World Cup 2026 - My Review

Well after over a hundred games, the 2026 World Cup is over. There hasn't been a world cup like it. Although it is not the first world cup to have water breaks, it is the first world cup to impose them in all games regardless of context. Even when it was already raining, the game would stop in the middle of the half for more water. This had a noticeable effect on the game as it gave a chance to teams to regroup and adjust strategy for the rest of the half. Responsive managers and teams that were struggling for the first twenty minutes benefitted from this. There was an increase in goals after these water breaks which effectively turned each game into four quarters American style. In that respect it was a very unusual tournament.

It was also a very controversial world cup as despite referees generally letting play flow and not blowing for the most minimal of contact, VAR had numerous loud interventions to disallow certain goals or send players off. Croatia had a last minute equaliser against Portugal ruled out despite there being no visible deviation of the ball path so instead the football's internal chip snickometer was used to justify the goal being ruled out as it showed a marginal vibration en route to Josko Gvardiol while he was in an offside position. Whether or not this vibration demonstrates contact is one thing; whether or not decisions should be made on opaque micrometrics is in the spirit of the game is another.

We saw the new rule that a player covering their mouth during a confrontation with an opponent could be sent off at the discretion of the referee. This was in response to players allegedly mouthing personal vulgarities while keeping their mouth covered to conceal their words. It has led to Lionel Messi calling on the ref to send Marc Cucurella off during the World Cup final when he touched his upper lip for a split second. We also saw Falorin Balogun's one game suspension for a red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina suspended for a year so that he could play the USA's next game against Belgium. Not unprecedented, but unlike previous occasions on which this had been done, Trump weighed in to take credit for the decision.

Perhaps it was inevitable that a sporting ecosystem as the USA's which has a very vocal subsection of voices who maintain that every sport is rigged would in turn focus their attentions on O Jogo Bonito, The Beautiful Game when it arrived in full force on its shores. It was not the first time the World Cup has been hosted in North America; this was already done in 1994. This was not without its controversies either. Back then too there were concerns over commercialisation, rule changes like the backpass rule (it was a running joke among Manchester United fans for years that Liverpool's dominance of the English League ended as soon as the backpass rule was introduced) and general question marks over the future of football in the USA. There also loomed a profoundly dark crisis with the murder of Andrés Escobar upon his return to Colombia after he had conceded an own goal against the USA in their second group stage match. Although there is some dispute as to whether this was the genuine cause of the murder as opposed to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, it left a bitter taste at the end of that World Cup.

What has been notably different about this world cup is the sheer volume of controversy as well as the how much it has reverberated around the world in the era of mass social media. A controversial call is no longer seen by those who watched the match or caught up on the highlights after, it is observed again and again and again online. Since social media in the 2020s is heavily algorithmic and monetises publicity, the most controversial and divisive takes are amplified repeatedly. Once the most easily heard sentiment among Americans was pride that their country hosted the World Cup, now various screeds against football rise to the top as social media feeds the fire.

Unfortunately, there has been all the much fuel to feed said fire as it is not merely that there is the occasional wrong decision on the pitch; it's that there's a staggering lack of transparency surrounding said decision. Moment to moment, referees have let the game flow much more than previous tournaments, refraining from blowing the whistle for any marginal contact. Yet in the big moments, goals are scored and as the fans celebrate, the dreaded sight of the referee holding his finger to his earpiece materialises for all to see as the goal is referred to VAR. Then after much deliberation the goal either stands or doesn't stand.

Once upon a time there was a clamour for incorrect decisions to be corrected on the field. This would be in line with how things are done in the NFL. Now there is an increasing feeling among fans that something is being lost in the soul of the game if you cannot celebrate for fear of the inevitable VAR check. It used to be the case that bad decisions were an inevitability of the game. The team that benefitted would count their blessings while the team that didn't claimed a moral victory. Now both teams have their celebrations ruined. This is not unique to this World Cup but it has been a tension in the sport for a while and the agonising nature of this tournament's VAR checks has some would argue brought the name of the sport into disrepute.

Football has always been about the flow. That is what makes it so seductive, so fascinating. You can make decisions with utmost precision, but as anyone who has watched NFL knows, those decisions take time. The interruption of flow is not a problem when you're watching the gridiron; it's already divided into discretised blocks, separated by the end of each play. The closest analogue to this in association football is set pieces yet even they resist VAR in a way that American football doesn't; when a touchdown is ruled out for pass interference, that's part of the game. When a penalty is retaken because the keeper moved a fraction too early, that's also part of the game, but no one likes to see it, except of course the team that gets to retake the penalty. The genie is already out of the bottle as far as VAR is concerned and there is no putting back in. The question is how decision review can be incorporated into the game without stripping away the essence of what makes a goal a rush of adrenaline. We don't know what that will be but this World Cup has laid this problem bare for all to see.

I don't care about the politics of it. I don't think it's fair to single out Trump as a reason to not like the World Cup nor to harbour an axe to grind against the USA. This tournament was confirmed a long time ago and was going to take place regardless of whether there was a Democrat or Republican in the White House. There can certainly be criticisms made of Trump qua how much he has encroached in the tournament or the US government when it comes to handling the entry of certain teams and officials. These points have been made ad infinituum elsewhere so I won't well on them here. The USA as a nation with a large following of sports fans have hosted this tournament commendably. It is clear that Americans take great pride in their hospitality and will go above and beyond to put on a spectacular show to those who visit. Although I suspect that quite a few of the allegedly European accounts gushing over the soda machines at Wendy's are engagement baiting (an unfortunate razor that has emerged in the 2020s) the spirit of hospitality has never been in doubt. The World Cup final half time show is debatable as there are question marks about how it would affect pitch quality but overall I have an attitude of when in Rome etc etc. Some far more pointed criticisms can be made of FIFA and their facilitation of mandatory water breaks, seen as not purely motivated by player welfare as well as overseeing outrageously expensive ticket prices to the extent that many who grew up going to world cups feel priced out of it now.

This would once again not be a new criticism. It was already going that way when Qatar was selected to host the 2022 World Cup. In 2030 the World Cup will be hosted 100 years after the first in Argentina and this time it will be jointly hosted by a number of nations. Some matches will be in South America but the bulk will be in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. This will be the first time since Germany 2006 that the World Cup will be hosted in Central or Western Europe. With potentially 64 teams for the 100 year anniversary, the next World Cup threatens to become a behemoth that not even FIFA can control. The concerns that have built over recent tournaments will not go away on their own and with back in a region with the biggest competitive markets in the world, I expect these tensions to come to a head sooner or later.

This year's tournament saw a return to the system of the best 3rd place teams going through to the knockout rounds for the first time since 1994, when the competition had 24 teams. The European Championships have 24 teams in the group stage so they also use this system. With 48 teams competing in this World Cup, 32 teams advance to the knockout stages while 16 go home. This considerably reduced the jeopardy compared to previous tournaments, which were not only tougher to qualify for but also tougher to reach the knockout stage as well. This did not prevent Turkey from becoming the first casualty of the tournament, losing their opening two games to Australia and Paraguay. Due to head to head being used to resolve places rather than goal difference, this meant Turkey were eliminated with a game to spare, even if they racked up the goals against the USA. Most of the other eliminations were of little shock, with the exception of South Korea, who rotated heavily against South Africa only for it to backfire on them spectacularly, and Uruguay, who blew a fuse under El Loco himself, Marcelo Bielsa who already had major tensions with his squad and they exited the group stages with just two points.

In the knockout stages the story of the day was favourites win, as no matter whether they steamrolled the opposition or had it go down to the wire they almost always seemed to find a way. Germany went out to Paraguay on penalties, the first time the Germans had ever lost a World Cup penalty shootout. Their manager Julian Nagelsmann resigned shortly after, though the implication read into by fans was that he jumped before he could be pushed. Cape Verde dragged things to extra time against Argentina yet fell agonisingly short after falling behind to a late own goal. France dominated their way into the semi finals while Spain after being briefly unfancied kicked up several gears in the knockout stages as some of their returning players gained fitness. Yet up until the end of the quarter finals, only one pre match favourite lost outright, and that was Brazil, managed by Carlo Ancelotti of all people, 2-1 to Norway in a game where their wastefulness in front of goal came back to haunt them. Other than that, the only favourites to go out were Germany, the Dutch and Colombia, all on penalties. We all know Americans love a good underdog story. Tragically, despite some valiant efforts they were in short supply this time.

The semi finals were the first time we had knockout matchups of deeper quality come to the fore. Spain won 2-0 against France, a team which up until that point had been flavour of the tournament and seen as some as inevitable winners. Argentina meanwhile came back to defeat England 2-1 as Thomas Tuchel put on a disasterclass in game management, substituting off offensive players for defenders with much of the second half still to play. With a 39 year old Messi still captaining Argentina, he needed no second invitation to stretch England's defence with all the time in the world and Argentina picked up an injury time winner, by which point much of England's attack was already off the pitch and so they weren't able to respond to Argentina taking the lead.

The third place playoff featured a goalfest between England and France, with England leading 4-0 at half time, France coming back to 4-3 before the game finished 6-4 to England. Third place playoffs are often more open than the other games because neither team is in contention to win it but what was extraordinary was how lackadaisical France were in the first half against a heavily rotated England team. France raised their levels in the second half to give a chance of ending Didier Deschamps tenure as manager of France on a high but they fell short, with both team entertaining but ultimately showing why neither was in the final.

Spain vs Argentina came in with big billing, Spain being a solid but unglamorous favourite that have quietly improved over the course of the tournament whereas Argentina was the glamour underdog looking to win their second World Cup in a row with Lionel Messi as the focal point of their team. The final was ultimately a one sided affair, with it being a miracle it went to extra time at all. Enzo Fernandes was sent off for a reckless challenge on Pau Cubarsi to pick up his second yellow card of the game just before full time. Argentina held out for a little while longer before conceding early in the second half of extra time to Ferran Torres. Argentina made a very late push for an equaliser but finished the game with just three shots and none on target. Spain won their second World Cup title having won their first in 2010 and will look to defend it as one of the hosts in four years time.

There is a photo going around of Lionel Messi in a photoshoot with a baby in 2007. That baby was Lamine Yamal and he won his first World Cup playing against Lionel Messi who may have played his last. I say may because you can never rule anything out in football. He will be 43 in the next World Cup but Ronaldo just played this World Cup at 41. I would say he may have played his last World Cup too but with Portugal one of the hosts, I would not rule out him making one last push for it. Time will tell. For now the 2026 World Cup is over and the madness will begin again in four years.