2026 World Cup format under fire: why 48 countries reduce tension in the group stage

The 2026 World Cup has so far had fewer real 'do-or-die' moments in the group stage. The reason is simple: with twelve groups of four and eight best numbers three who advance to the last 32, elimination is more difficult than placement. This produces calculating scenarios.

An example: South Korea surprisingly lost 0-1 to South Africa, which reached the knockout phase for the first time. However, with three points and a goal difference of -1, South Korea still seems likely to advance as the best number three - something that in the old format (only numbers one and two advanced) would have meant the end of the tournament.

The core of the problem lies in the expansion to 48 countries. With 32 countries it was clear: eight groups of four, the best two advancing to the eighth finals. FIFA had to figure out 48 countries to arrive at 32 teams in the knockout phase. An earlier idea was 16 groups of three, but that would have opened the door to focusing on results in the final group match - exactly the risk that led to infamous discussions in 1982 when West Germany and Austria both benefited from a minimal German victory in the final, separate group match. Since then, final group matches have been played simultaneously.

FIFA ultimately opted for 12 groups of four with simultaneous slots, but with one crucial difference compared to the 'perfect' 32-nation tournament: the best numbers three also advance. As a result, there are more often situations in which a point is enough — and therefore in which two teams can both be satisfied with a draw.

This week, two matches symbolize the fragility of the format:

• Australia – Paraguay (Group D)
• Austria – Algeria (Group J)

In both groups the numbers two and three are on three points. In practice, four points is almost always enough for a place as the best number three. It creates the temptation to play for a draw. Similar, albeit slightly less pressing, situations arise in Group F (Japan on four points, Sweden on three) and Group L (Ghana on four, Croatia on three). In addition, some groups are completed later, so teams know exactly what was needed elsewhere — an information advantage that reinforces the calculating nature.

Timing and path to the last 32 also play a role. The runners-up in Group J will meet the winner of Group H (currently Spain at the top). However, the number three of Group J could play against the winner of Group L (possibly England) or against Switzerland (winner of Group B). Depending on the ratios, third place may seem more attractive than coming second — even losing can be strategically rewarding.

The tournament schedule has another nuance: the classification for the third places depends on which groups provide the best numbers three. He who plays early does not yet know his path; who plays late, yes. And in extreme weather conditions, a duel can be temporarily stopped without the parallel duel pausing. If a team resumes later, it may know exactly what is needed to continue.

There is no guarantee that teams will actually 'choose the draw'. For example, at the 2020 European Championship, with a similar best-third situation, Austria defeated Ukraine 1-0 instead of accepting a draw, after which Ukraine still won. But the ability to directThere are results - and that undermines the pure tension that made the 2022 World Cup so compelling in the closing rounds.

The betting market also anticipates such scenarios: while draws in posters such as Ecuador-Germany, Japan-Sweden and Norway-France were listed at higher odds, the odds for a draw in Australia-Paraguay and Austria-Algeria were close to 'even money' - a signal that a point could be enough for both sides.

The expansion to 48 countries was a policy choice by FIFA. If the coming days indeed produce 'comfortable' draws, the discussion about sporting integrity and format logic will flare up again. A return to a 'perfect' number is not necessarily a reduction to 32; it could also be a jump to 64. But what is certain: the less room for calculation, the greater the tension that makes a World Cup unique.