World Cup 2026: 30 years on, is football finally coming home?

Scorecasting economics suggests that Argentina have a far higher probability of winning the 2026 World Cup than the bookies’ co-favourites, France and Spain. England’s trophy-winning likelihood is 8%; while Scotland have a 71% chance of finally going beyond the group stage of a big tournament.

In 1996, David Baddiel and Frank Skinner coined a phrase that’s become uniquely attached to the generally lamentable fortunes of the English football team when they sang ‘it’s coming home’ on the eve of the European Championship, held in England that summer.

In the mid-1990s, there was little that was encouraging about English football – or indeed British football. England’s failure even to qualify for the 1994 World Cup in the United States came off the back of a group stage exit in the European Championship in 1992.

Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper of Soccernomics have highlighted some of the factors behind that state of play – including national leagues isolated from the rest of Europe, learning little from the best of world football, while (West) Germany and Italy won multiple Euros and World Cups, and regularly contested finals.

The Premier League undoubtedly drove the changes that have occurred since then, generating huge revenues for top English clubs as they have drawn in the best global talent, both on the field and on the touchline.

Although the proportion of British-born players playing in England has fallen from 90% to just over 50% in the three decades since, the Premier League is now recognised as the global football league – the de facto European Super League. As such, those English players playing in the Premier League are competing with the world’s best talent on a weekly basis.

England were, of course, millimetres from reaching the Euro 96 final as Paul Gascoigne’s outstretched leg couldn’t quite make contact with a ball across goal in the semifinal. Arguably though, that was something of an outlier. It took another 25 years for England to make their first European Championship final in 2021, before repeating the feat in 2024. The gap between England and the best footballing nations has been reduced as the country has welcomed the world into its top domestic league.

Does all this suggest that football is finally coming home – 30 years on since the ‘Three Lions’ refrain was first sung; and 60 years since England’s solitary triumph in a big tournament?

As always, the answer is: probably – although the probability isn’t all that high. England may well be the fourth or fifth best team globally, but that’s only a position or two ahead of the level that the national team has held for much of the time since the early 1970s. And in a knock-out competition, playing any of the teams ranked above them will result in elimination more often than not.

Scorecasting World Cup 2026

We can as always put some structure, and some numbers on these possibilities. As in previous tournaments (such as Euro 2024), we can simulate every match in the 2026 World Cup.

To do this, we employ a variant of the classic approach to predicting match outcomes popularised since the mid-1990s by two statisticians: Mark Dixon and Stuart Coles. These two names are synonymous with what’s known as a Poisson regression model – analysis that estimates football teams’ attacking and defensive strengths based on the goals scored and conceded in past matches.

The model is usually used in the context of domestic seasons, which operate double round-robin type structures where each team plays the same number of matches, and enough to get a sense of attacking and defensive strengths. International football has no such structure, and hence we don’t have the same number of matches in a balanced schedule that we can use.

Instead, we estimate across all matches since 1 January 2023, which yields between 36 (Bosnia and Hercegovina) and 100 (Mexico) observations per team in the 2026 World Cup. By and large, non-European nations play more matches – the United States has played 85 and Uruguay 67, but England and Spain, who contested the 2024 European Championship final, just 48 and 47 respectively.

As such, our model does estimate team-specific attacking and defensive strengths, and does so over a consistent time period for all countries – but not necessarily a consistent number of matches. Arguably though, doing this results in a better set of predictions. An alternative would be to rely on teams’ Elo ratings, but this would exclude information on whether some national teams operate with a more defensive or more attacking approach.

The phenomenon of home advantage is also one that needs factoring in for international tournaments – plenty of matches take place at a neutral venue, including most matches at the World Cup. Around 10% of international matches take place at a neutral venue. We build this into our estimation. Home advantage reduces the number of goals conceded by the home team by 0.2, while increasing the number of goals that they score by 0.1.

We then generate the potential group stage match results by fitting what each team’s expected goals are. For example, England’s expected goals against Ghana are 2.1, and Ghana’s are 0.6 – which means that about 71% of the time England would be expected to score more goals and hence win the match. We generate a number of goals that England score, drawing from a Poisson distribution with England’s expected goals for England’s goals in that match, and do the same for Ghana. We then do this for every match in the group stages to generate the final standings for the 12 groups of four teams.

Another quirk of World Cup groups is the tie-breaking mechanism. Teams level on points are ranked first by the result in their head-to-head matches – which can be a three-way or even four-way calculation, followed by goal difference and then goals scored in their match-ups.

Once we have the group standings in each replication with simulated match outcomes, we then input what the knock-out stages would look like, and proceed through to the final to generate the tournament winner.

Populating the last 32 out of 48 requires comprehension of the mechanism through which eight of the 12 third-placed teams will qualify for the knock-out stages. There are 495 different possible combinations of the best eight teams from 12 groups, and their allocation to last 32 matches has some quirks.

For example, if the third-placed Group K team is one of the eight best, they will always play the winner of Group L – which will be England with a 53% probability. The same is also true in reverse: the third-placed Group L team if they qualify will always play the winner of Group K. In addition, third-placed teams in Groups A, B and G can only be allocated to two possible last 32 matches if they are among the eight best.

In the knock-out stages, a tied match leads to extra time and penalties. We assume the winner of a tied match (either via extra time or penalties) by drawing from a binomial distribution with a probability equivalent to the simple probability that each team wins (excluding the draw as a possibility). We then populate each round through to the final, and indeed the final, to determine the World Cup winners in each replication.

We then repeat this process 10,000 times to get a sense of the likelihood of particular outcomes. We determine ‘how likely’ by looking at how often out of 10,000 a particular outcome occurs (for example, England winning the World Cup or Scotland reaching the last 32).

Our forecasts

According to our analysis, Argentina are favourites for the World Cup. While this may reflect the abundance of matches that South American teams play relative to the rest (which could inflate their Elo ratings), it is worth emphasising that our model is primarily based on attacking and defensive strengths as revealed in match results over the last three years.

Argentina are a handsome 23% to win the World Cup, and that despite only having an Elo rating 16 points better than France at 1475 (see Figure 1). France are only 14% to win, with Spain at 12%, Portugal at 9% and England at 8%.

Figure 1: Forecasted World Cup win probability

Source: Author's calculations following 10,000 simulations

Digging deeper on Argentina

Argentina are 64% likely to win their Group J, while Austria are 24% likely to win it. In winning their group, Argentina would face the runner-up in Group H – more of a known quantity than those group winners that face a best third-placed team.

Overall, Argentina are 98% likely to reach the last 32; there’s a 25% chance that they finish second (and face the winner of Group H), and a residual 9% chance that they are a best third-placed team. They have an additional bonus if they finish third – as Group J finishes second to last, they will know what is needed to be a best third-placed team (see Figure 2).

As such, Argentina are most likely to face Group H’s Uruguay (45%) or Spain (37%) in the last 32. In navigating that potentially tough first knock-out match (they are 73% to make the last 16), Argentina’s task will be relatively easier in all likelihood: Belgium (14%), Iran (12%), Egypt (10%), hosts the United States (9%), Paraguay (9%) and Australia (8%) are their six most likely opponents.

If Argentina win their group, they can only face Group G or D teams – a relatively easier task. As such, they are 60% likely to make the quarterfinals, where their opponent is likely to be the winners of Group B or K, and as such, most likely to be Portugal (24%), Colombia (12%) or Switzerland (7%).

Digging deeper on England

England have an 8% chance of winning the World Cup. They have a 98% chance of making the last 32, but are likely to face a tricky tie once there. England’s most likely last 32 opponent is Colombia (26%), followed by Portugal (19%). Groups K and L are heavily linked, with the winner of Group L facing Group K’s third-placed team if they are one of the eight best third-placed teams, and Group L’s runner-up facing Group K’s runner-up in another of the last 32 ties.

If England do win their group (53% chance), then Congo are their most likely opponent (20%), followed by Colombia and Uzbekistan (both 17%), and Portugal (10%). England’s most likely non-Group K opponents are Senegal (10%), Norway (7%), France (4%) and Algeria (3%) – these ties only happen if the Group K third-placed team is not one of the eight best third-placed teams. Even were England to finish third and be one of the eight best third-placed teams, they would still face a team from Group K – the winner of the group.

England thus have a 66% chance of making the last 16, where their most likely opponent is Spain (17% chance conditional on achieving that stage). That happens only if England finish second in their group, beat the second-placed Group K team and hence face the winner of the Group H winner versus Group J runner-up tie. That pathway also yields a 10% chance of facing Uruguay. If England finish first, then with an 11% chance, they will face Mexico, 8% Argentina and Czechia, and 7% Austria.

England have a 42% chance of making the quarterfinals, where Brazil would be their most likely opponents (17%). England have a 29% chance of making the semifinals, and Argentina are their most likely opponents (20%). England have a 10% chance of making the final, where they’re most likely to play Argentina (22%), Spain (21%), France (18%) or Portugal (11%).

These likelihoods are heavily influenced by group finishing position. Should England finish first in their group, then they have a 60% chance of progressing to the last 16, where they are most likely to face Mexico (23%) followed by Czechia (17%). They then have a 49% chance of making the quarterfinals where they’re most likely to face Brazil (26%) followed by France (16%). Despite those potential opponents, England are still more likely to make the semifinals if they win their group (37% chance) than if they finish second (19%).

England’s progress is much less likely should they finish second. Even should they navigate beating the second-placed Group K team (most likely Colombia), they would then be likely to face Spain in the last 16, assuming Spain win their group (68%). As such, while finishing second gives England a 77% chance of making the last 16 (71% from third, 60% from first), if they do finish second, they only have a 29% chance of making the quarterfinals relative to a 59% chance from third and 49% from first.

While it is unlikely to be persuasive to England manager Thomas Tuchel as a strategy, the team’s chances of winning the World Cup are strongest if they finish third in their group rather than first, and their worst possible outcome (other than exiting the tournament in the group stages) would be to finish second in Group L.

Scotland

Scotland’s unwanted record of having never progressed beyond the group stages before ought to be shed at this World Cup. They have a 71% chance of reaching the last 32, either through finishing as group winner (11%), runner-up (25%) or as a best third-placed team (35%).

Unlike England, whose destination is known should they finish third, Scotland could face the winner of Group A (Mexico 36%, Czechia 34%, in Mexico City on 1 July), Group E (Germany 61%, in Boston on 29 June) or Group I (France 51%, in New York on 30 June). If Scotland win their group, they face the runner-up in Group F (Japan 32%, in Houston on 29 June). If they finish second, they face the winner of Group F (Netherlands 44%, in Monterrey on 30 June.

Figure 2: Tournament round probability by country

Source: Author's calculations following 10,000 simulations

This tournament’s group of death

It’s generally regarded that each tournament has a ‘group of death’, which usually consists of three or even more teams considered to be strong. But the way that the 48 teams in this World Cup are spread hasn’t really delivered an obvious group of death.

Probably the closest is Group K with Portugal and Colombia, our fourth and sixth favourites, respectively. Due to the presence of these two teams, Group K does have the highest average Elo rating across all four teams, which could be one way to identify the group of death.

Another way to identify the group of death might be to look at the variation in team abilities. Group D has the lowest standard deviation of Elo ratings, with just 42 points between the best (United States, 1258) and worst (Australia, 1216) teams. As none of the countries in Group D have won the World Cup, it might thus not qualify – even though it will be the toughest group to call in advance.

The groups with the highest standard deviation of Elo ratings are those with the strongest favourites – Group C: Brazil; Group E: Germany: Group H: Spain; Group I: France; Group J: Argentina: and Group L: England.

On-field battles

All World Cups are fraught with controversies in the run-up to kick-off, and this one is no different, with significant concerns about ticketing as well as basics like access to drinking water in extreme temperatures.

Added to that, the Democratic Republic of Congo has an Ebola outbreak; and the United States is engaged in conflict with Iran, with both teams taking part in the competition. There is the potential for an explosive last 32 tie should both Iran and the United States finish second in their groups, as that would mean the two would meet in Dallas on 3 July.

It promises to be an intriguing World Cup.