The Athletic has live coverage of Argentina vs Austria at the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
Whisper it quietly, but when FIFA decided the World Cup should expand to 48 teams from 2026, it seemingly didn’t give too much consideration to the precise format.
The switch to 48 was announced in 2017, and the initial plan was to have 16 groups of three countries each, with two sides progressing from each one. This format was deemed unsatisfactory for several reasons — the uneven schedule of matches, the risk of collusion in the final group game — and so six years later, FIFA confirmed there would instead be 12 groups of four teams each. Two qualify automatically. But to get from those 24 to a workable bracket number, 32 sides, the eight best third-placed nations qualify too.
This isn’t necessarily problematic in itself; a similar format was used between 1986 and 1994 in 24-team tournaments. But there’s an anomaly in that FIFA has also decided that sides level on points within groups will — for the first time — be separated by “greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned” first and foremost.
Get free access to the most comprehensive World Cup coverage in The Athletic app
The table sorting the best third-placed countries, of course, will still be organised by “greatest number of points obtained in all group matches” and then “goal difference resulting from all group matches”.
This could mean that a team theoretically has a record good enough to secure qualification, but for the use of head-to-head leaving them fourth (a position from which you cannot qualify) — while the third-place side who finish ahead of them miss out (due to having a worse goal difference than other third-place finishers in other groups).
First, using head-to-head rather than goal difference within groups means that some historic group standings would be different. For example, look at World Cup 2002’s Group G.
Croatia and Ecuador both finished on three points. Back then, Croatia were ranked ahead of Ecuador, because goal difference was the first separator. But they actually lost their final group game 1-0 to the South American side. And therefore, by 2026 rules, Ecuador would be ranked ahead of Croatia.
Of course, as a 32-team tournament, the 1998 World Cup didn’t feature any third-placed sides going through. If it had — for the record — these sides would be ranked seventh of the eight third-placed sides, and their varying goal difference totals wouldn’t actually have changed that.
Now the rules are different.
Australia can still match the United States’ points total in Group D, but cannot overtake them due to the result between the sides (Jamie Squire/Getty Images)
So what are we talking about?
Let’s take Group D at this year’s tournament. Two positions here are already decided. The United States will finish top. Having beaten Australia and Paraguay, they can be caught by either of those sides in terms of having six points after the three games, but obviously not in head-to-head. Similarly, Turkey will finish bottom. They can still draw level on three points with Australia or Paraguay, but having lost to both, cannot move above them on head-to-head.
Neither the U.S. nor Turkey have anything to play for when they meet on Thursday in Los Angeles. But they have different priorities. USMNT coach Mauricio Pochettino might rest several of his starting XI to keep his key players fresh for the knockout phase, while counterpart Vincenzo Montella will surely be desperate for his players to return home from this World Cup with at least one (futile) victory, having dominated both matches without managing to score thus far.
Let’s say Turkey win that 2-0 — and in the other group match, Australia defeat Paraguay by the same score. That would leave the United States top on six points and Australia second on six (and behind on head-to-head). Then would come Paraguay on three — but with a -4 goal difference, and then Turkey, also on three, behind Paraguay on head-to-head, but with a relatively respectable -1 goal difference.
The Athletic’s projections suggest a team finishing on three points with a -1 goal difference have an 83 per cent chance of being among the eight best third-placed sides. But with three points and a -4 goal difference, it’s a mere 32 per cent chance.
Therefore, a situation may arise where Turkey’s record would be good enough for them to qualify as one of the eight best third-placed sides — but for the fact it wouldn’t actually earn third spot, because of the introduction of head-to-head as the first separator within groups. Paraguay would finish ahead of them in the group, but would be lower than them in the table of third-placed sides, and would be eliminated.
Maybe the natural response would be to open up the eight additional slots to all the non-qualifiers, regardless of whether they finished third or fourth. That, of course, would create a strange scenario where a fourth-placed side might progress ahead of a third-placed side that finished ahead of them in the group.
The mathematics are a little complex, and this scenario is statistically unlikely to occur. But the situation, ultimately, owes to the fact that FIFA was more concerned with expanding to a 48-team tournament than with working out how a 48-team tournament would actually function.