What The 2026 World Cup Will Look Like, 48 Teams And Other Plans

How might a 48-group World Cup work in 2026? Dale Johnson explains what the 2026 world cup will look like, a 48-group rivalry made arrangements for 2026.

The 2022 World Cup draws to a nearby this end of the week, marking the conclusion of a significant time period for the competition before it rolls into the United States, Mexico and Canada in four years’ time.

The ongoing configuration, which sees 32 teams drawn into eight groups of four countries feeding into the knockout rounds, first highlighted at France ’98. It’s every one of the an age of football fans has known, spanning 24 years and seven versions.

What The 2026 World Cup Will Look Like

In 2026, 48 teams partake in the World Cup. 45 qualifying countries in addition to the three host nations. (FIFA president Gianni Infantino has indicated the hosts will generally not need to go through qualifying.)

It implies the regular organization of 32 teams in eight groups with the main two teams going through to create the ideal, 16-group knockout section is finished.

There will be more teams, more games, more opening shot times and a more drawn out competition. The World Cup has gone on something like 32 days all through the ongoing configuration (however it was dense into 29 in Qatar), yet it will must be no less than 35 days on the off chance that FIFA expands to a mammoth 104-game competition from the 64 it is presently.

So will the 2026 World Cup work, who will qualify and what might it at any point look like?

For what reason are there more countries at the 2026 World Cup?
This is the biggest development the World Cup has seen.

It began with somewhere in the range of 13 and 16 countries in 1930, 1934, 1938 and 1950. From 1954 onwards, the competition included 16 teams until it was increased to 24 for Mexico ’86, and then 32 for France ’98.

The move from 32 to 48 teams is a half increase, and will make it hard for any one country to have the occasion due to the scenes and infrastructure required.

Infantino, who was originally chosen for run FIFA on a proposition to expand to 40 teams, heartily shielded the choice when it was declared in 2017, which FIFA ventures will produce $1 billion more income and $640 million extra benefit.

Infantino says the cash will be reinvested in football: “Increasing the size of teams which can take part will increase the investment in football advancement, to ensure that the teams can qualify.”

There are 17 extra qualify openings (16 added teams in addition to the spot for the hosts which is not generally saved independently).

Asia: 8 (+4)

Africa: 9 (+4)

North, Central America and Caribbean: 6 (+3)

Europe: 16 (+3)

South America: 6 (+2)

Oceania: 1 (+1)

United States, Mexico and Canada will be included within the six spots allotted to North, Central America and Caribbean (CONCACAF.)

There will in any case be two spots available to all through intercontinental end of the season games to finish the 48. A sum of six teams one from every one of the five confederations separated from Europe, in addition to one extra from CONCACAF as host confederation – – will partake.

Who might meet all requirements for a 48-group World Cup?

We should accept the 2022 World Cup and expand it to 48 teams (which at one point was being unequivocally considered by FIFA.)

For the reasons for this outline, extra capability places have been handed to the following best countries in the qualifying rivalry for every confederation. (As Italy neglected to try and make the UEFA season finisher finals, they actually pass up a great opportunity.)

Africa: Algeria, Cameroon, DR Congo, Egypt, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Ghana, Tunisia

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-positioned teams qualified for the intercontinental end of the season games (Chile and DR Congo) are given the last places. (The other nations in the end of the season games 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 might the 2026 World Cup group stage work?

This is where it gets somewhat uncertain, however in the event that we take the teams who might have equipped for the 2022 version in a 48-group design we can get an image of 2026.

Choice 1: 16 groups of 3

It’s been very nearly six years since the FIFA chamber casted a ballot to increase the size of the World Cup and supported an organization that would see the 48 teams partitioned into 16 groups of three teams – – with the main two going through to a series of 32. Yet, Arsene Wenger, FIFA’s head of worldwide football, has said this could yet be changed with a final choice due in 2023.

The complete number of games would ascend from 64 to 80 and FIFA accepts the competition can be played within common 32 days. (The Qatar World Cup was gotten into only 29 days as it occurred during the European homegrown club season.)

Each group would have something like one group from every confederation, so it appears to be sensible there would be one pot with the 16 European teams, one for each group, while the remaining pots would part on rank.

That makes the draw pots, in light of the most recent 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 normally be in Pot 3, however have been put close by the US and Mexico in Pot 2 as they would be pre-dispensed a group as a host to play in their own country.

A test draw creates 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 main two teams in each group would go through to a series of 32, which has caused debate as it implies the teams in the final group match could play out a particular outcome to guarantee both go through to the detriment of the third group, would wouldn’t play. At the 1982 World Cup, with four-group groups however final matches not played simultaneously, West Germany and Austria played out a 1-0 game which implied the two teams went through to the detriment of Algeria, with the three teams finishing on four points. It’s after this incident that FIFA took on simultaneous final group games.

FIFA has proposed it could get around such plot by deciding all group-game draws by punishment shootouts, however this actually wouldn’t eliminate the possibility of a particular outcome like 1-0 suiting the two teams in the third game.

There would be not very many marquee matches in the group stage, depending on the draw. Mexico versus Spain and Netherlands versus Argentina are standouts from this fake draw. Another criticism of this configuration is that it lessens a significant part of the risk, with 66% of the teams advancing. Additionally, nations would just be ensured two games, rather than three.

Hence, FIFA is considering a rethink and is close to 100% to abandon this choice.

Choice 2: 12 groups of 4

This arrangement sees the 48 teams drawn into groups of four teams, similarly as we have now. Notwithstanding, 16 or 32 teams should emerge from the groups to create a decent knockout section. That implies it likely could be the main two teams from each group in addition to the eight best third-set teams, creating a series of 32. UEFA has utilized a comparable framework with third-put teams advancing to the knockout rounds for the last two European Titles.

The positive is it creates an ordinary group stage with twofold header final games, which can deliver extraordinary drama as we found in the 2022 version. There would be less danger with third-put teams to go through, however it feels a more normal framework for the World Cup. And all teams would get three games.

FIFA is considering two strategies:

1) 12 groups of 4 feeding through to one knockout section.
2) Two parts of 24 teams, creating 6 groups of 4 in each. The parts would meet up for the final.

They are practically the same, however with choice 2 you wouldn’t have the option to play a group from the other half until the final. Likewise, the general best eight third-put teams probably won’t go through, as every half would require four third-put teams to progress.

The draw pots would be marginally unique, and would likely return to the standard arrangement of hosts in Pot 1 alongside the highest level teams by FIFA ranking.

Pot 1: Mexico, United States, Canada, Brazil, Belgium, Argentina, France, England, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal

Pot 2:Germany, Croatia, Uruguay, Switzerland, Colombia, Senegal, Wales, Iran, Serbia, Morocco, Peru, Japan