Each day that passes by is a new step toward the biggest sports event in the world. This is an exciting reality that every association football fan thinks about as we’re rapidly closing in on the club season finale, with several key competitions still not decided.
This prepping-up still has plenty of room for speculation, not to mention the questions that loom large. Will players continue to suffer injuries and miss the World Cup 2026? Is the organizational context in a good place, or are there issues that have yet to arise?
Most of the questions in this spectrum are valid. At the same time, sportsbooks are continuing to assess each team’s situation, each player’s form and every single variable that can impact scenarios.
In this article, we try to investigate several match-day aspects that can be surprisingly important in how teams end up behaving on the pitch. We will assess how travel distance impacts those who qualified for this World Cup, and how being a co-host can prove incessantly advantageous.
These elements are interesting to assess, especially given that the teams that will perform the best may end up separated by very fine margins!
The increased number of games is specifically important in this context
There is quite a lot that has changed from the last edition to this one. For one, it moved from a very small peninsula to an entire continent, with the host countries being the main representatives of North America.
Almost 7 years have passed since the governing body’s council decided that the World Cup would expand from 32 to 48 teams. This major increase influenced other things, such as the rise in the number of games from 64 to 104, adding 7 more days of football.
The logical step was to also add another knockout round, which is the Round of 32. This is possible via a new addition to the advancement criteria: the top 8 teams that finished 3rd in their group will continue in the tournament.
Some key takeaways that we can see are the fact that there is a new incentive for teams to play every match as hard as they can. Regardless of the traveling context, endurance can also lead to a surprise advancement, which raises the stakes for every participating nation.
Several teams have less to travel than others
Given that contestants must travel across three huge countries for their matches, the drawing and match distribution in the group stage have led to some immense disparity.
At the poles, we have Bosnia and Herzegovina, which needs to travel more than 3,100 miles (a bit over 5,000 kilometers) to play their group matches. On the opposite side, we have none other than France, the finalist of the last two editions and champions in 2018. Le Bleu must travel just 334 miles, or about 540 kilometers.
These are based on random draws and venue distribution, not arbitrary, which means that some teams have simply been luckier on this front. Based on the chart that we’ve sourced from the traveling logs and host city assignments, we have some interesting takeaways.
- France is not the only contender with this kind of privilege. Argentina, the reigning champions, only has 461 miles (742 km). This is a negligible difference, but it’s really amusing to see that the previous finalists play their matches so close by.
- Some teams don’t have to travel as much, but significantly more. In this tier, we have Portugal (960 miles/1,545 km), Brazil (1,094 miles/1,760 km), and, arguably, Spain (1,469 miles/2,364 km).
- Of the squads that have a high profile and really need to travel a lot, we have Germany (1,638 miles/2,636 km), England (1,721 miles/2,770 km), and Belgium (2,041 miles/3,284 km).
- Things are very interesting when we look at the host nations. Mexico, whose group stage matches are in Mexico City and Guadalajara, only has to travel 580 miles, or almost 933 km. This is in stark contrast with Canada, whose matches in Toronto and Vancouver will be 2,084 miles (3,356 km). The USA has a similar context to its northern neighbors, with 1930 miles (3,106 km) to work through. Their matches will be on the West Coast in Seattle and Los Angeles.
The takeaway that we can extract from these calculations would tell us that some teams endure less than others. This means less jet lag, fewer hours of flight, and more time to acclimatize to a new host city.
Does ground elevation factor in?
To answer the question in the title of this section: somewhat. The best-positioned country to take advantage of this position is none other than Mexico. Its average elevation is over 3,600 ft (1,100 meters), and they will play two of their matches on the Azteca, a stadium at over double that average elevation.
Of the teams that play in Mexico, the only country with host venues at a significant height, we have several that also have a high elevation, including in some of their high-profile cities.
- South Africa is the closest of them, at 3,392 ft (1,034m). They’ll play Mexico in the opening match at Estadio Azteca, but also in Monterrey. The Bafana is in a good position.
- DR Congo is relatively high, with an average elevation of circa 2,382 ft (726 m), but they only play one match in Guadalajara.
- Colombia is also relatively close, with the South Americans having an elevation of 1945 ft (593 m). They play a match on the Azteca and another in Guadalajara.
Is the home-field advantage true for the tri-hosts?
If we’re referring purely to the geographical terms that we’ve discussed in this article, Mexico may be the only ones that have a real advantage. Having the matches close to each other and at their home elevation terms is an opportunity to take in the major benefit of being a host nation.
As for the USA, they play in coastal cities that are hotbeds of association football fandom. Their matches in Los Angeles are in the middle of the highest concentration of football fans, albeit plenty of them support El Tri due to the Mexican diaspora in the USA, especially in Southern California.
Canada, whose team has to travel from the Westernmost British Columbia all the way to Ontario, probably would’ve benefited from games played in Toronto and Montreal, which are much closer. Their familiarity with both environments is the most important factor here.
When talking about climate, Mexico and Canada are probably in the best position, while the USA will gravitate between the mild warmth of SoCal and the rainy Washington State.
Conclusion
To finalize this piece, we have varying degrees of actual advantages for the hosts, while some teams have to bear the brunt of long traveling distances. It may be unfair for others, but that’s the nature of a tournament that involves big countries.
Overall, we can safely say that these factors may be important in team performance, and we’re sure that betting odds keep this in mind when calculating outrights. If you plan on wagering on the World Cup, please do so responsibly!
