In nearly a century of World Cup history, only eight countries have ever lifted the trophy. Yet three nations — Brazil, Germany and Italy — account for 13 of the 22 titles, roughly 60% of all World Cup wins.

That dominance is waning. None of these traditional giants has won the tournament in recent years: Brazil, the all-time leader with five titles, last won 24 years ago; Italy’s last triumph came 20 years ago; and Germany’s was 12 years ago. Their historic supremacy has not carried over into the modern era, and momentum is increasingly shifting towards other countries. So, which team is most likely to win this year’s competition?

Here is a constructed predictive index for the 2026 World Cup, using seven performance variables from the first two matches of each of the 48 teams — a dataset of 96 matches. The index ranks all teams and projects how far they are likely to progress in the tournament. The ranking is based on a composite performance index constructed from seven variables: points, goals scored, goals conceded, shots on target, corners, passes per game (as a proxy for possession and game control), and fouls per game. These variables are assigned unequal weights to reflect their perceived importance in tournament success. The following are the variables used in the index.

Match points after two games, higher is better (weight 32.5%). This has the greatest effect because it rewards teams that convert performance into results. Teams with six points (Germany, France, USA, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia and Norway) receive a significant boost regardless of underlying statistics. This prevents the model from overvaluing teams that create chances but fail to win matches.

Goals scored, higher is better (18%). This variable emphasises attacking efficiency and finishing quality. Teams like Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, and Norway gain an advantage by achieving strong results alongside high offensive production. Conversely, teams that earn points mainly through narrow victories see a smaller benefit.

Goals conceded, lower is better (15%). This measures the defensive resilience of teams. Teams that have conceded few or no goals (Argentina, Spain, Mexico and Ghana) receive a significant boost because defensive solidity is one of the strongest predictors of tournament progression. Conversely, teams that score freely but concede heavily, such as Sweden, are moderated.

Shots on target per game, higher is better (15%). Rewards sustained chance creation and attacking threat. This helps identify teams whose underlying performance may be stronger than their current results suggest. For example, Colombia, Spain and Ecuador benefit because they consistently test opposition goalkeepers and generate quality opportunities.

Corners per game, higher is better (6%). Teams that regularly force corners tend to spend more time in advanced positions and create more opportunities around the opposition penalty area. Canada, Uruguay, Spain and Switzerland benefit strongly because their corner totals indicate persistent territorial dominance even when goals have not yet materialised.

Passes per game/possession-control proxy (6%). Teams with higher passing volumes generally spend more time controlling the ball, building attacks methodically, and limiting opponents’ opportunities to gain possession.

Fouls per game, lower is better (7.5%). The inclusion of fouls rewards teams that are both effective and disciplined. Teams with low foul counts are less exposed to dangerous free kicks, yellow cards, suspensions and defensive disruption. France, Algeria and Cape Verde benefit because they combine competitive performances with relatively low foul rates, while high-foul teams such as Colombia, Croatia and DR Congo are penalised.

This exercise represents a rudimentary attempt to predict the eventual winner—or, more broadly, the top-performing teams—at the 2026 FIFA World Cup using information from the first two group-stage matches played by each of the 48 participating teams.

In summary, all else equal, the bottom 33 teams are unlikely to reach the first knockout round, while the top 16 should advance to the second knockout stage. The top eight are projected to reach the quarter‑finals. The eventual champion should emerge from the top four.

A key assumption underpinning this analysis is that performance in the first two group-stage matches strongly predicts performance in the remainder of the tournament. This is a simplifying assumption and should be interpreted with caution, as team performance can change substantially during the knockout stages owing to tactical adjustments, injuries, suspensions, quality of opposition, and random match events.

These metrics capture both output (goals, points, shots) and process quality (passing, discipline, defensive stability), allowing the index to discriminate between teams that merely win and teams that dominate.

I look forward to updating the index and the full ranking once all group‑stage matches have been completed.

If this assumption holds, the current rankings suggest that the bottom 33 teams are unlikely to progress into the Round of 32 or beyond the group stage, while the following teams are projected to reach at least the Round of 16: Germany, Colombia, France, Norway, USA, Argentina, Canada, Mexico, Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Portugal, England, Japan, Brazil, and Egypt.

Furthermore, the model suggests that the top eight-ranked teams—Germany, Colombia, France, Norway, USA, Argentina, Canada, and Mexico—would be the most likely to reach the quarterfinals.

These projections should be treated as illustrative rather than definitive. As more matches are played, the predictive accuracy of the index is expected to improve. The rankings will therefore be updated after the group stage to incorporate the full set of group-stage results and performance statistics.

Dapel tweets @ dapelzg