2026 World Cup - European qualifiers

[amirbachar]

Do I understand correctly that in theory it can lead to a scenario in which say 24th and 25th team are playing in the same group of League B, 24th team gets the second place in the group thus entering UNL PO, 25th team is the fourth, not in UNL PO. Now, if pot 2 contains more UNL PO teams than maximum number of EQ groups able to contain such teams, we will see 24th team that is better in both FIFA rating and in NL rating being punished for a better performance by being demoted to Pot 3 and the 25th team would be rewarded by taking its place in Pot 2?

Agreed and it could be worse than that. Imagine those same teams are 22nd and 27th in FIFA rankings and finish as you describe in league B. If 23rd and 24th aren’t in UNL matches but 25th and 26th are then 22 and 27 would need to swap pots

Do we have any estimation on how many UNL PO teams from the same pot would lead to a necessary swap?

I just wrote the calculation one post above.

[perica]

Agreed - the format for 2022 was inferior - top 6 runners up (by points in group) were seeded to play versus other 4 runners up and 2 best UNL and no seeding for the final. Here both seeding for the final and, with less group games to do a points comparison, I think it's fairer to use FIFA rankings to create each of the runner up pots

Why it is fairer? It is used at begin? If Italy cannot win a group with 5 weaker opponents, why should they deserve new privilege. Record in the group stage tells how close or far away team was from winning the group and direct qualification to the world cup. For world cup 2010 there was ukraine fighting with england for the first position while portugal was out of chances and fighted with sweden not to be third. Finally, having both teams as second, portugale came out into the seeded teams pot because of ranking!

Keep in mind that seeding in this playoff semifinal also ensures home field and that must be deserved by points in the group stage, not by the old glory.

The difference in points between second placed teams is marginal, so ultimately one result could determine the difference between being a pot 1 top seed and a pot 3 unseeded team - just look at the second place table for the 2022 world cup European qualifiers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA ... cond_round

I know we only had 10 runners up not the 12 we will see for 2026, but assuming the top 3 went into pot 1 and the bottom 3 into pot 3 with the middle 4 in pot 2, then the difference between Italy in 3rd on 16 points and +11 GD and Poland in 8th on 14 points and +8 GD was one result from going a different way. And with 2 less matches each on average in WC 2026 qualifying, the differences could be even more marginal, so potentially double punishing teams with a more competitive group (eg where 3rd and 4th are strong)

Taking a longer term view is fairer and FIFA ranking still puts some weight on qualifying results.

Having said that, I agree it does (attempt to) protect the likes of Italy (assuming they finish second and don't end up with a bonus UNL pot 4 place or lose a play off semi to North Macedonia at home), but it's FIFA's tournament, and they decide the rules.

As a standard they use FIFA rankings (except for the UNL Top eight) - look for example at the AFC third round of qualifying - they went from 9 groups of 4 in R2 to 3 groups of 6 in R3 - Saudi and Uzbekistan were group runners up but made pot 3 based on FIFA rankings whereas group winners UAE and Oman were placed in pot 4.

I Imagine FIFA were pretty annoyed when Italy and Portugal ended up in the same play off path for 2022, though of course, Italy didn't need to Portugal to knock them out as North Macedonia did the job for them!

If it's any consolation, UEFA will continue to rank by UNL placings to make the group draw for the Euros qualifiers and, I'm sure, by points scored for second placed teams to determine automatic Euro 2028 qualification and any play off seeding, and then based on qualifying ranking for the finals itself.

I wouldn't draw a parallel with how tournaments are organised as there are logistical implications in the short turnaround times between rounds which mean it is better to have more certainty around knockout paths.

Long term is taken into account when groups are drawn. Then teams are seeded based on fifa ranking. I am with it.
When group phase is finished, all results before group stage are ignored. They MUSTN'T be taken into account again. At euro 2024 one result defined who will qualify for round of 16. Does anybody ask who was croatian opponent in the group and who was georgian. Wenghorst's goal against poland put netherlands into round of 16 leading furthermore up to the semifinal. Single goal!

Teams like portugal or italy have privilege to compete at easier group. If they don't use such a privilege, that is their fault. If they want privilege at another chance, let them earn as more points. Not rely again on old results.

[Tazmania]

Absolutely; impeccable logic.

[conscription]

All this mess is because of the stupid UNL play-offs
The gap between the 3rd teams in higher divs and 2nds in lower divs is so large. I won’t be surprised if every single higher division team wins their play-off convincingly

It’s understandable that UEFA wants officials instead of friendlies but they should’ve came up with better fixtures than these

[Tazmania]

No, it's because FIFA is using the world ranking to seed the 2026 European Qualifiers draw instead of the 2024-25 UNL ranking.

[Kev]

So we know that there are 6 four team groups, and 6 five team groups, and the 6 five team groups need 4 teams to play in both March Matchdays.
All the UNL semi finalists will be in groups of four. We know that the remaining quarter finalists may end up in either four or five team groups.
So because there will be at least 8 teams from Pot 1 in playoffs, I feel that the Pot 1 teams in five team groups will have both their byes in March. This then allows the remaining 4 teams in each five team groups to have their two byes each from June onwards, considering playoff teams from other pots will be in four team groups, and with the adjustment between pots 2-5 allowing the total of playoff teams per pot to be no more than 6. The other 6 for each pot (totalling 24) will be available to play in March.
I think the draw won’t be as complicated as some people might think. There will basically be two sides of the draw (one for playoffs and one for non-playoffs) and that’s it really.
Realistically do you think their will be a large number of playoff teams (say 7-10 or more) in a particular pot, for where adjustments are needed?

[Korgutt]

Can some of the four topseeded Nations outside of top 2 in League A join a group of four?

[Kev]

Can some of the four topseeded Nations outside of top 2 in League A join a group of four?

I feel that they can. I think the only stipulation that has to occur is that the 4 semi finalists are in a group of four as they can’t play in June along with March.

If we use England as an example. They are more than likely to be seeded in Pot 1 as one of the best 4 ranked teams. Whether they are in UNL pro/rel playoffs shouldn’t be a factor. If they are in a group of five, they have their two byes in March and they play UNL playoffs. If they end up in a group of four, them playing UNL in March won’t affect anything.

Currently as it stands:
Pot 2 has 6 playoff teams
Pot 3 has 5 “”
Pot 4 has 2 “”

[Lorric]

All this mess is because of the stupid UNL play-offs
The gap between the 3rd teams in higher divs and 2nds in lower divs is so large. I won’t be surprised if every single higher division team wins their play-off convincingly

It's really not. Going by last time, A vs B, you don't think Ukraine or Norway could beat Poland? Or B vs C, any C 2nd couldn't beat Montenegro?

Even if we make the odds longer, it wouldn't exactly be Earth shattering if say Finland beat Switzerland or Kosovo beat Ireland. Plenty of teams from lower pots in qualifying overcome teams from higher ones.

[Kev]

Can some of the four topseeded Nations outside of top 2 in League A join a group of four?

I feel that they can. I think the only stipulation that has to occur is that the 4 semi finalists are in a group of four as they can’t play in June along with March.

If we use England as an example. They are more than likely to be seeded in Pot 1 as one of the best 4 ranked teams. Whether they are in UNL pro/rel playoffs shouldn’t be a factor. If they are in a group of five, they have their two byes in March and they play UNL playoffs. If they end up in a group of four, them playing UNL in March won’t affect anything.

Currently as it stands:
Pot 2 has 6 playoff teams
Pot 3 has 5 “”
Pot 4 has 2 “”

Just to add to this:

I think the pre draw will be more complicated than the draw itself.
England has a big chance to be Pot 1 and not involved in UNL playoffs (provided they win their UNL group or come last).
It is possible that if there are 7 teams in Pot 2 involved in Playoffs that one of those 7 teams would be in the same group as England and would have their two byes first.
But what happens if there are 7 playoff teams in Pot 3 and England is the only Pot 1 side not involved in playoffs. They wouldn’t be able to go into the same group as Pot 2 already filled that spot with a playoff team.
For consistency I would not be surprised that if any Pot has more than 6 playoff teams, they will use the adjustments across all pots as first criteria, and the Pot 1 teams would all have first byes for uniformity.
If no adjustments are needed between pots, who knows they might just use same as above or maybe 1 or 2 teams will have byes in March if they have a Pot 1 seed (not in playoffs) like England, and no other team in the group has a playoff either.

It is possible for all 12 teams in Pot 1 to be involved in playoffs, and as low as 8.

[Matt7r]

Can some of the four topseeded Nations outside of top 2 in League A join a group of four?

I feel that they can. I think the only stipulation that has to occur is that the 4 semi finalists are in a group of four as they can’t play in June along with March.

If we use England as an example. They are more than likely to be seeded in Pot 1 as one of the best 4 ranked teams. Whether they are in UNL pro/rel playoffs shouldn’t be a factor. If they are in a group of five, they have their two byes in March and they play UNL playoffs. If they end up in a group of four, them playing UNL in March won’t affect anything.

Currently as it stands:
Pot 2 has 6 playoff teams
Pot 3 has 5 “”
Pot 4 has 2 “”

Just to add to this:

I think the pre draw will be more complicated than the draw itself.
England has a big chance to be Pot 1 and not involved in UNL playoffs (provided they win their UNL group or come last).
It is possible that if there are 7 teams in Pot 2 involved in Playoffs that one of those 7 teams would be in the same group as England and would have their two byes first.
But what happens if there are 7 playoff teams in Pot 3 and England is the only Pot 1 side not involved in playoffs. They wouldn’t be able to go into the same group as Pot 2 already filled that spot with a playoff team.
For consistency I would not be surprised that if any Pot has more than 6 playoff teams, they will use the adjustments across all pots as first criteria, and the Pot 1 teams would all have first byes for uniformity.
If no adjustments are needed between pots, who knows they might just use same as above or maybe 1 or 2 teams will have byes in March if they have a Pot 1 seed (not in playoffs) like England, and no other team in the group has a playoff either.

It is possible for all 12 teams in Pot 1 to be involved in playoffs, and as low as 8.

The scenario you describe won't happen as it implies there are 17 in the March 2025 play offs, but that number will be 16.

If all 5 teams in a group of 5 are available in March, then two teams will get one bye, so that everyone in these groups gets at least one competitive match.

[Kev]

I feel that they can. I think the only stipulation that has to occur is that the 4 semi finalists are in a group of four as they can’t play in June along with March.

If we use England as an example. They are more than likely to be seeded in Pot 1 as one of the best 4 ranked teams. Whether they are in UNL pro/rel playoffs shouldn’t be a factor. If they are in a group of five, they have their two byes in March and they play UNL playoffs. If they end up in a group of four, them playing UNL in March won’t affect anything.

Currently as it stands:
Pot 2 has 6 playoff teams
Pot 3 has 5 “”
Pot 4 has 2 “”

Just to add to this:

I think the pre draw will be more complicated than the draw itself.
England has a big chance to be Pot 1 and not involved in UNL playoffs (provided they win their UNL group or come last).
It is possible that if there are 7 teams in Pot 2 involved in Playoffs that one of those 7 teams would be in the same group as England and would have their two byes first.
But what happens if there are 7 playoff teams in Pot 3 and England is the only Pot 1 side not involved in playoffs. They wouldn’t be able to go into the same group as Pot 2 already filled that spot with a playoff team.
For consistency I would not be surprised that if any Pot has more than 6 playoff teams, they will use the adjustments across all pots as first criteria, and the Pot 1 teams would all have first byes for uniformity.
If no adjustments are needed between pots, who knows they might just use same as above or maybe 1 or 2 teams will have byes in March if they have a Pot 1 seed (not in playoffs) like England, and no other team in the group has a playoff either.

It is possible for all 12 teams in Pot 1 to be involved in playoffs, and as low as 8.

The scenario you describe won't happen as it implies there are 17 in the March 2025 play offs, but that number will be 16.

If all 5 teams in a group of 5 are available in March, then two teams will get one bye, so that everyone in these groups gets at least one competitive match.

That’s fair enough. I more implied the Pot 1 seed having two byes in March regardless of whether they were in playoffs or not. I think quite a lot of Pot 1 will be in playoffs/quarterfinals in March so keeping it consistent across those 5 team groups, but it’s UEFA so who knows.

I think the easiest thing would be to just do the adjustments between Pots 2-4 so that there are 6 playoff teams and 6 non playoff teams in each Pot. Then distributing them during the draw would be fairly straightforward.

All 5 team groups would at the very least have 4 teams available to play. Just having all Pot 1 teams with 2 byes keeps it’s uniformed instead of chopping and changing between groups.

[dangermouse]

I give it a few more cycles before UEFA inevitably move to using only nations league to determine who goes to WC/Euro and abolishes the main qualifier tournaments.

Clubs would like fewer international games over every 2-year cycle and fans would prefer more Italy v France type matches than having to play against Andorra.

The premise would be that you want to be in league A to guarantee at least a playoff and have a chance at automatic qualification, whereas in league B the best you can get is a playoff

League A - 4 groups of 6
League B - 4 groups of 6
League C - 1 group of 6

Promotion/Relegation from A to B is a straight 2 up/2 down from each group. No playoff.

Only the bottom team in each league B group goes down to C. The top 4 in league C come up to replace them.

Then qualification is as follows:

World Cup (16 teams):
- 8 automatic qualifiers (top 2 in each group of league A)
- 8 triangle playoff winner (3rd/4th in league A get a bye straight to the final. 5th and 6th in A, winners and best 2 runners-up in B, and the top 2 overall teams in C play semi-finals)

Euro (24 teams):
- 16 automatic qualifiers (top 4 in each A group)
- 8 playoff winners (Remaining league A teams straight to final. Semi finals involve B1, B2, B3, best two B4, and top two from C)

[Matt7r]

Clubs might want fewer international matches, but I don't think FIFA do - though perhaps they would consider foregoing an international window each season (or some seasons), but with strings attached!

The way I see this panning out is that FIFA will again initiate the discussion to hold the world cup more often - every 3 years, say, perhaps starting as early as the next international cycle, ie after the 2030 World Cup. Euros would then also be every 3 years, and perhaps increased to 32 teams.

Then use a triennial Nations League competition to qualify for the Euros and retain qualifiers in the traditional format for the world cup. I think there'd still be room for play offs for both final tournaments and some sort of UNL QF/Final 4 and Promotion & Relegation play off system in a three year cycle.

[Kev]

Some interesting information:

Should England finish 3rd in their WC qualifying group (although unlikely) they would need UNL qualification to make playoffs.

They currently sit 2nd in their UNL group (the best of the 2nds in League B), but 27th overall out of the 28 who have possible chances through UNL.

However if they finish first in their UNL group they will jump up to 5th-8th.

A massive gap and much easier to hope the 1-4 teams above them qualify 1 or 2 in WC than 23. The same goes for all in League B.

Winning your UNL group especially in League B is paramount. For teams like Georgia and such, a boost to get them closer to qualifying.