United 2026 FIFA World Cup is Here! Tournament Predictions are Here!

The 2026 FIFA World Cupo kicks-off TODAY, co-hosted by Canada, USA and Mexico.

In this blog post we look back at our existing published research on USA world Cups, before statibg our predictions as to who will win it and what fate has in store for the British teams and also for the co-hosting nations.

We then compare with the predictions of colleagues from some of our mathematical colleagues.

Reflections

Way back in 2018 we were asked to share our thoughts on the then newly announced 2026 FIFA World Cup for Canada-Mexico-USA, a tournament to be co-hosted across North America.

Our piece, linked here, shared our projections about organising the tournament and likely scenarios, such as for urban transport, boosterism and so on. We also reflected on the making use of existing stadiums rather than building many new stadiums from scratch for the tournament.

Relatedly, those of you who follow our academic publications may also be aware of our articles on the USA 94 edition of the FIFA World Cup:

Gillett, A.G. and Tennent, K.D., 2022. Hybrid goals: Institutional complexity and ‘legacy’in a global sporting mega-event. Public Management Review, 24(3), pp.372-397.

Tennent, K.D. and Gillett, A.G., 2020. Opportunities for all the Team: Entrepreneurship and the 1966 and 1994 Soccer World Cups. In Sport and Entrepreneurship (pp. 145-166). Routledge.

We have also very recently revised and updated our chapter 'a brief history of the world cup as a business' in the book 'The Business of the World Cup'. The first edition, which appeared in 2022 in time for the Qatar tournament, was very popular. So, were delighted to be asked to participate in a new edition to coincide with the 2026 World Cup:

Gillett, A.G. and Tennent, K.D., 2027. A Brief History of the FIFA World Cup as a Business. In The Business of the FIFA World Cup (pp. 4-24). Routledge.

 

Predictions

But what of the on-pitch activities? Well, as our readers know, we like to do tournament predictions and wherever possible compare to other 'expert' academics and pundits. As usual, both of us predicted results for the entire tournament and also rolled dice for a bit of fun to see if we are more accurate than random chance!  Results are:

Name	Winners	Runner-up	Third Place	Fourth Place
Kevin	Brazil	Croatia	Netherlands	Argentina
Alex	Brazil	Spain	Argentina	France
Dice	Egypt	Mexico	South Africa	France

Alex predicts that Brazil will beat current Holders Spain by 2-1 to lift the Cup for the sixth time, but the first time since 2002.  This would fit a pattern; Brazil have never waited longer than five tournaments to win it, so they are due that victory!  

He predicts that England will reach the Round of 16 where they will be beaten 0-2 by Spain on their way to the Final. Meanwhile, of the British Home Nations, Scotland will progress out of the Group Stage for the first time in history, but face 2-3 defeat to Netherlands in the Round of 32.

Of the three host nations; Canada and Mexico will both finish second in their respective groups before Mexico knock-out Canada 2-0 in the Round of 32, then Mexico lose 2-3 to Netherlands in the Round o f 16. USA will win Group D before losing 1-2 to Ecuador in the Round of 32. 

Kevin also sees Scotland's bravehearts losing to Netherlands in the Round of 32, but predicts a penalty shoot-out will decide that after a 1-1 draw is not settled by extra-time.  England, he predicts, will lose 2-3 to Brazil in the Quarter Finals.  Brazil will ultimately win the Cup, he proclaims, suggesting a 1-1 draw followed by a Brazil winning goal in extra-time.

His outlook for the co-hosts sees Canada falling at the Round of 32, losing 1-2 to Czech Republic after finshing second place in the Group. USA will win its Group , beat Iraq and Korea Republic in the knockout stages, before crashing out 0-3 to Croatia in the Quarter-Final.  Mexico will win every Group stage game but exit in the Round of 16 at the hands of England.

The dice, as wild as ever, predict Egypt to play co-hosts Mexico in the Final, 3-3 after 90 minutes followed by a further 1 goal for Mexico and 5 for Egypt in the most exciting period of extra-time in the entire history of World Cups.  Scotland will win Group C before losing to Netherlands in the Round of 32, whilst England will go out in the Round of 16 courtesy of a 4-5 defeat at the hands of South Africa. Other than Mexico, of the co-hosts, both Canada and USA will falter at the Group Stage.

Compare to Colleagues

The Corridor of Uncertainty is a podcast at the intersection of maths & sport, hosted by Dr Jess Hargreaves & Dr Rich Bingham, two mathematicians at the University of York. In their episode dated 9th June 2026 they calculate, using their own mathematical formula, the liklihood of each participating team winning the competition. According to their number crunching, Spain are most likely to lift the Cup, followed by Argentina, France and then England.

They also invited a special guest, Prof James Reade (Uni of Reading), who introduced his own set of figures to offer an alternative prediction: Favouring Argentina, then Spain, France and Portugal as most likely to take top honours. His prediction for England/ Fifth most likely to win.

The outcomes then are very much open to debate. What is certain is that the next few weeks will provide good opportunity for more blog posts and podcasts!

As usual we will try to update our predictions at each stage when it is know who has qualified.

Please note that the above predictions are for fun only and are not advice for betting on the outcomes of these or any football games. The authors cannot  accept any liability for the performance or outcomes.

Public Management and Global Sporting Mega-Events: A call for papers for a special issue of Public Management Review

 

Public Management and Global Sporting Mega-Events

A call for papers for a special issue of Public Management Review

 

 

Guest Editors: 

 

Alex G. Gillett, Senior Lecturer/Associate Professor in Marketing – School for Business & Society, University of York, United Kingdom.

Alex.gillett@york.ac.uk

 

 

Kevin D. Tennent, Reader in Management - School for Business & Society, University of York, United Kingdom.

Kevin.tennent@york.ac.uk

 

 

Michael Macaulay, Professor, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Michael.macaulay@vuw.ac.nz

 

 

This Special Issue proposes to explore public management in the empirical context of global sporting mega-events, such as the Olympic Games and the FIFA World Cup.  Overall, the size of these events has grown about 60-fold over the past 50 years, thirteen times faster than world GDP (Müller et al, 2023).  Papers may address any aspect of such events, so long as the underlying focus remains on public management and its related theories.

There has been a recent upsurge in concern around the management and governance of large-scale sport tournaments, not least of which are the innumerable controversies around the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar.  These events, often termed megaprojects (Flyvbjerg & Stewart, 2012; Grün, 2004) usually require the formation and finance of a temporary project organization to plan and execute the large-scale and complex fixed-duration event, and increasingly this also involves overseeing its ‘legacy’ for a broad range of stakeholders in the post-event period although evidence suggests that despite increased rhetoric the sustainability has gradually decreased since the 1990s (Müller et al, 2021). These temporary organizations require the application of knowledge and capabilities from the past as well as anticipating the future (Grabher and Thiel, 2015).

The motives of decision-makers for undertaking megaprojects, including global sporting mega-events, are summarized by Flyvbjerg’s (2012; 2014a) “four sublimes”, which influence their objectives: Technological, Political, Economic and Aesthetic.  The emphasis or detail of each can change over the duration of the project from initial conceptualization to delivery and legacy management (Gillett and Tennent, 2017).  Of these the Political and Economic arguments are often used to justify hosting events in terms of using public money and resources, for example projections of generating immediate income for businesses through visiting attendees and resulting local multiplier effects. These can be longitudinal in the form of raising awareness amongst would be tourists and investors, in the form of lasting legacy of the infrastructure developed from the event (Molloy and Chetty, 2015), or from managing the profits as a legacy fund for social investment (Gillett and Tennent, 2022). 

Such temporary project organizations are therefore complex to manage and might require the creation and dissolution of specific not-for-profit organizations for different project stage. They involve relationships of fluctuating intensity and duration with diverse stakeholders including national, regional and local government, development agencies and emergency services (Gillett and Tennent, 2022). 

Motives focus on long- and short-term potential benefits and legacies, which can be tangible/ measurable, or intangible/difficult to measure (Preuss, 2007). Projected benefits are not guaranteed to materialize, and as a result, global sporting mega-events carry risks, yet they continue to receive public subsidy.  Indeed, critics of global sporting mega-events have questioned the actualization of proposed benefits identifying reasons why Games might not justify political support and public investment as their advocates claim. The literature points to the rationale for continued investment as partly being the intangible, and therefore difficult to quantify, nature of legacy (i.e., that megaprojects become in some way symbolic) as well as the more tangible outcomes from economic “boosterism” that might not be immediately measurable and may be difficult to untangle from other variables (Baade & Matheson, 2004; Kuper & Syzmanski, 2012; Zimbalist, 2015). Global sporting mega-events thus offer rich potential for debates around the ethics of public sector involvement, beyond the essentials required to fulfil statutory duties, such safety.

Running through these issues is that of long-term governance, not only of megaprojects but of sporting organisations themselves.  Sports governance establishes the procedures by which sporting organisations can run major tournaments (Chappelet, 2018); collaborate and negotiate with multiple stakeholders (Henry and Lee, 2004); and abide (or not) by specific governance principles (Thompson et al, 2022).  Governance speaks to all four of Flyberg’s sublimes, and has a particular impact on building legacy. The 2012 London Olympics continues to be accused of reneging on legacy promises of turning accommodation into affordable housing (Foster, 2022).  Megaprojects such as the 2022 FIFA World Cup, as well as long-running competitions such as the English premier League, are continually mired in accusations of ‘sports-washing’. 

This is nothing new.  Historically, mega-projects have served propagandistic purposes —for example, to legitimize political ideologies, such as the fascism of Italy and Germany in the 1930s (Archetti, 2006; Gordon & London, 2006; Guttmann, 2006),  or Russia who have hosted or participated in events while breaking the Olympic Truce for peace (Gillett and Tennent, 2021) or to showcase and catalyze economic and societal development (e.g., Molloy & Chetty, 2015; Zimbalist, 2015).  Sports organisations continue to be challenged through extreme governance failure; from the bribery and corruption in world rugby union leaderships, to the long-term cover up of abuse in US gymnastics.

 

 Call for Papers

 This call encourages submissions from papers exploring public management issues in the empirical context of global sporting mega-events (such as the Olympic Games, the FIFA World Cup, or Commonwealth Games). Papers may address any aspect of such events, so long as the underlying focus remains on public management and its related theories. The SI thus appeals to the core readership of PMR as well offering novelty to attract a broader audience.

 This SI will provide new and important theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence regarding public managers’ involvement in the hosting of sporting mega-events.  By doing so, the proposed SI will provide new and important insights with implications for practice and an important context for testing and developing public management theory both traditional (e.g. Public Value) and new (Service Innovation; Human Learning Systems).

 Thus, papers need to adopt a public management perspective and whether the objective is for theory developing, challenging, testing or elaborating, we expect papers to make a strong contribution to the public management field.  As such, not considered in scope with this call are purely descriptive reviews of past articles, purely mathematical papers, or purely legal and regulatory focused pieces.

 We welcome papers focused on one or more of the following, although this list has been produced as indicative (rather than exhaustive) of the types of research questions we hope that this special issue can address.

 

 

1. Do global sporting mega-events create immediate or ‘legacy’ value for the societies or localities in which they are situated? How is this achieved and how could this be measured? In particular:
• What types of strategic leadership can (or could be) effective in successfully bidding and hosting global sporting mega-events (and where applicable, their legacy)?
• Under the strategic level, what are the public management organizing approaches, process or practices, that have a positive impact on societal outcomes? (see Gillett and Tennent, 2022 as an example).
• What types of evaluation can (or could be) effective?

 

 

2. With reference to the mega-project ‘sublimes’ (Flyvberg, 2014; Gillett and Tennent, 2017) what specific political and economic motives are given for hosting global sporting mega-events? Which public management theories can be used to hone and improve the explanatory power of the sublimes in a public management context?

 

 

3. Managing stakeholder relationships: How can the public sector ensure that a societal dividend (including immediate and/or legacy) be implemented successfully by global sporting mega-event organizers situated outside the public sector?

 

 

4. Risks and ethics:
• What are the risks of using public funds to subsidize global sporting mega-events? Who bares those risks? How can public administrators mitigate or manage these risks?
• What are the ethical choices or dilemmas that public managers may have to navigate relating to global sporting mega-events? On what basis can the use of public resources (time, money, skills, and the use or development of related infrastructure) be justified?

 

5. What are the most appropriate governance principles and processes for sporting mega-projects?  How often are they breached?  What are the impacts of governance failures on sporting organisations?  On competitors? On the perception of the sport itself? 

 

We aim to include six to eight articles, including a geographic spread of authors and issues.  Theoretical and empirical papers are encouraged that embrace a range of methodological approaches - though longitudinal studies would be of especial interest given their dearth in the public management literature (Wond and Macaulay, 2011).

To submit a proposal for this edited collection, please email a 1500 word abstract outlining the manuscript’s contents, including its application of theory, empirical context, methodology (including sources of data) and fit within this special issue, alongside a 50-word per author biographical statement, to the editors.

 

Timeline: (exact dates to be confirmed with journal editor)

 

30th September, 2023             Deadline for proposals: A summary of 1500 words maximum (plus references list) including research question/aim, key literature, proposed methods, and expected or indicative findings.

 

31st October, 2023                  Feedback from editors and invitation to authors with successful proposals to submit a full paper.

 

30 April, 2024                         Full paper submitted for review via PMR submission system

 

As per the above timeline, all submissions selected by the editors will be invited to submit a full article through the Public Management Review submission system, which will then be subject to the journal's usual peer review procedures. We emphasise that an invitation to submit a full article does not guarantee publication, and all decisions are ultimately those of the journal editors.

 

If you have any further questions, please contact the special issue editors:

 

Alex G. Gillett

Alex.gillett@york.ac.uk

Kevin D. Tennent

Kevin.tennent@york.ac.uk

 

Michael Macaulay

Michael.macaulay@vuw.ac.nz

 

 

References

Archetti, E. P. 2006. “Military nationalism, football essentialism, and moral ambivalence.” In A. Tomlinson & C. Young (Eds.), National identity and global sports events: Culture, politics, and spectacle in the Olympics and the football World Cup (pp. 133–148). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Baade, R. A., & Matheson, V. A. 2004.  “The quest for the cup: Assessing the economic impact of the World Cup.” Regional Studies 38 (4): 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/03434002000213888

Chappelet, J.-L. 2018. “Beyond governance: The need to improve the regulation of international sport.” Sport in Society 21(5): 724 734.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2018.1401355

Flyvbjerg, B. 2012. “Why mass media matter, and how to work with them: Phronesis and megaprojects.” In B. Flyvbjerg, T. Landman, & S. Schram (Eds.), Real social science: Applied phronesis (pp. 95–121). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Flyvbjerg, B. 2014. “What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview.” Project Management Journal 45 (2): 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.2140

Flyvbjerg, B., & Stewart, A. 2012. “Olympic proportions: Cost and cost overrun at the Olympics 1960–2012.” Said Business School working papers. Oxford, England: University of Oxford.

Gillett, A.G. and Tennent, K.D. 2017. “Dynamic sublimes, changing plans, and the legacy of a megaproject: The case of the 1966 Soccer World Cup.” Project Management Journal 48 (6): 93-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728170480060

 

Gillett, A.G. and Tennent, K.D. 2021. “Populism and political motives for hosting the FIFA World Cup: Comparing England 1966 and Russia 2018.” In B. Clift and A. Tomlinson. Populism in Sport, Leisure and Popular Culture. New York: Routledge.

Gillett, A.G. and Tennent, K.D. 2022. “Hybrid goals: institutional complexity and ‘legacy’ in a global sporting mega-event.” Public Management Review 24 (3): 372-397. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1833609

Gordon R. S. C., & London, J. 2006. “Italy 1934 football and fascism.” In A. Tomlinson & C. Young (Eds.), National identity and global sports events: Culture, politics, and spectacle in the Olympics and the football World Cup (pp. 41–64). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Grabher, G., & Thiel, J. 2015. “Projects, people, professions: Trajectories of learning through a mega-event (the London 2012 case).” Geoforum 65: 328–337

Grün, O. 2004. “Taming giant projects.” Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

The Guardian. 2016. “Tokyo will cut building costs of 2020 Olympics rather than move venues—reports.” The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian .com/sport/2016/nov/24/tokyo-will-cut- building-costs-of-2020-olympics-rather- than-move-venues-reports

Guttman, A. 2006. “Berlin 1936: The most controversial Olympics.” In A. Tomlinson & C. Young (Eds.), National identity and global sports events (pp. 65–82). Albany, NY: SUNY.

Henry, I., & Lee, P. C. 2004. “Governance and ethics in sport.” In J. Beech, & S. Chadwick (Eds.), The business of sport management (pp. 1–21). Prentice-Hall.

Kuper, S., & Syzmanski, S. 2012. “Soccernomics—why transfers fail, why Spain rules the world and other curious football phenomena explained.” (3rd ed.). London, England: HarperSport/ HarperCollins.

Molloy, E., & Chetty, T. 2015. “The rocky road to legacy: Lessons from the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa stadium program.” Project Management Journal 46 (3): 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.215

Müller, M., Wolfe, S.D., Gaffney, C., Gogishvili, D., Hug, M. and Leick, A. 2021. “An evaluation of the sustainability of the Olympic Games.” Nature sustainability 4 (4): 340-348.  https://ssrn.com/abstract=3873972 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3873972

Müller, M., Gogishvili, D., Wolfe, S.D., Gaffney, C., Hug, M. and Leick, A. 2023 (in press). “Peak event: the rise, crisis and potential decline of the Olympic Games and the World Cup.” Tourism Management, 95 (April). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104657

Preuss, H. (2007). “The conceptualization and measurement of mega sport event legacies.” Journal of Sport & Tourism 12 (3–4): 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/14775080701736957

Thompson, A., Lachance,E. L., Parent, M. M., & Hoye, R. 2022. “A systematic review of governance principles in sport, European Sport Management Quarterly.” https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2022.2077795 

Wond, T. and Macaulay, M. 2011. “Extending Time–Extended benefits: using longitudinal research in public management evaluation.” Public Management Review 13 (2): 309-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2010.536059

Zimbalist, A. 2015. “Circus maximus: The economic gamble behind hosting the Olympics and the football world cup.” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.