Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup qualification

March or June

What do sources say about the start date for CONMEBOL qualifying, since there's an obvious dispute over this? Jalen Folf (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still seeing this dispute both here and at 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL), with no input on this thread since I posted it. Has there been any official announcement about this? Jalen Folf (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yokmann, Claudiogostoso, Dannyphx, and Rafaelzis: Can any of you please provide a source for the claim that qualification for CONMEBOL begins in September? Jalen Folf (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually ignore that, cause here's the first source I found on my own: https://apnews.com/article/south-american-qualifying-soccer-brazil-argentina-8fde865759c1dfe5d4989be10c2bafd7 Jalen Folf (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.as.com/soccer/conmebol-confirm-dates-for-the-2026-world-cup-qualifiers-n/ Yokmann (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we cut the 2nd rate "analysis"

One column "includes" hosts, one "excludes" hosts, yet we can compare them fairly? Teams that aren't entered in a tournament have been "eliminated" somehow? Play-offs are "1/3 of a spot" and that is some "value" for valid comparison. This page's level of vapidness is rising out control. 165.12.252.110 (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Playoffs are clearly 1/3 spot? What are you on about? Bte3000 (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia

With Russia currently suspended, shouldn't the map of the qualified countries have Russsia in black (teams withdrew/suspended)? Or are we waiting for UEFA to officially state that they're still suspended for this round of WCQ? Nath1991 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait for official word from UEFA. There is text in the UEFA section saying that Russia is currently suspended, which seems like the right way to handle the situation for now. Wburrow (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The legend for the cyan color states that the qualification status has not been decided, which is not inaccurate; UEFA qualification is not set to begin until 2025, so it is entirely possible for Russia's suspension to be lifted in time to begin qualification. Similarly, Zimbabwe's suspension was lifted just before the CAF draw, and although Sri Lanka are still officially suspended they were included in the AFC draw with the caveat that their football association hold new elections at least 10 days before their first scheduled first round match. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just FYI: Sri Lanka got their ban lifted on 27 Aug after agreeing to elections at the end of September. Wburrow (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

US 1/8 Finals

The USA has reached the 1/8 finals in the WC 2022. However, in the section of qualified teams and previous best, it states group. Zebbi67 (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change was already there and bettered. Look very carefully and you'll see the United States' best performance of "Third place" at the inaugural World Cup in 1930. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are the tiebreakers?

Could someone please add the tiebreaker rules? I can't seem to find them anywhere. Also, does the away goals rule apply for home-and-away ties? Thanks. Sofeshue (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tiebreakers can vary depending upon the confederation, so the best place to find them would be the main confederation qualification article. The application of the away goals rule is also up to each confederation. For example, CAF is not applying the away goals rule for the 2024 CAF Women's Olympic qualifying tournament, but we do not know whether AFC would have applied it to first round qualifying (as all ties ended with uneven scores) nor do we yet know whether CONCACAF will apply the away goals rule to the first round matches in March. There are no other home-and-away matches during this qualification cycle until the AFC fifth round. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Na, I found it. The tiebrerakers are set by FIFA and are thus consistent across all confederations. The rules are described in Regulations FIFA World Cup 2026 Preliminary Competition by articles 11.5, 11.9, 11.10. Sofeshue (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laos and Brunei elimination

The elimination of Laos and Brunei are not reflected in the map. Suvannixb (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source image does indeed show Laos and Brunei eliminated. I'm not sure why the map is not rendering properly at Commons or in the article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor fix

The AFC group links to go Group A B C A B C A B C rather than A B C D E F G H I 110.33.28.251 (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrea withdrew from the competition

Eritrea withdrew from the 2026 World Cup Qualifiers:

https://bnn.network/sports/eritrea-withdraws-from-2026-world-cup-african-preliminaries-a-deep-dive-into-the-implications/
http://dehai.org/dehai/dehai-news/494254 Rumanovsk (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the map on Commons, but it is taking a little while to synchronize between the servers. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following Eritrea's withdrawal, concerning the ranking of second-placed teams, as there is one team in less in Group E and in order to determine the 4 best runners-up, will only the results of the runner-up teams against the first, third, fourth and fifth-placed teams in their group be taken into account ? Does anyone know whether CAF and/or FIFA have communicated on this matter ? Pindrice (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is likely to be the case, and would be very unsporting if it is not. However, we should wait for any official announcement before making any changes to avoid WP:OR. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are not Taiwan, Turkmenistan, Hong Kong, and Nepal eliminated?

They are both indicted as so. Bte3000 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are eliminated from WQ qualification but continue to the next round of Asian Cup qualification. That is why it is indicated as a Q rather than an E (eliminated). This is what the blue color means. Is that what you are referring to? Chris1834 Talk 14:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was referring to the map issue. But that has since been resolved. Bte3000 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

¿Shouldn't this map be updated? --Genericool (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, these four countries are yellow on this map. This indicates elimination from WQ qualifying. What do you think needs updating? Chris1834 Talk 15:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated it a few minutes ago, but it's my first attempt at editing a map, so I hope I got it right. Wburrow (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. It looks right to me. Chris1834 Talk 15:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience, it can take some time for changes to the map on Commons to replicate on enWiki. Sometimes a WP:PURGE is necessary for the image to properly display. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Argentina qualify immediately along with US, Canada and Mexico?

I mean, they won the last World Cup (as of writing) which would mean they would automatically qualify as defensive champions, like in other cases. 197.32.161.154 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last defending champion to qualify automatically was France in 2002. Since then only hosts have received automatic bids. Wburrow (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date regarding goals scored before w qf started?

Why is there date regarding goals scored before w qf started? 2A02:A311:C040:3400:7449:7A4F:256C:44EE (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through this whole article and don't see what you are referring to. All I see about before qualification is the point reduction given to Ecuador which effects this qualifying so it should be included. Can you give more details about what you are referring to? Chris1834 Talk 14:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Russia "qualification has not yet been decided"

Wasn't Russia banned anyway? The whole Invasion of the Ukraine is still going on and appearently it is not Banned? UnknownPolish (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer you to the "Russia" section above or the UEFA qualifying article. The draw for the UEFA qualifying hasn't happened yet and all that has been said is that they are currently suspended. If they withdrew from the Ukraine prior to the draw, the suspension could be lifted. So until the draw happens in December, Russia's status is up in the air. Chris1834 Talk 13:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Was a good idea to make the page protected? (THIS IS A QUESTION I WILL NEVER RUIN THE PAGE!) 2A02:587:6D18:AE00:F587:62E8:70BC:6DFB (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the decision to protect the page. Most of the recent edits of the page from IPs have been unconstructive, and there have been enough of them that it has been issue that needs to be addressed. If you think protection should be lifted, you can request it here: WP:RfPP. Also, the current protection will expire tomorrow. Wburrow (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who requested protection, I stand by my decision to request. Over the long term, this page will continuously be a target for anonymous and new user vandalism (not saying the OP might do the same). In the meantime, if you have a specific edit you want to make before the protection expires, consider submitting an edit request. Jalen Barks (Woof) 15:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congo suspension February 2025

Guys, I just saw a video that Congo got banned along with Pakistan (which they already failed to qualify), if this is real, please update it. Thank you! 2A02:587:6D14:1D00:92B0:53F2:EC48:58B7 (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2A02:587:6D14:1D00:92B0:53F2:EC48:58B7: Congo has been suspended, but we cannot change their status here until an announcement is made regarding qualification. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a note in the suspensions and withdrawals section that they have been suspended, but that suspension could be lifted before the next CAF matches in March. We should not mark them as eliminated until that announcement is made by either FIFA or CAF. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I also told that to Wburrow. :) 2A02:587:6D14:1D00:92B0:53F2:EC48:58B7 (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: color winners of two-way ties

Moved to WT:FOOTY § Proposal: color winners of two-way ties

– Moved to allow for a more comprehensive discussion and consensus. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When looking at tables of two-way ties, I often have difficulty determining at a quick glance which team won. The bold/unbold distinction is a little too subtle for my aging eyes. We have the option to color the winners green with a simple parameter addition. I've seen it used on other language wikis and think it greatly improves readability. But it's a big enough departure from the established style and affects enough different pages that I thought it'd be a good idea to start a centralized discussion first rather than just do it through WP:BOLD edits. Any thoughts, concerns, or objections? I'd be looking to apply the style on this cycle's WC qualifying pages, then previous cycles as time allows.

Current:

Team 1	Agg. Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Anguilla	1–1 (4–3 p)	Turks and Caicos Islands	0–0	1–1 (a.e.t.)
U.S. Virgin Islands	1–1 (2–4 p)	British Virgin Islands	1–1	0–0 (a.e.t.)

Proposed:

Team 1	Agg. Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Anguilla	1–1 (4–3 p)	Turks and Caicos Islands	0–0	1–1 (a.e.t.)
U.S. Virgin Islands	1–1 (2–4 p)	British Virgin Islands	1–1	0–0 (a.e.t.)

Wburrow (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I am fine with the adjustment. It doesn't really add or take away from the look of the article overall. It is the same style used in the group standings on all these pages. If it helps someone read it easier, than the article is the better for it. Chris1834 Talk 14:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This definitely aids with accessibility, and it follows MOS:DATATABLES#Color. I would also encourage a broader discussion at WT:FOOTY to encourage more widespread adoption. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – If a subset of the readers can't tell from a 1-second quick glance, and they need 3-seconds to read a little text, even with "ageing eyes", then just spend 3 seconds. I consider that this Talk page (as a single tournament) is not appropriate for the proposed change, as this precedent would be used as a de facto change for many other tournaments. Take to WT:FOOTY as the right forum to encourage more widespread debate. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]