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

Yeah, the 8 games thing isn't a big deal imo. I hope FIFA doesn't insist on a 7 game-format since I've yet to see one for 48 teams that I liked. If you want to keep the extra games to a minimum, maybe have a format with byes for the group winners, but I don't see a good way to go to 48 without adding extra games for anybody.

 

I wasn't aware of that CA format which - with the guest teams - would have featured 8 games for the finalists.

Nevertheless, I maintain that FIFA would never propose a format of more than 7 games because they know UEFA and ECA would oppose it.

 

The discussion is more interesting if we allow for 8-game formats though.
I mean this is all just intellectual masturbation anyway, it's not that serious.

Having said that, I honestly would prefer the silly 16 groups of 3 to the Swiss-style groups if we are keeping it at 7 games. I don't like eliminating two-thirds of teams in the first round when teams aren't even playing the same opponents.

I suppose I could live with a format like @MNNumbers alluded to with two subgroups of 3 in each 6-team group, with each team playing the three teams in the other subgroup and the winner of each subgroup advancing. This is probably the best way since it seems unfair to eliminate teams on goal difference and such when the opponents are not the same. This is not really Swiss-style at this point since essentially you have 16 paired groups of 3 rather than 8 groups of 6. But I like it better than the pure Swiss-style.

EDIT: Actually, I just looked back at the post I was mentioning from @MNNumbers, and I should probably clarify that he/she did not characterize this system as being "Swiss-style", which makes sense since it isn't. It seems he also went through the same logic as me and decided to scrap the Swiss system in favor of the paired groups.

 

Yeah, I like this better than the Swiss-style too. What do you do for the Round of 16? It would be silly to have the Group A and Group B winners play again, so I would probably have Group A play C, B play D, etc. as follows:

A1 v C1
B1 v D1
E1 v G1
F1 v H1
I1 v K1
J1 v L1
M1 v O1
N1 V P1

 

Whilst its possible, it would mean some serious discrepancies in the seeding system that was used.

 

Yeah - I mean what are the odds of the World's No.1 team failing to win ANY games in the group stage of a World Cup finals? Could you imagine such a team getting just 1 point and getting eliminated in the current 32 team structure? Against teams that probably barely touch the top 20 in the world? Not on my watch.

J

On a serious note, I think 0 points for all the teams in a sub-group is probably unlikely, but a team advancing with 2 draws and a loss (while a team in the other side with 2 wins and a draw goes out) would probably happen every 3-4 tournaments.

 

I agree, and that's why I think you have to go with a knockout stage of 32 teams and 5 rounds (or 24 teams and 5 rounds, but I don't think FIFA will ever go for bye rounds).

The 7 versus 8 games shouldn't even be a talking point now that the WC is 8 matchdays long anyway (well, beginning in 2026). When we talk about players needing rest time, IMO, its the # of matchdays in the WC that's important not the # of matches a team could potentially play.

 

Just to be clear here, we are talking about the seeding going:
1-8:9-16:17-24:25-32:33-40:41-48.
The 3 team groups would be:
Pot A, D, E........and Pot B, C, F.....

And, we're playing the A v F game early because it's the only one here that might, if it were last, be a dead rubber. That Pot A team is going to have motivation in the last 2 games, so 3 winless matches seems a bit of a stretch. The teams from Pots B and C are going to have motivation plating the teams from D and E also.

I see the only way a winless group happening is if the team from Pot A is a weak host. That's the only threat.

 

Which is the case for every WC for the foreseeable future.

*ducks*

 

2030 is probably going to Western Europe tbf.

 

The Swiss format has a single points table, so none of the losers would advance to the next round.

 

France were the #1 team in the world and went winless in three games in 2002.

It doesn't take much at all. It's three games - stuff happens.

If you mean a single 64 team table - I don't think that could work across the World Cup scheduling etc. What could work would be eight groups of six (where the "groups of three" is just for the draw purposes, not for the table). That is a Swiss format (with eight mini Swiss tournaments for the first stage) - and if that's what you mean then I agree; none of the losers would advance.

The problem Paul (IIRC) was outlining is when you split it into 16 gorups of three. Then you could (and frankly, I think you almost certainly would) have teams advnance with no wins (while in the other "half-group" a team misses out with 7 or even 9 points).

J

 

I can't figure out how this "Swiss system" works, so, give me a game by game if the teams involved are (with FIFA Ranking in parentheses)
Brazil (3)
Denmark (11)
Japan (24)
Morocco (30)
S Korea (36)
Costa Rica (44)

Note that with 6 teams per group, it's impossible not to have Confederation mates in the same group.

So, what I'd like to know is:
1) What are the First Round Matches?
2) How do you decide the Second Round Matches?
3) Do only the Top 2 advance?
4) How do you ensure that Round 3 doesn't have a meaningless match? which is connected to....
5) How do you decide the Third Round Matches?

Thanks. I honestly can't find any information on how this works, so let me know.

 

Okay - I'll try.
Image this is Group C (of Groups A-H). I am assuming that the seeding was broken into 6 ranked pots and we have one team from each Pot.

We split the teams into 2 subgroups CX and CY. (these are only to help you out here, there is no need to actually refer to these subgroups in the draw).
CX = Brazil. Morocco. S Korea (ie, Teams from Pots 1, 4 and 5)
CY = Denmark, Japan, Costa Rica (ie Teams from Pots 2, 3 and 6)

I am going to assume here also that Brazil is automatically assigned C1 while Morocco/S Korea are randomly assigned to C4/C5 and the CY teams are randomly assigned to C2, C3 and C6.

Lets say Morocco = C5, S Korea = C4. Denmark = C6, Japan = C3, Costa Rica = C2

Then matchday A for this group (no need to be simultaneous or on the same day)
C1 v C2 (BRA v CRC) [2-0]
C4 v C3 (KOR v JPN) [0-3]
C5 v C6 (MAR v DEN) [4-2]

Matchday B (again, no need for simultaneous matches)
C1 v C6 (BRA v DEN) [3-1]
C4 v C2 (KOR v CRC) [2-0]
C5 v C3 (MAR v JPN) [0-0]

Matchday C (played simultaneously)
C1 v C3 (BRA v JPN) [3-1]
C4 v C6 (KOR v DEN) [0-0]
C5 v C2 (MAR v CRC) [1-0]

That's the group stage. We just take the standings of the six teams at this point and the top 2 advance as 1stC and 2nd C. After this the draw is exactly like the last world cup (1st C would play 2nd D and so on and so forth).

So, for your points (1) and (2) and (5), Just like now, the matches are set and then filled be assigning teams to C1-C6 based on Pots.

For (3) - the top 2 advance. This is to max out the teams at 7 matches.

For (4) this seems a bit of overkill. Even in the current draw, if Teams 1 and 2 beast teams 3 and 4 in the first two matches, then the 3 v 4 match in round 3 is "meaningless" in the sense that neither team can advance. However, they have plenty of pride to play for (world cups are only every 4 years and even then only if you qualify).

While there would probably be "more" such matches in this system, I don't think this is the worst outcome. A worse situation is where a team has already won their group and therefore can play easy without risk. This is already technically possible. If (say) Brazil win their first two matches against Scotland and Morocco, while Norway draw their first two games against the same teams, then Brazil is guaranteed top spot in the group even if they lose against Norway - which would also eliminate the other two teams from the group, regardless of whether Morocco or Scotland were to win (mind you, surely Brazil wouldn't let that happen - such things are unimaginable!). I think this is less likely in this structure - although it might be possible. In that sense, this strcture could be an improvement on the 32 team competition.

To be complete, I've put the last result from an international between these teams in as a result (those results might not be 100% correct, this is just a quick experiment) Morocco has never played Japan so I've put that as 0-0.

Team Pts GD (After match 2)
BRA 9 +6 (6)
MAR 7 +3 (4)
JPN 4 +1 (4)
KOR 4 -1 (3)
DEN 1 -4 (0)
CRC 0 -5 (0)

So, in the 3rd Matchday Brazil only needed a draw (v Japan) to advance, but could be eliminated with a loss (if Morocco also won) and needed to win to ensure first play. Japan clearly had to try to win (although a draw might have been enough). Morocco needed to win against Costa Rica (who couldn't advance) while Korea needed to win and hope results went their way.

This (random) group would have been quite exciting I feel, but I can't guarantee that all possible groups would be like this.

However, I doubt many teams could expect to play easy and advance in this set-up.

J