World Cup 2026

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

If we don't win or draw against Paraguay, we really don't deserve to progress.

Even if Australia doesn't advance, you guys win best chant.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FEV-zK06fUA

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Meaningless games. 

This is the first world cup in which the first tiebreaker is head-to-head instead of goal differential.  While I understand the rational of having head-to-head be the first tiebreaker (it is in the NFL) the result is more meaningless games.   Consider the group the USA is in.

The USA has already clinched the #1 spot and Turkey is already eliminated, making their game meaningless.  Australia and Paraguay will be playing for the #2 spot.

Under the old rules.  Turkey would not be eliminated and still have a shot at advancing as the third-place team.  Both Australia and Paraguay would have a shot at first place.  The USA would be guaranteed to advance and unable to fall beyond the second-place spot.   

If FIFA is going to give us additional games they should be meaningful ones. 

[Sibster]

Meaningless games. 

This is the first world cup in which the first tiebreaker is head-to-head instead of goal differential.  While I understand the rational of having head-to-head be the first tiebreaker (it is in the NFL) the result is more meaningless games.   Consider the group the USA is in.

The USA has already clinched the #1 spot and Turkey is already eliminated, making their game meaningless.  Australia and Paraguay will be playing for the #2 spot.

Under the old rules.  Turkey would not be eliminated and still have a shot at advancing as the third-place team.  Both Australia and Paraguay would have a shot at first place.  The USA would be guaranteed to advance and unable to fall beyond the second-place spot.   

If FIFA is going to give us additional games they should be meaningful ones. 

Not really a soccer fan but if the games are meaningless, you play for pride.   And also, if you're the coach, you play the younger guys for the purpose of auditioning for the next World Cup.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Not really a soccer fan but if the games are meaningless, you play for pride.   And also, if you're the coach, you play the younger guys for the purpose of auditioning for the next World Cup.

Those games already exist.  They are called "friendlies."  Tickets don't cost $1000+.

[Phishfan]

The crowd at the game doesn't seem to share the opinion of it being a meaningless game.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Next up for the USA is Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Up next for Australia is Egypt. 

It would be cool if USA and Australia get to play against each other again.  (The only two ways that can happen is if they both advance to the championship or if both lose in the semifinals and play for 3rd place)

[Pappy13]

The USA has already clinched the #1 spot and Turkey is already eliminated, making their game meaningless.  Australia and Paraguay will be playing for the #2 spot.

Under the old rules.  Turkey would not be eliminated and still have a shot at advancing as the third-place team.  Both Australia and Paraguay would have a shot at first place.  The USA would be guaranteed to advance and unable to fall beyond the second-place spot.    

If FIFA is going to give us additional games they should be meaningful ones.  

I can't agree with you, I like the new rules.

Did you happen to watch the US/Turkey match? Turkey was playing like it mattered to them and it mattered to all the US players on the pitch. The US did the smart thing and rested their players and then reporters wondered why Pochettino was annoyed with them asking him if he was disappointed with the loss. Really? My team is moving onto the knockout stage and Turkey isn't. My players are healthy and rested and my backups got valuable playing time. Why should I be disappointed?

I'm wondering if you would be saying the same thing if in Week 17 New England could lose a 1st round bye on points differential even if they won the head to head matchup? As you said, head to head should be the 1st tie breaker. The games are only meaningless if you have already proven you're either the best or the worst of the group. It doesn't happen that often and it's a reward for the team that's already proven themselves, sort of a bye week as it should be.

I guess from a purely fan perspective it would be nice, but from the standpoint of the competition itself, it doesn't make sense.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm wondering if you would be saying the same thing if in Week 17 New England could lose a 1st round bye on points differential even if they won the head to head matchup?

I mean, the NFL explicitly detests "meaningless" games and rigs the schedule as best they can to prevent them.
They are obviously bad for viewership; if you're not a fan of the teams playing, you're not likely to watch.

(Though in the age of increasingly popular gambling, this is becoming less and less true.)

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I'm wondering if you would be saying the same thing if in Week 17 New England could lose a 1st round bye on points differential even if they won the head to head matchup?

I try to avoid measuring a rule based on the idea of "does it help or hurt my team this year"  But rather what is better for the sport as a whole.  Keep in mind the USMNT is my team and the rule helped them.

That being said, I would support rule changes in the NFL that delay how soon teams clinch or get eliminated.  Thus increasing the number of meaningful games.  I am not sure if I would move the 7th tiebreaker to the number one spot is the best way to do that.  I do support the idea of making it that you start the season playing your inter-conference games, followed by conference games followed by the six division games, to keep teams mathematically alive for as long as possible.  

I think this is particularly important for an event like the WC.  There were fans who flew from Turkey to watch the game.  

Also the NFL doesn't have the problems of WC.  You can't clinch the number one seed with only 2/3 of the games played.   Even the season the Pats went 16-0, only 1/8 of the games were meaningless.  

[Pappy13]

I mean, the NFL explicitly detests "meaningless" games and rigs the schedule as best they can to prevent them.
They are obviously bad for viewership; if you're not a fan of the teams playing, you're not likely to watch.

And yet they happen practically every year and no one gives them much thought when they do because there's plenty of other games to watch. Same is true for World Cup games. If you don't like the matchup wait a couple hours for a better one. We only get world cup games once every 4 years, true fans of the sport are watching regardless of the outcome. For example more people on average watched the USA VS Turkey match than watched the USA VS Australia matchup. Are we really complaining about 1 meaningless game out of dozens of great matchups? C'mon. We have better things to complain about.

English-Language Viewership:

Match                       Average Viewers        Peak Viewers
USA vs Paraguay       18.037 million           21.526 million   
USA vs Turkey           17.015 million           19.471 million   
USA vs Australia        16.217 million           21.219 million   

Spanish-Language viewership:

Match                       Total Audience Delivery (TAD)
USA vs Turkey           7.4 million   
USA vs Paraguay        7.0 million   
USA vs Australia         6.8 million

[Pappy13]

I try to avoid measuring a rule based on the idea of "does it help or hurt my team this year"  But rather what is better for the sport as a whole.  Keep in mind the USMNT is my team and the rule helped them.

Maybe this is the issue. Sounds like maybe you are really only interested in the matches that USMNT plays and so from that stand point I can understand your complaint, but there are dozens of terrific matches which makes this 1 match unimportant. Had it been Iraq in a meaningless game would you have even known or complained?

There were fans who flew from Turkey to watch the game

I'm sure there were a few that flew into the US to ONLY watch the Turkey/US match and not the previous 2 they played, but I'll bet there weren't that many and I'd be willing to bet there weren't even that many that didn't watch the coverage of the match. I still watched the TURKEY/US match and thoroughly enjoyed it despite the fact that the outcome didn't matter. Perhaps that's because I can watch a USMNT friendly and still enjoy the match, maybe you not so much? Now had the US been totally uninterested in playing the match and lost 5-0 or something, then maybe you would have a point, but that's not what happened at all. The match was exciting right down to the last minute and both teams repeatedly had chances to win it. The match was EXTREMELY competitive despite the fact the outcome didn't matter.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I am not saying having some meaningless game ruined the world cup or that nobody would ever watch one. IIRC a meaningless game between the Patriots and Giants was at the time the most watched regular season NFL game. 

But I am saying that it is better to have *LESS* not more meaningless games.  And this was a rule change that didn't need to occur, and which resulted in more meaningless games than the old rule.  And US vs Turkey wasn't the only one.   

For me once my team is no longer capable of advancing the season is over.  i don't really mind meaningless games if my team has clinched.  (The US perspective of the game or the final games of the 2007 NEP season).  But I am not interested in games when my team has been eliminated (Turkey perspective) As a football fan games like that have been pretty rare during the last 25 years, but a common occurrence pre-Brady. i think it is better for the sport to have as many teams (and thus fans) still in contention for as long as possible. 

And yes.  My primary interest is in the US team.  I watch some others, just like I watch some non-NEP football games, but I prefer sporting events where I am actively rooting for one team rather than as a nuetral observer.     

[Pappy13]

But I am saying that it is better to have *LESS* not more meaningless games.  And this was a rule change that didn't need to occur, and which resulted in more meaningless games than the old rule.  And US vs Turkey wasn't the only one.

Fewer meaningless games doesn't trump the right teams moving onto the knockout rounds. When you have a round robin setup where everyone plays everyone else in the group one time, Head to head is the ultimate tie break, not points differential. That's how it should be. Besides, the USMNT were moving onto the knockout stage regardless of the rules change and Turkey's chances weren't good. Even if the rules were not changed the outcome would have been the same. Essentially the game was pretty meaningless even without the rules change.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Egypt scores for a second time!  To tie the score 1-1.

[Phishfan]

Of course a Patriots fan would propose a schedule change that mandates both games against Miami fall within the last six weeks of the year meaning no games in theat.