In around six months, two teams will be taking to the field at MetLife Stadium, NJ, to contest the 2026 FIFA World Cup Final. It’s going to be interesting to see how fans will reflect on the tournament at that point.
It is difficult to think of a World Cup tournament that faced more criticism in its lead-up. Of course, FIFA isn’t unaccustomed to those criticisms – the previous two World Cups were in Qatar and Russia, hardly popular choices as hosts – but from ticket prices to logistics to the tournament format, the 2026 event has had consistently negative coverage.
But what sort of a tournament will be delivered? We want to leave aside the choice of the US, Mexico, and Canada as hosts, which has drawn criticism in itself, and consider some of the structural issues with the tournament, not least its expansion, that have left fans a little downbeat.
An audience of billions
That said, have no doubt that the World Cup will be big. The global audience will be measured in billions, there’ll be massive media coverage, plenty of sportsbook promos to explore for betting, and you might even get a bit of soccer fever sweeping the US, maybe matching what was hoped for back in 1994.
Yet, there are reasons to be gloomy about the tournament. The most salient argument is the expansion to 48 teams. There is clearly a dilution of quality in the tournament. Look, it’s fantastic that teams like Jordan, Curacao, and Uzbekistan have qualified – and they did so on merit – but soccer powerhouse nations they are not.
Having weaker teams in the tournament raises the specter of stronger teams rotating squads to keep players fresh. That’s fine as a tactic for head coaches, but it removes the sense of occasion for fans.
Moreover, there is the structural ‘problem’ with the group stage qualification, which will allow eight of the twelve 3rd-placed teams in the groups to qualify for the knockout rounds. Indeed, after the group stage, where teams play three games each, 32 of the 48 teams will qualify for the knockout rounds.
A potential lack of jeopardy
What this creates is a distinct lack of jeopardy for the first two weeks of the tournament. Conceivably, teams will be able to qualify for the Round of 32 without winning a game. Worse still, teams that win their first two games might take their foot off the gas for the last round of group games, knowing that the work has already been done.
There have been so many great World Cup moments defined by shocks of big teams getting beaten – world champions France being eliminated in the group stage in 2002 was among the most memorable. That jeopardy is being removed now. Indeed, the seeding system is keeping the big teams apart. Every World Cup in the modern era has had a Group of Death, i.e., one that the luck of the draw has pitted top teams together; this one hasn’t.
Of course, there is every chance that we end up being wrong. The World Cup is not defined by seeding and group stage logistics. Back in 2018, everyone was aghast at the prospect of a Russian-hosted World Cup, and, obviously, some of those fears of rewarding the Russian government have been borne out. But the tournament was magical – one of the best of the modern era – and the Russian people were wonderful hosts.
World Cups, as with all the great sports tournaments, thrive on moments and narratives, and it’s entirely possible, even probable, that we see some of those. It will likely be the last tournaments for Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo, and you could easily see the final chapters of their ‘stories’ catching the eye of a global audience. And there are always unforeseen events that win people over. Perhaps it will be Uzbekistan or Cape Verde slaying one of soccer’s giants en route to the knockout rounds.
So, at a risk of sounding like sitting on the fence, we don’t know yet whether this World Cup will be a blockbuster or bust. Everyone hopes for the former, but it should not be overlooked that there are some structural elements that suggest this one might take a while to get going.
