2026 World Cup in North America: Step 1 - the host cities

[Ted Lange 16,406]

I’d guess the the bracket is assigned from the start.  I think it’s likely every host city gets 3 group matches.   I’ could see cities getting paired up, use Houston and Dallas for example.  Group A plays all 3 matches in Dallas, B in Houston.  The winner of A plays #2 in B in Dallas, then 1B v 2A in Houston.  The winners of those 2 matches play in either Houston or Dallas.   It’s pretty similar to regional setup in the NCAA tourney,   After that is done we are down to the elite 8. Where it’s likely to be the biggest or best bribes hosting. 

[cmontexas 3,367]

Weird having groups of 3. In group stage one team will be on 6 days rest vs a team on 3 days rest?

[Captain Ron 13,128]

4 hours ago, Napoleon said:

I was just ‘splaining dees to mi hermano, 32 teams will get 3 games, like now, while 16 teams get souvenirs & Continental Breakfasts.

16 groups of 3 nations

2 group games per nation

Top 2 teams from each group advance to “The Round of 32”, which starts a single elimination knockout tournament.

What we don’t know yet is whether trajectories are set for all teams from the start (most probable option single flights & hotels need to be set in a tournament over an entire continent), or whether a drawing will be held once the field is cut to 32… or 16. (Less probable due to horrible transportation infrastructure.)

At 48 teams, World Cups will either require multiple host countries or use stadiums in the 20K to 30K range… or both.

Even without Mexico & Canada, the USA hosting is on par with EUROPE or South America hosting the World Cup. From our population, to the NFL stadiums (not to mention college football stadiums), to our population and it’s international composition, no group of two or three countries can check off all of the ready-made advantages of the USA hosting a “modern World Cup” with the exception of stadium proximity/superior ease of transportation.

 

I don't see why they wouldn't. They match up the teams from each brackets now (A1 vs H2, B1 vs G2 .... etc) so why wouldn't they do that for a 48 team bracket?

 

26 minutes ago, cmontexas said:

Weird having groups of 3. In group stage one team will be on 6 days rest vs a team on 3 days rest?

Opens the door for shenanigans again

Day 1 - Team A beats team B by 1 goal

Day 2 - Team C beats team A by 3 goals

Day 3 - Teams C and B agree to a B win 1-0 and  both advance on GD (A -2, B 0, C +2)

That's just 1 scenario, there are clearly a lot more.

[Napoleon 8,822]

17 minutes ago, cmontexas said:

Weird having groups of 3. In group stage one team will be on 6 days rest vs a team on 3 days rest?

#1 Seed gets 1st & 3rd Match

#2 Seed gets 1st & 2nd Match(?)

#3 Seed gets 2nd & 3rd Match(?)

THOUGHT: Just thought about it more and a 48 team field could be:

12 groups of 4

Top 2 teams + 8 3rd place teams, but…

That would mean that the finalists & 3rd place game teams would play one more game each than any team in World Cup history. 
 

The rosters would have to remain at 26 players and 5 substitutes. No going back to 23 players & 3 subs, with only 18 dressed for the match.

32 Nation WC: 63 total matches

48 Nation WC w/Groups of 4: 103 total matches**

**1) I can’t imagine how many countries would have to pool resources to host 103 matches over 5-6 weeks.

**2) Now you’re entering Match Fatigue from a fan’s standpoint. Ticket Buyers & TV Viewers

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

I’m renting an RV and parking in front of [mention=134]Ldogg53[/mention]’s house. 
We’re going to asado like porteños.:
Vino tinto, carrrrrrrne… y un montón del sal, y nada más.
Puede ser…Fernet y Coke… y un kilo de Dulce De Leche por persona.

The one problem with your plan is Ldogg. He is the worst.

[MoJames 8,258]

Just now, Patricio Swayze said:

The one problem with your plan is Ldogg. He is the worst.

 

[Napoleon 8,822]

5 hours ago, Napoleon said:

…32 Nation WC: 63 total matches

48 Nation WC w/Groups of 4: 103 total matches**

MISTAKES WERE MADE…

32 Nation WC: 64 total matches

48 Nation WC w/Groups of 4: 104 total matches

-I forgot to count the 3rd place matches.

ACTUAL BID CALLED FOR 80 GAMES: 

This is achievable using the 16 Groups of 3 equation.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Napoleon

[WBT 20,966]

The final should be at the Rose Bowl and it should have been the Cotton Bowl over jerryworld.  Get off my lawn.

[LonghornSean 4,103]

Very long, but interesting idea on a new format for the 48 teams: https://www.natgoldc.com/2026 - 3-team groups where you don't play against the other two teams in your own group. Rather, group standings are based on results of the three games against another "paired group".

 

"Tl;dr: I think that by using a “paired groups” approach, FIFA can dramatically improve the format of its first 48-team World Cup. This change would also allow FIFA to award additional games to more US host cities, making FIFA more money, giving more fans access to the World Cup, and helping grow the game across more regions of the country."

Spoiler

Introduction

The 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup promises to be the greatest sporting spectacle of all time. What is already the biggest party in global sports is getting even bigger, with the tournament expanding from 32 to 48 teams for the first time. To accommodate the larger event, FIFA awarded joint hosting rights to the US, Mexico, and Canada, with the finalized host cities set to be announced this June.

The proposed format of the expanded tournament has been widely criticized for everything from skewing competitive advantage, reducing the guaranteed minimum number of games for each team, and even lending itself to collusion between teams in the final group stage match. In fact, the tournament’s Wikipedia page has a subsection devoted to criticism of the format. Let’s call this the 48-Team problem.

Is it too late to fix the format with host city decisions due so soon? Not at all – FIFA Vice President Victor Montagliani told The Times last month that the 2026 format could still be revamped specifically to address the possibility of collusion. Being close to an event hasn’t stopped FIFA from considering late changes before: just two weeks ago they added Vancouver to the mix of potential Canadian host cities, and just three years ago they were still probing the possibility of expanding this winter’s tournament in Qatar to 48 teams, a full eight years after hosting rights were awarded to the tiny nation for a 32-team event.

What’s more, by solving the 48-Team problem with a simple math concept, FIFA also has the opportunity to expand the number of host cities (and make tons more money in the process).

---

The 48-Team Problem

Here is the format FIFA has chosen to implement for its expanded 48-team World Cup:

• 16 groups of 3 teams

• Round-robin for each group

• Top 2 advance to Round of 32

 

Group A match-ups in a 3-team, round-robin format.

 

To put it gently, there are a lot of downsides to this format, but this Guardian piece does a good job of synthesizing its pros and cons. I’ve color coded them into distinct components that will define our criteria for an “ideal” tournament format.

 

 

All these pros focus on minimizing the additional burdens of the expanded event – on the organizers (green), on the global football calendar (purple), and on the players (orange). But even though the number of matches is listed first, the limiting conditions are really the tournament duration and player wellbeing, which require a delicate balance: you can shorten the tournament by cutting out rest between games, which would be unacceptable from a player health perspective, or you can reduce the load on players by adding more rest days, taking up the entire summer and wreaking havoc on football leagues around the world.

In my view, as long as a tournament format protects players’ health and fits within the existing World Cup calendar window, the limiting factor on number of matches is the host nation(s) ability to accommodate the additional matches without diluting the quality of the event. In the particular case of the US, where we have more high-quality candidate cities than host city slots available, this is not an issue at all.

This gives us our first three Ideal Tournament Criteria:

🗓 Fits within the existing World Cup calendar window

⛑ Protects players’ health

🏟 Adds no more extra matches than the host nation(s) can successfully accommodate

 

 

The first downside is very straightforward: some teams will fly halfway across the globe to participate in the World Cup and only play two matches, down from the current guarantee of at least three games per team.

The second requires a little unpacking. Half the group stage games involving seeded teams will be against relative minnows that wouldn’t have qualified under the current 32-team format, but the reason this matters is that it dilutes the entertainment value of the tournament. I believe fans would rather watch clashes between big teams, closely contested games, and drama that lasts all the way to the final whistle of the group stage than a bunch of lopsided scorelines. Reducing the entertainment value of the tournament would also hurt FIFA financially in the long term.

The third is a consequence of applying a round-robin format to an odd number of teams, which requires one team to sit out each matchday. These de facto “bye rounds” create an inherent physical disadvantage through uneven rest periods, and, coupled with the fact that two teams advance from each group, it opens the door to collusion between the two teams playing the final group stage match, since they will always go into that game knowing exactly what result each of them needs to qualify. Both the inherent disadvantages and the incentive to collude undermine the sporting integrity of the competition.

An ideal format would not have any of these cons, so let’s add three more Ideal Tournament Criteria:

3️⃣ Guarantees at least 3 games per team

📣 Prioritizes entertainment value

⚖️ Preserves sporting integrity

As a final note, I also think it’s important that decisions about which teams advance from the group stage are made on equal merits (i.e. apples to apples comparisons). That’s why I don’t like the “X best 3rd place teams advance” format in use at the Euros and the 2019 Women’s World Cup, which compares teams on their point totals after playing in different groups against completely different opponents. While it may be a necessary evil in some cases, an ideal tournament should avoid it, so I’ll add that as a final constraint in our Ideal Tournament Criteria:

🍎 Uses apples to apples comparisons

Here are our seven Ideal Tournament Criteria after putting everything together:

⚖️ Preserves competitive integrity

📣 Prioritizes entertainment value

3️⃣ Guarantees at least 3 games per team

🍎 Uses apples to apples comparisons

🗓 Fits within the existing World Cup calendar window

⛑ Protects players’ health

🏟 Adds no more extra matches than the host nation(s) can successfully accommodate

Paired Groups Format

To solve the downsides of using a round-robin format on groups with an odd number of teams, we could make the groups even-numbered, like the current standard of 4 teams per group in major international competitions. But the problem with 12 groups of 4 is that 12 is not a bracket-friendly friendly number (i.e. a power of 2), forcing us into “X best 3rd places” territory. In order to get a bracket-friendly number of groups with an even number of teams, we would need 8 groups of 6, lengthening the group stage significantly to 5 matchdays and increasing strain on players.

My suggestion is that FIFA should keep the 16 groups of 3, since 16 is already a bracket-friendly number. However, instead of using a round-robin within each group, they should create “Paired Groups” whose teams play their stage matches across groups.

Basically, instead of playing the teams in their own group, all the teams in a group would play against the teams in their Paired Group, then be ranked against their own group based on their performance.

This idea relies on the basic set theory concept of bijection, a fancy word for pairing elements of one set with elements of another set in a way that creates a one-to-one correspondence between them (see image for visualization).

In the World Cup case, we pair all the elements in one set (the teams in a group) with an equal number of elements in another set (the teams in the paired group), creating a one-to-one correspondence between elements (games) that eliminates “bye rounds” and comes with a whole bunch of other benefits.

 

Here’s a concrete example of how a Paired Group would work:

• USA is pre-seeded as A1 in Group A, along with non-seeded teams A2 and A3.

• Group A is “paired” with Group B, consisting of seeded team B1 and non-seeded teams B2 and B3.

• Every group stage matchday is composed of a different bijection of Group A to Group B (see first graphic below).

• Qualification to the Round of 32 is determined by a team’s standing in their own group table (see second graphic below).

• Group A sends its teams to one side of the knockout bracket.

• Group B sends its teams to the opposite side of the bracket as Group A to prevent teams that already played each other from meeting again until the final.

This solution is similar to one favored by this 2018 NYT op-ed, except that one eliminates the Round of 32, adds the possibility that some groups could have zero teams qualify to the knockouts, extends the tournament by a few days, and doesn’t provide an example of what the calendar or bracket pathway would look like.

 

Here’s how a Paired Groups approach meets our Ideal Tournament Criteria:

⚖️Preserves competitive integrity: Since every team has an opponent every matchday, we’ve eliminated “bye rounds” and disparities in rest days. With simultaneous games on the final matchday, we also minimize the risk of collusion.

📣Prioritizes entertainment value: Every Paired Group will feature a clash between seeded teams, bringing the number of top-16 games from zero under the round-robin format to eight under the Paired Group approach. The competitive balance will also be higher across the board, with every team playing a seeded team, an intermediate team, and a minnow in the group stage, giving everyone good opportunities to pick up points. As mentioned above, simultaneous “decision day” style matches on the final matchday can also increase drama. Finally, based on the new allocation of teams that each confederation will send to the World Cup, we’ll even get to see some intra-continental derbies and rivalries on the global stage.

3️⃣Guarantees at least 3 games per team: Every team plays the three teams in their paired group. Easy!

🍎Uses apples to apples comparisons: Every team in a group will have played the exact same set of opponents, so qualification to the knockout rounds is decided on equal footing.

🗓 Fits within the existing World Cup calendar window: The tournament can be played in 32 days, exactly the same length as Russia 2018 and Brazil 2014 (see calendar below).

⛑ Protects players’ health: Every team gets a minimum of 3 rest days between matches (except for the 3rd place match, which has been standard in the past but honestly should probably be scrapped altogether). Only the two finalists will play 8 competitive matches across 32 days, which is the same days-per-match ratio that awaits the finalists in Qatar 2022.

🏟 Adds no more extra matches than the host nation(s) can successfully accommodate: The Paired Groups format clocks in at 104 total matches, which represents a 24-match increase from the current plans of 80 matches. But given the high level of interest in hosting from so many US cities, this shouldn’t be an issue at all.

In fact, a format with more games could actually solve another 2026 headache for FIFA…

---

Bonus: The Host City Headache

Although the 2026 host countries were chosen back in 2018, we still don’t know which US cities will be the ones to host matches because the venue selection process has been plagued by pandemic-induced delays. One thing we do know is that only about 10 of the 17 US cities that bid to host games are expected to make the final cut, meaning some top-class venues and markets will miss out on hosting because there simply aren’t enough games to go around.

For FIFA, not having more games in high-quality host cities represents a massive opportunity cost for additional revenue, something they generally try to avoid; for US Soccer, it represents a missed once-in-a-generation opportunity to help grow the beautiful game in every corner of the country. And while some host city bids did have serious structural issues, basically every major American city has the necessary infrastructure (stadiums, airports, hotels, etc.) to host the World Cup and to do it really well.

Take Denver, for example, which Grant Wahl’s reporting says is unlikely to land games at the moment. Its metro area has a larger population (2.96 million) than the entire country of Qatar (2.88 million), its 76,000-seater NFL stadium opened this century, its airport ranks in the top 5 nationally for passenger traffic, it boasts more than 50,000 “first-class” hotel rooms, and its location in the Mountain timezone could be good for scheduling and breaking up trans-continental travel.

Denver would put on an awesome event, but my broader point is that so would Nashville, Orlando, Kansas City, and virtually every remaining bid city. If FIFA finds a way to put on more games to award to more cities, they’ll make boatloads more money.

How does the Paired Groups format fix this headache?

Right now, the plan is for an 80-game tournament with 60 games in the US and 10 games each in Mexico and Canada.

Assuming 10 US cities are selected, the average US hosting rate will be (60 games ÷ 10 cities) = 6 games per city.

The Paired Groups format gives us a 104-game tournament – a total increase of 24 games. Based on the hosting rate, that would open up additional host city slots for (24 games ÷ 6 games per city) = 4 cities. Great news for Boston and Seattle!

 

And in addition to spreading World Cup cheer to more regions of the US, how big is the financial upside of staging 24 more matches for FIFA? Without taking into account that more games present opportunities for more sponsor activations and more TV slots, the ticket revenue potential is already huge.

I think the estimates below are conservative; based on the relative wealth of the US population and the size of US stadiums and markets, I would be shocked if the median ticket prices and average game attendances at the 2026 World Cup aren’t higher than in Qatar and Russia, respectively. Even under these estimates, the additional ticketing revenue for FIFA could be as high as $180 million. (Remember, the World Cup’s financial model is that the hosts pay for everything and FIFA takes all the direct revenue.)

 

 

---

Conclusions

• A Paired Groups approach for a 48-Team World Cup meets all of our Ideal Tournament Criteria and represents a huge improvement over FIFA’s planned format for 2026.

• A Paired Groups approach also grants FIFA the opportunity to stage 24 additional, lucrative matches and award hosting rights to at least 4 more US cities.

• While it may be difficult for other countries to emulate the 104-game format in future iterations of the tournament, I think it would encourage more joint hosting bids, which I see as a net positive because it spreads the joy and the costs of the World Cup among more countries.

---

Paired Groups Example:
Teams, Pots, Groups, Schedule, and Bracket

Below is a full accounting of what a Paired Groups format would look like in practice, from qualification all the way to the bracket path for every single team. Most of the graphics should be pretty straightforward with the help of a few notes:

Qualified Teams & Draw Pots: Both of these were determined by the number of qualifying slots from each confederation and the March 2022 FIFA Ranking (e.g. since UEFA has 16 slots, I chose the top 16 ranked UEFA teams). There’s also the new addition of an intercontinental mini tournament that will decide the final two slots; for these I chose the next highest-ranked teams from Concacaf and CONMEBOL just because the tournament takes place in the Americas.

Draw Constraints: There were three constraints in sorting the groups.

1. Regardless of their FIFA Ranking, all three hosts are pre-seeded into their exact positions, along with the top-ranked team in the world, to keep them in separate bracket quadrants and prevent them from meeting until the semifinals.

2. There is exactly one UEFA team in each group. 

3. UEFA and CAF are the only confederations that can have two (but no more) teams in a Paired Group, since both confederations have more than 8 qualified teams.

Group Organization: I employed a couple different organizing mechanisms to better visualize the Paired Groups and bracket pathways. 

• 16 Groups: A through O

• 8 Paired Groups: A/B, C/D, E/F, G/H, I/J, K/L, M/N, O/P

• 4 Colors: Blue (A through D), Green (E through H), Red (I through L), Yellow (M through O)

• 2 Rows: Top (A through H) and Bottom (I through O)

• 2 Shades: Dark (A, C, E, G, J, L, N, P) and Light (B, D, F, H, I, K, M, O)

Bracket Organization: After the Group Stage, which side of the bracket a team goes to is determined by their Shade, resulting in a Dark side of the bracket and a Light side of the bracket.

• In the Rounds of 32 and 16, teams play against the same Color and Shade

• In the Quarterfinals, teams play against the same Shade and Row

• In the Semifinals, teams play against the same Shade and opposite Row

• In the Final, teams finally play against the opposite Shade

• This set-up keeps the hosts and the top-ranked team in the world apart until the Semifinals

• It also keeps Group Stage opponents apart until the Final

 

 

 

 

Sample Bracket

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by LonghornSean

[Ted Lange 16,406]

That was interesting, I wouldn’t be opposed to the paired groups. 

[Ted Lange 16,406]

Quick vid ahead of tonight’s U20 championship vs DR. Match is on FS1 at 7 CST 

 

 

[Scary Stranger 1,724]

Very long, but interesting idea on a new format for the 48 teams: https://www.natgoldc.com/2026 - 3-team groups where you don't play against the other two teams in your own group. Rather, group standings are based on results of the three games against another "paired group".
 
"Tl;dr: I think that by using a “paired groups” approach, FIFA can dramatically improve the format of its first 48-team World Cup. This change would also allow FIFA to award additional games to more US host cities, making FIFA more money, giving more fans access to the World Cup, and helping grow the game across more regions of the country."
Spoiler

Introduction

The 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup promises to be the greatest sporting spectacle of all time. What is already the biggest party in global sports is getting even bigger, with the tournament expanding from 32 to 48 teams for the first time. To accommodate the larger event, FIFA awarded joint hosting rights to the US, Mexico, and Canada, with the finalized host cities set to be announced this June.

The proposed format of the expanded tournament has been widely criticized for everything from skewing competitive advantage, reducing the guaranteed minimum number of games for each team, and even lending itself to collusion between teams in the final group stage match. In fact, the tournament’s Wikipedia page has a subsection devoted to criticism of the format. Let’s call this the 48-Team problem.

Is it too late to fix the format with host city decisions due so soon? Not at all – FIFA Vice President Victor Montagliani told The Times last month that the 2026 format could still be revamped specifically to address the possibility of collusion. Being close to an event hasn’t stopped FIFA from considering late changes before: just two weeks ago they added Vancouver to the mix of potential Canadian host cities, and just three years ago they were still probing the possibility of expanding this winter’s tournament in Qatar to 48 teams, a full eight years after hosting rights were awarded to the tiny nation for a 32-team event.

What’s more, by solving the 48-Team problem with a simple math concept, FIFA also has the opportunity to expand the number of host cities (and make tons more money in the process).

---

The 48-Team Problem

Here is the format FIFA has chosen to implement for its expanded 48-team World Cup:

• 16 groups of 3 teams

• Round-robin for each group

• Top 2 advance to Round of 32

  Group A match-ups in a 3-team, round-robin format.
 

To put it gently, there are a lot of downsides to this format, but this Guardian piece does a good job of synthesizing its pros and cons. I’ve color coded them into distinct components that will define our criteria for an “ideal” tournament format.

   

All these pros focus on minimizing the additional burdens of the expanded event – on the organizers (green), on the global football calendar (purple), and on the players (orange). But even though the number of matches is listed first, the limiting conditions are really the tournament duration and player wellbeing, which require a delicate balance: you can shorten the tournament by cutting out rest between games, which would be unacceptable from a player health perspective, or you can reduce the load on players by adding more rest days, taking up the entire summer and wreaking havoc on football leagues around the world.

In my view, as long as a tournament format protects players’ health and fits within the existing World Cup calendar window, the limiting factor on number of matches is the host nation(s) ability to accommodate the additional matches without diluting the quality of the event. In the particular case of the US, where we have more high-quality candidate cities than host city slots available, this is not an issue at all.

This gives us our first three Ideal Tournament Criteria:

Fits within the existing World Cup calendar window

Protects players’ health

Adds no more extra matches than the host nation(s) can successfully accommodate

   

The first downside is very straightforward: some teams will fly halfway across the globe to participate in the World Cup and only play two matches, down from the current guarantee of at least three games per team.

The second requires a little unpacking. Half the group stage games involving seeded teams will be against relative minnows that wouldn’t have qualified under the current 32-team format, but the reason this matters is that it dilutes the entertainment value of the tournament. I believe fans would rather watch clashes between big teams, closely contested games, and drama that lasts all the way to the final whistle of the group stage than a bunch of lopsided scorelines. Reducing the entertainment value of the tournament would also hurt FIFA financially in the long term.

The third is a consequence of applying a round-robin format to an odd number of teams, which requires one team to sit out each matchday. These de facto “bye rounds” create an inherent physical disadvantage through uneven rest periods, and, coupled with the fact that two teams advance from each group, it opens the door to collusion between the two teams playing the final group stage match, since they will always go into that game knowing exactly what result each of them needs to qualify. Both the inherent disadvantages and the incentive to collude undermine the sporting integrity of the competition.

An ideal format would not have any of these cons, so let’s add three more Ideal Tournament Criteria:

Guarantees at least 3 games per team

Prioritizes entertainment value

Preserves sporting integrity

As a final note, I also think it’s important that decisions about which teams advance from the group stage are made on equal merits (i.e. apples to apples comparisons). That’s why I don’t like the “X best 3rd place teams advance” format in use at the Euros and the 2019 Women’s World Cup, which compares teams on their point totals after playing in different groups against completely different opponents. While it may be a necessary evil in some cases, an ideal tournament should avoid it, so I’ll add that as a final constraint in our Ideal Tournament Criteria:

Uses apples to apples comparisons

Here are our seven Ideal Tournament Criteria after putting everything together:

Preserves competitive integrity

Prioritizes entertainment value

Guarantees at least 3 games per team

Uses apples to apples comparisons

Fits within the existing World Cup calendar window

Protects players’ health

Adds no more extra matches than the host nation(s) can successfully accommodate

Paired Groups Format

To solve the downsides of using a round-robin format on groups with an odd number of teams, we could make the groups even-numbered, like the current standard of 4 teams per group in major international competitions. But the problem with 12 groups of 4 is that 12 is not a bracket-friendly friendly number (i.e. a power of 2), forcing us into “X best 3rd places” territory. In order to get a bracket-friendly number of groups with an even number of teams, we would need 8 groups of 6, lengthening the group stage significantly to 5 matchdays and increasing strain on players.

My suggestion is that FIFA should keep the 16 groups of 3, since 16 is already a bracket-friendly number. However, instead of using a round-robin within each group, they should create “Paired Groups” whose teams play their stage matches across groups.

Basically, instead of playing the teams in their own group, all the teams in a group would play against the teams in their Paired Group, then be ranked against their own group based on their performance.

This idea relies on the basic set theory concept of bijection, a fancy word for pairing elements of one set with elements of another set in a way that creates a one-to-one correspondence between them (see image for visualization).

In the World Cup case, we pair all the elements in one set (the teams in a group) with an equal number of elements in another set (the teams in the paired group), creating a one-to-one correspondence between elements (games) that eliminates “bye rounds” and comes with a whole bunch of other benefits.

  Here’s a concrete example of how a Paired Group would work:

• USA is pre-seeded as A1 in Group A, along with non-seeded teams A2 and A3.

• Group A is “paired” with Group B, consisting of seeded team B1 and non-seeded teams B2 and B3.

• Every group stage matchday is composed of a different bijection of Group A to Group B (see first graphic below).

• Qualification to the Round of 32 is determined by a team’s standing in their own group table (see second graphic below).

• Group A sends its teams to one side of the knockout bracket.

• Group B sends its teams to the opposite side of the bracket as Group A to prevent teams that already played each other from meeting again until the final.

This solution is similar to one favored by this 2018 NYT op-ed, except that one eliminates the Round of 32, adds the possibility that some groups could have zero teams qualify to the knockouts, extends the tournament by a few days, and doesn’t provide an example of what the calendar or bracket pathway would look like.

 

Here’s how a Paired Groups approach meets our Ideal Tournament Criteria:

Preserves competitive integrity: Since every team has an opponent every matchday, we’ve eliminated “bye rounds” and disparities in rest days. With simultaneous games on the final matchday, we also minimize the risk of collusion.

Prioritizes entertainment value: Every Paired Group will feature a clash between seeded teams, bringing the number of top-16 games from zero under the round-robin format to eight under the Paired Group approach. The competitive balance will also be higher across the board, with every team playing a seeded team, an intermediate team, and a minnow in the group stage, giving everyone good opportunities to pick up points. As mentioned above, simultaneous “decision day” style matches on the final matchday can also increase drama. Finally, based on the new allocation of teams that each confederation will send to the World Cup, we’ll even get to see some intra-continental derbies and rivalries on the global stage.

Guarantees at least 3 games per team: Every team plays the three teams in their paired group. Easy!

Uses apples to apples comparisons: Every team in a group will have played the exact same set of opponents, so qualification to the knockout rounds is decided on equal footing.

Fits within the existing World Cup calendar window: The tournament can be played in 32 days, exactly the same length as Russia 2018 and Brazil 2014 (see calendar below).

Protects players’ health: Every team gets a minimum of 3 rest days between matches (except for the 3rd place match, which has been standard in the past but honestly should probably be scrapped altogether). Only the two finalists will play 8 competitive matches across 32 days, which is the same days-per-match ratio that awaits the finalists in Qatar 2022.

Adds no more extra matches than the host nation(s) can successfully accommodate: The Paired Groups format clocks in at 104 total matches, which represents a 24-match increase from the current plans of 80 matches. But given the high level of interest in hosting from so many US cities, this shouldn’t be an issue at all.

In fact, a format with more games could actually solve another 2026 headache for FIFA…

---

Bonus: The Host City Headache

Although the 2026 host countries were chosen back in 2018, we still don’t know which US cities will be the ones to host matches because the venue selection process has been plagued by pandemic-induced delays. One thing we do know is that only about 10 of the 17 US cities that bid to host games are expected to make the final cut, meaning some top-class venues and markets will miss out on hosting because there simply aren’t enough games to go around.

For FIFA, not having more games in high-quality host cities represents a massive opportunity cost for additional revenue, something they generally try to avoid; for US Soccer, it represents a missed once-in-a-generation opportunity to help grow the beautiful game in every corner of the country. And while some host city bids did have serious structural issues, basically every major American city has the necessary infrastructure (stadiums, airports, hotels, etc.) to host the World Cup and to do it really well.

Take Denver, for example, which Grant Wahl’s reporting says is unlikely to land games at the moment. Its metro area has a larger population (2.96 million) than the entire country of Qatar (2.88 million), its 76,000-seater NFL stadium opened this century, its airport ranks in the top 5 nationally for passenger traffic, it boasts more than 50,000 “first-class” hotel rooms, and its location in the Mountain timezone could be good for scheduling and breaking up trans-continental travel.

Denver would put on an awesome event, but my broader point is that so would Nashville, Orlando, Kansas City, and virtually every remaining bid city. If FIFA finds a way to put on more games to award to more cities, they’ll make boatloads more money.

How does the Paired Groups format fix this headache?

Right now, the plan is for an 80-game tournament with 60 games in the US and 10 games each in Mexico and Canada.

Assuming 10 US cities are selected, the average US hosting rate will be (60 games ÷ 10 cities) = 6 games per city.

The Paired Groups format gives us a 104-game tournament – a total increase of 24 games. Based on the hosting rate, that would open up additional host city slots for (24 games ÷ 6 games per city) = 4 cities. Great news for Boston and Seattle!

 

And in addition to spreading World Cup cheer to more regions of the US, how big is the financial upside of staging 24 more matches for FIFA? Without taking into account that more games present opportunities for more sponsor activations and more TV slots, the ticket revenue potential is already huge.

I think the estimates below are conservative; based on the relative wealth of the US population and the size of US stadiums and markets, I would be shocked if the median ticket prices and average game attendances at the 2026 World Cup aren’t higher than in Qatar and Russia, respectively. Even under these estimates, the additional ticketing revenue for FIFA could be as high as $180 million. (Remember, the World Cup’s financial model is that the hosts pay for everything and FIFA takes all the direct revenue.)

   

---

Conclusions

• A Paired Groups approach for a 48-Team World Cup meets all of our Ideal Tournament Criteria and represents a huge improvement over FIFA’s planned format for 2026.

• A Paired Groups approach also grants FIFA the opportunity to stage 24 additional, lucrative matches and award hosting rights to at least 4 more US cities.

• While it may be difficult for other countries to emulate the 104-game format in future iterations of the tournament, I think it would encourage more joint hosting bids, which I see as a net positive because it spreads the joy and the costs of the World Cup among more countries.

---

Paired Groups Example:
Teams, Pots, Groups, Schedule, and Bracket

Below is a full accounting of what a Paired Groups format would look like in practice, from qualification all the way to the bracket path for every single team. Most of the graphics should be pretty straightforward with the help of a few notes:

Qualified Teams & Draw Pots: Both of these were determined by the number of qualifying slots from each confederation and the March 2022 FIFA Ranking (e.g. since UEFA has 16 slots, I chose the top 16 ranked UEFA teams). There’s also the new addition of an intercontinental mini tournament that will decide the final two slots; for these I chose the next highest-ranked teams from Concacaf and CONMEBOL just because the tournament takes place in the Americas.

Draw Constraints: There were three constraints in sorting the groups.

1. Regardless of their FIFA Ranking, all three hosts are pre-seeded into their exact positions, along with the top-ranked team in the world, to keep them in separate bracket quadrants and prevent them from meeting until the semifinals.

2. There is exactly one UEFA team in each group. 

3. UEFA and CAF are the only confederations that can have two (but no more) teams in a Paired Group, since both confederations have more than 8 qualified teams.

Group Organization: I employed a couple different organizing mechanisms to better visualize the Paired Groups and bracket pathways. 

• 16 Groups: A through O

• 8 Paired Groups: A/B, C/D, E/F, G/H, I/J, K/L, M/N, O/P

• 4 Colors: Blue (A through D), Green (E through H), Red (I through L), Yellow (M through O)

• 2 Rows: Top (A through H) and Bottom (I through O)

• 2 Shades: Dark (A, C, E, G, J, L, N, P) and Light (B, D, F, H, I, K, M, O)

Bracket Organization: After the Group Stage, which side of the bracket a team goes to is determined by their Shade, resulting in a Dark side of the bracket and a Light side of the bracket.

• In the Rounds of 32 and 16, teams play against the same Color and Shade

• In the Quarterfinals, teams play against the same Shade and Row

• In the Semifinals, teams play against the same Shade and opposite Row

• In the Final, teams finally play against the opposite Shade

• This set-up keeps the hosts and the top-ranked team in the world apart until the Semifinals

• It also keeps Group Stage opponents apart until the Final

     

 

Sample Bracket

 

Yeah. I’m not reading all that. Can you sum that up for me in gif form, please?

[WBT 20,966]

For paired groups, what happens when every Group A team wins all of their games 1-0?

[Captain Ron 13,128]

So we're going to get to serve beer, right?

[Pato del Muerto 53,451]

1 hour ago, WBT said:

For paired groups, what happens when every Group A team wins all of their games 1-0?

Even better, the group they are paired with would have 2 teams with zero points and -3 gd advance. 
 

you'd probably have to choose an arbitrary metric as a proxy for competitiveness like shots on goal or possession time. 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Pato del Muerto

[Ted Lange 16,406]

4 hours ago, WBT said:

For paired groups, what happens when every Group A team wins all of their games 1-0?

The same as if a meteor hits one of the teams in a 3 team group.  

[mdmost 43,946]

Horrible decision if true.

 

[Trey3216 15,452]

20 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Horrible decision if true.

 

It was almost guaranteed to be at SoFi or Jerruhworld…because $$ 

[Captain Ron 13,128]

I mean if anyone is going to make the biggest bribe …

 

[dogbreath 440]

Having worked several gold cup games at Jerryworld, this is horrible but unsurprising from a group that would host a WC in Qatar.  
 

Not a fan of jerryworld to see games. It was better to hang in standing area to watch games at final four than sit in our seats. Best time there was S16 when KU lost to Michigan and afterwards the KU dads were crying on the way back to the parking lot while their kids were skipping around just glad for the experience. 
 

Saw US v Argentina at NRG stadium and it was so much better for watching the game. Too bad spectators viewing angles don’t matter in the decision. 

[Trey3216 15,452]

8 minutes ago, dogbreath said:

Having worked several gold cup games at Jerryworld, this is horrible but unsurprising from a group that would host a WC in Qatar.  
 

Not a fan of jerryworld to see games. It was better to hang in standing area to watch games at final four than sit in our seats. Best time there was S16 when KU lost to Michigan and afterwards the KU dads were crying on the way back to the parking lot while their kids were skipping around just glad for the experience. 
 

Saw US v Argentina at NRG stadium and it was so much better for watching the game. Too bad spectators viewing angles don’t matter in the decision. 

It’s about #of suites & butts in seats.  Place is an atm.  That’s the only thing that matters and we all know it 

[C-Man 27,777]

50 minutes ago, dogbreath said:

Having worked several gold cup games at Jerryworld, this is horrible but unsurprising from a group that would host a WC in Qatar.  
 

Not a fan of jerryworld to see games. It was better to hang in standing area to watch games at final four than sit in our seats. Best time there was S16 when KU lost to Michigan and afterwards the KU dads were crying on the way back to the parking lot while their kids were skipping around just glad for the experience. 
 

Saw US v Argentina at NRG stadium and it was so much better for watching the game. Too bad spectators viewing angles don’t matter in the decision. 

Sorry, didn't read this right at first. Caught US-Panama in Gold Cup match a few years back and it wasn't bad. Hard to compare college hoops at Jerryworld to soccer, though. Still can't believe it isn't SoFi. They won't have option of opening the roof in mid/late July in Arlington.

Edited September 27, 2022 by C-Man

[Captain Ron 13,128]

Step 2 - the format

 

 

[SimonBolivar 11,062]

41 minutes ago, Captain Ron said:

Step 2 - the format

 

 

Thank God, that groups of 3 looked terrible. 

[YGIFS 19,458]

Yeah, it's the least shitty of the new scenarios.  I think the "game of thrones" producers were behind it at one point.  

[Captain Ron 13,128]

I get why they wanted more groups to take away the ties, but frankly groups of 3 are far worse than tie breakers for 3rd place teams.

[Hagbard Celine 11,215]

every studied scenario with groups of 3 has some possibility of collusion - it can't be done fairly

this is the best news we could have hoped for - the round of 32 will be wild

[Captain Ron 13,128]

A. Can we get the title of this thread changed to be more general? Say something more about pre tournament talk? Silly to start a new thread when this one already exists .

 

B. Logo is out, whatever:

C. So I was looking at timelines this week:

2022 - announced the match & venue schedule July 2020

2018 - announced the schedule June 2015

2014 - announced the schedule September 2011

I didn’t find anything for 2010.

 So 2022 was odd because they made a later decision for the winter WC, it pushes their timetable off, schedule was released 2 years 4 months before the event.

But the last two summer WCs saw the schedules released about 3 years ahead of the event (3y1m and 2y11m). So right in this timeframe for 2026. Sure, they need to figure in the new format, but they probably want to get the hype train going soon I would think. 

[YGIFS 19,458]

Good to see the title card producers behind "The Electric Company" & "The Great Space Coaster" are still getting work.  I guess?  

[Napoleon 8,822]

4 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Good to see the title card producers behind "The Electric Company" & "The Great Space Coaster" are still getting work.  I guess?  

Either that, or someone fed A.I. a ton of 1970s graphics as examples. 

[Dr Fear 1,290]

That reveal deserved a bizarre south American/European musical performance.

[YGIFS 19,458]

3 hours ago, Napoleon said:

Either that, or someone fed A.I. a ton of 1970s graphics as examples. 

ChatGPT’73?  Yeah you know me. 

[The Dog 44,854]

 

[Dr Fear 1,290]

 

This is excellent.

[Captain Ron 13,128]

20 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

But Canada is America’s hat…

[Captain Ron 13,128]

SoFi stadium is out as a stadium for the World Cup. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12640311/SoFi-Stadium-NOT-2026-World-Cup-venue-Stan-Kroenke-MetLife.html

Kroenke is a real dumbass.

[Napoleon 8,822]

Smart move by Kroenke.

You almost wonder if this was intentional. This way he has an excuse NOT to turn over complete control of his stadium to FIFA. 

From the link:

“according to Sutcliffe, who added that FIFA plans to take full control of the stadiums, including the boxes and suites.”

Ummm… fuck that! I would not trust FIFA with my $5B stadium.

[tx 3 putt 78,668]

[tx 3 putt 78,668]

Design problem …..

'A source told me that they are 90 percent sure that SoFi Stadium, the most expensive stadium in the world, has a design problem.'

Sutcliffe claimed that FIFA's issue with the stadium is that its field is not wide enough to accommodate a soccer pitch for an official tournament game

[YGIFS 19,458]

You'd think they'd measure that shit during the bid process, no?  REminds me of the Bin Laden/tape measure story on the aircraft carrier.

[Zepol87 9,340]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

Yep Jerry won’t give a fuck. He will whore that whole place out then die. 

[tx 3 putt 78,668]

2 minutes ago, Zepol87 said:

Yep Jerry won’t give a fuck. He will whore that whole place out then die. 

he built jerrah world to host a World Cup 

[Pato del Muerto 53,451]

4 minutes ago, Zepol87 said:

then die. 

Deal

[Dutch 4,576]

10 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Design problem …..

'A source told me that they are 90 percent sure that SoFi Stadium, the most expensive stadium in the world, has a design problem.'

Sutcliffe claimed that FIFA's issue with the stadium is that its field is not wide enough to accommodate a soccer pitch for an official tournament game

So no one bothered to notice during the entire bid process until just now that SoFi's dimensions aren't wide enough for soccer pitch? Maybe.  But, as always, I'm guessing the real answer to the question/problem is money. Specifically, how the massive pot of revenue will get split.

"The Athletic has been told that FIFA officials have been surprised by the tenacity of U.S. cities and stadium owners during discussions, and they are experiencing a very different dynamic to the relationship they experienced for the 2022 tournament in Qatar.

"In Qatar, the perception among many observers was that the Gulf state craved the prestige and privilege of hosting a tournament, with the state bearing the costs of a project estimated to have cost over $200bn. Now, however, FIFA is negotiating with local cities and businessmen who are seeking to run sustainable operations and fighting a harder bargain."

https://theathletic.com/4882751/2023/09/21/world-cup-2026-kroenkes-sofi-fifa/

9 hours ago, Zepol87 said:

Yep Jerry won’t give a fuck. He will whore that whole place out then die. 

100%. Jerrah will whore himself out with zero fucks given. No doubt he'll cram a bunch of erecter set bleachers into every nook and cranny of the stadjum again.

[Captain Ron 13,128]

My guess would be that this is the real issue:

11 hours ago, Napoleon said:

Smart move by Kroenke.

You almost wonder if this was intentional. This way he has an excuse NOT to turn over complete control of his stadium to FIFA. 

From the link:

“according to Sutcliffe, who added that FIFA plans to take full control of the stadiums, including the boxes and suites.”

Ummm… fuck that! I would not trust FIFA with my $5B stadium.

 

And this is how FIFA gets an excuse to get out of it:

11 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Design problem …..

'A source told me that they are 90 percent sure that SoFi Stadium, the most expensive stadium in the world, has a design problem.'

Sutcliffe claimed that FIFA's issue with the stadium is that its field is not wide enough to accommodate a soccer pitch for an official tournament game

 

In the end, these guys should have understood the agreement they are getting into. Thinking he could change it after the fact shows how foolish Kroenke is.

 

 

 

[mdmost 43,946]

The Rose Bowl is right there but I guess it doesn't have enough creature comforts to tickle the balls of FIFA people. So naturally we're going to put the match in Vegas since games in deserts are FIFA's new fetish. 

Edited October 19, 2023 by mdmost

[YGIFS 19,458]

Las Vegas Raiders?

Sand people?

Tusken Raiders?

I think I smell a marketing opportunity here.  

[Napoleon 8,822]

6 hours ago, mdmost said:

The Rose Bowl is right there but I guess it doesn't have enough creature comforts to tickle the balls of FIFA people. So naturally we're going to put the match in Vegas since games in deserts are FIFA's new fetish. 

As Max Bretos said a year and a half ago…

”People coming from abroad want to go to:

Disney World (Orlando)

Miami

Las Vegas

…and maybe NYC/LA.”

 

I think that Vegas was originally not included as a host stadium, but this gives them an opportunity to move into LA’s spot. 

No one wants to go to Dallas (Arlington), Houston, Atlanta, Boston, Kansas City, Philadelphia, or Seattle.

Maybe some people still want to go to San Francisco and Napa/Sonoma, but the stadium is at the other end of The Bay from those places. 

The fans would love for the final to be in Las Vegas. The the location is across The 15 from The Strip. You can fucking see the casinos from the stadium and vice versa. There is great transportation to go that short way. 

Vegas is perfect for the World Cup, and especially the final, but it won’t happen. If they hosted the final, people would stay up all night on coke, meth, ecstasy, Adderall, sativa… whatever and then rage at the game. 

Kroenke is not Jerry Jones. He doesn’t crave the World Cup, and especially the final, like Jerry does. 
 

Jerry World is in such a dead location… it’s such an awful place to host the final, but so is Northern New Jersey.

[Surly Bevo 25,717]

Jerryworld is more than adequate if you plan to helicopter in and out like all the FIFA fuckstick decision makers who have such a history of showing care and concern for the common fan experience will be doing.

[Jive Turkey 12,993]

No official announcement yet, but all reports out of Europe indicate that FIFA has selected AT&T Stadium in Arlington to be the venue for the 2026 World Cup final. And FIFA will use Dallas as its home base for the tournament. This is monstrous.

 

Edited January 18 by Jive Turkey