points to ensure advancement, making the final game effectively a knockout for the other two with no collusion worries. An easy narrative to watch in each group is if that team can get the results that keep its fate in its own hands.

The thing that can make things dramatic is that the pressure is huge from the beginning, as one loss is near-fatal. On the other hand that can make teams play fearfully for draws because losses are so bad.

Plenty of terrible things about the format, including potential collusion scenarios, three-way ties, and groups with one weak bottom-feeder that make the advancement of the other two near-certain.

 

That's a really good, imaganitive idea. I believe Australian sports implement similar mechanisms.

 

I figure this will make qualification unexciting for anyone not in the Azerbaijan, New Zealand, El Salvador tier of national teams. And the actual tournament, the 3 team groups is obviously a ploy to keep really awful match-ups from bogging down the tournament. But I fear it makes the stakes too high. I don't want to see defensive soccer the entire round.

 

48-team WC group stage: more games like Iran v Morocco, fewer (none?) like Spain v Portugal.

 

Indeed. I've watched, I think, 6.5 of the 8 games thus far, and that one was BY FAR the best. Nothing else even came close. Frankly, some of the matches between what we might call the "lesser teams" made me wonder if even 32 is too many. All of which confirms to me what I and many others already knew, which is that a 48-team World Cup group stage will be atrocious.

We'll have to enjoy it while it lasts. That Spain v Portugal game was probably one of the last true classics in WC group play.

 

Qualifying right now, for any region, is exciting enough as nothing is a sure thing while also providing national teams with the necessary competition to stay in good form and to improve. From the perspective of a US soccer fan, I can only imagine how much it would hurt if six teams make it outright out of CONCACAF. Still, nothing is certain. The semifinal rounds can also provide slipups that might be fatal seeing a team like the USA or Mexico exit the tournament, even with six spots allocated. For the most part, it would be a cinch with very little to play for. However, a good way to keep qualifying significant for all regions is to leave the quota of spots as they are now but then allowing the same number of teams that followed in each confederation to go to a playoff series against one of 31 other teams to determine the remaining spots. In other words, a confederation with 3 allocations, would have 3 playoff teams. One with 13, would have 13 spots.

In this way, Concacaf would have anywhere from 3 to 6 spots, Europe from 13 to 26, etc. Teams would still have to play with less room for error since the home and away series would be a one off thing. The USA wouldn't be assured of a spot just by making it to the Hex since a fourth place finish could see them playing off against Ghana, Ukraine, or Paraguay.

 

It's going to reach a point where people will only care about the knockout stages.

A 48 team WC makes the Group Stages irrelevant IMO.

 

I was a little worried about this but after a week it really doesn't look like the level dropped that much given that so many of the typical teams are out.

 

Well twist the knife, put salt on the wound and kick us while we're down why don't you...

 

Remember that with 16 groups, it means that the top 16 teams will be in different groups.

 

I was thinking about this the last couple days...
...it would be kind of a bummer for Mexico to be eliminated after starting the tournament so well winning their first two games and losing just one game. It is still very possible for that to happen.

In a 48 team tournament like 2026 however, one of the positive residual effects is that a team will never see a scenario like this again. If you win two consecutive games you will have no worries about advancing (which I think is good thing.)

 

^ It's possible in a 4-team group for 3 teams to get 6 points. I don't remember it happening (which doesn't count for much).
So yes, a team that wins two then loses one might in very rare circumstances be out of the contest.

In contrast, with 3-team groups followed by knockout, a team that wins two then loses one is always out.

 

The flip side is that it is going to be possible for teams to advance with a draw and a loss and negative goal differential. Team B and C draw each other and both lose to Team A, but Team B advances due to losing to Team A by fewer goals than Team C did.

 

In 94, Nigeria, Bulgaria, and Argentina all got 6 points and advanced to the next round (Argentina as one of the best 3rd placed teams)

 

There is a lot of talk here about the potential of tied games causing strange situations. However, I heard that FIFA was considering having all tied round robin games broken by PKs. I think that would be an awful idea. Would wins in PKs earn two points for the winner and one point for the loser, while regulation wins earn three points for the winner and zero for the loser?

 

That has not been determined yet. Your scenario could be an option on the table.

 

With the 3 team groups, I think the top seeded teams in each group need to be forced to play each other in the first game. This, I believe, would reduce the chances of the last game in the group being one where the teams might collude to get a result to send both teams through to the knockout stage.

 

I don't think teams should be punished for winning the group. However, there should be an incentive to win the group that would make collusion a bit less palatable. I don't see why we can't just have the group winners move on. Never mind the Round of 32. Or, the winners get some other kind of favor, such as a bye, assuming the right number of groups and teams per groups could be met for such a requirement.

 

Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you meant that the winners of the groups should play each other in the Round of 32. Apologies.

 

While we discuss options to minimize opportunities for collusion, we are overlooking another thing: reduction in drama.

Look at the group stage that just ended. It was great having 2 matches played at the same time, with all kinds of possibilities on the outcome in most groups. E.g. Argentina could beat Nigeria and still be eliminated if Iceland mached their result.

E.g.2 in group H the games on the final day sucked. The only entertainment was the effect a goal scored in one game would have on the other being played at the same time.

Say Goodbye to this in 8 years.

 

With 3-team groups, there are 3 matches. As each match can be a win, draw or loss, there are 27 possible results.

We can simplify the cases as:

o- A wins both matches, B wins over C.
o- A wins both matches, B and C draw.
o- A wins over B, B wins over C, C wins over A.
o- A wins over B, B wins over C, A and C draw.
o- A wins over B, B and C draw, A and C draw.
o- A and B draw, C loses both matches.
o- All matches are drawn.

 

Let's suppose that the match order is A vs B, A vs C, B vs C. Let's consider what happens on the third match:

o- Team A wins both matches. -> Team A qualifies first. B and C will fight for second place.
o- Team A loses both matches. -> If B and C draw, they qualify together. If one team wins, it qualifies first, and the second place gets decided on tiebreaker.
o- Team A draws both matches. -> If B and C draw, it gets decided on tiebreaker. If one team wins, it qualifies first, and A qualifies second.
o- Team A wins over B, and C wins over A. -> If B and C draw, C is first and A is second. If C wins, it qualifies first, and the second place gets decided on tiebreaker. If B wins, it's a triple threat, and it gets decided on tiebreaker.
o- Team A wins over B, and draws to C. -> Team A qualifies. If B wins, it qualifies second. If they draw or C wins, C qualifies.
o- Team A draws with B, and C wins over A. -> If B and C draw, C qualifies first, and B qualifies second. If B wins, it qualifies first, and C qualifies second. If C wins, it qualifies first, and the second team gets decided on tiebreaker.

 

As you can see, there are many cases where B and C can arrange a result to qualify together. That won happen every time, as there can be rivalries, but it can certainly happen.

 

And with more groups each tournament, there are many more chances where it would be dangerous for each side to move forward, thereby standing still for an hour or so.

Another (of endless situations) is if there are scoreless draws in the first two games, then the third game sees teams trade goals inside the first quarter hour, we can be sure that the game will slow to a crawl.