Matches Exposing the Flaws of the 48-Team World Cup

A total of 72 matches are needed in the current World Cup to reduce the number of teams from 48 to 32. So far, the tournament has lacked a true element of risk in the group stage, as noted by the BBC in an analysis dedicated to the new format.

Of course, South Korea might disagree, especially after their shocking 1-0 loss to South Africa on Wednesday sent "Bafana Bafana" into the knockout phase for the first time in their history. However, the risk is limited, as South Korea still has a very strong chance of reaching the Round of 32 as one of the eight best third-placed teams. Three points and a goal difference of -1 would likely be sufficient.

However, if the loss to South Africa had occurred at the 2022 World Cup, where only the top two teams from each group advanced, South Korea would already be on their way home.

The inclusion of third-placed teams advancing is a necessary feature of this new format to ensure 32 teams in the knockout stages. However, this has created additional scenarios where teams might play for specific results to qualify or, in effect, choose their opponents.

Two matches this week have become a real test for the format. The first of these has already led to a convenient draw that should send both teams through.

Expanding the World Cup to 48 teams always presented an obvious problem – it's an imperfect number for a tournament. With 32 teams, the math was simple: eight groups of four, with the top two advancing to the Round of 16, then quarterfinals, semifinals, and the final.

With the addition of 16 more nations, FIFA had to find a way to arrive at a symmetrical knockout phase. There was no ideal solution that could maintain the intensity of the previous format.

The initial plan was to create 16 groups of three teams. The top two from each group would advance to the Round of 16. But there was a problem. Three-team groups meant that participants in the final match would know exactly what they needed to qualify. Teams could play for specific results to secure their spot in the knockout stages.

Ultimately, FIFA is well aware of the alleged arrangements from the 1982 World Cup scandal. Back then, in groups of four, teams didn't play their final matches simultaneously. West Germany faced Austria in the last group game. A minimal victory for the Germans would have qualified both teams at Algeria's expense. The match ended 1-0 to West Germany. Algeria was eliminated.

FIFA changed the format so that all final matches would be played simultaneously, but this wouldn't have been possible with three-team groups.

The culmination of the group stage in Qatar was so thrilling that FIFA reconsidered its decision. It was agreed that there should be 12 groups of four teams, with the last two matches played simultaneously to determine who would qualify.

However, there was one significant difference – something that removed much of the risk that made the previous World Cup so captivating. Eight of the third-placed teams must advance to have 32 teams in the knockout stage. This made it harder to be eliminated than to progress.

One issue became clear with two matches this week. First, on Thursday, Australia played Paraguay. The teams were second and third in Group D, both with three points. Four points are almost certainly enough to secure one of the eight third-place spots, creating a situation where both teams knew a draw would benefit them. The match ended 0-0.

Australia is certainly advancing as group runner-up and celebrated with their fans after the final whistle. Paraguay didn't show exuberant emotions, but unless a highly improbable series of results occurs in the remaining groups, they too will progress.

The next interesting match in this regard is Austria vs. Algeria in Group J (Sunday, 05:00 AM Bulgarian time). Again, both teams are second and third with three points each. A single point is very likely to send both teams through, while a loss is much more likely to send one home. Will we see another draw?

Having been disadvantaged in 1982, Algeria might find themselves favored in 2026.

It could be argued that a Group F match on Thursday also falls into the same category, with Japan starting the game with four points and Sweden with three. This match also ended 1-1, ensuring the Scandinavians' qualification, but for Japan, there was no real risk even if they had lost.

The same applies to Group L, where Ghana has four points and Croatia has three.

There are many examples of teams playing out the final 10 minutes of a group match with no interest in attacking, because both know they are advancing. Of course, this doesn't mean the two teams will simply play for a point this week, but the possibility exists. We saw similar circumstances at Euro 2020.

Before their final group match, Ukraine and Austria were second and third respectively with three points each, knowing that four points would likely be enough to advance as one of the best third-placed teams.

However, the two teams did not draw.

Austria won 1-0 and climbed to second place, while Ukraine eventually managed to sneak into the Round of 16. The Ukrainians ended up with a goal difference one better than Finland, who lost their final match later that day.

Bookmakers are certainly not taking unnecessary risks. For the Australia-Paraguay and Austria-Algeria matches, the odds for a draw were close to 2.00, suggesting a high probability.

Teams playing later might prefer a more favorable opponent.

Of course, teams have been able to play for specific results before, even prior to the introduction of the third-placed team qualification rule.

Take, for example, an incident from Euro 2004 that led Italy's goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon and Italian Football Federation president Franco Carraro to make match-fixing accusations.

If the Sweden-Denmark match had ended in a draw with at least two goals scored by each team, Italy would have remained in third place due to fewer goals scored in direct matches between the three teams.

Sweden equalized in the 89th minute. The final score? Sweden 2-2 Denmark.

UEFA insisted there was nothing suspicious about the result.

This World Cup, however, introduces an additional twist. The opponents for the third-placed teams are determined by the groups they originate from. If you play earlier, you have no idea where you'll go if you finish third. If you play later, you already know what the path ahead looks like.

What does this mean in practice?

The second-placed team in Group J will play the winner of Group H, currently led by Spain.

But where will the third-placed team from Group J go? They could face the winner of Group L, perhaps England, or Switzerland, who finished first in Group B.

Austria and Algeria will know what the knockout bracket looks like. They might find themselves in a position where third place is more advantageous than second. Instead of playing for a draw, Austria might decide it's better to lose and take that path in the tournament.

Weather could also play a role. If storms cause a match to be interrupted, FIFA has stated that the other group match will not be stopped. This means one game could be paused for several hours due to lightning, and when the teams return to the field, they will already know exactly what they need to qualify.

With the Australia-Paraguay match ending in a draw and the Austria-Algeria game still to come, more questions are likely to arise regarding the wisdom of this format.

This was FIFA's choice. Expanding the World Cup was part of the manifesto on which President Gianni Infantino was elected in 2016.

Perhaps this will give Infantino a reason to return the tournament to a perfect number of participants. Not by reducing to 32, but by increasing to 64.