Post draw reactions from UEFA: Someone is going to qualify from H. Austria and Romania both haven't been there since 1998. Bosnia is actually the most recent in 2014 but I see them as a distant 3rd now. Sweden vs Switzerland will be good. Sweden needs to get their act together though as Switzerland is usually a beast in qualifying. Portugal and Denmark with both be vulnerable as Pot 1 teams. Both routes for them include 4 team groups with strong Pot 2 and 3 teams. England drawing Serbia is the only one where the Pot 1 team may be in trouble. Also I will never think UEFA is rigging a draw when they allow Serbia and Albania to be drawn together. England will probably benefit from that as Serbia may beat England but I would assume they will drop points vs Albania.
England haven't lost to Serbia/Yugoslavia since 1968 and have won their last 5 match ups with an aggregate 11 to 5 score.
I don't take a lot of stock into things like that. Nothing that has happened more than 5 years ago matters. England are rolling out a new coach and Serbia are a capable team of getting a result, especially at home.
Interviewed after the draw, Northern Ireland coach Michael O'Neill said he's pleased to be in a group of four teams because it increases the chance of them upsetting higher-ranked opponents compared to larger groups, which underscores the lower predictability of fewer having games.
Nowadays only rarely outside UNL - Spain-Italy 2018WCQ and Italy-England EURO2024Q are rare examples - do you get home-and-away ties between highly-ranked teams, and certainly not knockout ties. It's no coincidence that the Italy-Germany tie will be held at San Siro and in Dortmund, each country's largest stadium. So plenty of benefits in terms of fan engagement for expanding the UNL into the March window of odd years.
Looking at the draw, I think Sweden and Wales - in that order - have the best opportunity to be group winners from among the pot two teams, possibly Greece as well if they continue their upswing in fortunes.
Norway's fixtures have been reported. On MD8 they play away against their rival from pot one. It'll be interesting to see whether this sequence is replicated in the other groups. Saturday 22th march: Moldova vs Norway Tuesday 25th march: Israel vs Norway Friday 6th june: Norway vs Italy/Germany Monday 9th june: Estonia vs Norway Friday 5th september: Friendlies Monday 8th september: Norway vs Moldova Saturday 11th october: Norway vs Israel Tuesday 14th october: Friendlies Thursday 13th november: Norway vs Estonia Sunday 16th november: Italy/Germany vs Norway
https://editorial.uefa.com/resource...q_24-26_group_stage_fixtures_by_match_day.pdf for the rest of them
📌 2026 World Cup qualifiers are set!✅ Projected to secure the 2026 World Cup spot as the group winners:🇩🇪 Germany🇨🇭 Switzerland🇩🇰 Denmark🇫🇷 France🇪🇸 Spain🇵🇹 Portugal🇳🇱 Netherlands🇦🇹 Austria🇮🇹 Italy🇧🇪 Belgium🏴 England🇭🇷 Croatia📈 Projected to enter the… pic.twitter.com/UXjdLSQ3hi— Football Rankings (@FootRankings) December 14, 2024
UK media rights for FIFA World Cup 26™ and FIFA World Cup 2030™ confirmed Great news for fans in the UK with BBC and ITV extending with FIFA their FTA WC coverage through the next two tournaments.
It helps the BBC and ITV that all World Cup games have to be made available on terrestrial TV (OTA) by law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom...ther_Listed_and_Designated_Events?wprov=sfla1 The only competitors are Channel 4 and Channel 5.
According to the last paragraph of FIFA's media release it appears that sales are going well so far with both 2026 and 2030 editions up for sale across markets.
Interesting. Was unaware. Wouldn't mind if USA had a similar law. Perhaps the big networks would agree. But it would go completely against the trend towards everything streaming.
I think it would be unconstitutional for the government to tell networks what events they can and can't show. It would be even more unconstitutional to do it in a way that favored the government's own network.
And yet it's a fine law in the UK? Of course the fact that USA doesn't have a government TV service like the BBC is a big difference. And we also don't tend to have laws/regulations like this AFAIK. But it the big terrestrial networks in USA might not mind such an arrangement because it would preserve/induce more viewership in the old media format?
The UK doesn't have a formal constitution in the US sense and it's Parliament can make laws as it sees fit. In Australia we have a number of major sporting events which must be available free to air that covers 11 sports or sporting events. For football the list is (1) Each match of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association World Cup tournament that involves the senior Australian representative team selected by Football Australia. (2) The final of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association World Cup tournament. (3) Each match in the Fédération Internationale de Football Association World Cup Qualification tournament that: (a) involves the senior Australian representative team selected by Football Australia; and (b) is played in Australia. (4) Each match of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association Women’s World Cup tournament that involves the senior Australian representative team selected by Football Australia. (5) The final of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association Women’s World Cup tournament. (6) Each match in the Fédération Internationale de Football Association Women’s World Cup Qualification tournament that: (a) involves the senior Australian representative team selected by Football Australia; and (b) is played in Australia. Streaming and cable services cover these requirements by having FTA partners for the matches that must be FTA. At the moment Paramount+ show Australia's qualification matches with Network 10 showing the home matches. In the last 2 World Cups Optus Sports have had the streaming rights with Australian matches, the final and some other selected matches shown on SBS.
The BBC is considered a "public service" broadcaster, funded through TV licenses (rather than the government directly), and it's charter includes covering events of major public interest such as coronations, major news stories and the World Cup. It used to be called Aunty because it would do things like having designated breaks in programming to give you time to put your kids to bed.
I knew only some of that. And from know of (and use) the Beeb, I have a rather net positive feeling about it.
2026 Ticketing will be a new ball game. Based on what's currently happening for the 2025 Club World Cup. Here's an update I posted on another thread but may be relevant to 2026. Buyer be ware. The ticketing situation is so murky for this tournament. Zero communication! FIFA is selling tickets on Ticketmaster; FIFA seems to be also selling tickets via Team supporter groups. And they've added a new layer. Rights to Buy (you pay money for the privilege of buying tickets.) FIFA sold 125 Rights to buy for the Opening Match of the Club World Cup. The investment in each Right to Buy was well over $500, some paid close to $1000 for the Right to Buy a pair of opening match tickets. The presale opened yesterday and holders of the product got to watch the general public purchase tickets with readily available codes. No communication or official email from FIFA to the holders of the products; just a late message on the Discord basically saying those who hold the Right to Buy product will get to purchase a pair of tickets at some point. 2026 is setting up to be a greed fest.
FIFA was always greedy but yes, it looks worse than ever and they obviously started using the worst and ugliest ticketing methods that are pretty much USA specific and were quite unknown to vast majority of people elsewhere .... so yes, we can expect the worst for the real World Cup. But in the end, noone is forced to go and everyone should set their own threshold how much they are ready to take!
I don't think there's anything that's USA specific. See The Great Ticketmaster Scandal of 2024. Ticketmaster claimed that they were one of 3 companies selling tickets for the Oasis reunion. Turns out that the other two sellers were owned by Ticketmaster's parent. Paying for the "right to buy" tickets is also a thing outside the US. I think people bought the right to buy Taylor Swift tickets only to find they were sold out. It used to be called a deposit. West Ham called it a "bond scheme" back in the nineties. Buy a lifetime bond and we'll let you buy tickets. Following fan protests the CEO resigned before going on to financially wreck Southend United, Notts County and Portsmouth.