Average FIFA ranking is the standard way to measure group difficulty. In a 48-team World Cup, it is the wrong metric.
Sports Illustrated ranked all twelve 2026 World Cup groups by difficulty last month. Their method: calculate the average FIFA ranking of all four teams. Group I, featuring France, Senegal, Norway, and Iraq, came out on top with an average ranking of 25.75. Group H, featuring Spain, Uruguay, Saudi Arabia, and Cape Verde, was described as a favorable draw for Spain. Group B, with Canada, Switzerland, Bosnia, and Qatar, was called the easiest group at 42.25.
The Group I call is right. The Group H call is wrong, at least for one team. And understanding why it is wrong is the only way to actually figure out which teams are in danger at this World Cup.
Why average ranking misses the point in 2026
Average ranking tells you how competitive a group is overall. In a format where only the top two advance and everyone else goes home, that is a reasonable way to think about danger. Land in a group where the average team is ranked 15th and you are probably in trouble.
The 2026 format does not work that way. Twelve groups produce twelve third-place teams, and eight of those teams advance. The ranking between the eight survivors comes down to points, then goal difference, with no adjustment for how hard your opponents were. A third-place team that went 0-0-3 against the three strongest groups in the tournament gets the same credit as one that went 0-0-3 against the weakest.
That creates a problem for teams like Saudi Arabia. They are in a group where the average ranking is high, which SI reads as favorable. But Saudi Arabia specifically face Spain, ranked 2nd in the world, and Uruguay, ranked 17th. When those two put three goals past you in each match, your goal difference as a third-place team is ruined regardless of how well you play. Average group ranking does not see this. It averages Spain’s 2nd ranking together with Cape Verde’s 69th and produces a number that makes the group look manageable.
The right question for a team in Saudi Arabia’s position is not how tough is my group overall, but how bad will my goal difference be after losing to the two strongest teams. That changes how you think about the games themselves. In 2022, Saudi Arabia beat Argentina, one of the biggest upsets in World Cup history, and an upset like that is always possible in this game. But in 2026, even beating Spain does not help if Uruguay already won 3-0. That creates a strange tactical reality where a team might be better off parking the bus to limit damage than trying to pull off an upset.
A different way to measure it
I built a regression model on 144 World Cup group stage matches from 2010 to 2018, using the FIFA ranking gap between teams to predict goal difference. The formula: expected GD = -0.05 + 0.025 x rank gap. It explains 19% of the variance in actual goal differences. That is low because football is unpredictable — most matches end within a goal regardless of the ranking gap. The model is not a prediction machine. It is a way of identifying which groups are structurally dangerous for third-place teams based on who they have to play.
For each group, I projected the likely third-place team’s final goal difference: their expected win against the weakest opponent, plus their expected losses against the two stronger ones. Then I combined that with expected points to produce a survival score. The chart below shows where all twelve third-place teams land.
Fig. 1 — Projected third-place survival scores. Score = expected points x 10 + projected goal difference. Regression fitted to 2010-2018 WC group stage data (n=144, R-squared=0.19); April 2026 FIFA rankings. Model projects Saudi Arabia at -2.5 GD; given how noisy real results are, the realistic range is -1.5 to -3.
Three groups keep coming up dangerous: H, K, and F. All three have the same shape — a very strong top seed, a solid second seed, and a third-place team that will almost certainly lose both of those matches badly enough to put their goal difference in the red. Spain’s average ranking makes Group H look safe. Saudi Arabia’s goal difference after facing Spain and Uruguay is what actually determines whether they go home.
For comparison, SI’s toughest group, Group I, produces Norway as a third-place survivor in the bubble zone. Norway face France and Senegal, which looks terrifying. But France scored 0.67 goals per game at Euro 2024 and Senegal, while strong, are not the kind of team that destroys you 3-0. Norway’s projected goal difference as a third-place team is around -0.8, which is much more survivable than Saudi Arabia’s.
Where the two rankings disagree
Here is how the two approaches rank the groups for third-place danger. SI uses average group ranking. I use projected third-place goal difference.
| Group | SI verdict |
| H — Spain, Uruguay, KSA, Cape Verde | Favorable draw for Spain |
| K — Portugal, Colombia, DR Congo, UZB | 4th toughest |
| F — Netherlands, Japan, Sweden, Tunisia | 3rd toughest |
| I — France, Senegal, Norway, Iraq | Toughest (avg ranking 25.75) |
| D — USA, Turkey, Australia, Paraguay | 2nd toughest |
Our model flips Group H from near-easiest to the most dangerous for its third-place team. It also moves Group I off the top of the danger list for the teams actually at risk of elimination. SI’s ranking is not wrong about which groups are most competitive overall — Group I is genuinely tough at the top. It just does not tell you which groups will eliminate teams that might otherwise expect to survive.
Group J: dangerous for Argentina, not for Algeria
Group J has Argentina, Algeria, Austria, and Jordan. SI ranks it in the middle tier. Multiple outlets have described it as a tough draw for Argentina. That is accurate, for reasons I get to shortly. For Algeria, the model tells a different story.
Algeria are ranked 28th and Austria 24th, four positions apart. The model treats that match as roughly even, which means a draw is the most likely outcome and either team could win. Algeria are also clear favorites over Jordan, who enter at 63rd. And Argentina, for all their quality, tend to win group stage matches by one goal rather than four against top-25 opposition.
The projected outcome for Algeria as a third-place team: 4 points and roughly even goal difference. Near the top of the survival table. Their AFCON 2025/26 results supported that reading — four wins and one loss, 1.6 goals per game. Group J is a problem for Argentina. For Algeria, it is manageable.
Why Group J is a problem for Argentina
France went out of the 2002 World Cup group stage with one point and zero goals scored, as reigning world and European champions. Italy went out in 2010. Spain went out in 2014, losing 5-1 to the Netherlands. Germany went out in 2018. Four of the last five defending champions before France’s 2022 run failed to get out of the group stage.
Fig. 2 — Defending world champions’ group stage points at the following tournament, 2002-2022. Source: historical WC match records.
Argentina faced Algeria (28th) and Austria (24th) in Group J. Spain in 2014 had the Netherlands (15th) and Chile (14th). Germany in 2018 had Mexico (15th) and Sweden (24th). Argentina’s opponents are in a similar range to the groups that knocked out Italy, Spain, and Germany.
Messi will be 38 or 39 during the tournament. At Copa America 2024 he came off injured during the final and Argentina won anyway, which says something about squad depth. How he arrives in June is not something any ranking accounts for.
What SI gets right about Group I
France, Senegal, Norway. SI calls it the Group of Death on average rankings and that is a fair description of how competitive it is at the top. The three main teams are ranked 1st, 14th, and 31st. Any two of them could plausibly qualify.
France are ranked first but scored 0.67 goals per game at Euro 2024 across six matches. They beat Belgium 1-0 on a 90th-minute goal and beat Portugal on penalties, then lost the semifinal to Spain. Their defense is exceptional, 0.5 goals conceded per game, but the gap between their attacking ability on paper and their output at recent tournaments is a real pattern. Senegal went 5-1-1 at AFCON 2025/26, scoring 1.71 goals per game, and were stripped of the title after a disputed refereeing call led to a walkoff. The squad is in form.
Norway are the wild card. First World Cup since 1998, so no tournament data to go on. In European qualifying they scored 37 goals from 23.9 expected, a +13.1 overperformance driven almost entirely by Haaland converting at a rate xG models are not designed to measure. Whether a squad that has not been at this stage in 28 years handles the pressure is anyone’s guess. The model puts Norway in the survival bubble. The lack of any reference point makes that projection shakier than most.
What the model probably gets it wrong
Rankings are a delayed signal. They measure accumulated results over time rather than current form. A few teams heading into 2026 look meaningfully different from what their ranking says.
Morocco won AFCON 2025/26 conceding one goal in seven games. They are in Group C alongside Brazil and Scotland. The model projects Scotland as a reasonable third-place survivor on the basis that Brazil and Morocco will not put many past them. A defense that conceded once in seven tournament matches will probably make that projection look too generous for Scotland.
Colombia are ranked 14th but went unbeaten through the Copa America 2024 group stage, beat Uruguay in the semi-final, and reached the final before losing to Argentina 1-0 in extra time. They averaged 2.0 goals per game across six matches. Based on the last year of results they are probably closer to a top-10 team right now. That matters for Group K, where DR Congo and Uzbekistan face Colombia as well as Portugal. The model treats Colombia as a 14th-ranked team. The recent form has them looking like something stronger.
Paraguay’s results are hard to reconcile. In CONMEBOL qualifying they beat Argentina and Brazil and drew Colombia 2-2. Then at Copa America 2024 the same squad went three games, zero wins, zero draws, and conceded eight goals. The model projects USA to win Group D. Given those two conflicting data points, treating that projection as reliable would be overconfident.
Fig. 3 — Goals scored and conceded per game at recent major tournaments, selected teams. Source: martj42/international_results GitHub dataset; Euro 2024, Copa America 2024, AFCON 2025/26, AFC Asian Cup 2024.
Jordan is not in this chart because they did not reach any of these tournaments. What they did instead: reach the 2024 AFC Asian Cup final, seven games, +5 GD. They enter Group J ranked 63rd and will be treated as the obvious fourth seed. A team that reached a continental final eight months ago is not the same as a team ranked 63rd.
Three matches worth watching
Saudi Arabia vs. Cape Verde on June 26 in Houston. If Saudi Arabia win, the margin of that win is what determines whether they survive as a third-place team. Saudi Arabia are ranked 61st, Cape Verde 69th — just eight positions apart. The model only projects a Saudi win by about 0.2 goals, meaning this is genuinely competitive. For the first time in World Cup history, the exact scoreline between two lower-ranked teams could eliminate a third team playing in a completely different city on the same day.
Algeria vs. Austria on June 22 in Santa Clara. Both ranked in the mid-20s, both in form. The model’s closest coin flip. The winner probably advances. A draw likely still gets Algeria through. The loser almost certainly goes home despite being a better team than most third-place teams in the tournament.
Group D across all three matchdays. USA, Turkiye, Australia, Paraguay, all within 24 ranking positions of each other. The most competitive group by the spread of teams. The model projects USA to win it. The qualifying results and the Copa America results tell completely different stories about Paraguay. Group D is where the rankings are the least reliable guide to what will actually happen.
The tournament kicks off June 11. I’ll be coming back to this once the group stage wraps to see how much of it held up! Drop a comment with the group you think the data got most wrong.
DATA NOTES
SI group difficulty ranking: Sports Illustrated, ‘The Toughest Groups at the 2026 World Cup — Ranked’ (si.com), method: average FIFA world ranking of all four teams per group.
Regression model: Linear regression fitted to 144 WC group stage matches, 2010-2018. Match data from Fjelstul World Cup Database (github.com/jfjelstul/worldcup, CC-BY-SA 4.0). Pre-tournament FIFA ranking snapshots from cnc8/fifa-world-ranking (GitHub). Formula: GD = -0.050 + 0.0253 x rank_gap, R-squared = 0.193. 2010-2018 used because this period shares the same Elo-based ranking methodology as current FIFA rankings. Slope trend not significant over time (p=0.48).
Historical third-place GD: Fjelstul group_standings.csv, 1998-2022 men’s 32-team era (n=56 third-place teams). Median = -1, mean = -0.98. 43% finished at GD 0 or better.
Recent tournament data: martj42/international_results (GitHub). Tournaments: UEFA Euro 2024, Copa America 2024, AFCON 2025/26, AFC Asian Cup 2024 (186 total matches). Goals only.
European qualifying xG: xGscore.io, April 2026. UEFA qualifying only.
April 2026 FIFA rankings: official update April 1, 2026. Paraguay results: BeSoccer; Copa America.com 2024.
