2026 World Cup Group Stage Predictions:

Venezuela has only one major city with any significant altitude (Mérida) and even then it's not even 2000m.
As for Peru, players from Lima and Trujillo (the coast) are vastly overrepresented in their national team throughout history. Guerrero, Farfán, Solano, Cubillas, a vast majority of the 2018 team are all from there.

 

You can't, that's why I referenced different metrics. For that, jersey sales, ratings for WC viewing, how much does it cost to actually purchase viewing rights for Mexico '86 versus WC 2026 for instance? I don't even believe Mexico '86 was covered game by game by any channel in the US at the time, maybe just univision? Telemundo. You've got growing #'s in WC '90 and '94, and then considering why espn lost tv rights to so many things they had locked down? A big part of it was the value grew exponentially from WC '90-'98 versus WC '2014-'2026 and beyond.

It's obvious. You use different metrics that are valid for different eras, tv ratings, television rights, jersey sales etc. Eventually streaming is relevant.

 

I can understand all patriotic expectations, but expecting canada to do anything is utopia

 

I think that's a sneaky good take. I've been waiting for Uzbekistan to qualify after so many near misses for a good. 3 or 4 cycles back, this time they got it done, and pretty easily coming close to taking the group (the difference with Iran was Iran pulling off an extra win, versus the Uzbek's having an extra loss, 23 to 21 points).

Since qualifying the record seems interesting: they've beaten Kuwait, Gabon, Egypt and something I've never heard of (Urartu?). They've gotten a couple of draws against Venezuela and China, and then a loss to Uruguay. Not bad.

My only concern is they decided to jettison the first coach to qualify them for a WC in favor of a more conservative, defense/counter attacking approach supposedly. Cannavaro's the HC, I have no idea if he's any good. But that group is interesting. Portugal and Colombia are both sides capable of beating everyone in the WC, but they are also sides known for taking some prat falls inexplicably in games they probably should have won. DR Congo has just been on the edge of jumping into CAF's top 5, from around the top 8-12 area for several cycles, and this time they got it done thanks to the expansion. They saw off Cameroon, Nigeria, and Jamaica in succession (2 of the 3 in extra time/penalties) to seize a ticket and in their qualifying group can be excused for finishing just 2 points behind AFCON Champs Senegal (yes I know Morocco, but that was and is bull----), 24 points for Senegal, 22 for DR Congo, DR Congo managed to get the job done away (road draw) before falling 2-3 at home to Senegal, and they had one other crummy result to compromise their efforts (road loss to Sudan). I like DR Congo, and think they could grab a 2nd place ticket, but it will be a shame if one of many garbage 3rd place finishers in cake groups advances to the knockouts (I'm looking at you, Groups G, H and J) at DR Congo's expense (or the Uzbek's), as that group is balanced with two legit powers and two legit, solid Pot 3 and Pot 4 sides. DR Congo isn't a world beater or anything, but when you compare pots 2, 3, 4's 36 teams, I'd probably place about 12+ teams clearly better than them, and superficially, just looking at all the teams, i'd probably rank them around 27th or 28th out of the 48 teams in the tourney, but with Colombia and Portugal in that group it will be hard to finish higher than 3rd.

In terms of the Uzbek's, I think they'd probably sit somewhere between 34th and 37th out of 48 for me. So I definitely expect DR Congo to survive, but I don't view the Uzbek's as hopeless, which I do view say, Qatar as, to some extent Haiti and Curacao, the Saudi's etc.

As for the Uzbek's, superficial rankings, I'd probably plop them

 

I am a huge fan of the expansion. We'll see how it plays out in the actual WC, I would have preferred an NCAA format, I think that would have been incredibly fun, but I am really happy they did this as it really worked to open up the cup for nations that were locked out and the regional imbalance that has come with gifting the most talented and best confederations with so many slots (UEFA) and such a high percentage of slots versus total nations (conmebol). CAF and the AFC have generally been sending the same teams every cycle, in the AFC's case, it's mostly just talent distribution and a natural reflection of the tiering out of the confederation, but to my mind, other than the craziness of '06 (that mixed two elite debutante's in Ivory Coast and Ghana) with two crazy upset results (Togo and Angolo) and a boring North African Defense first side (Tunisia), CAF has been exceptionally stratified by brutal and often nonsensical CAF Qualifying Methods which were unduly impacted by FIFA rankings. Now having opened it up w/the impact of the rankings less brutal, only two powers missed out, and largely due to incompetence/fed problems (Nigeria and Cameroon). As a result we're seeing some periphery teams like DR Congo, and Ivory Coast who've been unlucky in recent campaigns, as well as debutante Cape Verde who just picked the perfect time to max out their potential (they've periodically produced strong individual results for about what, 13 years running, just nothing sustained tournament and qualifiers to tournament and qualifiers other than reasonably good but not good enough results. It's just fun and exciting to see Cape Verde and DR Congo, and other nations that have been snake bit with bad luck, or just struggled with consistency in part due to the lobsided nature of CAF Qualifying (so often the differences between the qualities in groups, where typically only 1 side could emerge was the single most drastic by far in all of WC qualifying, if you got a bad draw out of the pots in CAF for WCQ you were typically screwed unless you were a mega power, and even then (see Nigeria) you weren't always safe ('22 more of an example than '26). So now seeing a nice mix of traditional powers, debutante's and teams that have struggled to get back or qualify with consistency coming has been a real genuine pleasure. I'm probably biased as I think Sub-Saharan African, Conmebol, and say Japan and South Korea typically bring the most fun fans, with Sub-Saharan Africa being genuinely the most seeming celebratory (which makes my countries behavior in terms of attendance inexcusable and disgusting in my view).

I'm simply happy that so many teams are here that wouldn't have normally qualified, and so their fans get to celebrate, it's just frustrating that it has to be this cycle that my country is such a colossal mess that it's basically ruining the party that could have been, beyond frustating in that sense, but yes, seeing Cape Verde, DR Congo, Curacao, Haiti, Iraq, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Panama, Norway, Scotland, and seeing Paraguay and Colombia back, both of which have been really erratic or simply down this decade (Colombia had a little run '14-'18, and '26, Paraguay slumping)....I just like these opportunities being available to make it more of a true World Cup. So much better. Yes, the competition gets watered down a bit, but it is also more of a WC, rather than the half Euro Championships/Half the rest of the world, which it was in the era of 32 teams (not quite 50% of slots for UEFA, but close, especially when UEFA hosted).

 

what do you mean by "expecting Canada to do anything" ?

If a garbage Russia could make the quarterfinals, then Canada could certainly "do something" They've been in decent form for a while now and their group isn't terribly difficult.

Frankly I'd be more worried for the US, considering their group and form.

 

I like how funny the post is, but it doesn't really work as an analogy because Bolivia's home field advantage at altitude is so drastic, so comically ridiculous some of us will remember FIFA trying to ban it a decade or so ago. A good 90-95% of the WCQ points Bolivia has earned in WCQ the past 3 or 4 cycles has come at home. Why? Simple, they play at 13,500ish feet, the altitude that makes Azteca look like a day at the beach in comparison at just a touch more than half that (about 7,350 feet), or Guadelajara which is actually a few hundred feet lower than the altitude I live upon outside of Lake Tahoe (about 5,500 feet for me, Guadelajara is about 5,100 feet). As an example for Bolivia, the highest peak amongst ski resorts in Lake Tahoe is along the California border at Heavenly where it is still a good 3,500 feet lower than Bolivia's home stadium at 10,000 feet).

Colombia and Ecuadorian players used to playing at altitude at home should be just fine, as just like me in the Sierra Nevada's, they play at high altitude too, or can if they wish (sounds like Colombia some times moves games to high elevation (8,000+ feet), otherwise at sea level, while Ecuador's home stadium like Bolivia is at high altitude (about 9,150 feet).....Peru apparently has one too but rarely used it, typically playing closer to sea level.

So I don't know, I think Colombian's and especially Ecuadorian's would be fine if facing high altitude. Ecuador doesn't have to worry about it, Colombia does, but it's not the stark altitude hell scape they faced in Bolivia in WCQ, it's a much more reasonable 5,000-7,500ish foot adventure which is doable. I have no idea if there's high elevation in DR Congo, just looked, and noticed they do have some mountains, but they play at just a touch above sea level.

I do tend to think humidity and heat are probably the biggest differentiators in this WC, more than altitude unless there's a distinct advantage, and I think it would be reasonable to assume Colombia's probably had at least some advantage in their games against the Uzbek's and DR Congo, but how many of Colombia's players will be UEFA based? Probably a lot, so maybe it evens out a bit there. My expectation is that it will be a battle royale between Portugal and Colombia as expected for first, and that Congo vs Uzbekistan in Atlanta will define if a third place slot is possible (somebody has to win that game to have any chance at all). We'll see though, could go totally against my expectations.

 

They're solid and had a friendly draw. They should be able to advance out of the group (I have them second), beyond that, it depends upon some luck and who and where they play, I would guess right now they'd face off with Mexico or South Korea in the Round of 16 in LA, interestingly, that would be a home game for Mexico and maybe South Korea too (huge Korean community in California in general and LA in particular).....would make for a real interesting game, it's just unfortunate the game would be played in a place so advantageous towards Mexico if its them, South Korea. No idea what the result would be, lately Canada has basically played El Tri tough since Gold Cup '01 (tied them in Gold Cup '01 before losing on bogus extra time awarded for El Tri's homophobic chant, tied them away and beat them at home in WCQ that cycle). Beyond that we just have NL and Gold Cup results to work off of, and Canada doesn't get their best players for Gold Cups, and has been injured repeatedly for NL. El Tri won the matchup in NL '25, so there's that, but honestly to me it hinges on health in such a match up. Both sides have been banged up the past year so it will be interesting.

I can't get a bead on South Korea, they seem so up and down so Canada wins that if its down, if its up probably South Korea, and if its fine, then it probably goes to extra time.

 

I think for the US and Canada its just simple, but in different ways:

#1: For Canada, if they are healthy and good to go, if Davies is healthy etc, then I think Canada beats Bosnia in their opener, gets a multigoal win over Qatar on matchday 2, and then has that interesting: how hard do you play for first in the rubbermatch of D against the Swiss. The Swiss are better, but they are also in that zone of teams that Canada can play with on their day (I don't think Canada beats France, Spain, Brazil in any circumstance, but teams like Switzerland, smack dab in that 10th-18th in the world zone, top of the 3rd tier of UEFA, they can beat them, but the Swiss should be faves). So if Canada is healthy, they take 2nd, and have a chance at 1st.

#2 The US, its three huge things:

#1: Mental Make up. There is a sense our team got self-satisfied, off of what exactly I don't know, describing WC '22 as great and a success when we were ousted in the Round of '16, and in ugly fashion, after not playing 1 complete full game all tournament, save for the England draw. They coasted in later '23, and all of '24, and early '25, the lack of mental toughness, and "dog in 'em" will to win is readily apparent, a clear feature of the USMNT 1990-2014, and clearly absence 2015-2026.


#2: Lack of Consistency. Our team was riding high '21-'23, and since '24 they've just played unbelievably inconsistently for two years running, I wrote a big breakdown but thought better of it, suffice it to say, since November '23 to March '26, the team has been incredibly erratic window to window and sometimes even in windows. We just don't know if we'll see NL vs Mexico US '24, or T&T and Jamaica US '23 and '24, whether the US will get beat by 4 goals by Colombia, or turn around and tie Brazil a few days later. Will they pound Uruguay, beat Paraguay and Australia, and tie Ecuador, but just fold in the second halves against Belgium and Portugal (maybe it was the subs, seems like it)? We just don't know what we are getting game to game and you can roll it back to WCQ in '21-'22 and see the same, there were zero windows out of 5 where the USMNT put in strong performances in all 3 games, or even in the 2 game windows. We always had a stinker in one game.




#3 Health, like all teams other than France, and Brazil, we don't have the depth to handle certain kinds of injuries. Our CB's and GK's suck, so other than Richards, almost any individual could get hurt and it wouldn't move the needle, however, we've got only two strikers we count on, only 2 or 3 wingers, we have 3 key CM's, and one of them is who holds the defense together, w/o we have to change tactics, we have elite attacking fullbacks, but their backups are near uniformly defense first, mediocrities otherwise (they can also play WB, and one of the FB's/WB's lol, cannot play LB to save his life but is an effective WB on the left). So basically, if Good McKennie shows up (his flips in form are flat out insane going back four years between fall and spring, this is the first good full year since like '19 or '20), if Adams is healthy, if our stud FB's and new prospect Alex Freeman are healthy, and our strikers are healthy, if Tillman or Reyna or someone can play make centrally, its great. But each domino that falls there, the Dest/Weah Right side, Jedi on the left, Adams to protect the defense, our strikers, we become a totally different team and far more vulnerable.

For me, in terms of priorities its probably:
1.Adams
2. Both Strikers healthy (or at least 1)
3. Richards Healthy
4. Full Backs healthy
5. McKennie, Weah, and at least one of our offensive minded mids healthy.

Too much information I know, but I think your best bet with the US, is if our team remains as healthy as it is now (and I'm skeptical but hopeful), we should play at the top of our game in 2 of 3 matches. I'd love to say that we're gonna show up for all of our matches, but we simply don't do that. Probably the best we can hope for is two strong performances and 1 stinker, or like '22, a game of halves. But I think the halves issue in '22 was more a product of system (relied on his starters, and did a lot of pressing in a WC with only 3 days typically between matches, meaning players got tired far more easily in WC '22 than they will in '26 w/so much rest (as long as you're not playing in the humid depth traps/at altitude), so my guess is they'll come out strong against Paraguay, and play like --- against either Australia in Seattle, or Turkey in LA.

Hope I'm wrong, hope they just kill it, but as I said, this uneven issue they've got, this inconsistency has been in place for at least five years, so expecting it to disappear now is probably a stretch.

I have the US finishing second in the group, but if Guller is out, I think 1st is possible. Everything depends upon health, mental approach, and that consistency piece. Normally in the past I'd believe firmly that we could get it done, like in '10, but this cycle, w/these guys? They've really pricked the balloon consistently in terms of getting fans hyped with strong consistent performances, so even the fans are kinda flat going in. Poch and the team had a great opportunity to build momentum in March after the successes in the fall, and instead, they stepped on a pair of rakes, and so fans are really down on the team at this point.

 

I agree: biggest differentiators in 2026 WC will be US summer humidity and heat, no doubt about it.

Conmebol fans are trying to build a *high-altitude* narrative around Azteca stadium which does not exist. COL already knows that Bogota (higher elevation than Mexico City) became a cozy children's playground for its rivals, thus it stopped playing qualifiers there 15+ years ago.

 

Player performance in high-altitude venues is not correlated to where your umbilical cord was cut.

Truth be told, PER outperforms 6 of 9 Conmebol rivals, in WC qualifiers at Quito (double round-robin format started in 1996).

*Andean teams playing successfully at high-altitude venues* is a false narrative, as you can see below.

Qualifying matches played at Quito:

COL: 2W, 3D, 3L = 9/24pts
ARG: 2W, 1D, 3L = 7/18pts
PER: 2W, 1D, 4L = 7/21pts
BRA: 1W, 2D, 2L = 5/15pts
URU: 1W, 2D, 5L = 5/24pts
PAR: 0W, 3D, 5L = 3/24pts
VEN: 1W, 0D, 7L = 3/24pts
CHI: 0W, 2D, 6L = 2/24pts
BOL: 0W, 0D, 5L = 0/15pts

 

I am not much into football these days, for obvious reasons. Don't even know if my team will end up playing at the World Cup. But the comments here about Iran's team by the OP and certain other posters seem overly influenced by an Iranian diaspora that has its own agendas. Under normal circumstances, Iran should be able to get something like 4 points in this group, although I am not as dismissive of New Zealand as some others here nor do I share some of the comments here about Egypt. But like WC22 (except in spades times 100), these are not normal circumstances for Iran and I won't predict anything when it comes to how (or if at all) Iran will play.

The Uzbeks actually can have a surprisingly good team. To me, they are actually better individually than the sum of their parts. Individually, I would say that right now they have better players than Iran. But when they face Iran under normal circumstances (e.g., no red cards etc) overall Iran is still the better more dominant team. If their level of play is brought up to the level of talent they possess (other than their goalie, I rate most of their field players rather highly) they can surprise many teams. They have a tough group but they won't go down without a fight. They might even surprise.

The S. Koreans are ridiculous. While Americans were impressed by how they beat the US, they have not been nearly as good as you would imagine they should be on paper when things (such as the bounce of the ball and mistakes on both ends) have not perfectly lined up for them. Their overall results are pretty meh. I would have expected more from them as well. But they will be in contention to advance from their group for sure although they can easily end up doing poorly as well.

Saudi Arabia are an even bigger enigma, given how much they have spent and how little they have to show for it. I am not going to comment on them as I am biased against the Saudi team, but good riddance...

Qatar's fortunes ride almost entirely on which version of Akram Afif shows up? When Akram Afif is on fire and playing to his best (as was the case during the Asian Cup), they can actually pose problems for some of their opponents. Otherwise, they are hopeless despite Bosnia being not any better than them.

Iraq are semi-solid but not exciting at all. Arnold has shown himself a decent coach and they might be able to grind some result against one of their opponents. But as long as they don't get embarrassed, anything more from them in their tough group would be a plus.

Jordan should not be underestimated. They are pretty good and their 2nd place in the last Asian Cup wasn't entirely coincidental. But I think they have lost one of their best players (not sure?) and for a side that may not be all that deep in top level talent, that might prove consequential. They definitely will play tough against Algeria and Austria and maybe even give Argentina some trouble, but I wouldn't bet on them still.

Australia are not much to write home about but their group is pretty balanced. I like Turkiye in that group and the US have homefield advantage. Still, Australia can keep it competitive as none of these teams (except Turkiye at their best, which is not all that often) are remotely world beaters.

The cream of the crop in Asian football is Japan. They are the only side in the AFC that is legitimately better than Iran (much better), even though Iran beat them quite deservedly at the Asian Cup. I do expect much from this Japanese team and hope they don't end up disappointing. They are a legit top 10-15 side and hopefully their results will prove that to be the case.

 

So Uzbekistan's Keeper is not good?
I like the sound of that.

 

I have noticed them recently using another keeper at times, who seems worse. But their normal first choice keeper played in Iran for Foolad FC for a few years. He is not terrible but does make mistakes and his distribution skills are not on par with what you want from a keeper in the modern game.

My favorite Uzbek player, Ostan Urunov is a huge talent and a player that can make a big splash if he is healthy. He also plays for an Iranian club, Persepolis FC but is often injured. There are several other Uzbek first team players who play in the Iranian league and all of them are pretty good. They also have several players who have played in various top leagues including Man City, AC Roma, and such. But ironically their best player is Urunov who plays in Iran. If healthy, he is probably the most skilled player in Asia right now. He single handedly destroyed Egypt's defense in a recent friendly, showing what he has shown when he has been healthy playing for Persepolis.

 

Uronov v Egypt
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ojsnQqRJEQU

 

I respect Uzbekistan and I think Urunov is a good player.

But those defenders looked really bad for Egypt. My goodness.

 

Just did a HUGE breakdown on which nations have 3 or 2 games to play in humid, hot, or humid and hot, or at high altitude and potentially hot and humid conditions and its pretty interesting, they clearly went out of their way to assign the bulk of these matches to Conmebol and CAF sides, and then a minority of them to UEFA and Concacrap sides, oddly no AFC side other than Iraq has to play a majority of their group stage matches in unpleasant conditions, editing it down to just the basics, which teams have to play 2 or 3 group stage matches in unpleasant and worse conditions (I could have forgotten a team or two, so please correct if I'm off):

Impacted in entire Group Stage:
UEFA: Scotland, France, Norway,
CAF: Ghana, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Senegal
Conmebol: Brazil, Ecuador, Uruguay, Colombia
Concacrap: Panama
AFC: Iraq

Impacted 2 of 3 games:
UEFA: Czech Republic, England and Croatia
CAF: Morocco, Algeria
Concacrap: Curacao, Haiti
AFC: 0

This can't be underestimated in terms of a factor in potential upsets. This difference in climate that nations from Conmebol and CAF play in in comparison to UEFA is night and day, AFC and Concacrap too, but it appears only Iraq has to play more than 1 game in rough conditions outdoors of those two confederations.

 

FTR, I have gone back and forth with regards to Iran or Egypt in second. I think Iran's the better team, but Egypt has the better talent in a game where the ball doesn't go into the net very often. Egypt has some finishers. So I'm not sure if Iran's superiority as a collective would determine their standing, or Egypt's pair of special players might find one moment to turn a 0-0 or 1-1 match. I tend to lean whichever side is a heavier under dog for that reason (same reason why I might be intrigued by New Zealand if their odds are long enough, haven't checked).

 

I predict one of the 3rd place teams (EFIJ) will knock out a a first place team in the round of 32.

 

Sounds more likely than not to me too.

 

Just checked and all the host teams if they top their group can play 3rd place from EFIJ.

That means they all possibly could play a team like

Sweden, Japan, Netherlands, Ivory Coast, Ecuador, Austria, Algeria, Norway, Senegal.

The worst of the non host seeds Belgium could also highly likely get one of these teams.

Yeah I'm pretty sure one of these scenarios will play out and the 3rd place team will win.

 

Even non-host teams can lose to those teams. This new round of 32 is going to be exciting and wacky.

 

Also a lot of big teams will be eliminated even in the round of 32 and definately 16. There will be a lot of big matchups in the Round of 32.

 

Yeah. As long as we don't have a trash 3rd place like Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Cape Verde, it should be fun and sorta even.

 

Spain vs Argentina in R32. You heard it here first.