BEST FORMAT for 2026 WORLD CUP: 40 countries + 8 countries (no need to worry about collusion)

My proposal Here's how it would work

40 countries: 10 groups of 4 countries

DOUBLE ELIMINATION: winners advance, losers have one last chance

Group A:

England
Croatia
Egypt
Japan


England vs Japan (England win and advance)
Croatia vs Egypt (Egypt win and advance)

Loser Croatia and Loser Japan will play each other to decide the 3rd team in the group to advance

Example: Japan won so the 3 countries in Group A to advance are England, Egypt and Japan. Croatia is eliminated after playing 2 matches. Japan advanced after 2 matches. England and Egypt advance with 1 match.







8 countries (worst results in qualifying) will compete for 2 spots using normal group stage

Each country will play 3 matches and the winner of each group will advance

2 each from Asia, Africa, CONCACAF and 1 each from South America and Oceania



Special Group 1:


New Zealand
China
South Africa
Guatemala

(example: South Africa win the group with 2 wins and 1 draw)



Special Group 2:


Mali
Trinidad and Tobago
Bolivia
Uzbekistan

(example: Uzbekistan win the group with 2 wins and 1 loss)



10 Groups of 4: 30 countries advance out of 40 countries
Special Group: 2 countries advance out of 8 countries





As for the number of matches:

current 32 teams World Cup: 64 matches
my proposal of 40 countries + 8 countries World Cup: 74 matches
FIFA 2026 with 16 groups of 3: 80 matches





My proposal is under the established fact that FIFA 2026 World Cup will have 48 teams. It has been voted and passed by FIFA.

16 groups of 3 will result in many instances of match fixing/collusion. See this article

Risk of Collusion: Will Groups of 3 Ruin the FIFA World Cup?

https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-sports-analytics/jsa200414





There is also a poll here to see if people prefer the 16 groups of 3 format or the suggested format of 40 countries + 8 countries

https://www.strawpoll.me/42653824



Thoughts?

?

?

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/lm9oph/best_format_for_2026_world_cup_40_countries_8/

Also posted it on Reddit...got some good comment.

i like the idea, but how would you decide on seeding the countries for the R032? In your 1st example, in England and Egypt advancing, who is seeded as 1st in the group, and who is 2nd? Or would you have all 32 qualifiers be randomly decided on who faces who? I think you'd need to add 10 more matches in the 10 groups of 4 between the two winning countries to decide a ranking.





My suggestion:

Your idea of an extra 10 matches between the winning countries is a very good idea.

England and Egypt both won. So they play to decide who is the winner. The winner will have a Top 10 ranking/seeding. They get to face the 10 worst FIFA ranking countries.

Top 32 draw could be something like this:

SOLE WINNER of the 10 groups: pot 1

worst 10 countries in FIFA ranking remaining: pot 2

These will play against each other.



The other 12 countries will draw each other using FIFA ranking. Best 6 in pot 1 and the other in pot 2.



FIFA can define a group as a group in which teams compete for 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place and 4th place. They don't have to necessarily face each other in order to make a group.

Match 1: England vs Japan (England won and advance)

Match 2: Croatia vs Egypt (Egypt won and advance)

Match 3 (losers): Loser Japan vs Loser Croatia (winner advance, loser goes home)

Match 4 (winners): England vs Egypt to decide who get special Top 10 SEEDINGS.








If FIFA doesn't decide to play that extra 10 matches for SEEDING purpose, then something like this:

My suggestions (might not be good suggestions):

Round of 32. There will be 2 pots.

The top 16 countries will be in pot 1. The other 16 countries will be pot 2.





There are 20 winners in the 10 groups of 4.

Example: England and Egypt are winners in Group A.

We have 20 winners but we only have 16 countries in pot 1.

So the 20 winners will be ranked through FIFA World Rankings.

If Egypt FIFA ranking is high enough, they will be among the top 16 in pot 1. If not Egypt will be in pot 2.



SO BASICALLY, among the 20 winners, the top 16 winners based on FIFA Rankings will be in pot 1.
All other 16 teams will be in pot 2.

 

Someone asked about the hosts. My answer:

Hosts are part of 40 countries double elimination groups. Using Canada as an example

Canada
Netherlands
Columbia
South Korea



Match 1: Canada vs Columbia (Columbia won and advance to top 32)

Match 2: Netherlands vs South Korea (Netherlands won and advance to top 32)

Match 3: loser Canada vs loser South Korea ( South Korea won and advance to top 32)

Bye-bye Canada.

 

Hypothetical scenario where USA won the World Cup (haha):

Group E:

USA
Sweden
Columbia
UAE

Match 1: USA vs Columbia (USA won and advance)
Match 2: Sweden vs UAE (Sweden won and advance)
Match 3: Loser Columbia vs loser UAE (Columbia won and advance)


Round of 32 draw:

Pot 1 (16 teams): Sweden (won first match and good FIFA Rankings)

Pot 2 (16 teams): USA (won first match but poor FIFA ranking), Columbia (lost first match)

Round of 32: USA (pot 2) draw Portugal (pot 1) USA won
Round of 16: USA vs Argentina. USA won
Round of 8: USA vs Belgium. USA won
Semi: USA vs Italy. USA won
Final: USA vs Germany. USA won. WORLD CHAMPIONS.

 

Yes, it is not fair for the 8+ countries but it's FIFA who voted for 48 countries. And they did poorly in qualifying. Try better next time to go into the "40 countries" bracket.


It would better if it is 40 countries + 4 countries.

Given them better chances of advancing (2 out of 4 instead of 2 out of 8). But then 4 countries would miss out on the World Cup.

I would prefer 40 countries + 4 countries over 40 countries + 8 countries.
These 4 countries would be in a normal group stage with 3 matches. The top 2 advance to the round of 32.






The biggest issue with 18 groups of 3 is match fixing/collusion.

Risk of Collusion: Will Groups of 3 Ruin the FIFA World Cup?
https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-sports-analytics/jsa200414

The two teams who play the last game in the group know exactly what results will let them advance to the knockout stage. Risk of match fixing occurs when a result qualifies both of them at the expense of the third team of the group, and can seriously tarnish the tournament.

 

p.s. Please vote in the POLL/SURVEY.

https://www.strawpoll.me/42653824

Maybe when it gets a lot of votes, get some attention, some soccer reporters will write an article about this suggested format. Get the news out so that FIFA will have an alternate format.

 

Good point. 30 advances out of 40 = 75% chance of advance

2 out of 4 countries = 50% chances of advancing. Percentage wise they are less likely to advance but they get to face weaker opponents.


Though in your example, France and Brazil would likely be the first 10 SEEDS in pot 1. They will never be in the same group.

Drawing for the 10 groups of 4 would look something like this:

Pot 1: Top 10 SEEDS
Pot 2: 11-20 SEEDS
Pot 3: 21-30 SEEDS
Pot 4: 31-40 SEEDS

with Pot 1 facing Pot 4

or

Pot 1: Top 10 SEEDS
Pot 2: 11-20 SEEDS
Pot 3: 21-40 SEEDS

with Pot 1 facing Pot 3


The current Top 10 SEEDS would be:

1 Belgium 1780
2 France 1755
3 Brazil 1743
4 England 1670
5 Portugal 1662
6 Spain 1645
7 Argentina 1642
8 Uruguay 1639
9 Mexico 1632
10 Italy 1625

unless FIFA gives the hosts USA, Mexico, Canada Pot 1 Seedings



So FIFA with 40 countries + 8 countries might work better than 40 countries + 4 countries

The 8 countries have only 2 spots but they face much weaker opponents. FIFA wants 48 teams so 40 countries + 8 countries is the most likely of the two.

 

Let's say you are China. Would you prefer a grouping like this

New Zealand
China
South Africa
Guatemala

3 matches (win-draw-tie). Group winner advance to Top 32.


Or be part of 40 countries group where

England
Croatia
Egypt
China

China vs England (win to advance to round of 32)

if lost

China vs the loser of Croatia-Egypt to advance to the round of 32


WHICH OF THE TWO OPTIONS are easier to advance?

 

18 groups of 3 is bad because

1) schedule imbalance
2) many match fixing/collusion will happen

Match schedule of a group

Match 1 A - B
Match 2 A - C
Match 3 B - C



https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-sports-analytics/jsa200414

Using groups of three may look harmless, but it actually raises several fairness issues. The first obvious issue is schedule imbalance. Let us denote by A the team that will play the first two group games, B the team that will play the first and last group matches, and C the remaining team, which will play the last two group games (see Table 1). Team B will enjoy more rest days between their two group matches than Teams A and C; Team A, if they advance to the knockout round, will enjoy more rest days than the other advancing team; Team C will have none of these benefits.

A more serious issue is the subject of this article: the risk of match fixing (or collusion). As soon as Match 2 is finished (see Table 1), Teams B and C will know what results of Match 3 will let them advance to the knockout stage. Those teams may be tempted to collude when a result lets both of them advance, at the expense of Team A. Suspicion of collusion can badly harm the tournament and the reputation of soccer in general, whether the match is actually fixed or not, since outcome uncertainty is at the very root of sport’s popularity. Not all teams would collude if given the opportunity, but even suspicion of coordination could damage the World Cup by casting doubt on the sincerity of the outcome. When collusion does occur, it need not be explicitly agreed upon before the match. It may simply take the form of two teams satisfied with the current score more or less late in a game and refusing or doing little to attack each other.

The history of soccer is full of examples of such tacit coordination, including very recent ones. The “disgrace of Gijón” is certainly the most famous example of match fixing in the history of soccer; see, e.g., Kendall and Lenten (2017, Section 3.9.1). It refers to the match between West Germany and Austria who refused to attack each other during 80 minutes, satisfied by the 1-0 Germany win that would let both teams advance to the second round of the 1982 FIFA World Cup, at the expense of Algeria, who had played its last group game the day before. To prevent this to happen again, FIFA decided that all teams in a given group would play their last group match at the same time, which of course is not possible with groups that have an odd number of teams, in particular with groups of three.

Even in traditional groups of four, playing the last two group games at the exact same time does not fully prevent collusion. Denmark-France (0-0 on June 26, 2018 during the 2018 FIFA World Cup) is a recent example of tacit collusion in this context: both teams knew that a draw would let them advance to the knockout stage whatever the result of the other game in the group, Australia-Peru. They did little effort to attack each other, which resulted in a boring game and the only goalless match of the 2018 World Cup. The crowd made its displeasure known, as well as football fans around the world on social media (The Sun, 2018). Denmark’s manager Åge Hareide said after the game: “We just needed one point, we were up against one of the best teams in the world at counterattacks, so we would have been stupid to open up a lot of space. We stood back and got the result we needed, it was a 0-0 and we’re very pleased with that” (The Guardian, 2018).

 

It is not ideal that the tournament is split. And the 8 of the worst qualifiers will have to face each other to determine 2 spots. But I rather have that then the many match fixing that will take place with 18 groups of 3.

The Top 40 (10 groups of 4) double-elimination will be a major focus and make it very appealing to viewers.




As for the Same hurdle?

Then explain why in World Cup Qualifying, the same hurdle doesn't exist? Many countries get bye into the next round and even bye to the fourth round.

For example, weak teams in CONCACAF have to win 3 rounds before then can face rank 1-6.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(CONCACAF)

First round: 14 teams (teams ranked 22–35) played home-and-away over two legs. The seven winners advanced to the second round.
Second round: 20 teams (teams ranked 9–21 and seven first round winners) played home-and-away over two legs. The ten winners advanced to the third round.
Third round: 12 teams (teams ranked 7–8 and ten second round winners) played home-and-away over two legs. The six winners advanced to the fourth round.
Fourth round: 12 teams (teams ranked 1–6 and six third round winners) were divided into three groups of four teams to play home-and-away round-robin matches. The top two teams of each group advanced to the fifth round.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(AFC)

First round: 12 teams (ranked 35–46) played home-and-away over two legs. The six winners advanced to the second round.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(CAF)

First round: 26 teams (ranked 28–53) played home-and-away over two legs. The 13 winners advanced to the second round.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(OFC)

First round: American Samoa, Cook Islands, Samoa, and Tonga played a round-robin tournament at a single country. The winners advanced to the second round.

 

Great points. Make a lot of sense.

Strong Group (England, Croatia, Egypt, China): 3 out of 4 teams will make it out.

or

Weak Group (China, NZ, SA, Guatemala): But only 1 out of 4 will make it out.

If it is 2 out of 4 will make it out of the group, China will definitely want to be to compete here. Just need to finish 2nd in this weak group to make it to the round of 32.

 

too many games (from the current 64 matches to 104 matches)
it would extend the tournament time
the knockout bracket would be unbalanced

https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-sports-analytics/jsa200414

12 groups of four. The 12 group winners, 12 runners-up, and eight best third-place teams would advance to the round of 32. However, with 72 group matches and a total of 104 games, the World Cup would then last at least one more week, assuming four group matches per day. Both the current format (1998-2018, 64 games) and the three-team group format (80 games) can be completed in 32 days. Since the number of groups would not be a power of two, the knockout bracket would be unbalanced, in the sense that some group winners would play against third-placed teams in the round of 32, while other group winners would play against runners-up, and some runners-up would play against each other, like it happened during the round of 16 of the 1986, 1990, and 1994 FIFA World Cups, and during the 2016 UEFA Euro, and like it will happen during the Euro 2020. See Guyon (2018b) for a detailed study of such unbalanced brackets.




https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/38577001

The number of tournament matches will rise to 80, from 64, but the eventual winners will still play only seven games.

The tournament will be completed within 32 days - a measure to appease powerful European clubs, who objected to reform because of a crowded international schedule.

 

64 teams World Cup?

That would be 128 games. Up from 64 right now.

How long would the tournament last? Would powerful UEFA clubs be okay with such a crowded international schedule?



---------

As for 40 countries + 8 countries separation, it is not like it is a new thing. I already mention World Cup qualifiers where strong teams get bye.

There is also UEFA Champions League. The strong teams get a bye straight to 32 teams Group Stage.

The weak teams have to win many games in qualifying in order to make it there.

 

Current situation: 48 teams World Cup. No way to change this fact. FIFA voted in favor by a very large margin. Don't expect them to change it.


How to make this 48 teams World Cup using this criteria:

Tournament finish within 1 month.
Tournament not too many games (compare to current World Cup with 64 games)
Tournament does not have match fixing/collusion. (16 groups of 3 will have many such match fixing).
Each team plays at least 2 games.



The only disadvantage I can think of with the 40 countries + 8 countries World Cup is that some people don't think it is fair for the 8 worst qualifying countries.

"All teams should have the same hurdle in front of them to win it."

The many advantages of the 40 countries + 8 countries greatly offset this tiny disadvantage.