My Dad is putting £50 on the US for the '26 WC, probably each way and outright, based on home advantage, and having another 4 years worth of experience in their youthful side, and the money they're throwing at football ("soccer") right now.
That's certainly thinking ahead. Sounds like a good idea tbf.
My Dad is putting £50 on the US for the '26 WC, probably each way and outright, based on home advantage, and having another 4 years worth of experience in their youthful side, and the money they're throwing at football ("soccer") right now.
Qatar built the Aspire academy, spent millions on football, have a side that has grown up together, won the Asian cup, have home advantage...........and look at them.
Fucking farce that Mexico have had it 3 times since we did and to a lesser extent, USA will have it twice.
I agree but isn't it more about giving it to the continent rather than the country?
There are quite a few European countries who can host when it comes here, but when it goes to CONCACAF the options are obviously limited.
What i think we'll see more of in future now that it will be a 48 team tournament is multi-nation bids to host it. For example Spain/Portugal i think have bid to host in 2030.
Perhaps we could put a North Atlantic Islands bid in. All the big English grounds with Hampden Park, Millennium Stadium, Windsor Park, Croke Park and Laugardalsvöllur. Throw in Park Lane, Canvey Island for good measure and we're sorted.
Fucking farce that Mexico have had it 3 times since we did and to a lesser extent, USA will have it twice.
I agree but isn't it more about giving it to the continent rather than the country?
There are quite a few European countries who can host when it comes here, but when it goes to CONCACAF the options are obviously limited.
What i think we'll see more of in future now that it will be a 48 team tournament is multi-nation bids to host it. For example Spain/Portugal i think have bid to host in 2030.
If money talks, maybe we should offer to host with Saudi Arabia.
The Spain/Portugal bid for the 2030 World Cup now includes Ukraine, who would host some group games. I reckon they've got a good chance of getting the WC with this bid.
After the fiasco with the Euro final last year I doubt we will ever get a major tourny again. Our drinking culture along with the increase in drugs at football will see to that. Plus hooliganism is on the rise in the UK which never bodes well
After the fiasco with the Euro final last year I doubt we will ever get a major tourny again. Our drinking culture along with the increase in drugs at football will see to that. Plus hooliganism is on the rise in the UK which never bodes well
We'll probably get Euro 2028 - Its Great Britain, or Turkey
After the fiasco with the Euro final last year I doubt we will ever get a major tourny again. Our drinking culture along with the increase in drugs at football will see to that. Plus hooliganism is on the rise in the UK which never bodes well
When we're we given the Euro 96 tournament? Was it while we were still band from Europe?
Anyway I know you have to "grow" the game but IMO the world cup should be in Europe every 8 years.
After the fiasco with the Euro final last year I doubt we will ever get a major tourny again. Our drinking culture along with the increase in drugs at football will see to that. Plus hooliganism is on the rise in the UK which never bodes well
When we're we given the Euro 96 tournament? Was it while we were still band from Europe?
Anyway I know you have to "grow" the game but IMO the world cup should be in Europe every 8 years.
The Americas and the rest of the world share the other one.
The Spain/Portugal bid for the 2030 World Cup now includes Ukraine, who would host some group games. I reckon they've got a good chance of getting the WC with this bid.
That’s crazy! And not a good crazy. Surely the original bid is more than capable, without adding Ukraine which is just bizarre geographically. Spain/Portugal probably my dream hosts for a WC.
Let's take the 2022 World Cup and expand it to 48 teams (which at one point was being strongly considered by FIFA.)
For the purposes of this illustration, additional qualification places have been handed to the next-best nations in the qualifying competition for each confederation. (As Italy failed to even make the UEFA playoff finals, they still miss out.)
Asia: Australia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, UAE
North, Central America and Caribbean: Canada, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, United States
Europe: Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Portugal, Ukraine, Wales
Oceania: New Zealand
South America: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay
The two best FIFA-ranked teams eligible for the intercontinental playoffs (Chile and DR Congo) are given the last places. (The other countries in the playoffs would have been El Salvador, Honduras, Solomon Islands, Syria.)
There would have been World Cup debuts for Mali, North Macedonia (and Qatar as hosts).
This is where it gets somewhat uncertain, but if we take the teams who would have qualified for the 2022 edition in a 48-team format we can get a picture of 2026.
Option 1: 16 groups of 3
Each group would have no more than one team from each confederation, so it seems logical there would be one pot with the 16 European teams, one for each group, while the remaining pots would be split on ranking.
That makes the draw pots, based on the latest FIFA World Ranking:
Pot 1 (UEFA): Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Portugal, Ukraine, Wales
Pot 2: Mexico, USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Senegal, Iran, Morocco, Peru, Japan, South Korea, Chile, Tunisia, Costa Rica
Pot 3: Nigeria, Algeria, Australia, Egypt, Cameroon, Ecuador, Mali, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Panama, Ghana, Jamaica, Iraq, UAE, DR Congo, New Zealand
Canada would naturally be in Pot 3, but have been placed alongside the US and Mexico in Pot 2 as they would be pre-allocated a group as a host to play in their own country.
A test draw produces the following groups:
Group A: Canada, Wales, Algeria
Group B: France, South Korea, Nigeria
Group C: USA, Serbia, DR Congo
Group D : Portugal, Japan, Egypt
Group E: Switzerland, Senegal, UAE
Group F: Belgium, Iran, Ecuador
Group G: Poland, Uruguay, Australia
Group H: North Macedonia, Peru, Cameroon
Group I: England, Colombia, Jamaica
Group J: Croatia, Tunisia, Iraq
Group K: Ukraine, Morocco, Saudi Arabia
Group L: Netherlands, Argentina, Panama
Group M: Denmark, Chile, Ghana
Group N: Sweden, Brazil, New Zealand
Group O: Germany, Costa Rica, Qatar
Group P: Mexico, Spain, Mali
The top two teams in each group would go through to a round of 32, which has caused controversy as it means the teams in the final group match could play out a specific result to ensure both go through at the expense of the third team, who would not be playing.
FIFA has suggested it could get around such collusion by deciding all group-game draws by penalty shootouts, but this still wouldn't eliminate the prospect of a specific result like 1-0 suiting both teams in the third game.
There would be very few marquee matches in the group stage, depending on the draw. Mexico vs. Spain and Netherlands vs. Argentina are standouts from this mock draw. Another criticism of this format is that it reduces much of the jeopardy, with two-thirds of the teams advancing. Also, countries would only be guaranteed two games, rather than three.
For these reasons, FIFA is considering a rethink and is almost certain to abandon this option.
This format sees the 48 teams drawn into groups of four teams, just as we have now. However, 16 or 32 teams must come out of the groups to create a balanced knockout bracket. That means it may well be the top two teams from each group plus the eight best third-placed teams, creating a round of 32. UEFA has used a similar system with third-placed teams advancing to the knockout rounds for the last two European Championships.
The positive is it creates a regular group stage with double-header final games, which can produce great drama as we saw in the 2022 edition. There would be less jeopardy with third-placed teams to go through, but it feels a more natural system for the World Cup. And all teams would get three games.
FIFA is considering two methods:
1) 12 groups of 4 feeding through to one knockout bracket. 2) Two halves of 24 teams, creating 6 groups of 4 in each. The halves would come together for the final.
They are very similar, though with option 2 you wouldn't be able to play a team from the other half until the final. Also, the overall best eight third-placed teams might not go through, as each half would need four third-placed teams to advance.
The draw pots would be slightly different, and would likely revert to the usual system of hosts in Pot 1 along with the top-ranked teams by FIFA ranking.
Pot 1: Mexico, United States, Canada, Brazil, Belgium, Argentina, France, England, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark
Pot 2: Germany, Croatia, Uruguay, Switzerland, Colombia, Senegal, Wales, Iran, Serbia, Morocco, Peru, Japan
Pot 3: Sweden, Poland, Ukraine, South Korea, Chile, Tunisia, Costa Rica, Nigeria, Algeria, Australia, Egypt, Cameroon
Pot 4: Ecuador, Mali, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Panama, Ghana, Jamaica, North Macedonia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, DR Congo, New Zealand
Each group would have no more than one team from each confederation, apart from Europe, which would need to have four groups with two teams in.
A test draw produces the following groups:
Group A: Argentina, Switzerland, Sweden, Iraq
Group B: Belgium, Peru, Costa Rica, Ghana
Group C: Canada, Iran, Chile, North Macedonia
Group D : Netherlands, Morocco, South Korea, Jamaica
Group E: Mexico, Serbia, Egypt, Qatar
Group F: Denmark, Uruguay, Cameroon, United Arab Emirates
Group G: England, Croatia, Nigeria, Ecuador
Group H: United States, Colombia, Poland, DR Congo
Group I: Portugal, Senegal, Australia, Panama
Group J: Brazil, Japan, Ukraine, Mali
Group K: Spain, Wales, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia
Group L: France, Germany, Algeria, New Zealand
The issue with groups of four is the huge number of additional games. The 2022 World Cup had 64 games, and the three-team group stage format produces 80, but with four-team groups and a round of 32 we'd be looking at 104 matches -- a 47% increase tournament to tournament. The World Cup would have to expand beyond 32 days, to at least 35, for this to be possible.
The European Club Association, which exists to protect and promote European club football, was against the increase to 48 teams because of the impact on the domestic calendar. Fears were allayed when FIFA said the tournament could still be played within 32 days, but a switch to 104 fixtures can only result in a bigger and longer World Cup.
How will the 2026 World Cup differ from the last edition in the US?
More host cities spread across time zones
USA '94 was a tournament largely held on the East Coast (Eastern Time, ET); of the nine host cities, only Stanford and Pasadena were on the West Coast (Pacific Time, PT) with just Chicago and Dallas in Central Time (CT).
In 2026, the World Cup will see 16 venues in three countries across time zones.
PT (4): Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles
CT (6): Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterrey, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City
ET (6): Atlanta, Miami, Boston, New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, Toronto
More games may mean later kickoffs
In 1994, kickoff times were tailored more toward European audiences, with no game kicking off later that 4:30 p.m. PT (12:30 a.m. in the UK.)
FIFA won't schedule any two matches to be played at the same time, other than the final group matches, and with so many more games to be played it's likely games will be stretched across the day to maximise the timezones.
With only 24 games to schedule for the first two group matches in 1994, it was possible to avoid evening kickoffs in PT -- overnight in Europe. But with 48 matches to fit into a similar timescale and played across time zones, it will be difficult to avoid without the tournament getting even longer.
So, at the men's World Cup in 2026, we could see the first match of the day kicking off at 1 p.m. ET (6 p.m. UK) and the final match ending on the West Coast at 11 p.m. PT (2 a.m. ET, 7 a.m. UK), even though it's not ideal to have matches taking place late in the night ET.
At the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, Ivory Coast vs. Japan was one match scheduled to be played at 10 p.m. local time (2 a.m. UK) to enable four matches to be played that day (every other day in the first two rounds of group matches had no more than three matches.) Qatar actually had 10 p.m. local as one of its main kickoff times, the first time this has been the case at the World Cup.
Looking forward to 2026 over here. In '94 we didn't qualify but followed Ireland as my parents are Irish and a lot of the guys I played football with were Irish. Went to NYC to watch Ireland v Italy and Orlando to watch Ireland v Mexico and then Belgium v Netherlands the next day. Also saw Argentina v Nigeria in Boston. Knowing my luck England won't qualify but can't see that happening. A little bit older now and probably won't party as much.
Personally, I would be shocked if the first game daily doesn't kick off at 11am Eastern (4pm UK).
Although 1pm Eastern is the time when all the NFL kicks off on a Sunday, you only have to look at the way they schedule college games on a Saturday to see that these games would surely have to start a couple of hours earlier.
For the group stages, I wouldn't be shocked to see something along the lines of:
11am / 4pm
1:30pm / 6:30pm
4pm / 9pm
6:30pm / 11:30pm (to finish at 1:30am UK time)
Four games a day with a total of 72 games to be played (18 day group stage, reduced to 16 days if you played three double-headers per day at the end) might look like...
Day 1 & 7: Group A + B (4 games) Day 2 & 8: Group C + D (4) Day 3 & 9: Group E + F (4) Day 4 & 10: Group G + H (4) Day 5 & 11: Group I + J (4) Day 6 & 12: Group K + L (4) Day 13: Group A + B + C (6 games in 3 windows) Day 14: Group D + E + F (6) Day 15: Group G + H + I (6) Day 16: Group J + K + L (6)
It is strange how much England are ignored for world Cup hosting bids. The likes of France, Germany etc are a lot more likely to be a host nation, even though they've already done it often enough.
Perhaps we are the Millwall of the globe. No one really likes us.
We do already have a great economy in comparison to other nations, our island is over populated, its usually cold, and we gave birth to hooliganism, and our food is dreadful
But we are a multicultural nation! Just eat your fish n chips, witness a punch up, let us host a world Cup and f*ck off!
If anyone is coming over and looking for a place to crash between San Francisco and Seattle, I have a spare bedroom in Eugene, OR. No idea if I'll still be living here then, but I'll let the next tenants know that I promised a free room on a message board in 2022 and that they're duty bound to honor it.
I think they're wrong about the draw for option 1. Having a pot for UEFA countries means Argentina & Brazil aren't protected from having one of the biggest countries in their group, while giving the opportunity for a weaker UEFA country (hello Wales and North Macedonia) to get drawn in a group with Costa Rica and Iraq, which would be pretty much a bye to the second round. FIFA have a well-established system for doing the draws while keeping countries from the same confederation apart. It's horribly complex but it works. They'll just use that. Or they'd have the option of splitting pot 2 into two parts, one for Europe and one for the rest, with the European countries only able to be drawn into the groups with non-UEFA seeds.
I'm also not convinced they're going to offer 3 places in pot 1 to the hosts. We've seen the result of seeding Qatar, and they were at least Asian champions so had something of a case. Canada as a seeded country would be a joke.
The best set up (other than the 32 team tournament we have) would be 12 groups of 4 with 24 teams qualifying for the knockout stage.
Eight best group winners advance immediately to the round of 16.
Four worst group winners and 12 runners up play in a preliminary knockout round to determine who advances to round of 16.
This would incentivise teams to win all three group games as they would benefit from a few extra days of rest between the groups and knockouts. Plus it would avoid situations like France & Brazil resting players and subsequently losing to Tunisia & Cameroon.
It would also create a nice symmetry between the increase in group groups and increase in knockout games.
48 group games becomes 72 group games. (50% increase)
16 knockout games becomes 24 knockout games. (50% increase)
FIFA get a 96 game World Cup instead of an 80 game World Cup (under current proposal) so they and the broadcasters are also happy.
The one downside is that it increases the maximum possible games for each team from 7 to 8. However I'd be shocked if a team that had to play a preliminary knockout game ended up in the final as they'd be at quite a disadvantage.
Assuming the 2026 groups from the above article's test draw:
Group A: Argentina, Switzerland, Sweden, Iraq
Group B: Belgium, Peru, Costa Rica, Ghana
Group C: Canada, Iran, Chile, North Macedonia
Group D : Netherlands, Morocco, South Korea, Jamaica
Group E: Mexico, Serbia, Egypt, Qatar
Group F: Denmark, Uruguay, Cameroon, United Arab Emirates
Group G: England, Croatia, Nigeria, Ecuador
Group H: United States, Colombia, Poland, DR Congo
Group I: Portugal, Senegal, Australia, Panama
Group J: Brazil, Japan, Ukraine, Mali
Group K: Spain, Wales, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia
Group L: France, Germany, Algeria, New Zealand
Split the 12 groups into collections of three - the two best group winners from each collection advances immediately to the Round of 16. The worst group winner from each collection joins the three runner-ups from each collection in the preliminary knockout.
You'd have to be careful to ensure no group winner could end up facing a group stage opponent in the round of 16 - this system should be fairly simple to implement before the tournament kicks off, like they do with the Euros and determining how to place the 3rd placed sides to maximise spread across the knockouts.
It might look something like:
Group A: Argentina advances to R16, Switzerland into prelim. Group B: Belgium advances to R16, Peru into prelim. Group C: Chile into prelim as worst group winner, Canada into prelim.
Group D : Netherlands advances to R16, Morocco into prelim. Group E: Mexico into prelim as worst group winner, Serbia into prelim. Group F: Uruguay advances to R16, Denmark into prelim.
Prelim round:
Chile v Switzerland, Peru v Canada, Mexico v Denmark, Morocco v Serbia
Round of 16:
Argentina v Mexico/Denmark, Belgium v Morocco/Serbia, Netherlands v Chile/Switzerland, Uruguay v Peru/Canada
Comments
That's certainly thinking ahead. Sounds like a good idea tbf.
Assume they'll be roughly 30/1 ish
You would think with Asia getting it this time and North America the next one it should return to Europe.
Europe technically had the last tournament.
Find out next September
Anyway I know you have to "grow" the game but IMO the world cup should be in Europe every 8 years.
Who would qualify for a 48-team World Cup?
Let's take the 2022 World Cup and expand it to 48 teams (which at one point was being strongly considered by FIFA.)
For the purposes of this illustration, additional qualification places have been handed to the next-best nations in the qualifying competition for each confederation. (As Italy failed to even make the UEFA playoff finals, they still miss out.)
The teams in bold are the additional 16.
The two best FIFA-ranked teams eligible for the intercontinental playoffs (Chile and DR Congo) are given the last places. (The other countries in the playoffs would have been El Salvador, Honduras, Solomon Islands, Syria.)
There would have been World Cup debuts for Mali, North Macedonia (and Qatar as hosts).
How will the 2026 World Cup group stage work?
This is where it gets somewhat uncertain, but if we take the teams who would have qualified for the 2022 edition in a 48-team format we can get a picture of 2026.
Option 1: 16 groups of 3
Each group would have no more than one team from each confederation, so it seems logical there would be one pot with the 16 European teams, one for each group, while the remaining pots would be split on ranking.
That makes the draw pots, based on the latest FIFA World Ranking:
Pot 1 (UEFA): Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Portugal, Ukraine, Wales
Pot 2: Mexico, USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Senegal, Iran, Morocco, Peru, Japan, South Korea, Chile, Tunisia, Costa Rica
Pot 3: Nigeria, Algeria, Australia, Egypt, Cameroon, Ecuador, Mali, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Panama, Ghana, Jamaica, Iraq, UAE, DR Congo, New Zealand
Canada would naturally be in Pot 3, but have been placed alongside the US and Mexico in Pot 2 as they would be pre-allocated a group as a host to play in their own country.
A test draw produces the following groups:
Group A: Canada, Wales, Algeria
Group B: France, South Korea, Nigeria
Group C: USA, Serbia, DR Congo
Group D : Portugal, Japan, Egypt
Group E: Switzerland, Senegal, UAE
Group F: Belgium, Iran, Ecuador
Group G: Poland, Uruguay, Australia
Group H: North Macedonia, Peru, Cameroon
Group I: England, Colombia, Jamaica
Group J: Croatia, Tunisia, Iraq
Group K: Ukraine, Morocco, Saudi Arabia
Group L: Netherlands, Argentina, Panama
Group M: Denmark, Chile, Ghana
Group N: Sweden, Brazil, New Zealand
Group O: Germany, Costa Rica, Qatar
Group P: Mexico, Spain, Mali
The top two teams in each group would go through to a round of 32, which has caused controversy as it means the teams in the final group match could play out a specific result to ensure both go through at the expense of the third team, who would not be playing.
FIFA has suggested it could get around such collusion by deciding all group-game draws by penalty shootouts, but this still wouldn't eliminate the prospect of a specific result like 1-0 suiting both teams in the third game.
There would be very few marquee matches in the group stage, depending on the draw. Mexico vs. Spain and Netherlands vs. Argentina are standouts from this mock draw. Another criticism of this format is that it reduces much of the jeopardy, with two-thirds of the teams advancing. Also, countries would only be guaranteed two games, rather than three.
For these reasons, FIFA is considering a rethink and is almost certain to abandon this option.
Option 2: 12 groups of 4
This format sees the 48 teams drawn into groups of four teams, just as we have now. However, 16 or 32 teams must come out of the groups to create a balanced knockout bracket. That means it may well be the top two teams from each group plus the eight best third-placed teams, creating a round of 32. UEFA has used a similar system with third-placed teams advancing to the knockout rounds for the last two European Championships.
The positive is it creates a regular group stage with double-header final games, which can produce great drama as we saw in the 2022 edition. There would be less jeopardy with third-placed teams to go through, but it feels a more natural system for the World Cup. And all teams would get three games.
FIFA is considering two methods:
1) 12 groups of 4 feeding through to one knockout bracket.
2) Two halves of 24 teams, creating 6 groups of 4 in each. The halves would come together for the final.
They are very similar, though with option 2 you wouldn't be able to play a team from the other half until the final. Also, the overall best eight third-placed teams might not go through, as each half would need four third-placed teams to advance.
The draw pots would be slightly different, and would likely revert to the usual system of hosts in Pot 1 along with the top-ranked teams by FIFA ranking.
Pot 1: Mexico, United States, Canada, Brazil, Belgium, Argentina, France, England, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark
Pot 2: Germany, Croatia, Uruguay, Switzerland, Colombia, Senegal, Wales, Iran, Serbia, Morocco, Peru, Japan
Pot 3: Sweden, Poland, Ukraine, South Korea, Chile, Tunisia, Costa Rica, Nigeria, Algeria, Australia, Egypt, Cameroon
Pot 4: Ecuador, Mali, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Panama, Ghana, Jamaica, North Macedonia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, DR Congo, New Zealand
Each group would have no more than one team from each confederation, apart from Europe, which would need to have four groups with two teams in.
A test draw produces the following groups:
Group A: Argentina, Switzerland, Sweden, Iraq
Group B: Belgium, Peru, Costa Rica, Ghana
Group C: Canada, Iran, Chile, North Macedonia
Group D : Netherlands, Morocco, South Korea, Jamaica
Group E: Mexico, Serbia, Egypt, Qatar
Group F: Denmark, Uruguay, Cameroon, United Arab Emirates
Group G: England, Croatia, Nigeria, Ecuador
Group H: United States, Colombia, Poland, DR Congo
Group I: Portugal, Senegal, Australia, Panama
Group J: Brazil, Japan, Ukraine, Mali
Group K: Spain, Wales, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia
Group L: France, Germany, Algeria, New Zealand
The issue with groups of four is the huge number of additional games. The 2022 World Cup had 64 games, and the three-team group stage format produces 80, but with four-team groups and a round of 32 we'd be looking at 104 matches -- a 47% increase tournament to tournament. The World Cup would have to expand beyond 32 days, to at least 35, for this to be possible.
The European Club Association, which exists to protect and promote European club football, was against the increase to 48 teams because of the impact on the domestic calendar. Fears were allayed when FIFA said the tournament could still be played within 32 days, but a switch to 104 fixtures can only result in a bigger and longer World Cup.
How will the 2026 World Cup differ from the last edition in the US?
More host cities spread across time zones
USA '94 was a tournament largely held on the East Coast (Eastern Time, ET); of the nine host cities, only Stanford and Pasadena were on the West Coast (Pacific Time, PT) with just Chicago and Dallas in Central Time (CT).
In 2026, the World Cup will see 16 venues in three countries across time zones.
PT (4): Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles
CT (6): Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterrey, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City
ET (6): Atlanta, Miami, Boston, New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, Toronto
More games may mean later kickoffs
In 1994, kickoff times were tailored more toward European audiences, with no game kicking off later that 4:30 p.m. PT (12:30 a.m. in the UK.)
FIFA won't schedule any two matches to be played at the same time, other than the final group matches, and with so many more games to be played it's likely games will be stretched across the day to maximise the timezones.
With only 24 games to schedule for the first two group matches in 1994, it was possible to avoid evening kickoffs in PT -- overnight in Europe. But with 48 matches to fit into a similar timescale and played across time zones, it will be difficult to avoid without the tournament getting even longer.
So, at the men's World Cup in 2026, we could see the first match of the day kicking off at 1 p.m. ET (6 p.m. UK) and the final match ending on the West Coast at 11 p.m. PT (2 a.m. ET, 7 a.m. UK), even though it's not ideal to have matches taking place late in the night ET.
At the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, Ivory Coast vs. Japan was one match scheduled to be played at 10 p.m. local time (2 a.m. UK) to enable four matches to be played that day (every other day in the first two rounds of group matches had no more than three matches.) Qatar actually had 10 p.m. local as one of its main kickoff times, the first time this has been the case at the World Cup.
Although 1pm Eastern is the time when all the NFL kicks off on a Sunday, you only have to look at the way they schedule college games on a Saturday to see that these games would surely have to start a couple of hours earlier.
For the group stages, I wouldn't be shocked to see something along the lines of:
- 11am / 4pm
- 1:30pm / 6:30pm
- 4pm / 9pm
- 6:30pm / 11:30pm (to finish at 1:30am UK time)
Four games a day with a total of 72 games to be played (18 day group stage, reduced to 16 days if you played three double-headers per day at the end) might look like...Day 1 & 7: Group A + B (4 games)
Day 2 & 8: Group C + D (4)
Day 3 & 9: Group E + F (4)
Day 4 & 10: Group G + H (4)
Day 5 & 11: Group I + J (4)
Day 6 & 12: Group K + L (4)
Day 13: Group A + B + C (6 games in 3 windows)
Day 14: Group D + E + F (6)
Day 15: Group G + H + I (6)
Day 16: Group J + K + L (6)
Perhaps we are the Millwall of the globe. No one really likes us.
We do already have a great economy in comparison to other nations, our island is over populated, its usually cold, and we gave birth to hooliganism, and our food is dreadful
But we are a multicultural nation! Just eat your fish n chips, witness a punch up, let us host a world Cup and f*ck off!
I'm also not convinced they're going to offer 3 places in pot 1 to the hosts. We've seen the result of seeding Qatar, and they were at least Asian champions so had something of a case. Canada as a seeded country would be a joke.
This would incentivise teams to win all three group games as they would benefit from a few extra days of rest between the groups and knockouts. Plus it would avoid situations like France & Brazil resting players and subsequently losing to Tunisia & Cameroon.
It would also create a nice symmetry between the increase in group groups and increase in knockout games.
The one downside is that it increases the maximum possible games for each team from 7 to 8. However I'd be shocked if a team that had to play a preliminary knockout game ended up in the final as they'd be at quite a disadvantage.
Assuming the 2026 groups from the above article's test draw:
Group A: Argentina, Switzerland, Sweden, Iraq
Group B: Belgium, Peru, Costa Rica, Ghana
Group C: Canada, Iran, Chile, North Macedonia
Group D : Netherlands, Morocco, South Korea, Jamaica
Group E: Mexico, Serbia, Egypt, Qatar
Group F: Denmark, Uruguay, Cameroon, United Arab Emirates
Group G: England, Croatia, Nigeria, Ecuador
Group H: United States, Colombia, Poland, DR Congo
Group I: Portugal, Senegal, Australia, Panama
Group J: Brazil, Japan, Ukraine, Mali
Group K: Spain, Wales, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia
Group L: France, Germany, Algeria, New Zealand
Split the 12 groups into collections of three - the two best group winners from each collection advances immediately to the Round of 16. The worst group winner from each collection joins the three runner-ups from each collection in the preliminary knockout.
You'd have to be careful to ensure no group winner could end up facing a group stage opponent in the round of 16 - this system should be fairly simple to implement before the tournament kicks off, like they do with the Euros and determining how to place the 3rd placed sides to maximise spread across the knockouts.
It might look something like:
Group A: Argentina advances to R16, Switzerland into prelim.
Group B: Belgium advances to R16, Peru into prelim.
Group C: Chile into prelim as worst group winner, Canada into prelim.
Group D : Netherlands advances to R16, Morocco into prelim.
Group E: Mexico into prelim as worst group winner, Serbia into prelim.
Group F: Uruguay advances to R16, Denmark into prelim.
Prelim round:
Chile v Switzerland, Peru v Canada, Mexico v Denmark, Morocco v Serbia
Round of 16:
Argentina v Mexico/Denmark, Belgium v Morocco/Serbia, Netherlands v Chile/Switzerland, Uruguay v Peru/Canada
And repeat the process for Groups G through L.