Jeopardy Diminished in Group Stage
The current World Cup, featuring an expanded 48-team format, has sparked discussions about the level of jeopardy in its group stage. While a recent 1-0 upset by South Africa against South Korea sent the former into the knockout stage for the first time, South Korea's chances of progressing remain high as one of the top eight third-placed teams. This contrasts sharply with the 2022 World Cup, where only the top two teams from each group advanced, meaning such a defeat would have resulted in immediate elimination.
The inclusion of third-placed qualifiers is a necessary adjustment to achieve 32 teams in the knockout rounds. However, this change has introduced scenarios where teams might play for specific results, potentially to secure qualification or even to influence their next opponent. Two upcoming matches are highlighted as potential tests of this new format.
The Challenge of an Expanded Tournament
Expanding the World Cup to 48 teams presented a logistical challenge for FIFA. The previous 32-team format was straightforward: eight groups of four, with the top two progressing to a last 16, followed by quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a final. Adding 16 more nations required a new structure to arrive at a symmetrical knockout stage, a solution that many believe compromises the intensity of the former format.
Initially, FIFA proposed 16 groups of three teams, with the top two from each advancing. This plan faced criticism because teams playing in the final group match would know exactly what result they needed to qualify, raising concerns about potential collusion. This harked back to the 1982 World Cup, where West Germany and Austria played a match that controversially sent both teams through at Algeria's expense, prompting FIFA to mandate simultaneous final group matches.
Following the thrilling climax of the group stage in Qatar, FIFA reconsidered. The current format features 12 four-team groups, with final matches played simultaneously. Yet, a crucial difference remains: eight of the third-placed teams must qualify to reach a 32-team knockout stage. This makes it, in some instances, easier to advance than to be eliminated.
Potential for Strategic Play in Final Group Games
Two matches in particular are under scrutiny this week. On Thursday, Australia faces Paraguay in Group D, followed by Austria against Algeria in Group J on Saturday. In both scenarios, the teams are currently second and third in their respective groups, all with three points. Four points are widely considered sufficient to secure one of the eight third-placed qualifying spots.
This situation could lead to teams playing for a draw. For Australia and Paraguay, their match takes place after two other groups have concluded, providing them with a clearer understanding of the points needed. The advantage is even greater for Austria and Algeria, whose match is the final one to complete their group, giving them full knowledge of the required result. Algeria, having been negatively impacted in 1982, could potentially benefit from this new system.
There are many examples of teams playing out the final 10 minutes of a group game with no interest in attacking because they both know they are going through. It does not mean the two teams will just play for a point this week, of course, but it presents the opportunity.
A precedent exists from Euro 2020, where Ukraine and Austria, both on three points, faced each other knowing that four points would likely secure a third-placed qualification. Austria won 1-0, with Ukraine still progressing. Bookmakers are reportedly adjusting odds for draws in similar fixtures, reflecting the increased likelihood of such outcomes.
Strategic Advantage and Integrity Concerns
Beyond simply playing for a draw, the new format introduces another layer of strategic play: influencing knockout stage matchups. In Euro 2004, a 2-2 draw between Sweden and Denmark controversially eliminated Italy, leading to accusations of match-fixing by Italian officials, though UEFA denied any wrongdoing.
In the current World Cup, the knockout stage fixtures for third-placed teams are determined by which groups provide the qualifiers. Teams playing later in the group stage will have an advantage, as they will know the potential paths and opponents. For example, the third-placed team in Group J could face the winners of Group L (potentially England) or Group B (Switzerland). This knowledge might lead teams to strategically aim for a third-place finish if it offers a more favorable knockout draw than finishing second.
Even external factors, such as weather delays, could impact the integrity of the group stage. If one match in a group is paused due to a storm, the other simultaneous match will continue, potentially giving the delayed teams an advantage by knowing the required result upon resumption.
Should the Australia-Paraguay and Austria-Algeria matches result in draws, questions about the integrity of the format are likely to intensify. This expanded World Cup was a key part of FIFA President Gianni Infantino's 2016 election manifesto, and its implementation may prompt further debate about the optimal tournament size.
Source: The games that show the flaws in a 48-team World Cup