Fairness of the 2026 FIFA World Cup group-stage draw
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v78.118530Keywords:
tournament design, randomized assignments, fairness, World Cup 2026, constrained matchingAbstract
Introduction: We evaluate the ex-ante fairness of the 2026 FIFA World Cup group-stage draw under official rules and two counterfactual mechanisms using a reproducible simulation. A 48-team pool consistent with confederation quotas is paired with an ex-ante team-strength index derived solely from past World Cup final-tournament matches using Lidstone shrinkage, with robustness checks employing the FIFA Ranking (SUM) and Elo ratings.
Objective: We compare (i) FIFA-2026: pots by ranking with confederation caps and pre-assigned hosts; (ii) Feasible-uniform: a pot-free feasible baseline under the same confederation caps; and (iii) Fair-greedy: a post-draw, within-pot swap heuristic that accepts only coefficient-of-variation (CV)–reducing moves while preserving all constraints.
Discussion: Across N = 500 simulated draws per mechanism, the mean CV of group-average strength is 0.0882 (Feasible-uniform), 0.0684 (FIFA-2026), and 0.0634 (Fair-greedy). Thus, relative to FIFA-2026, Feasible-uniform increases inequality by +0.0198 CV (~+28.9%), while Fair-greedy reduces it by −0.0050 (~−7.3%), with lower upper-tail risk under FIFA-2026 and Fair-greedy. Letter-level diagnostics under FIFA-2026 reveal lower difficulty for host-anchored groups and a concentration of “hardest-group” risk in a subset of non-host letters. Against a historical yardstick (1998–2022), FIFA-2026 and Fair-greedy remain within observed bounds, whereas Feasible-uniform can exceed them at the upper extreme.
Conclusions: Overall, our results suggest a simple, constraint-preserving post-draw adjustment that can improve competitive balance without changing the live-draw structure.
References
Arlegi, R., & Dimitrov, D. (2020). Fair elimination-type competitions. European Journal of Operational Research, 287(2), 528–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.03.025
Avila-Cano, A., Ruiz-Sepulveda, A., & Triguero-Ruiz, F. (2021). Identifying the Maximum Concentration of Results in Bilateral Sports Competitions. Mathematics, 9(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/math9111293
Boczon, M., & Wilson, A. J. (2023). Goals, Constraints, and Transparently Fair Assignments: A Field Study of Randomization Design in the UEFA Champions League. Management Science, 69(6), 3474–3491. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4528
Bradley, R. A., & Terry, M. E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39(3–4), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/39.3-4.324
Cea, S., Durán, G., Guajardo, M., Sauré Valenzuela, D., Siebert Sandoval, J., & Zamorano, G. (2020). An ana-lytics approach to the FIFA ranking procedure and the World Cup final draw. Annals of Opera-tions Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03261-8
Chater, M., Arrondel, L., Gayant, J.-P., & Laslier, J.-F. (2021). Fixing match-fixing: Optimal schedules to promote competitiveness. European Journal of Operational Research, 294(2), 673–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.02.006
Csató, L. (2023). A note on the UEFA Champions League Round of 16 draw (arXiv:2210.15555). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.15555
Csató, L., & Gyimesi, A. (2025). Increasing competitiveness by imbalanced groups: The example of the 48-team FIFA World Cup. European Journal of Operational Research, S037722172500935X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2025.11.025
Csató, L., Gyimesi, A., Goossens, D., Devriesere, K., Lambers, R., & Spieksma, F. (2025). How to measure the uncertainty of a tournament draw: The case of European football’s Champions League (arXiv:2507.15320). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.15320
Csató, L., Kiss, L. M., & Szádoczki, Z. (2025). The allocation of FIFA World Cup slots based on the ranking of confederations. Annals of Operations Research, 344(1), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-024-06091-5
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429246593
Fienberg, S. E., & Holland, P. W. (1972). On the choice of flattening constants for estimating multinomi-al probabilities. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 2(1), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-259X(72)90014-0
FIFA. (2025a). Draw Procedures for the FIFA World Cup-2026. https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/2d1a1ac7bab78995/original/Draw-Procedures-for-the-FIFA-World-Cup-2026.pdf
FIFA. (2025b). FIFA World Ranking Men [Internet]. https://inside.fifa.com/es/fifa-world-ranking/men
FIFA. (2025c). FIFA/Coca‑Cola Men’s World Ranking Procedures [Internet]. https://inside.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/procedure-men
FIFA. (2025d). Regulations for the FIFA World Cup 26. https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/636f5c9c6f29771f/original/FWC2026_regulations_EN.pdf
Fjelstul, J. C. (2023). The Fjelstul World Cup Database v.1.2.0 [Dataset].
Guyon, J. (2015). Rethinking the FIFA World CupTM final draw. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 11(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1515/jqas-2014-0030
Hopcroft, J. E., & Karp, R. M. (2006). An $n^{5/2} $ Algorithm for Maximum Matchings in Bipartite Graphs. SIAM Journal on Computing. https://doi.org/10.1137/0202019
Horen, J., & Riezman, R. (1985). Comparing Draws for Single Elimination Tournaments. Operations Research, 33(2), 249–262.
Hvattum, L. M., & Arntzen, H. (2010). Using ELO ratings for match result prediction in association foot-ball. International Journal of Forecasting, Sports Forecasting, 26(3), 460–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2009.10.002
Karpov, A. (2016). A new knockout tournament seeding method and its axiomatic justification. Opera-tions Research Letters, 44(6), 706–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2016.09.003
Krumer, A., & Moreno-Ternero, J. D. (2023). The Allocation of Additional Slots for the FIFA World Cup. Journal of Sports Economics, 24(7), 831–850. https://doi.org/10.1177/15270025231160757
Kuhn, H. W. (1955). The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 2(1–2), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3800020109
Laliena, P., & López, F. J. (2019). Fair draws for group rounds in sport tournaments. International Transactions in Operational Research, 26(2), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12565
Laliena, P., & López, F. J. (2025). Draw procedures for balanced 3-team group rounds in sports competi-tions. Annals of Operations Research, 346(3), 2065–2092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-025-06497-9
Lapré, M. A., & Amato, J. G. (2025). The impact of imbalanced groups in UEFA Euro 1980–2024 and comparison with the FIFA World Cup. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports. https://doi.org/10.1515/jqas-2024-0151
Lapré, M. A., & Palazzolo, E. M. (2023). The evolution of seeding systems and the impact of imbalanced groups in FIFA Men’s World Cup tournaments 1954–2022. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 19(4), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1515/jqas-2022-0087
Massey Jr., F. J. (1951). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46(253), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1951.10500769
Monks, J., & Husch, J. (2009). The Impact of Seeding, Home Continent, and Hosting on FIFA World Cup Results. Journal of Sports Economics, 10(4), 391–408.
Roberts, G. O., & Rosenthal, J. S. (2024). Football group draw probabilities and corrections. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 52(3), 659–677. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjs.11798
Ryvkin, D. (2010). The selection efficiency of tournaments. European Journal of Operational Research, 206(3), 667–675.
Scarf, P., Yusof, M. M., & Bilbao, M. (2009). A numerical study of designs for sporting contests. European Journal of Operational Research, 198(1), 190–198.
Triguero-Ruiz, F., & Avila-Cano, A. (2024). The competitive balance of UEFA and CONMEBOL football leagues: On managing the number of teams in league design. Managerial and Decision Econom-ics, 45(3), 1480–1496. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.4083
Wallace, M., & Haigh, J. (2013). Football and Marriage – And the UEFA Draw. Significance, 10(2), 47–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2013.00656.x
Wilson, E. B. (1927). Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 22(158), 209–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Iñigo García-Atutxa, Ekaitz Dudagotia Barrio, Hodei Calvo-Soraluze, Leire Altadill-Legarra, Francisca Villanueva-Flores, Igor Garcia-Atutxa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and ensure the magazine the right to be the first publication of the work as licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of authorship of the work and the initial publication in this magazine.
- Authors can establish separate additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal (eg, to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Is allowed and authors are encouraged to disseminate their work electronically (eg, in institutional repositories or on their own website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as to a subpoena more Early and more of published work (See The Effect of Open Access) (in English).
This journal provides immediate open access to its content (BOAI, http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess) on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The authors may download the papers from the journal website, or will be provided with the PDF version of the article via e-mail.
