- 12 groups of four, single round-robin format for group stage (3 matches each)
- Top two of each group advance to knockout stage (total 24 teams)
- Groups are divided into four sections (three groups per section): Groups A-C in Section 1, Groups D-F in Section 2, Groups G-I in Section 3, Groups J-L in Section 4. Teams in different sections will not meet until the semi-finals
- After group stage, within each section, the 6 teams which advance to the knockout stage are seeded according to group stage results: Group winners seeded 1-3, runners-up seeded 4-6
- Top two seeds in each section advance directly to round of 16, remaining four teams play in play-off round
- In each section, play-off match 1: Seed 4 v Seed 5, play-off match 2: Seed 3 v Seed 6. However, if Seed 3 and Seed 6 are from the same group, to avoid them playing again immediately after group stage, it will be changed to play-off match 1: Seed 4 v Seed 6, play-off match 2: Seed 3 v Seed 5
- In the round of 16, the two teams which receive bye will play the play-off winners of their section, round of 16 match 1: Seed 1 v Winner play-off match 1, round of 16 match 2: Seed 2 v Winner play-off match 2
- In the quarter-finals, the two round of 16 winners of each section play each other
- The quarter-final winners from each section then play in the semi-finals, followed by third place match and final
- A total of 96 matches (72 group stage matches, 24 knockout stage matches)
- Teams will have to play 7 or 8 matches to win the World Cup (depending on whether they get a bye for play-off round)
- The group stage retains the current format of top two advancing (without adding third-placed teams) and final day simultaneous kick-offs, which most agree is the most exciting format
- On the group stage final matchday, the three groups in each section will be finished on the same day, which means the bracket of that section up to the quarter-finals are known at the end of the day
- Teams which have qualified for the group stage after two matchdays will still have incentives to play well in the third match in order to get a bye to the round of 16
- Of course, a team which receive a bye to the round of 16 may have a worse record compared to a team from another section which have to play in the play-off round, but since teams are divided into sections before hand, the effect is somewhat minimized
- The following is a mock schedule:
Group stage matchday 1: 13-18 June (Sat-Thu), 4 matches per day
Group stage matchday 2: 19-24 June (Fri-Wed), 4 matches per day
Group stage matchday 3: 25-28 June (Thu-Sun), 6 matches per day, on each day, the 3 groups of each section will play on the same day
Rest day: 29 June (Mon)
Play-off round: 30 June-3 July (Tue-Fri), 2 matches per day, the play-off matches of each section will play on the same day
After that the schedule is the same as 2022 knockout stage format
Round of 16: 4-7 July (Sat-Tue), 2 matches per day, the round of 16 matches of each section will play on the same day
Quarter-finals: 10-11 July (Fri-Sat), 2 matches per day, to decide winner of each section
Semi-finals: 14-15 July (Tue-Wed), Section 1 winner v Section 2 winner, Section 3 winner v Section 4 winner
Third place match and final: 18-19 July (Sat-Sun) - In order to ensure better equality of strength between different sections, the draw pots of the group stage will be divided to smaller pots.
Host pot: USA in section 1 (Group A), Mexico in section 2 (Group D), Canada in Section 3 (Group G), as top-seeded team in each group
Pot 1: Teams ranked 1-4, one team will go into each section (Group B, E, H, J), as top-seeded team in each group
Pot 2: Teams ranked 5-8, one team will go into each section (Group C, F, I, K), as top-seeded team in each group
Pot 3: Team ranked 9, will go into Section 4 (Group L), as top-seeded team in group
Pot 4-6: Teams ranked 10-13, 14-17, 18-21, one team from each pot will go into each section, as second-seeded team in each group
Pot 7-9: Teams ranked 22-25, 26-29, 30-33, one team from each pot will go into each section, as third-seeded team in each group
Pot 10-12: Teams ranked 34-37, 38-41, 42-45 (including two inter-continental play-off winners which won't be known at the time of draw), one team from each pot will go into each section, as bottom-seeded team in each group
2026 World Cup
My proposal for 48-team World Cup format.
Remember that in 2026, the number of teams from Africa and Asia double. So pot #4 contains way more minnows than ever before. So I don't really like the idea of some group winners getting a bye - courtesy of a luckier draw - while winners of tough groups - therefore no chance to put half a dozen or more behind a team simply not up to world cup level - have to play an extra match. As an extra match can be costly when it comes to the later stages. Bookings or injuries from that extra match, or simply more exhaustion from having had more games before.
This is simply not the NFL where byes are awarded after 17 games, not only 3 games. With schedules way more balanced than by a random draw like in the world cup.
Simulated pots as per FIFA ranking after the WC.
pot #1
------
#13 USA - CONCACAF #1
#15 Mexico - CONCACAF #2
#53 Canada - CONCACAF #3
#1 Brazil - CONMEBOL #1
#2 Argentina - CONMEBOL #2
#3 France - UEFA #1
#4 Belgium - UEFA #2
#5 England - UEFA #3
#6 Netherlands - UEFA #4
#7 Croatia - UEFA #5
#8 Italy - UEFA #6
#9 Portugal - UEFA #7
pot #2
------
#10 Spain - UEFA #8
#11 Morocco - CAF #1
#12 Switzerland - UEFA #9
#14 Germany - UEFA #10
#16 Uruguay - CONMEBOL #3
#17 Columbia - CONMEBOL #4
#18 Denmark - UEFA #11
#19 Senegal - CAF #2
#20 Japan - AFC #1
#21 Peru - CONMEBOL #5
#22 Poland - UEFA #12
#23 Sweden - UEFA #13
pot #3
------
#24 Iran - AFC #2
#25 Korea Rep. - AFC #3
#26 Ukraine - UEFA #14
#27 Australia - AFC #4
#28 Wales - UEFA #15
#29 Tunisia - CAF #3
#30 Serbia - UEFA #16
#31 Chile - CONMEBOL #6
#32 Costa Rica - CONCACAF #4
#33 Cameroon - CAF #4
#35 Nigeria - CAF #5
#38 Algeria - CAF #6
pot #4
------
#40 Egypt - CAF #7
#41 Ecuador - CONMEBOL #7
#45 Mali - CAF #8
#47 Ivory Coast - CAF #9
#48 Saudi Arabia - AFC #5
#50 Burkina Faso - CAF #10
#60 Qatar - AFC #6
#61 Panama - CONCACAF #5
#64 Jamaica - CONCACAF #6
#68 Iraq - AFC #7
#70 UAE - AFC #8
#105 New Zealand - OFC #1
Pot 4 is simply way to unbalanced for using points and GD as a tie-breaker for avoiding an extra game when it come to group winners. It's already a lottery in a 24-team format when deciding the 4 best third-ranked teams. But at least, with the EURO format it's not about an extra game, some more bookings and therefore potential suspensions, more potential injuries etc. After the cut has been made, all teams face the same number of matches.
Just imagine a soft group like Canada, Sweden, Algeria and New Zealand compared to a tough group like Brazil, Spain, Iran and Egypt. Will you really reward the the soft group winners for making 7 pts and +9 GD in its group whilst the tough group winners only have 7 pts and +5 GD...
So conclusion: We'll need those four quarters. A-C, D-F, G-I and J-K. To balance the number of rest days between GS and KO. But with all 8 teams in each quarter facing the same schedule. So R32 for everyone. In each quarter, the top two teams of each group advance, along with the best two third-ranked.
Additional plus: In R16, quarter A-C can play quarter D-F. And G-I vs J-K. This prevents re-matches in R16 and in the QF.
"Put it in your signature to save you the trouble of writing it over and over again."
I've seen this one mentioned a few times and I quite like it. Much better than having third placed teams qualify or group winners getting a bye.
You'd have something like:
A1 - Brazil, Serbia, Algeria
A2 - Portugal, Peru, New Zealand
Then the top two from A1 and A2 play the teams from the opposite group. I'm not too sure if I prefer them keeping all points from the first group stage, or just from the teams that qualify. The latter seems better, but then you could end up in a situation like...
Brazil 2-0 Serbia, Algeria 0-1 Serbia, Algeria 3-2 Brazil
Brazil win the group but since Serbia are elimiated they go through with 0 points and Algeria go through as runners-up with 3.
Just keep the points from H2H carried over. Assume Brazil beat bottom-ranked #38 Algeria by 2-0 while Portugal destroy bottom-ranked #105 New Zealand 7-0. Will you really give Portugal a benefit for having an easier draw and carrying on that GD in the next GS?
While - in your example - Algeria earned those 3 points fair and square. As they've earned them on the pitch from H2H. Not by a lucky draw of weaker opponents in GS1.
While - in your example - Algeria earned those 3 points fair and square. As they've earned them on the pitch from H2H. Not by a lucky draw of weaker opponents in GS1.
"Put it in your signature to save you the trouble of writing it over and over again."
Btw, New Zealand is a dangerous team to have in your group. Oh they'll be among the weaker teams don't get me wrong, but they're better than 105th in the World. Being in Oceania curtails their ability to rise in the rankings. Losing to 105th New Zealand in the new ranking system at World Cup weighting would be devastating for your World ranking.greenbay wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 19:03 Just keep the points from H2H carried over. Assume Brazil beat bottom-ranked #38 Algeria by 2-0 while Portugal destroy bottom-ranked #105 New Zealand 7-0. Will you really give Portugal a benefit for having an easier draw and carrying on that GD in the next GS?
While - in your example - Algeria earned those 3 points fair and square. As they've earned them on the pitch from H2H. Not by a lucky draw of weaker opponents in GS1.
After losses to Korea Rep in 2018 and Japan in 2022, there is nothing left to be considered dangerous for the German ranking. Especially with only friedly games in the next 18 months in which hardly any points can be gained. Germany are already on the edge of dropping to pot 2 in the next WCQ. As pot 2 - on paper - means ending up in the runner-up spot and therefore playoffs, there is a realistic scenario even for a 2026 WC with the German NT being on holidays already before GS starts...
"Put it in your signature to save you the trouble of writing it over and over again."
UEFA is expected to unveil a new NT format for qualifiers and NL on 25 January. If it is anything like the women's one they approved last month rankings will not determine in which tier a team will start.
-
amirbachar
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1731
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 02:22
So the results against 4th are not good enough to decide who gets a bye, but are good enough to decide who is completely eliminated?greenbay wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 05:57Remember that in 2026, the number of teams from Africa and Asia double. So pot #4 contains way more minnows than ever before. So I don't really like the idea of some group winners getting a bye - courtesy of a luckier draw - while winners of tough groups - therefore no chance to put half a dozen or more behind a team simply not up to world cup level - have to play an extra match. As an extra match can be costly when it comes to the later stages. Bookings or injuries from that extra match, or simply more exhaustion from having had more games before.
This is simply not the NFL where byes are awarded after 17 games, not only 3 games. With schedules way more balanced than by a random draw like in the world cup.
Simulated pots as per FIFA ranking after the WC.
pot #1
------
#13 USA - CONCACAF #1
#15 Mexico - CONCACAF #2
#53 Canada - CONCACAF #3
#1 Brazil - CONMEBOL #1
#2 Argentina - CONMEBOL #2
#3 France - UEFA #1
#4 Belgium - UEFA #2
#5 England - UEFA #3
#6 Netherlands - UEFA #4
#7 Croatia - UEFA #5
#8 Italy - UEFA #6
#9 Portugal - UEFA #7
pot #2
------
#10 Spain - UEFA #8
#11 Morocco - CAF #1
#12 Switzerland - UEFA #9
#14 Germany - UEFA #10
#16 Uruguay - CONMEBOL #3
#17 Columbia - CONMEBOL #4
#18 Denmark - UEFA #11
#19 Senegal - CAF #2
#20 Japan - AFC #1
#21 Peru - CONMEBOL #5
#22 Poland - UEFA #12
#23 Sweden - UEFA #13
pot #3
------
#24 Iran - AFC #2
#25 Korea Rep. - AFC #3
#26 Ukraine - UEFA #14
#27 Australia - AFC #4
#28 Wales - UEFA #15
#29 Tunisia - CAF #3
#30 Serbia - UEFA #16
#31 Chile - CONMEBOL #6
#32 Costa Rica - CONCACAF #4
#33 Cameroon - CAF #4
#35 Nigeria - CAF #5
#38 Algeria - CAF #6
pot #4
------
#40 Egypt - CAF #7
#41 Ecuador - CONMEBOL #7
#45 Mali - CAF #8
#47 Ivory Coast - CAF #9
#48 Saudi Arabia - AFC #5
#50 Burkina Faso - CAF #10
#60 Qatar - AFC #6
#61 Panama - CONCACAF #5
#64 Jamaica - CONCACAF #6
#68 Iraq - AFC #7
#70 UAE - AFC #8
#105 New Zealand - OFC #1
Pot 4 is simply way to unbalanced for using points and GD as a tie-breaker for avoiding an extra game when it come to group winners. It's already a lottery in a 24-team format when deciding the 4 best third-ranked teams. But at least, with the EURO format it's not about an extra game, some more bookings and therefore potential suspensions, more potential injuries etc. After the cut has been made, all teams face the same number of matches.
Just imagine a soft group like Canada, Sweden, Algeria and New Zealand compared to a tough group like Brazil, Spain, Iran and Egypt. Will you really reward the the soft group winners for making 7 pts and +9 GD in its group whilst the tough group winners only have 7 pts and +5 GD...
So conclusion: We'll need those four quarters. A-C, D-F, G-I and J-K. To balance the number of rest days between GS and KO. But with all 8 teams in each quarter facing the same schedule. So R32 for everyone. In each quarter, the top two teams of each group advance, along with the best two third-ranked.
Additional plus: In R16, quarter A-C can play quarter D-F. And G-I vs J-K. This prevents re-matches in R16 and in the QF.
-
amirbachar
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1731
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 02:22
The ranking after World Cup means very very little anyway.Lorric wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 19:21Btw, New Zealand is a dangerous team to have in your group. Oh they'll be among the weaker teams don't get me wrong, but they're better than 105th in the World. Being in Oceania curtails their ability to rise in the rankings. Losing to 105th New Zealand in the new ranking system at World Cup weighting would be devastating for your World ranking.greenbay wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 19:03 Just keep the points from H2H carried over. Assume Brazil beat bottom-ranked #38 Algeria by 2-0 while Portugal destroy bottom-ranked #105 New Zealand 7-0. Will you really give Portugal a benefit for having an easier draw and carrying on that GD in the next GS?
While - in your example - Algeria earned those 3 points fair and square. As they've earned them on the pitch from H2H. Not by a lucky draw of weaker opponents in GS1.
There is some feedback for my proposal. Instead of replying individually, I will make more comments here.
Comparing teams from different groups
Is it fair? Not entirely. But if you introduce third-placed team qualifying for the knockout stage, then that is the only way you can determine who qualifies or not. As @amirbachar said in a previous post:
Giving byes in knockout stage
Some do not like this idea, believing that it helps the teams with byes too much in terms of injuries and suspensions. Other may like this idea, thinking that it is a good reward for performing well in the group stage.
In the current 32-team format, a team which clinches a knockout place after two matches can give rest to players in the third match. In effect, they were already getting a "bye" for the third group stage match. In this tournament, France, Brazil and Portugal all did it, and lost the third match. In one instance, South Korea, who beat a B-team Portugal, were able to qualify as group runners-up ahead of Uruguay, who also beat Ghana in the last match, by goals scored. This could be considered a bit unfair for the determination of the group runners-up (although South Korea could of course beat a A-team Portugal).
And it is not clear if this "bye" is much helpful in the long run. France of course reached the final, while after Brazil and Portugal got big wins in the round of 16, lost in the quarter-finals.
And this way of getting "byes" is even more problematic because it depends on the group stage schedule. If Argentina were to face Mexico and Poland in the first two matches, and got those two wins and qualified already, then they would be resting players against Saudi Arabia, and then lose to Saudi Arabia in the third match, nobody would be talking about that match as a huge upset.
If the knockout stage is expanded to include third-placed teams, more teams will have qualified after two rounds, meaning there will be more resting players in the 3rd match (in particular now with the knockout stage including another match in the round of 32). So there will be more skewing of group stage results.
In my proposal, as the group stage results are used to determine seeding in the knockout stage, teams must go out and play competitively in the third group stage match. If they succeed in getting the top two seeds, they can rest for a week with the bye. This is fairer for all group stage teams.
Dividing teams into different sections
If the teams are divided into a number of sections (e.g. 2 or 4) and teams can only meet at the end of the knockout stage, then there will be more repeat matchups, that teams which met in the group stage will meet again in the knockout stage. Some don't like it, some may not consider it a big problem.
With the World Cup expanded and held in multiple countries, it is almost certain that teams have to be divided into geographical zones in order to minimize travel by teams and fans. For 2026, the USA is a big country, so it is not viable for teams to travel constantly between the East and West coast. For 2030, the tournament is likely to be held in three or four countries. So sectionalizing the tournament is becoming more and more of a necessity.
Group stage draw seeding
No matter what the format of the 48-team World Cup would be, it is certain that how teams are seeded in the group stage will be a definite factor for how the tournament is played.
Consider the 32-team World Cup. The top eight seeds are put into the eight groups randomly. It means the best two teams in the pre-tournament rankings could meet as early as the quarter-finals.
Now if the 48-team World Cup used the original format of 16 groups of 3 teams, and there is only one pot of the top 16 teams, and they are put into different groups randomly. You can of course have a scenario where the best two teams in the pre-tournament rankings meeting as early as the round of 16.
So it is likely that FIFA have to introduce more seeding pots, so that there is a better guarantee that strong teams don't meet in the early rounds as long as they don't suffer upsets in the group stage.
For example, here is one seeding proposal based on my format proposal. In one section with 12 teams, the teams could be put into groups based on their pre-tournament rankings:
Group A: 1, 6, 7, 12
Group B: 2, 5, 8, 11
Group C: 3, 4, 9, 10
So the team with the best pre-tournament ranking will be facing the weakest "2nd-tier" team and the weakest "4th-tier team", so as long as they play up to potential themselves, should be able to secure a bye in the knockout stage.
Comparing teams from different groups
Is it fair? Not entirely. But if you introduce third-placed team qualifying for the knockout stage, then that is the only way you can determine who qualifies or not. As @amirbachar said in a previous post:
For example, if a 4th-placed team in a group is a decent team, and the 3rd-placed team could only draw them or got a 1-0 win, are they worse than another 3rd-placed team which beat a really bad 4th-placed team 3-0 and qualified ahead of them?"So the results against 4th are not good enough to decide who gets a bye, but are good enough to decide who is completely eliminated?"
Giving byes in knockout stage
Some do not like this idea, believing that it helps the teams with byes too much in terms of injuries and suspensions. Other may like this idea, thinking that it is a good reward for performing well in the group stage.
In the current 32-team format, a team which clinches a knockout place after two matches can give rest to players in the third match. In effect, they were already getting a "bye" for the third group stage match. In this tournament, France, Brazil and Portugal all did it, and lost the third match. In one instance, South Korea, who beat a B-team Portugal, were able to qualify as group runners-up ahead of Uruguay, who also beat Ghana in the last match, by goals scored. This could be considered a bit unfair for the determination of the group runners-up (although South Korea could of course beat a A-team Portugal).
And it is not clear if this "bye" is much helpful in the long run. France of course reached the final, while after Brazil and Portugal got big wins in the round of 16, lost in the quarter-finals.
And this way of getting "byes" is even more problematic because it depends on the group stage schedule. If Argentina were to face Mexico and Poland in the first two matches, and got those two wins and qualified already, then they would be resting players against Saudi Arabia, and then lose to Saudi Arabia in the third match, nobody would be talking about that match as a huge upset.
If the knockout stage is expanded to include third-placed teams, more teams will have qualified after two rounds, meaning there will be more resting players in the 3rd match (in particular now with the knockout stage including another match in the round of 32). So there will be more skewing of group stage results.
In my proposal, as the group stage results are used to determine seeding in the knockout stage, teams must go out and play competitively in the third group stage match. If they succeed in getting the top two seeds, they can rest for a week with the bye. This is fairer for all group stage teams.
Dividing teams into different sections
If the teams are divided into a number of sections (e.g. 2 or 4) and teams can only meet at the end of the knockout stage, then there will be more repeat matchups, that teams which met in the group stage will meet again in the knockout stage. Some don't like it, some may not consider it a big problem.
With the World Cup expanded and held in multiple countries, it is almost certain that teams have to be divided into geographical zones in order to minimize travel by teams and fans. For 2026, the USA is a big country, so it is not viable for teams to travel constantly between the East and West coast. For 2030, the tournament is likely to be held in three or four countries. So sectionalizing the tournament is becoming more and more of a necessity.
Group stage draw seeding
No matter what the format of the 48-team World Cup would be, it is certain that how teams are seeded in the group stage will be a definite factor for how the tournament is played.
Consider the 32-team World Cup. The top eight seeds are put into the eight groups randomly. It means the best two teams in the pre-tournament rankings could meet as early as the quarter-finals.
Now if the 48-team World Cup used the original format of 16 groups of 3 teams, and there is only one pot of the top 16 teams, and they are put into different groups randomly. You can of course have a scenario where the best two teams in the pre-tournament rankings meeting as early as the round of 16.
So it is likely that FIFA have to introduce more seeding pots, so that there is a better guarantee that strong teams don't meet in the early rounds as long as they don't suffer upsets in the group stage.
For example, here is one seeding proposal based on my format proposal. In one section with 12 teams, the teams could be put into groups based on their pre-tournament rankings:
Group A: 1, 6, 7, 12
Group B: 2, 5, 8, 11
Group C: 3, 4, 9, 10
So the team with the best pre-tournament ranking will be facing the weakest "2nd-tier" team and the weakest "4th-tier team", so as long as they play up to potential themselves, should be able to secure a bye in the knockout stage.
In a perfect world there would be no such nonsense at all. No best group winners receive a bye. Nor best 4 third-ranked teams advance. As both are kind of an additional reward for a lucky draw.amirbachar wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 23:09So the results against 4th are not good enough to decide who gets a bye, but are good enough to decide who is completely eliminated?
Still, there is a difference. At least, under the current EURO format, when it really matters in the final rounds, when injuries take their toll, booking suspensions come into account, etc, then all teams have played the same number of games. While under a format with byes for some group winners, a lucky draw can be a massive advantage in the final week, for simply being better rested from the bye week, for having had less chances to pick up bookings etc.
"Put it in your signature to save you the trouble of writing it over and over again."
The more I think about it, the more I like that proposal with carrying over the H2H result from the 1st group stage into a shortened 2nd group stage. Especially as it prevents that "best X of Y" nonsense which is a natural law in any other 48 team format. The downside is that such format needs 39 days if I am correct. Unless they make it 4 games per day in R16 instead of 2, then it is 35 days. Or unless they'll have more then 4 games per day in the group stages, reducing the minimum window between two matches for any team from 4 to 3 days.
"Put it in your signature to save you the trouble of writing it over and over again."
I agree, it's not perfect, but it avoids all the problems of trying to shoehorn 48 teams down to 16 without comparing across groups of giving byes. The only other way to do that would be 8 groups of 6 with the top two going through, but that's 5 group matches per team which is too many, plus it would probably end with too many dead rubbers.greenbay wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 06:39 The more I think about it, the more I like that proposal with carrying over the H2H result from the 1st group stage into a shortened 2nd group stage. Especially as it prevents that "best X of Y" nonsense which is a natural law in any other 48 team format. The downside is that such format needs 39 days if I am correct. Unless they make it 4 games per day in R16 instead of 2, then it is 35 days. Or unless they'll have more then 4 games per day in the group stages, reducing the minimum window between two matches for any team from 4 to 3 days.
8 groups x 6 teams can be 3 group matches per team using Swiss model. If only the top 2 teams qualify for the KO stage which - as now - begins with the Round of 16, teams would be forced to try to win games to have a chance of qualifying.
The policy goal of expansion which is to enable more teams from outside UEFA to qualify and to have more of a realistic opportunity to qualify is met, teams still play between 3 and 7 games, while to reach the KO stage teams probably need to win at least 2 games.
The policy goal of expansion which is to enable more teams from outside UEFA to qualify and to have more of a realistic opportunity to qualify is met, teams still play between 3 and 7 games, while to reach the KO stage teams probably need to win at least 2 games.
Uruguayan journalist Rodrigo Romano now writes that the CONMEBOL qualifying won't start already in March 2023.amenina wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 14:00 South American qualifying will start in March 2023, basically right after the 2022 World Cup.
https://bolavip.com/pe/seleccionperuana ... -0010.html
So it looks like there will be significant breaks in between to allow South American teams to play with European teams in the Nations League as rumoured.
In other news, Ecuador will start 2026 qualifying with a three point deduction due to the issues regarding Byron Castillo.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/ecuador-ecu ... atform=amp
The final start date will be decided in mid-January. Most federations prefer to start in June, while two federations want to wait until September.
https://twitter.com/RodrigoRomano76/sta ... 2514299904