WORLD CUP 2026
World Cup in graphics and charts
Every match at the 2026 World Cup was tracked in far more detail than the scoreline shows.
Optical and GPS systems recorded each player’s position multiple times a second — not just where they went, but how fast, how far, and how often.
Across more than 100 matches, that data reveals a tournament split by movement style: some players built for speed, others for endurance, and a valuable few who knew exactly when not to run at all - like Argentina’s Lionel Messi.
Messi’s percentage walked is more similar to the average goalkeeper than a forward
At 64% walking, Messi’s movement profile sits closer to a goalkeeper’s, who average about 78%, than to a typical attacker’s of 36%.
No other player showed as wide a gap between distance covered above 25 km/h and distance covered below 7 km/h. Most other players who scored at least one goal in the tournament were jogging for at least 40% of their distances, while Messi was closer to 20%.
Other tops scorers also favoured efficiency
They chose to walk more often than jog and were decisively explosive with high-speed sprints that stayed with the tournament average.
Among the players who scored five or more goals, all of them walked just above or more than the average of all players in the tournament, and jogged close to or less than average.
Bar chart comparing the share of distance walked and jogged by seven footballers, with average markers at 37.6% (walking) and 40.8% (jogging).
What about speed? As it turns out, more explosive did not always mean more goals. For the elite athletes, it came down to style.
Kylian Mbappé recorded the fastest sprint of the tournament, reaching 37.61 km/h, according to an analysis of player tracking data from the 2026 World Cup. Jordan Bos (36.67 km/h) and Erling Haaland (36.52 km/h) were the only other players to clear 36 km/h. But Messi clocked a top speed of 30 km/h, below the Forward average of 31.2 km/h.
Top speed of outfield players
Beeswarm chart of outfield players’ top speeds, with blue dots for players who scored and grey dots for those who did not.
Rodri covered 96 km across Spain’s eight matches, the most ground covered by any player in the tournament — equivalent to roughly 960 lengths of a football pitch. A full-match outfield player covers about 10 km per game on average; Rodri ran roughly 12% above that.
Most distance covered in a single match went to Jordan’s Noor Alrawabdeh
With extra-time games set aside, the largest single-match distances belong to Jordan’s Noor Alrawabdeh — the only player to clear 13 km in a match decided in regulation, and he did it twice: 13.09 km against Algeria and 13.03 km against Austria.
Player running distances in 2026 FIFA World Cup
Each dot represents a player’s distance in a single match
12.6km
Michael Olise
Forwards
France vs Senegal
13.1km
Noor Alrawabdeh
Jordan vs Algeria
Midfielders
12.6km
Timothy Castagne
Belgium vs
New Zealand
Defenders
6.7km
Orjan Nyland
Goalkeepers
Norway vs Brazil
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 km
8.7 miles
Petar Sucic (12.9 km against Portugal) and the Sebastian Berhalter (12.8 km against Türkiye) covered the next-most ground in a single game.
From Rodri’s tireless engine to Mbappé’s blistering pace, the tournament showcased football’s many physical demands. And then there was Messi, whose numbers suggest that even in an era obsessed with movement, mastery can still come from standing still.
World Cup 2026 is the largest in history — 48 teams, 1,248 players and 104 matches across three host nations. But a Reuters analysis shows that squads are drawn from a narrow set of employers — the same European leagues that dominate the club game.
The Premier League (England), the Bundesliga (Germany), LaLiga (Spain), Serie A (Italy) and Ligue 1 (France) — collectively the “Big Five” — supply 464 of 1,248 players (37%) across all 48 squads, more than a third of all players at the tournament.
Treemap of where World Cup 2026’s 1,248 players are employed. Blue rectangles, sized by count, mark the big-five European leagues — Premier League/England 154, Bundesliga/Germany 94, Ligue 1/France 77, LaLiga/Spain 73, Serie A/Italy 66 (464 total, 37%) — beside one large grey block for all Other leagues, 784. Even the biggest blue tile, England’s Premier League, looks small next to the grey majority.
Although the tournament included 16 more nations than before, the players became more European-based as the tournament progressed.
Players from the Big Five leagues made up 50% in the Round of 32. Their share rose at almost every stage: 56% in the Round of 16, 79% in the quarterfinals and 91% in the semifinals. It eased to 88% in the final between Spain and Argentina, after Argentina knocked out England in the semifinals.
Vertical funnel of players by knockout round: dark blue = top-5 European leagues, light grey = other. The band halves each round — 832, 416, 208, 104, 52 — with grey “Eliminated” amounts (416, 208, 104, 52) curving off to the right. The blue portion shrinks far slower than grey, so its share climbs from 50% at the Round of 32 to 91% by the semifinals.
The 48 squads draw on leagues from 68 different countries, but a few host the bulk of the talent. English leagues lead by a wide margin, home to 206 players, most of them in the Premier League. German leagues account for 109, French and Spanish leagues 86 each, and Italian leagues 71.
None of the four Big Five nations to qualify for this year’s World Cup (senza Italia!) fielded the most homegrown team. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the most home-based: 25 of their 26 players play at domestic clubs, though neither progressed out of the group stage.
Behind them, England (21 of 26, all in the Premier League), Germany (19 in the Bundesliga) and South Africa (19) complete the five most homegrown squads.
Grid of ring charts, one per 26-player squad, ordered most to fewest homegrown. Each ring is 26 dots — deep blue = homegrown, light grey = foreign — around a central flag, with a gold check badge on squads that reached the knockouts. Near-solid-blue leaders Qatar and Saudi Arabia sit at 25/26, England 21, Germany and South Africa 19, tapering to mostly-grey rings like France and Scotland at 8/26 down to Haiti 1/26.
Eight squads have the opposite profile, with every player based abroad. They include two of the tournament’s debutants, Cape Verde and Curaçao, whose entire squads are built in foreign leagues, alongside Canada, DR Congo, Ivory Coast, New Zealand, Senegal and Uruguay.
Eight ring charts for squads with no homegrown players, all 0/26 — every one of the 26 dots is light grey (foreign) around a central flag, gold check badges marking those that reached the knockouts. The teams: Canada, Cape Verde, Curaçao, DR Congo, Ivory Coast, New Zealand, Senegal and Uruguay. The uniformly grey rings signal squads built entirely abroad.
About 713 of the 1,248 players play for clubs on their own continent. The rest moved, overwhelmingly toward Europe. The largest cross-continent group is 189 players from African (CAF) national teams who play club football in European (UEFA) leagues. More of this tournament’s players play club football in Europe than anywhere else.
Diamond-shaped heatmap titled “Players”, shaded pale-to-navy blue (Fewer→More). Rows are the league’s confederation, columns the national team’s confederation (UEFA, CONMEBOL, CONCACAF, CAF, AFC, OFC). The darkest cell, 405, is UEFA-league players on UEFA teams; other large cells are 189 CAF-nation players in UEFA leagues, plus 154, 94, 81 and 73. Dark cells cluster toward UEFA, showing talent flowing to Europe.
The 48-team World Cup was the most global in history: nearly a quarter of FIFA’s 211 member associations reached the North American tournament. But by the semifinals, 95 of the 104 players still standing earned their club wages in one of the Big Five.
Sunday’s World Cup final sees the FIFA #1-ranked South American holders, Argentina, defending their title against the FIFA #2 and 2024 European champions, Spain.
According to Transfermarkt player valuation data, Spain’s €1.2 billion team and Argentina’s €808 million are the third and seventh most valuable lineups in the world, respectively.
Both teams’ path to the final saw them face teams with lower-valued squads until meeting France (€1.5 billion) and England (€1.4 billion) — the tournament’s two most valuable teams — in the semis.
Two step line charts comparing the value differential (opponent squad value minus own squad value, in billions of euros) faced by Spain and Argentina at each World Cup stage, from Game 1 through the Final. Left chart, Spain: Team value €1.2 billion. A line tracks Spain’s matchups from Game 1 (Denmark, draw) through Game 2 (Saudi Arabia, win), Game 3 (Uruguay, win), Round of 32 (Austria, win), Round of 16 (Portugal, win), Quarterfinal (Belgium, win), Semifinal (France, win), and Final (vs Argentina). The line starts near +1B, facing lower valued teams, rises further, then drops sharply at the semifinal against France, ending at +€415 million heading into the final, indicating Spain’s squad is more valuable than Argentina’s by that margin. Right chart, Argentina: Team value €808 million. A parallel line tracks Argentina’s matchups from Game 1 (Algeria, win) through Game 2 (Austria, win), Game 3 (Palestine, win), Round of 32 (Netherlands, win), Round of 16 (Egypt, win), Quarterfinal (Switzerland, win), Semifinal (England, win), and Final (vs Spain). The line follows a similar pattern of facing lower valued opponents through most rounds, then drops sharply at the semifinal against England, ending at −€415 million heading into the final, showing Argentina’s squad is less valuable than Spain’s by that same margin. Both charts use a horizontal axis from −1B to +1B, with a shaded gradient (orange to green) indicating “less value than opponent” versus “more value than opponent,” and a dashed line separating the group stage from the knockout rounds.
Four of the eight most valuable squads reached the semifinals, according to Transfermarkt’s player valuation data, underscoring the strong correlation between squad value and results on the pitch. France and England also advanced without facing a more valuable opponent, making them favourites on paper before falling to Spain and Argentina.
Eight step line charts arranged in a 2x4 grid, each showing a national team’s value differential against opponents at each World Cup stage, from Game 1 through elimination or the Final. Top row: France (€1.5 billion) climbs steadily through positive territory across the group stage and early knockouts, peaking around Quarterfinal, then dips slightly before being eliminated 0-2 in the Semifinal against Spain, ending at +€300 million. England (€1.4 billion) follows a similarly high, mostly positive climbing line, eliminated 1-2 in the Semifinal against Argentina, at +€556 million. Spain (€1.2 billion) rises from near the zero line in Game 1, climbs into strongly positive territory through the knockouts, then drops sharply at the semifinal, reaching the Final at +€415 million. Portugal (€1.0 billion) starts positive but drifts down through mixed group results (draw, win, draw), continuing downward through the Round of 32 win before being eliminated 0-1 in the Round of 16 against Spain, crossing to −€217 million. Bottom row: Germany (€947 million) climbs from near zero through group wins and a draw, stays elevated through a penalty win in the Round of 32, then is eliminated in the Round of 16 via penalties against Croatia, ending at +€793 million, one of the highest final values among early exits. Brazil (€928 million) rises steadily through group and Round of 32 wins, then drops when eliminated 1-2 in the Round of 16 against Norway, at +€338 million. Argentina (€808 million) mirrors Spain’s shape in reverse, rising through the group stage and knockouts before a sharp drop at the semifinal against England, reaching the Final at −€415 million. Netherlands (€754 million) rises modestly through mixed group results, then dips when eliminated via penalties in the Round of 32 against Morocco, at +€256 million. Each panel uses the shared orange to green gradient scale and dashed knockout divider, with asterisks marking penalty shootouts.
Transfermarkt’s market valuations are based on factors including a player’s future potential, age, performance, and the sporting and financial strength of the league in which they compete. These figures are estimates of market value rather than projected transfer fees, which are determined by negotiations and contractual conditions.
Before the World Cup began, the most valuable players were Lamine Yamal and Erling Haaland, both valued at €200 million, followed by Kylian Mbappé at €180 million and Pedri and Michael Olise at €150 million each. Argentina’s most valuable player is Julián Álvarez at €100 million, while Lionel Messi — the team’s iconic talisman — commands only €18 million, a reflection of his career’s twilight stage after peaking at €180 million during his time at FC Barcelona.
France’s Kylian Mbappé (€180 million) in action with Spain’s Lamine Yamal (€200 million), according to Transfermarkt valuation data, during the World Cup semifinal on July 14, 2026. REUTERS/Kai Pfaffenbach
England’s Jude Bellingham (€140 million) in action with Argentina’s Lionel Messi (€18 million), according to Transfermarkt valuation data, during the World Cup semifinal on July 15, 2026. REUTERS/Nathan Ray Seebeck
During the knockout stage, several big ticket teams fell to much lower-valued opponents, significantly under-performing on paper.
Germany, with a squad valued at more than €940 million, was eliminated by Paraguay — whose squad was worth just over €150 million — after the match went to a penalty shootout.
Brazil (€836 million) and the Netherlands (€754 million) also fell to lower-valued opponents, losing to Norway and Morocco despite squad valuation gaps of more than €200 million.
Spain’s 1-0 victory over Portugal in the Round of 16 was the closest contest between two of the tournament’s highest-valued squads. Portugal was one of the favourites, with two of the tournament’s most valuable players, João Neves and Vitinha, each valued at €140 million.
Four step line charts showing teams eliminated in the Round of 16 or Round of 32. Portugal’s line starts positive in Game 1, dips slightly through a draw and win, climbs again in the Round of 32 win over Croatia, then falls below zero when eliminated 0-1 by Spain, at −€217 million. Germany’s line climbs steadily upward through group wins and a draw, continuing to rise through a penalty win over Croatia in the Round of 32, before being eliminated in the Round of 16 by the same opponent via penalties, ending high at +€793 million. Brazil’s line rises through group stage wins and a draw, climbs further in the Round of 32 win over Japan, then drops sharply when eliminated 1-2 by Norway, settling at +€338 million. Netherlands’ line rises modestly through mixed group results, climbs slightly in a penalty win over Morocco in the Round of 32, then drops when eliminated by the same team in the next round via penalties, ending at +€256 million. All four charts use the orange to green gradient background and mark penalty shootout results with asterisks.
Among the middle-ranked nations, Norway stood out with a squad valued at €590 million, with Erling Haaland alone accounting for roughly one-third of that total. One of the tournament’s biggest surprises, Norway pushed England to extra time in the quarterfinals and came close to scoring the winner that would have sent them to the semifinals.
Switzerland suffered a similar fate against Argentina, also losing after extra time.
Morocco and Belgium also impressed with runs to the quarterfinals before falling to France and Spain, respectively. After eliminating opponents of similar or greater market value in earlier rounds, both teams were ultimately unable to overcome the gap in squad value against the tournament’s favourites.
Four step line charts showing teams eliminated in the Quarterfinal. Norway’s line starts high after Game 1, dips through a loss to France in Game 3, recovers through Round of 32 and Round of 16 wins, then falls sharply below zero when eliminated 1-2 by England, ending at −€773 million. Belgium’s line climbs through group wins and a draw, rises further through Round of 32 and Round of 16 wins, then drops sharply when eliminated 1-2 by Spain, at −€675 million. Morocco’s line dips low after a draw in Game 1, recovers through group wins, rises through a penalty draw in the Round of 32, climbs again in the Round of 16, then plunges to the chart’s lowest point when eliminated 0-2 by France, at −€1.0 billion. Switzerland’s line dips after a draw in Game 1, climbs through group wins, rises through a penalty draw in the Round of 16, then drops when eliminated 1-3 by Argentina, at −€475 million. All four use the shared gradient scale with a dashed knockout divider.
All three host nations were eliminated in the Round of 16. Mexico, with a squad valued at €192 million, lost 3-2 to England despite a valuation gap of more than €1 billion. The United States (€386 million) and Canada (€199 million) were also knocked out at the same stage, although Belgium and Morocco, their respective opponents, had much closer squad valuations.
Three step line charts showing North American teams eliminated in the Round of 16. United States’ line hovers near zero through the group stage with wins and a loss, rises slightly through a Round of 32 win, then dips just below zero when eliminated 1-4 by Belgium, at −€162 million. Canada’s line stays close to zero throughout the group stage (a draw and a win), rises modestly in the Round of 32 win over South Africa, then dips when eliminated 0-3 by Croatia, at −€300 million. Mexico’s line climbs through group stage wins, dips slightly in the Round of 32 win over Ecuador, then falls sharply into deeply negative territory when eliminated 2-3 by England, ending at −€1.2 billion, the steepest drop of the three.
Turkey, in contrast, fell well short of expectations based on its squad valuation. It failed to win any of its three group-stage matches and exited the tournament despite facing only opponents with similar or lower-valued squads. Senegal also fell short after leading Belgium in the Round of 32, only for Belgium to rally and win 3-2, ending Senegal’s run despite the sides having relatively similar squad values.
Four step line charts showing teams eliminated in the group stage or Round of 32. Senegal’s line starts low after two group losses, rises after a Game 3 win, continues upward slightly into the Round of 32, then dips just below zero when eliminated 2-3 by Belgium, at −€69 million. Turkey’s line stays close to zero across a loss, win, and loss in the group stage, remaining flat and only slightly positive when eliminated in the group stage at +€88 million. Uruguay’s line rises slightly through two draws, then plunges sharply after a Game 3 loss to Spain, eliminated in the group stage deep in negative territory at −€864 million. Czech Republic’s line hovers near zero through a loss, draw, and loss, ending essentially flat when eliminated in the group stage at −€4 million.
Several low-valued squads performed above financial expectations. DR Congo, Australia, South Africa and Cape Verde all reached the knockout stage despite having some of the tournament’s least valuable squads. Cape Verde produced the most notable run, remaining unbeaten after 90 minutes in every match before being eliminated by Argentina in extra time in the Round of 32.
At the other end of the table, Curaçao, Iraq, Jordan and Qatar, the four lowest-valued squads in the competition, failed to advance beyond the group stage.
Eight step line charts showing lower valued teams eliminated early. Top row: DR Congo’s line starts low after a Game 1 draw, dips further through group losses, then plummets sharply when eliminated 1-2 by England in the Round of 32, ending at the steep negative extreme of −€1.2 billion. Australia’s line rises after a Game 1 win, dips through a loss and draw, then flattens near zero when eliminated via penalties by Egypt in the Round of 32, at −€39 million. Cape Verde’s line dips after two draws, rises slightly after a Game 3 draw, then drops sharply when eliminated 2-3 by Argentina, at −€753 million. South Africa’s line rises after a Game 1 loss, recovers through a draw and win, then dips modestly when eliminated 0-1 by Canada, at −€149 million. Bottom row: Curaçao’s line dips after a Game 1 loss, recovers slightly through a draw, then falls when eliminated in the group stage at −€496 million. Iraq’s line dips sharply after a Game 1 loss, drops further through a Game 2 loss, then rises slightly before elimination in the group stage at −€457 million. Jordan’s line dips after a Game 1 loss, falls further through a Game 2 loss, then drops again to its lowest point when eliminated in the group stage at −€787 million. Qatar’s line dips after a Game 1 draw, recovers slightly, then falls modestly when eliminated in the group stage at −€132 million. All eight panels share the orange to green gradient background and dashed knockout divider, with asterisks marking penalty-decided matches.
Note
Data collected on June 9, before the start of the World Cup. Player valuations were sourced in euros. The data reflects Transfermarkt’s market valuation of each player. These valuations should not be equated with actual transfer fees, which can vary depending on negotiations between clubs, the amount a buying club is willing to pay and any contractual clauses that may apply.
From socks to boots, the details of footballers’ attire at the World Cup are shaped as much by personal preference and style as by performance. Nowhere is this more visible than from the knee down, where players take different approaches to how they wear their socks, blending comfort, performance and aesthetics.
Across the tournament, some players pull their socks high, stretching well above the knee so that no skin is visible, while others roll them down sharply, creating a look closer to ankle socks than traditional match kit.
High socks, low socks
Players across the World Cup are wearing their socks at dramatically different heights, from knee-covering sleeves to near-ankle cuts.
Footballers’ lower legs with varying sock heights: highest above knee, regular below knee, lowest near ankle. Notes sock sleeves and highlights Japan’s Nakamura wearing the lowest style.
In some cases, players have altered their kit further by cutting the foot section off their team-issued socks, wearing them instead as a sleeve over separate ankle or grip socks. The result can be striking, with bright white or contrasting base layers visible against team colours.
FIFA regulations require players to wear approved kit in official colours, but variations in how socks are adapted and layered have become increasingly common on the pitch.
The short and the long of it
Some teams favour knee-high coverage while others roll their socks almost to the ankle. Here are the extremes seen at the tournament so far.
Six lineup photos show players on the pitch in bright kits. Top row (Japan, Spain, New Zealand) has socks bunched low at calf or ankle; bottom row (South Africa in yellow‑green, France in blue, Sweden in yellow‑blue) shows long, knee‑high socks. Crowded stadiums blur in the background.
The degree of care in how these modifications are executed varies widely. Some players present a neat, uniform appearance, while others take a more improvised approach, with uneven cuts, loose fabric and visibly mismatched layers adding to the visual contrast across teams.
This is most evident in the emerging trend of recent years that sees players cut literal holes at the calf-muscle height of the sock with variations.
Cut-out season
Players are increasingly cutting holes into their socks, exposing their calf muscles in a trend said to improve comfort and reduce pressure.
Footballers on a pitch with holes cut into their socks. Left, two Germany players in white kits (one labelled Sané, 19) face each other; a close-up highlights torn calf sections. Right, cropped shots of players’ lower legs—Jude Bellingham (England) and Mehdi Taremi (Iran)—show multiple round holes in white socks exposing skin against a blurred stadium backdrop.
Underneath, however, one element remains compulsory. Players must wear shin guards, though FIFA rules do not specify size or shape. As a result, many opt for minimal protection, with small pads that fit discreetly under rolled-down socks, while others continue to use larger guards regardless of how high or low their socks are worn.
The shrinking shin guard
As socks get shorter, many players are opting for increasingly compact shin guards that are barely visible beneath their kit.
Three footballers from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sweden and Argentina standing on the pitch. Close-ups of their lower legs reveal shin pads: two use very small, barely visible inserts under long socks, while Lionel Messi’s white socks outline a larger, traditional guard. Labels highlight “Mini shin pad” and “Regular size shin pad,” with blurred stadium crowds behind.
Together, these choices highlight how even within a tightly regulated sport, players continue to find ways to personalise their appearance, turning a functional part of the kit into a subtle expression of identity on the world stage.
Kylian Mbappé moved within one goal of the all-time FIFA World Cup scoring record after finding the net in France’s 2-0 victory over Morocco, which sent Les Bleus into the semifinals. The France forward now trails Argentina captain Lionel Messi by just one goal in the race to become the tournament’s all-time leading scorer.
Mbappé also had the opportunity to draw level with Messi but missed a penalty in the first half. The French forward ended up being substituted in the 76th minute after suffering an injury scare.
Messi remains at the top of the all-time World Cup scoring chart with 21 goals. He surpassed Miroslav Klose’s record during the group stage and has added two more goals in the knockout rounds. Competing in his sixth World Cup, Messi has now made 31 tournament appearances, extending his record as one of the competition’s most enduring figures alongside Portuguese forward Cristiano Ronaldo.
Mbappé is playing in his third World Cup and has made 20 appearances. He burst onto the global stage in 2018, helping France win the tournament and scoring in the final against Croatia.
The two stars shared one of the most memorable matches in World Cup history in the 2022 final, when Argentina defeated France on penalties following a dramatic 3-3 draw. Both players scored, with Mbappé becoming only the second player to score a hat-trick in a World Cup final.
Penalties have also contributed to both players’ scoring totals. Mbappé has converted three penalties at the World Cups, while Messi has scored four from the spot. Messi also set another World Cup record at the 2026 tournament. After missing a penalty against Egypt, the Argentina captain became the player with both the most penalties taken and the most penalties missed in FIFA World Cup history.
Beyond competing for the World Cup title, Messi and Mbappé are also battling to finish as the tournament’s top scorer and to claim the all-time World Cup scoring record. Norway’s Erling Haaland and England captain Harry Kane remain in contention for the 2026 Golden Boot and will have the opportunity to add to their tallies when their teams meet in today’s quarterfinal.
Norway’s Erling Haaland celebrates after the match as Norway qualify for the quarter finals of the World Cup on July 5, 2026 REUTERS/Dylan Martinez
England’s Harry Kane during the match against Mexico at the Estadio Azteca in Mexico City on July 5, 2026 REUTERS/Eloisa Sanchez
However, both remain well behind Messi’s career record of 21 World Cup goals. Haaland has scored seven goals in just four matches in his first World Cup, while Kane has six goals in this edition and 14 goals in 16 World Cup appearances across three tournaments.
Messi will have the chance to extend his all-time scoring record on Saturday when Argentina face Switzerland for a place in the semifinals.
A Reuters analysis found that none of the 94 World Cup matches played so far reached FIFA’s threshold for extreme heat, the point at which cooling breaks are mandatory and matches may be postponed, delayed or cancelled.
However, FIFA and the global players’ union FIFPRO use different benchmarks for heat risk.
While FIFA reserves its highest level of intervention for more extreme conditions, FIFPRO recommends cooling measures and match changes at lower heat thresholds.
Max
Day’s Wet Bulb Globe Temperature
for the area around stadium
Average
FIFPRO recommends
delaying or rescheduling
FIFA’s previous
cooling break
threshold
FIFPRO recommends
cooling breaks
Mexico City
June 11
17
24
30
July 5
40°F
60°F
80°F
100°F
Seattle
June 15
19
24
26
July 1
6
Vancouver
June 13
18
21
24
26
July 2
7
San Francisco
June 13
16
19
22
25
July 1
Boston
June 13
16
19
23
26
29
Los Angeles
June 13
15
18
25
28
July 2
Guadalajara
June 11
18
23
26
Philadelphia
June 14
19
22
25
27
July 4
Kansas City
June 16
20
25
27
July 3
Toronto
June 12
17
20
23
26
July 2
New York / New Jersey
June 13
16
22
25
27
30
The following five stadiums saw a majority of the
matches with max Wet Bulb Globe Temperatures
fall above the FIFPRO threshold.
But Dallas, Houston and Atlanta have covered
and climate-controlled stadiums, potentially
bringing the actual temperatures at the stadiums
further down.
Houston
June 14
17
20
23
26
29
July 4
Dallas
June 14
17
22
25
27
30
July 3
6
Miami
June 15
21
24
27
July 3
Atlanta
June 15
18
21
24
27
July 1
7
Monterrey
June 14
20
24
29
Min
Max
Day’s Wet Bulb Globe Temperature
for the area around stadium
Average
FIFPRO recommends
delaying or rescheduling
FIFA’s previous
cooling break
threshold
FIFPRO recommends
cooling breaks
Mexico City
June 11
17
24
30
July 5
40°F
60°F
80°F
100°F
Seattle
June 15
19
24
26
July 1
6
Vancouver
June 13
18
21
24
26
July 2
7
San Francisco
June 13
16
19
22
25
July 1
Boston
June 13
16
19
23
26
29
Los Angeles
June 13
15
18
25
28
July 2
Guadalajara
June 11
18
23
26
Philadelphia
June 14
19
22
25
27
July 4
Kansas City
June 16
20
25
27
July 3
Toronto
June 12
17
20
23
26
July 2
New York / New Jersey
June 13
16
22
25
27
30
The following five stadiums saw a majority of the matches with max Wet Bulb
Globe Temperatures fall above the FIFPRO threshold.
But Dallas, Houston and Atlanta have covered and climate-controlled stadiums,
potentially bringing the actual temperatures at the stadiums further down.
Houston
June 14
17
20
23
26
29
July 4
Dallas
June 14
17
22
25
27
30
July 3
6
Miami
June 15
21
24
27
July 3
Atlanta
June 15
18
21
24
27
July 1
7
Monterrey
June 14
20
24
29
Min
Max
Day’s Wet Bulb Globe Temperature
for the area around stadium
Average
FIFPRO recommends
delaying or rescheduling
FIFA’s previous
cooling break
threshold
FIFPRO recommends
cooling breaks
Mexico City
June 11
17
24
30
July 5
40°F
60°F
80°F
100°F
Seattle
June 15
19
24
26
July 1
6
Vancouver
June 13
18
21
24
26
July 2
7
San Francisco
June 13
16
19
22
25
July 1
Boston
June 13
16
19
23
26
29
Los Angeles
June 13
15
18
25
28
July 2
Guadalajara
June 11
18
23
26
Philadelphia
June 14
19
22
25
27
July 4
Kansas City
June 16
20
25
27
July 3
Toronto
June 12
17
20
23
26
July 2
New York / New Jersey
June 13
16
22
25
27
30
The following five stadiums saw a majority of the matches with max Wet Bulb Globe Temperatures
fall above the FIFPRO threshold.
But Dallas, Houston and Atlanta have covered and climate-controlled stadiums, potentially
bringing the actual temperatures at the stadiums further down.
Houston
June 14
17
20
23
26
29
July 4
Dallas
June 14
17
22
25
27
30
July 3
6
Miami
June 15
21
24
27
July 3
Atlanta
June 15
18
21
24
27
July 1
7
Monterrey
June 14
20
24
29
Min
Max
Day’s Wet Bulb Globe Temperature
for the area around stadium
Average
The following five stadiums saw a majority of the matches
with max Wet Bulb Globe Temperatures fall above the
FIFPRO threshold.
But Dallas, Houston and Atlanta have covered and
climate-controlled stadiums, potentially bringing the actual
temperatures at the stadiums further down.
FIFPRO recommends
delaying or rescheduling
FIFA’s previous
cooling break
threshold
FIFPRO recommends
cooling breaks
Mexico City
Houston
June 14
June 11
17
17
24
20
30
23
July 5
26
29
40°F
60°F
80°F
100°F
July 4
Seattle
40°F
60°F
80°F
100°F
June 15
Dallas
19
June 14
24
17
26
22
July 1
25
6
27
Vancouver
30
July 3
June 13
6
18
21
Miami
24
June 15
26
21
July 2
24
7
27
San Francisco
July 3
June 13
Atlanta
16
June 15
19
18
22
21
25
24
July 1
27
Boston
July 1
7
June 13
16
Monterrey
19
June 14
23
20
26
24
29
29
Los Angeles
June 13
15
18
25
28
July 2
Guadalajara
June 11
18
23
26
Philadelphia
June 14
19
22
25
27
July 4
Kansas City
June 16
20
25
27
July 3
Toronto
June 12
17
20
23
26
July 2
New York / New Jersey
June 13
16
22
25
27
30
Min
Heat risk is commonly assessed using Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT), a measure that combines air temperature, humidity, sunlight and wind into a single indicator of how stressful conditions are on the body. It is widely used because it provides a more complete picture of heat strain than air temperature alone.
FIFA mandates cooling breaks when WBGT reaches 89.6 degrees Fahrenheit (32 degrees Celsius) and recommends postponing, delaying or cancelling matches at that level. FIFPRO’s guidance is more cautious, recommending that cooling breaks be considered above 78.8F (26C) and that matches be postponed, delayed or cancelled once WBGT exceeds 82.4F (28C).
Reuters was able to capture WBGT data based on satellite readings for the wider area around each stadium and the data is not a reflection of actual readings taken at the stadium.
A Reuters analysis of this data found that 35 of the 94 matches recorded a maximum WBGT above FIFPRO’s cooling-break threshold of 78.8F. Of those, 27 matches exceeded FIFPRO’s higher extreme-heat threshold of 82.4F.
Among the top 5 stadiums that recorded the highest WBGT temperatures, three of them are covered and climate controlled covering 18 matches that exceeded FIFPRO’s extreme thresholds. This means only 9 matches of the World Cup so far were played in open-air fields with no air-conditioning above the FIFPRO 82.4F threshold.
The tournament has unfolded against the backdrop of a major U.S. heatwave. In early July, record-breaking temperatures spread from the Midwest into the eastern United States, placing tens of millions of people under heat warnings ahead of the July 4 holiday weekend.
How heat and humidity affect the body
Wet-bulb temperature combines air temperature and humidity into a single measure of heat stress, reflecting how effectively the body can cool itself through sweating. As humidity rises, sweat evaporates more slowly, making it harder to shed heat. That can cause core body temperature to increase more quickly, raising the risk of fatigue and heat-related illness.
Diagram showing how sweat evaporates to cool the body and how humid conditions hinder evaporation, increasing heat stress.
Hydration breaks are typically taken midway through each half, when heat strain and fluid loss begin to accumulate. Players can lose significant amounts of fluid during sustained exertion in hot conditions, and even brief pauses can lower heart rates, allow rehydration and help slow increases in core body temperature. The potential benefit rises as environmental stress increases.
Heat index chart showing how combinations of air temperature and relative humidity increase heat-related risk from caution to extreme danger.
While introduced as a player welfare measure, hydration breaks also create rare scheduled stoppages in a sport that otherwise offers few predictable interruptions to live action. Unlike injury delays or video reviews, they are pre-authorised and can be anticipated by broadcasters.
A viral clip of Diego Maradona resurfaced during the 2026 World Cup.
In a 2018 interview with Argentine journalist Victor Hugo Morales, Maradona joked that the United States would one day split matches into four 25-minute quarters to create more space for advertising.
Using FIFA’s expanded 104-match World Cup format and assuming two hydration breaks per match lasting a combined six minutes, Reuters calculations show the tournament would generate 208 hydration breaks and about 624 minutes of scheduled stoppage time — equivalent to more than 10 hours of live broadcast airtime.
FIFA has said hydration breaks are introduced on medical advice. But as football increasingly confronts hot-weather tournaments and rising temperatures, debates over when cooling measures are necessary are likely to continue.
When a World Cup match turns on a split-second decision in the dying moments, the referee is expected to be in the right place at the right time — no small ask when battling everything from Miami humidity to Mexico City’s lung-busting altitude.
While fans focus on players chasing goals, referees are sprinting just as hard, typically covering 12 to 13 kilometres per match according to FIFA — a distance comparable to many outfield players.
Some World Cup matches are being decided later than ever, with an increasing number of goals arriving in stoppage time, according to a Reuters analysis of World Cup data.
The trend accelerated in 2018 and then reached record levels at the 2022 World Cup, where three goals were scored beyond the 100-minute mark. So far, matches at the current 2026 tournament suggest the trend is continuing, with late goals remaining a defining feature of the tournament.
As of July 2, 22 goals had been scored in second-half stoppage time at the 2026 World Cup, or 0.26 per game, more than the 0.23 per game in 2022.
World Cup matches in the U.S. are being played under local lightning safety rules that can halt play as soon as lightning is detected close to a stadium. Under those protocols, play is suspended immediately if lightning is detected within an eight-mile (13-km) radius of a stadium and can only resume after 30 minutes have passed without a further strike. Any new strike resets the countdown.
But some, about 20%, strike more than 8 miles from the storm
If any lightning is detected within 8 miles of the stadium the game is suspended
Diagram is not to scale
Bolts
8 miles
Most lightning strikes occur in or near the storm area
Rain
Stadium
Town
Ground
Rare "bolts from the blue" can strike more than 10 miles from a storm
STORM
Lightning can strike several miles from the storm that produces it, and safety agencies warn that if thunder can be heard, lightning is close enough to pose a danger. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says there is no safe place outside during a thunderstorm and advises people to move to a substantial building. However, the danger is also not limited to a bolt hitting a person directly.
“When most people think about lightning strikes, they think of direct hits,” said Chris Vagasky, a meteorologist and lightning safety specialist with the National Lightning Safety Council. “This is actually the least common way people are struck,” he added.
Direct strike
Lightning hits a person directly, sending electricity through the body
Ground current
Energy spreads through the ground from a nearby strike
Contact injury
Electricity travels through an object a person is touching
Side flash
A charge jumps from a struck object to a nearby person
Upward leader
A discharge rising from the ground or tall object that connects with a descending lightning bolt
The risk becomes more complex inside stadiums. A venue with a fully enclosed roof can offer far more protection than an open bowl, because the structure can conduct electricity away from people inside.
Some cover the stands but leave the pitch exposed. Others are open-sided or open-topped, leaving players, officials, staff and spectators more exposed to the outdoor environment.
Venues also face varying levels of lightning risk, according to historical data from Vaisala Xweather, provided via the National Lightning Safety Council.
Historic lightning activity near stadiums
Total strikes during World Cup period (June 11-July 19) from 2016 to 2025 within 50km of stadiums.
Add a description of the graphic for screen readers. This is invisible on the page.
Once an alert is issued, spectators are moved to safer areas, typically enclosed interior spaces such as concourses. In corridors or rooms with walls, a roof, plumbing and electrical systems, any strike is diverted through the building’s wiring and pipework rather than through people, Vagasky explained.
Exposed seating areas are different. Even when a stadium has lightning rods or other protection systems, experts warn that lightning does not always strike where expected so the stands can be a place to avoid during an active storm.
Lightning risk also varies by time of day, with activity around the World Cup stadiums peaking in the afternoon and early evening when many World Cup matches are scheduled.
Lightning by time of day
Total strikes by hour during World Cup period (June 11-July 19) from 2016 to 2025 within 50km of stadiums
Chart showing lightning strikes by hour of day
More granular lightning activity data paints a detailed picture of stadium surroundings and how common lightning has been inside the 8 mile radius in previous years.
The maps show how little activity some stadiums have seen such as San Francisco and Seattle compared to those with much higher amounts of lightning activity and no enclosed roof, like Miami and Kansas City stadiums.
Add a description of the graphic for screen readers. This is invisible on the page.
The issue extends beyond the pitch. World Cup crowds are not only confined to stadiums. Fan festivals, viewing areas, transport hubs and public gathering points can hold thousands of people in exposed spaces.
A simple rule helps gauge the risk when outdoors, Vagasky said. “If you can hear thunder, lightning can strike you.”
A significant share of players at this World Cup were born outside the countries they represent, reflecting the sport’s increasingly global talent pipeline.
A Reuters analysis mapping every foreign-born player to their adopted team reveals a more complex picture. Seven of the ten squads with the highest numbers of foreign-born players are in danger of group-stage elimination, suggesting diaspora recruitment alone is not closing the gap with the elite.
The meteoric rise of Morocco since the last World Cup has led to debate over the importance of assimilating top talent from across the world to build a national team. Morocco has 11 star players who were born outside the country. While the North African nation ranks among the top three in terms of the number of foreign‑born players, it is the small island nation of Curaçao that tops the list of countries with the highest proportion of foreign‑born players at this World Cup.
Foreign-born players at the 2026 World Cup
Number of players born outside the country they represent
Bar chart showing the number of foreign-born players per squad at the 2026 World Cup. Curaçao leads with 25, followed by DR Congo (22) and Morocco (19). At the other end, Brazil, Argentina, Spain and several others have zero foreign-born players.
Source: Transfermarkt; Reuters
About 95% of Curaçao’s national team was born in the Netherlands and would be eligible to play for the Dutch national team. A former Dutch colony, Curaçao became a constituent country in 2010 after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles, a group of six Caribbean island territories.
Second on the list is the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where about 85% of the squad was born abroad, mostly in France.
Third is Morocco, whose national team has drawn admiration from fans and ire from opponents for actively recruiting foreign‑born players. Striker Brahim Díaz made headlines and caused heartbreak when he chose to play for Morocco, where his grandparents were born, over his country of birth, Spain.
Curaçao and the DRC are trailing in their respective group standings. Other countries on the list include Algeria and Bosnia, whose campaigns are ongoing, alongside Haiti and Qatar, who have been eliminated.
Foreign‑born World Cup players by birthplace and national team
Migration corridors in the World Cup squads
Flow chart showing migration corridors of foreign-born players at the 2026 World Cup, linking birthplace on the left to national team on the right. France is the largest source country with 73 foreign-born players, followed by the Netherlands (42), Germany (25) and England (23). The heaviest flows run from France and the Netherlands to Curaçao, DR Congo, Morocco and Algeria.
“75% of our players playing for Iraq, are Iraqis living in Iraq, but they were ones who were born outside in Scandinavia or wherever. They’ve got so much passion to play for their country of Iraq, because of their family, and their parents, and they want to go and do them proud. So it’s, you know, once I get this shirt on, you’ve got the country’s badge on their heart. And it’s how they feel about playing for that country that is important,” Graham Arnold, the Australian who is coaching team Iraq, told Reuters.
FIFA’s eligibility rules for foreign‑born players are straightforward: all players must be citizens of the country they represent, a requirement enforced through passport checks. FIFA also has an additional caveat — players must either have resided in the country they represent for five years or have a parent or grandparent born there. This rule was reinforced in 2004 after the Qatar Football Association said it would grant instant citizenship to a Brazilian trio — Aílton, Leandro and Dedé — who had no clear ties to the country.
One birthplace, many teams
73 foreign-born players came from France and play for other teams. Here are the countries producing the most players who represent another nation.
Six flow charts showing countries that supply the most players who represent another nation. France, the largest source country with 73 players, supplies most of its players to Algeria (13), DR Congo (11), Haiti (11) and Senegal (10). The Netherlands (42 players) sends 25 to Curaçao and 6 to Cape Verde. Germany (25) supplies mainly Croatia (5) and Turkiye (5). England (23) supplies Scotland (5), Ghana (3), USA (3) and Canada (3). Spain (11) sends their largest share to Morocco (6). Belgium sends its largest share to DR Congo (5) and Morocco (3).
What makes the eligibility rules notable is how some countries and their football associations have actively pursued players with only cultural or ancestral ties. Lamine Yamal was famously scouted by Morocco before turning down the offer. The English and German football federations also competed to recruit Jamal Musiala, now a star for Germany, who holds dual citizenship.
Playing for one nation, born in another
Squads with the most foreign-born players
Six flow charts showing where foreign-born players were born, for the six 2026 World Cup squads with the most diaspora recruits. Curaçao’s 25 foreign-born players were all born in the Netherlands. DR Congo’s 20 foreign-born players came mostly from France (11) and Belgium (5). Morocco’s 19 came primarily from Spain (6) and France (6). Bosnia’s 17 came from Germany (4), Sweden (3) and several other European countries. Algeria’s 16 came almost entirely from France (13). Haiti’s 16 came mainly from France (11).
“It is a rational approach to go after talent,” said Peter Donnelly, Professor Emeritus of Sport and Politics at the University of Toronto.
What the Moroccan case and other examples show is a redefinition of the national team. “National identity remains powerful in football, but what is changing is the idea of who can legitimately embody the nation,” said Myriam Cherti, Senior researcher, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Oxford University.
At the other end of the spectrum are Brazil and Argentina, which have among the lowest numbers of foreign‑born players in their squads. While both countries have exported large numbers of players to major European leagues, their national teams continue to draw heavily on domestically rooted talent, reflecting the historic weight their footballing identities carry.
A Reuters analysis of the starting lineups from each team’s opening World Cup match shows Nike and Adidas almost evenly split the battle for the boots on football’s biggest stage, with Nike boots worn by 232 of the 528 starters and Adidas close behind on 218. Puma boots made up the third largest share with 44 players.
Most popular boot brands on the starting lineups
Adidas
Puma
232 players
218
44
34
Nike
Adidas
Puma
232 players
218
44
34
Nike
Adidas
Puma
Other
232 players
218
44
34
Nike
Within those brands, a small number of models accounted for most of the market. Nike’s Mercurial was the most popular boot overall, worn by 144 starters, ahead of Adidas’ F50 on 109 and Adidas’ Predator on 82. Nike’s Phantom, Tiempo, and Copa lines also featured, while Puma’s Future model was worn by 36 players.
Here are the most popular models of boots worn by players in starting lineups.
Graphic showing the most popular models of boots worn by starting lineups. Nike’s Mercurial was the most popular boot overall, worn by 144 starters, ahead of Adidas’ F50 on 109.
The vast majority were pink.
The same graphic shows most of them were pink.
The clearest trend, however, was not brand but colour. Pink boots dominated the opening round of matches, worn by 365 of the 528 starters, or about 69%. Major manufacturers released vivid pink colourways in time for the tournament, turning what was once a rare flash of colour into the default look. Black boots, long the traditional choice, were seen on only seven players.
Seeing pink
Colour of boots worn by players at their opening matches
Chart showing the colour of boots worn by players at their opening matches
Some teams were almost entirely pink on their feet. Brazil, Colombia and Germany each had all 11 starters wearing pink boots, a detail that jumps out in team photographs where rows of bright pink boots stand out against the green grass.
Then 10 other teams followed in the rankings with 10 players wearing pink, underlining how completely the colour has taken over the World Cup stage.
Brazil, Colombia and Germany dominated the pink playing field
Number of starting 11 players wearing pink boots
Chart showing each team and how many wore pink, with Brazil, Colombia and Germany each having all 11 starters wearing pink boots.
Brazil’s squad photo taken before their opening group match against Morocco shows all but four of the 25 players wearing pink.
Nike and Adidas are both investing heavily in the tournament. Adidas, an official World Cup sponsor and a brand long associated with soccer, is sponsoring 14 teams and supplying the coveted match ball. Nike is outfitting 12 national teams, partnering with local street-wear designers and rolling out soccer merchandise at more than 5,000 Nike and wholesale stores globally.
Brand battles remain close, but on colour there is little contest as pink has taken over the pitch.
Argentina’s Lionel Messi has finally beaten the all-time World Cup goal scorers record held by Germany’s Miroslav Klose since 2014, after adding two more goals to his tally at his second match of the 2026 World Cup. He now has a total of 18 goals.
Messi is competing in his sixth World Cup and has made 28 appearances, extending his record as one of the tournament’s most enduring figures alongside Cristiano Ronaldo.
France’s Kylian Mbappé is also close behind, after scoring two goals in his match against Iraq. Mbappé is appearing in his third World Cup and has played 16 matches. He burst onto the global stage in 2018, helping France win the tournament and scoring in the final against Croatia.
Klose remains level with Mbappé, now in second place of the all-time World Cup scoring chart with 16 goals. The German striker, who represented his country at the 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014 tournaments, scored nearly half of his goals with headers, none of them from penalties, and capped his international career by helping Germany win the 2014 World Cup, scoring two goals during the tournament.
The two stars, Messi and Mbappé, shared one of the most memorable moments in World Cup history in the 2022 final, when Argentina defeated France on penalties after a dramatic 3-3 draw. Both players scored in the match, with Mbappé becoming the second player to score a hat-trick in a World Cup final.
Penalty kicks have played a role in both players’ scoring records. Mbappé has converted two penalties at World Cups, while Messi has scored four from the spot.
Technology inside the World Cup ball took centre stage on June 14, when it helped award a disputed goal in Sweden’s 5-1 win over Tunisia. Officials used waveform data, similar to cricket’s Snickometer, to detect a slight contact with the ball, allowing the goal.
How hot could the 2026 World Cup be? A Reuters analysis tracks temperatures across host cities and compares them against historical averages, offering a clearer picture of how conditions during the tournament differ from what was once considered “normal”.
The data shows a growing risk of matches being played in elevated heat, with scientists warning that roughly a quarter of games could exceed recommended safety limits for players and fans. These risks are measured using indices like the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT), which captures how heat and humidity combine to affect the human body.
By placing match conditions in historical context, the tracker highlights how climate change is shifting the baseline — turning what might once have been typical summer weather into increasingly hazardous playing conditions. As the tournament unfolds across the United States, Mexico and Canada, the visuals provide a way to monitor how heat may shape the games in real time.
From essentials to outright bans, World Cup stadium entry comes with a long list of do’s and don’ts. Fans arriving at stadiums face clear bag rules, restrictions on what they can carry, and close scrutiny of everything from banners to bottles, as organisers aim to balance safety with the spectacle of the game.
At the centre of the policy is a clear bag requirement designed to speed up security checks. Small transparent bags are permitted, while opaque backpacks and large handbags are typically turned away.
A graphic illustrating World Cup stadium bag policy. It shows a transparent clear bag made of plastic, vinyl, or PVC with labeled dimensions, alongside a small non-transparent wallet also labeled for size comparison.
Aside from a typical range of prohibited items such as weapons and sharp objects, certain outside food and liquids are banned and restrictions often extend to everyday items deemed safety risks in large crowds, including some containers, projectiles or anything that could obstruct views.
Graphics showing illustrations of everyday items, with liquids over 100ml, alcohol, sports gear, and baby strollers not allowed, while a cigarette and one soft single-use water bottle are allowed.
Flags and banners, staple of World Cup spectators, are permitted within limits. They must usually fit size guidelines and cannot contain offensive messaging, political statements or obstructive poles.
Graphics showing illustrations of flags and banners, with flagpoles and sticks not allowed (except short flexible plastic poles), while team flags up to 150 × 200 cm are allowed.
In terms of electronics, personal devices such as phones and small cameras are allowed, but larger equipment, professional gear, drones and some musical instruments may be restricted or banned unless pre-approved.
Graphics showing illustrations of electronic devices, with laser pointers and selfie sticks not allowed, while one personal-use power bank and a small camera are allowed.
Smoking and vaping are banned entirely inside stadiums. Alcohol consumption is controlled with each person able to buy two drinks per person, per transaction.
Lionel Messi has joined Miroslav Klose at the top of the all-time World Cup goal scorers list, reaching 16 goals with a hat-trick in Argentina’s opening match of the 2026 tournament. The Argentine captain now shares the record for most goals scored in World Cup history, a mark that has stood since Germany’s 2014 title run.
Messi’s latest goals bring him level at the top, while France’s Kylian Mbappé continues his climb with 14 career World Cup goals, putting him among the leading scorers in the tournament’s history.
As the 2026 World Cup unfolds, the list of the most goals scored in World Cup history is shifting in real time.
The all-time scoring charts — led by Klose (16) and closely followed by Brazil’s Ronaldo (15) — have long defined football’s biggest stage.
With more matches and more chances to score, the tournament is creating new opportunities for players to rise up the rankings — and potentially rewrite one of football’s most enduring records.
Cape Verde marked their first World Cup appearance by holding Spain to a draw, while fellow newcomers Curacao lost to Germany, as Uzbekistan and Jordan also prepare for their own finals debuts in the coming days.
Their breakthroughs underline how the expanded 48-team format has opened the door to new qualifiers. Yet their place in the finals reflects a long and demanding qualification process rather than a quick upset. Their path to the tournament was a marathon across continents, with formats varying by region and testing endurance as much as quality.
Curacao fans inside the stadium before Germany v Curacao at Houston Stadium, Houston, Texas, U.S. - June 14, 2026. REUTERS/Phil Noble
A Cape Verde fan holds up a scarf before Spain v Cape Verde at Atlanta Stadium, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. - June 15, 2026. Reuters/Brett Davis
World Cup qualification is a multi-stage process that can span years. In Asia, home to Uzbekistan and Jordan, teams navigate preliminary knockouts, group stages and later rounds that test squad depth and consistency as much as outright quality. Long travel distances and compressed schedules add further strain.
Uzbekistan and Jordan turned years of near-misses and incremental progress into consistent qualifying campaigns, finally earning their first World Cup places. They booked their place in the finals after playing two rounds of qualification. Unlike Iraq, also from the Asian federation, who were the last team to qualify following a gruelling qualifying campaign stretching from Nov. 2023 to March 2026.
A diagram of the elimination rounds of the Asia Federation. It starts with 20 of Asia’s lower-ranked teams and works through five rounds, leading to the final play-off where Iraq eventually qualified. Jordan and Uzbekistan qualified in Round 3.
Cabo Verde has drawn heavily on its diaspora to compete in Africa’s crowded qualification field. They qualified after topping their group in round one and secured their place at the finals.
Curacao progressed through the CONCACAF system by winning their second-round group, then going unbeaten to top a final-round group and seal a historic first World Cup berth. Qualification spots in the region were limited, with hosts the United States, Canada and Mexico occupying three of them and leaving only three available.
A diagram of lines leading from the four lowest-ranked teams represented as four black dots. Three host countries are off to the side since they already qualified. In round 2, 28 higher-ranked teams joined, leading to round 3 where Curacao qualified. It ends with Jamaica and Suriname progressing to play-off with teams from other regions but they were eventually eliminated.
By population, they rank as the smallest two teams in the tournament, with Curaçao home to about 150,000 people and Cape Verde around 525,000, far below most of their opponents in this year’s finals.
Two of the four debutants hail from smaller populations
Curacao’s population is around 150,000 and Cabo Verde is just over 500,000.
Gold dots representing the 48 qualifying teams are plotted along a horizontal scale from 0 to 300 million. Most of the dots are gathered on the left-hand side and are less than 20 million population. United States is on the far right with the largest population.
Rankings and reality
FIFA’s ranking system is a useful indicator of form, but offers no guarantee of qualification. The structure of the qualifying process and group draws can produce outcomes that diverge massively from rankings.
High-ranked teams have missed out while lower-ranked sides have advanced. Italy are the standout omission from this year’s finals. The four-times champions missed out after finishing second in their UEFA qualifying group, then losing to Bosnia and Herzegovina on penalties in the European playoff final.
FIFA men’s world rankings
Highlighted rows show the teams qualified for the World Cup 2026. Click on a header to sort the column.
| rank | country | group |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Argentina | J |
| 2 |  Spain | H |
| 3 |  France | I |
| 4 |  England | L |
| 5 |  Portugal | K |
| 6 |  Brazil | C |
| 7 |  Morocco | C |
| 8 |  Netherlands | F |
| 9 |  Belgium | G |
| 10 |  Germany | E |
| 11 |  Croatia | L |
| 12 | Italy | — |
| 13 |  Colombia | K |
| 14 |  Mexico | A |
| 15 |  Senegal | I |
| 16 |  Uruguay | H |
| 17 |  United States | D |
| 18 |  Japan | F |
| 19 | Switzerland | B |
| 20 |  Iran | G |
| 21 | Denmark | — |
| 22 |  Turkey | D |
| 23 |  Ecuador | E |
| 24 |  Austria | J |
| 25 |  Korea Republic | A |
| 26 | Nigeria | — |
| 27 |  Australia | D |
| 28 |  Algeria | J |
| 29 |  Egypt | G |
| 30 |  Canada | B |
| 31 |  Norway | I |
| 32 | Ukraine | — |
| 33 |  Cote d'Ivoire | E |
| 34 |  Panama | L |
| 35 | Russia | — |
| 36 | Poland | — |
| 37 | Wales | — |
| 38 |  Sweden | F |
| 39 | Hungary | — |
| 40 |  Czech Republic | A |
| 41 |  Paraguay | D |
| 42 |  Scotland | C |
| 43 | Serbia | — |
| 44 | Cameroon | — |
| 45 |  Tunisia | F |
| 46 |  Congo DR | K |
| 47 | Slovakia | — |
| 48 | Greece | — |
| 49 | Venezuela | — |
| 50 |  Uzbekistan | K |
| 51 |  Chile | — |
| 52 |  Peru | — |
| 53 |  Costa Rica | — |
| 54 |  Romania | — |
| 55 |  Mali | — |
| 56 |  Qatar | B |
| 57 |  Iraq | I |
| 58 |  Republic of Ireland | — |
| 59 |  Slovenia | — |
| 60 |  South Africa | A |
| 61 |  Saudi Arabia | H |
| 62 |  Burkina Faso | — |
| 63 |  Jordan | J |
| 64 |  Bosnia and Herzegovina | B |
| 65 |  Honduras | — |
| 66 |  Albania | — |
| 67 |  Cape Verde | H |
| 68 |  United Arab Emirates | — |
| 69 |  North Macedonia | — |
| 70 |  Northern Ireland | — |
| 71 |  Jamaica | — |
| 72 |  Georgia | — |
| 73 |  Ghana | L |
| 74 |  Iceland | — |
| 75 |  Finland | — |
| 76 |  Israel | — |
| 77 |  Bolivia | — |
| 78 |  Kosovo | — |
| 79 |  Oman | — |
| 80 |  Montenegro | — |
| 81 |  Guinea | — |
| 82 |  Curacao | E |
| 83 |  Haiti | C |
| 84 |  Syria | — |
| 85 |  New Zealand | G |
| 86 |  Gabon | — |
| 87 |  Bulgaria | — |
| 88 |  Angola | — |
| 89 |  Uganda | — |
| 90 |  Zambia | — |
| 91 |  China PR | — |
| 92 |  Bahrain | — |
| 93 |  Benin | — |
| 94 |  Thailand | — |
| 95 |  Palestine | — |
| 96 |  Belarus | — |
| 97 |  Guatemala | — |
| 98 |  Luxembourg | — |
| 99 |  Vietnam | — |
| 100 |  El Salvador | — |
Note: Rankings as of June 11, 2026.
Source: FIFA | ||
For this year’s debutants, qualification alone is a major step, marking the culmination of years navigating one of sport’s most demanding systems. The finals tournament itself now presents an even greater test.
Built to drain in minutes and withstand repeated matches, World Cup pitches rely on a mix of turf science, temperature control and precision engineering.
The perfect football pitch at the 2026 World Cup is not simply grass. It is a combination of agriculture, temperature control, engineering and logistics.
A World Cup pitch must withstand studs, sliding tackles and the elements at least four times during the month-long tournament. It must drain water within minutes and feel the same for matches in Miami, Vancouver, Mexico City and New Jersey, venues with sharply different climates.
For the first time in FIFA World Cup history there wasn’t just one opening ceremony taking place before the kick-off of the opening match - there were three.
The first took place on June 11 at 5.30pm GMT at Mexico City Stadium, officially known as Banorte Stadium, followed by the first of three opening matches.
The following day on June 12, two more opening ceremonies took place - one at SoFi Stadium, Los Angeles, and the other at BMO Field, Toronto.
llustrated infographic titled “Three sets of headliners” showing performers for World Cup opening ceremonies across three countries. Left (blue, “UNITED STATES”): artists including Katy Perry, Anitta, Blackpink’s Lisa, Rema, Future, Tyla. Centre (green, “MEXICO”): Shakira, Burna Boy, J Balvin, Alejandro Fernández, Lila Downs, Los Ángeles Azules, Belinda, Danny Ocean, Maná, and Tyla. Right (orange, “CANADA”): Michael Bublé, Alanis Morissette, Alessia Cara, Nora Fatehi, William Prince, Jessie Reyez, Elyanna, Vegedream, and DJ Sanjoy.
Shakira and Burna Boy were recently added to the lineup to perform the official World Cup song, ‘Dai Dai’. Tyla will appear in two opening ceremonies: Mexico and U.S. Bangladeshi-born DJ Sanjoy to perform at the Toronto opening ceremony.
“Starting with Mexico City and continuing the next days with Toronto and Los Angeles, these ceremonies will bring together music, culture and football in a way that reflects both the individuality of each nation and the unity that defines this tournament,” said FIFA President Gianni Infantino
A light grey map of North America marks three World Cup opening ceremony venues with coloured circles. Left, a blue circle highlights Los Angeles Stadium (SoFi Stadium) with text “12 June, 11:30 pm GMT.” Centre bottom, a green circle marks Mexico City Stadium (Banorte Stadium) with “11 June, 5:30 pm GMT.” Right, a red circle shows Toronto Stadium (BMO Field) with “12 June, 5:30 pm GMT.” Countries “UNITED STATES,” “MEXICO,” and “CANADA” are labelled.
This year’s opening ceremonies have also incorporated more interactive elements for fans at the stadiums.
FIFA said there was a 360-degree immersive concept, with extra-large country flags and on-pitch elements designed to involve the crowd. The starting teams and substitutes will step into a centre circle banner for their national anthems.
Ceremonies start 90 minutes before kick-offs, similar to Qatar in 2022
All three countries will start their opening ceremonies about 90 minutes before the kick-off for the opening matches.
This follows a similar pattern to previous World Cup events, except for when Russia hosted in 2018 when kick-off occurred directly after the opening ceremony ended.
A monochrome infographic titled “Opening ceremony duration” shows horizontal bars for six World Cups aligned against a vertical line labelled “Opening match kick-off.” Each bar has a dark segment (ceremony length) and a lighter segment (time until kick-off). From top to bottom: Qatar 2022: 30min ceremony before kick-off. Russia 2018: 30min immediately before kick-off. Brazil 2014: 30min earlier, followed by a long gap. South Africa 2010: 45min, the longest. Germany 2006: 30min. Japan/South Korea 2002: 40min. All bars end at the same vertical kick-off marker, highlighting varying ceremony timing and duration across tournaments.
Comparing headliners throughout the years
Even with the trilogy of ceremonies, the number of headliners per ceremony was larger than previous years. The last time there was a celebration with a similar number of headliners was in 2010 when South Africa held a Kick-Off Celebration Concert the evening before the opening match.
Also, it’s not always singers who feature in the lineup. Morgan Freeman was a key act at the 2022 Qatar opening, when he used his familiar voice to narrate the opening segment alongside Qatari entrepreneur Ghanim Al-Muftah.
Infographic comparing World Cup opening ceremony headliners. Top shows “2026 – 25 headliners” as three coloured groups of performer silhouettes; note says “Shakira’s second appearance as a headliner. First time was in 2010 in South Africa.” Bottom compares past tournaments: Qatar 2022 (5), Russia 2018 (2), Brazil 2014 (4), South Africa 2010 (8*), Germany 2006 (3).
In 2022, The ceremony was narrated by actor Morgan Freeman. Ghanim Al-Muftah, a Qatari entrepreneur, narrated alongside him. In 2010, Amadou & Mariam, a blind musical duo from Mali, were featured along with other headliners a Kick-off Celebration Concert held on the eve of the opening match.
Edited by
Kenneth Ferris, Rebecca Pazos and Simon Scarr