And it's a lot of games - 104 matches to be exact. There will be 72 group stage matches and 32 knockout contests (yes, they still do the third place game). The scale is massive. There are matches every day from June 11th to July 7th. If I read the schedule right, the only matchless days are 7/8, 7/12, 7/13, 7/16 and 7/17.
Here at BFS, we recognize that there will be plenty of sources to turn to for match results and analysis. We will be posting regularly throughout the tournament but will be more focused on suggested viewing choices and maybe the less obvious aspects of the competition. For sure, we will recognize the Most Valuable Hair; feel free to send in your nominations.
The Format
With the expansion to 48 countries, the format is slightly different than recent tournaments. There are 12 groups of four and in the group stage, you play the other three teams in your group. First and second in each group automatically move on to the knockout stage. The top eight third place sides will also advance. Yes, they will play 72 matches to eliminate 16 teams.
From there it proceeds as you would expect with 32 in the first knockout round, then 16, then 8, then 4, then 2. The final is July 19th in New Jersey, though you will hear reference to New York. I've done work in Secaucus and can assure you it's in New Jersey.
Know Your Tiebreakers
These have always been a part of the tournament but with 12 instead of 8 groups and some third place teams advancing, we suspect they will come into play much more frequently this year. For determining final placing in a group, the following rules apply:
Step One
- greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned- superior goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned- greatest number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concernedStep Two (if Step One can't resolve ties)- superior goal difference in all group matches- greatest number of goals scored in all group matches- highest team conduct score (players and team officials) relating to the number of yellow and red cards obtainedStep Three (if there are still ties)- the two or more teams still equal on points shall be ranked according to the most recent published edition of the FIFA/Coca‑Cola Men’s World Ranking
Got it? Good.
Here's how they will determine the top eight third place finishers:
- greatest number of points obtained in all group matches- goal difference resulting from all group matches- greatest number of goals scored in all group matches- highest team conduct score (players and team officials) relating to the number of yellow and red cards obtained in all group matches- the two or more teams still equal on points shall be ranked according to the most recent published edition of the FIFA/Coca‑Cola Men’s World Ranking
Everybody clear on this? Given that many disparage the methodology used in the ranking process, we hope that it doesn't come down to that.
Predictions
Are a dime a dozen. We don't participate. However, there are two that I will draw to your attention. First is the familiar Opta website. We have generally been impressed with their forecasts for the Premier League so we send along this table. They give Spain the highest probability of winning the whole thing, followed by France, England and Argentina. On the surface, their projections look pretty rosy for the US - 33% chance of winning the group, 77% chance of getting out of the group stage and a 42% chance of getting to the round of 16. That last number is driven by a scenario in which the US wins Group D and getting to play a third place finisher from one of the other groups in the first knockout round. On the glass half empty side, that 77% is the lowest - by a mile - for any of the top seeds in other groups. And, the spread between first and fourth is the smallest for any group. I stand by my suggestions in previous posts that this is the most difficult group to get out of.
The second set of projections comes from Joachim Klement, who has correctly picked the winner of the last three World Cups. You can see his complete analysis here. He has the Dutch Holland the Netherlands beating Portugal in the final. His assessment of the US fortunes is less optimistic than Opta's. Basically, he sees them finishing third in the group behind Australia (!) and Turkiye. That gets them Germany in the first knockout round, which does not end well for the USMNT. The whole thing is a fun read, essentially saying yeah I've been right in the past but if you use these projections to make bets on the tournament, you're a fool. I'm becoming a big fan, mostly for his echoing my view of Group D and the US chances. Key paragraph on that subject is below:
Group D is the most evenly matched group of all in this World Cup. In truth, every one of the four teams can come first in the group, and all of them can come last. It will all depend on the form on the day who will succeed, but I think the Australians will summon their cricket spirit and win the group in the same way they win the Ashes – mostly due to the ineptitude of their opponents, and if that isn’t enough, then cheating.
There are plenty of other prognosticators out there so have fun surfing the net if you want more information.
What To Watch
For the first two matches of the group stage, there is no overlapping of fixtures so you could in theory watch every one of them. Professor Ian Malcolm offers his view here on that strategy. For match three in the group stage, the two matches for each group are played at the same time to minimize possible strategic tanking. Here's initial thoughts on best viewing choices for the first two sets of matches.
Who To Root For - Part I
My first preference is for the winner to be someone other than Argentina, Spain, Brazil, France or Germany. I do have a bias for the US, England and Scotland, largely based on the leagues and players that I follow. I would like to see Morocco go far but they won't surprise people as easily as they did in 2022. They are a sound defensive squad but according to Opta have increased their attacking prowess without sacrificing the defensive strength. Norway is another country with a bunch of Premier League players that I can get behind.
Who To Root For - Part II
BFS Director of Historical Programs Mackenzie W offers a slightly different approach to choosing your rooting interests. Her insights are below:
The way I chose who to root for in the World Cup, or any international tournament, is on the basis of “who suffered the worst under colonialism.” This sounds like a flippant ranking of suffering, but it is done on a game-by-game basis to have a nuanced understanding of how global power and history shape any given opportunity. It’s also a way to avoid supporting a popular team simply because they are popular and have a high winning history, which would be like rooting for the Yankees or the Cowboys simply because the franchises are wealthy and can afford to stack their teams. For example, in Group I when France plays Senegal, I would root for Senegal since this is a head-to-head matchup of colonizer versus colonized (plus the African fans really know how to throw a party in the stands). In Group A, Mexico will play South Africa. Both were colonies; however, South Africa more recently subjected its citizens to colonist policies that directly supported the colonizer at the expense of the colonized.
Group C will have Morocco play Haiti, also two former colonies. This is where it gets tricky as we do not want to play the “Oppression Olympics.” Haiti was colonized and enslaved and then after the first ever successful slave revolt in world history, the country was barred from international recognition and trade and forced to repay their colonizers for property loss, depriving the country from developing itself on the same scale as other nations at the time (think generational wealth). Morocco was colonized by the French and also the Arab Empire hundreds of years earlier. The indigenous people of North Africa, the Amazigh (pronounced ah-ma-zir) have been fighting against the monoculture to keep their identities alive for centuries. It’s not up to a white woman from the American Empire to decide who suffered more. At this point, I abandon my system and pick whoever is playing a good game with clean passes, good sportsmanship, and as little masculine posturing as possible.
Hmm, my US and England choices do not stand up well in this methodology. Go Morocco.
"Beautiful, Confounding and Corrupt"
| Somali referee Omar Artan issued a preemptive red card |
Tying Up Loose Ends
The last two European competitions wrapped up with close but, in truth, less than scintillating finals. In the Europa Conference League, Crystal Palace took the measure of Rayo Vallecano 1-0 in a match that featured 16 shots and just three on target between the two sides. The Champions League final wasn't much better. Arsenal scored early, then basically parked the bus. The strategy backfired when PSG got a PK at 65 minutes and eventually won the penalty shootout 4-3. The Gunners managed just five shots and only one on target. PSG showed more attacking interest, with 19 shots, four on target. While certainly a disappointing result for Arsenal, the season has to be seen as a major success with a Premier League title and a Champions League final.
A Tale of Two Sackings
Following on the heels of the last post about managerial changes, we had the firing of Bradley Carnell (the Union) and Arne Slot (Liverpool). Both were coming off successful seasons, with U having won the Supporters Shield and Liverpool the Premier League. Both were dealing with disappointing results this season. But that's about all they have in common. While the Slot firing meets at least some of my criteria for a justified change, the Carnell axing has many of the aspects that drive me nuts.
In one sense, the small sample problem does not apply in either case. Slot was there for two years and Carnell had about a year and a half. However, at least Slot got a full second season whereas Carnell was terminated mid-year so it has some of that panicked, knee-jerk reaction overtones. Another factor here may be related to the suspicion that Slot lived off the work done by his predecessor Jurgen Klopp but could only do so for so long. Bill James once used the analogy of switching to inferior light bulbs; at first you don't notice the difference but after a while, when they burn out faster than the good ones, the difference becomes clear.
A bigger difference is that in the 2025 summer transfer window, Liverpool added Ekitike, Isak, Frimpong, Kerkez and Wirtz. Okay, they did lose Nunez, Diaz and Alexander-Arnold but net the team was definitely stronger. In contrast, the Union saw Baribo, Uhre, Wagner, and Glesnes leave and the replacements (Alladoh, Anello, Ndinga and Sery Larsen) coming nowhere near close to filling the gaps created by those departures.
And lastly, it looks like way more thought went into the Liverpool change. Certainly there were discussions throughout the season and when they were ready, they brought in Andoni Iraola, who was available after not signing a new contract with Bournemouth. Iraola, who's work at Bournemouth was solid, will be in place for the off season and ready to go in August. In contrast, the Union named Ryan Richter (Union II manager) as the interim manager while they conduct a search for a permanent replacement. So we're looking at uncertainty in this role for some period of time.
Now, if Liverpool do something nutty like fire Iraola when they struggle in the first half of the 26-27 season, I will be the first to jump on their case. But to me it looks like one team thought through their change and the other just did what comes easy - that is fire the manager when the team is doing poorly.
There Goes the Tottenham Vote
| Mamdami courting the NYC Gunner fans Photo: @anySoccerTimes |

