2026 World Cup Tactical Preview: What Could We See?
Every 4 years when the World Cup comes around, tactical principles and trends that have evolved, and developed over the past few months to years always are reflected on this biggest stage. With the 2026 World Cup just around the corner, here are some of the tactical trends that could be on show this summer:
Set-Piece Importance
If it wasn’t clear with Arsenal in their Premier League success this season, set pieces continue to become one of football's greatest weapons. These situations provide an opportunity to generate high-quality chance in a more structured phase of the game, especially across stronger opponents. The growth of specialist coaches and more detailed data and video opposition analysis, makes set-pieces more structured, predictable and more of an opportunity to capitalize on, especially in a tournament where margins are incredibly fine. Tournament football further amplifies their importance. National teams have limited preparation time and often face opponents with similar levels of quality, meaning a single corner, free-kick or long throw can completely alter the outcome of a match. For underdogs in particular, dead-ball situations provide one of the most effective ways of closing the quality gap against stronger opposition. This summer, set-pieces such as corners and long-throw ins are likely to play a key role tactically across all teams, regardless of strength.
Rest Defense Structures
Rest defense refers to the positioning and structure maintained while in possession of the ball, with a focus on ensuring the team is prepared for and protected in case of possession loss and an attacking transition from the opponent. Rather than sending everyone forward, many sides now retain a 3+2 or 2+3 structure, as a form of rest defense while in possession, and this focus on these structures and rest defense could be crucial in teams protecting against opposition attacking transitions, which are likely to be very dangerous but present as well during the tournament.
Hybrid Defensive Structures
Rather than the more recent approach of heavy aggressive pressing approaches or maintaining passive blocks, many defensive systems have become more flexible. Often times there is now a focus on selective pressing based on specific triggers such as a poor touch, back-pass, bad-pass ore more. So, what is likely to be on display during the tournament are teams that defend more passively in blocks with a possible man-marking oriented structure with aggressive presses in specific moments such as in a counter-press after losing the ball in attack or other situations.
Tactical Pragmatism, Efficiency and Flexibility
International football has always rewarded pragmatism, especially in tournament football. However, in the modern game the best teams are the ones that are willing and able to alter some of their principles depending on the opponent, game state or overall game context. For example, possession-heavy sides are now willing to play a bit more direct when opportunities arise. Rather than remaining committed to one specific set of tactical rules and principle, successful teams are becoming tactical chameleons, prioritizing being more efficient in attack and defense and more adaptable making adjustments to some of their supporting tactical principles while keeping their core identity.
Taking Advantage of Transitions
Attacking transitions specifically, have become one of the most dangerous moments in football. With defensive structures often vulnerable after losing possession, teams are increasingly looking to attack quickly and take advantage of the time and space available to create chances. Rather than slowing the game down, many sides, even those that usually are more possession and retention focused, actively seek to play in the chaotic moments where athleticism, directness and verticality can create advantages. As a result, quick counterattacks, winning second-balls battles and overall transitions are likely to be major tactical key throughout the tournament.
Controlling Space, Not Only the Ball
A major shift in understanding the game recently, has been acceptance that controlling possession does not necessarily mean controlling the game. Football is a game of time and space, so rather than controlling the ball, successful teams are able to control time and space, with or without the ball. Out of possession, many teams are now focusing on protecting central areas defensively and forcing opposition into less dangerous areas as a more efficient and space focused method of defending. Success is increasingly defined not by how much a team controls the game with the ball, but by how effectively it controls the time and space in the game.
As mentioned in my earlier tactical preview article, every four years the World Cup gives us one of the best opportunities to examine the current state of football, both on and off the field. The 2026 World Cup was no different. The first 48-team tournament brought more teams, more games, more technology and arguably more controversy than ever before.
From VAR and refereeing inconsistency to the political climate and interference, commercialized hydration breaks and the growing involvement of AI and technology, there was always a talking point. On the field, tactical trends emerged and reflected the current and potential future state of the game, while, when examining the tournament in further depth and context, it should be no surprise that Spain won.
Below, section by section, I summarize and discuss some of the key talking points from the World Cup.
Refereeing Inconsistency + VAR
In 2018, VAR was introduced for the first time on the big stage for the World Cup after some trials in leagues and tournaments such as Major League Soccer, the Club World Cup, A-League and more. The core principle of VAR, as mentioned in the IFAB Laws of the Game, is to assist a referee in the case of a clear and obvious error or serious missed incident.
At the 2018 World Cup, VAR was used in all 64 games. Yes, controversial decisions remained, but there were also obvious situations that VAR corrected properly. FIFA reported during the group stage that there had been 335 VAR checks, but only 17 formal reviews. The accuracy of match-changing decisions was reported as increasing from 95% without VAR to 99.3% with VAR.
So, VAR was still checking incidents. However, the intervention into the actual officiating of the game was relatively minimal. A check did not necessarily become a long review or interruption. During the 2026 World Cup, VAR at times was used in a way that felt nowhere near as minimal as its original use. Rather than only intervening when there was a clear decision that needed to be overturned or adjusted, VAR increasingly operated like a verification process or complete secondary referee on the field, constantly intervening and slowing down the game.
The scope of VAR has also expanded. The 2026/27 laws allow intervention for a clearly incorrect second yellow card, while also being able to correct a clearly wrongly awarded corner kick. However, the central principle of VAR remains intervention for a clear and obvious error or serious missed incident.
This is where the problem comes.
Take, for example, Croatia's disallowed goal against Portugal due to the sensor introduced in the ball, which detected an extremely small touch that was deemed to have affected the play. The contact was so minimal that normal video was not enough to clearly identify it and raised questions as to how much, if at all, it actually impacted the play. On a simple technicality, if the ball was touched, then the goal was correctly ruled offside under the law. The technology may therefore have reached the technically correct decision.
But multiple questions should arise.
Just because technology can detect something, does that automatically mean it should affect a decision?
Is the technology solving the problem it was introduced to solve?
Has the law, or should the law, be changed as a result of the introduction of technology?
And at what point does increased technological accuracy stop improving the fairness of the game?
For example, the offside rule exists to prevent attackers from gaining an unfair positional advantage by remaining beyond the defense. What was initially judged by the human eye is now judged using math and technology, with semi-automated technology using different body points to determine an offside or not. The issue is that these offsides are now determined based on the technicality of the law and the math, rather than whether there was actually a meaningful positional advantage for the attacker, which is what the offside rule was introduced to prevent.
Take a situation where a slower attacker is maybe half a foot ahead of a much faster defender. Does he necessarily have a material advantage? Maybe, maybe not. However, did the striker start in a position that clearly gave him a spatial advantage compared to the defender? Yes, and that should be deemed offside.
The recently suggested and currently being tested “daylight” offside rule seeks to solve this problem. With this rule, an attacker remains onside as long as part of the body that can legally score is still level with the defender. However, this could have issues. An attacker's head, chest and torso could be ahead of the defender while his trailing foot remains level. He would then be deemed onside while still arguably having an advantage.
My suggestion?
If the attacker's torso is clearly and completely ahead of the defender's, then he is offside. There will never be a perfect and completely clear rule, but this is something that could be explored.
However, the main point here is that the law must evolve with the technology and, in the case of the offside law, the technology must be used to help determine if an attacker had a meaningful positional advantage over the defense and not affect the game based on minimal and simple technicalities that do not reflect the issues the law was meant to solve.
Technology should be introduced and used to improve and support the game. However, it should not result in decisions being made on increasingly small technicalities simply because technology can detect them.
Returning to the main topic of VAR, the VAR protocol and process need to be reviewed and applied more consistently across all confederations and leagues. Regardless of FIFA and IFAB’s programs to standardize VAR protocols and training structures, interpretations and usage of VAR still vary across leagues and confederations.
Referees come from different regions where they have been trained and are arguably conditioned, even subconsciously, to officiate in a certain “culture,” which includes when and how VAR is used. There needs to be improvement in generating greater consistency in interpretations of the law around the world.
What is the threshold level of contact for a penalty? What determines a handball? How long is too long to decide if an error is clear and obvious? How far back in the play can a goal review go? Which and how many angles should be used?
These questions can have major effects on games and how referees officiate the game. VAR needs to go back to its original purpose and implementation, which was minimal intervention to overturn clear and obvious errors.
For example, if VAR cannot identify an error within around 30–60 seconds and needs multiple minutes, numerous angles and slow-motion replays, then is it really a clear and obvious error?
VAR itself is not the problem. Its application and use have become inconsistent and overapplied, while the laws and processes have to evolve as the technology evolves.
Government & FIFA Interference
Politics and football have always crossed paths, especially at the World Cup.
Governments are needed to host a World Cup and coordinate and develop logistics such as transportation, stadiums, security, visas, etc. However, there should still be a very clear line between operational cooperation with governments and political influence over sporting decisions.
During the 2026 World Cup, that line became far less clear.
Folarin Balogun.
Balogun was sent off for the United States against Bosnia and Herzegovina and was due to serve an automatic suspension.
The White House publicly confirmed that it had contacted FIFA President Gianni Infantino and asked for the situation to be reviewed.
FIFA suspended the implementation of Balogun's one-match ban for a one-year probationary period, allowing him to play against Belgium. The disciplinary committee maintained the sending-off but used Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code to suspend the implementation of the punishment. FIFA and Infantino insisted that Trump did not influence the outcome and that FIFA's disciplinary process remained independent. That may or may not be true.
However, the core issue at hand here is that the government of the host country contacted the President of FIFA and asked for a disciplinary situation involving the country's national team to be reviewed, and the punishment was suspended.
There was also the Cristiano Ronaldo situation before the World Cup. Ronaldo received a three-match suspension after his red card against Ireland, but after serving one match, FIFA suspended the remaining two matches for a one-year probationary period.
So, there is also a wider question around how and when this discretion is applied.
Why is a punishment suspended in one case and not another?
What circumstances justify using Article 27?
Would the same discretion be given to a less commercially important player?
Would it be applied in the same way to a smaller footballing nation, or a nation with a political leader that is not as close with the FIFA President?
FIFA regularly takes a very strong position against political interference in football associations. That makes situations like the Balogun case even more problematic. Infantino has maintained a very publicly close relationship with Trump. That does not necessarily verify that Trump influenced the decision. However, FIFA has a great responsibility to ensure that these decisions are transparent and clearly independent.
Outside the sporting aspect, immigration and visa issues became some of the clearest concerns, as many anticipated months in advance. Iran was an example.
Iran's players were only granted their U.S. visas around 10 days before their opening match, while several administrative staff members were denied entry. The team also had to change its base from the United States to Tijuana, Mexico, while being told when and how long they could enter the U.S. on a game-to-game basis. Regardless of the political and/or security reasoning behind those decisions, that is clearly not ideal for any national team preparing for the biggest tournament in the world.
Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan was another case. Artan was denied entry into the United States despite holding a valid visa and therefore could not officiate at the tournament. U.S. authorities said the decision was based on security concerns, while FIFA stated that it does not control host-country immigration or visa decisions, which is correct, and no country should freely open its borders for a tournament either. However, that does not completely remove FIFA's responsibility as a tournament organizer to ensure it had certain guarantees for the tournament to run smoothly and successfully at the highest level.
Hydration Breaks
For the 2026 World Cup, hydration breaks were introduced with three-minute stoppages around the 22nd and 67th minutes. These were justified given the summer heat across parts of the United States, Mexico and Canada.
The issue at hand and controversy stemmed from the breaks being arguably commercialized.
Rather than having breaks when weather conditions were not ideal or temperatures passed a certain threshold, the breaks were introduced in every game. This included games in cooler conditions, climate-controlled stadiums and/or late evening or night games.
Football is and has been the most popular sport in the world, partly because of its low-scoring, high-jeopardy and continuous state, unlike other sports with timeouts, quarters and constant stoppages. Therefore, the introduction of these breaks for every game would naturally receive pushback, especially when commercialized for use as advertising spots.
Whether the breaks had an effect on the actual flow and tactics in games is another argument. There was likely some impact in certain games or breaks. That said, the opportunity was there for teams and coaches to have the flow of the game, which should be as continuous as possible, disrupted and/or altered. However, the initial data seems to point to minimal effects on the flow of the game.
The bigger issue with the breaks was when FIFA denied that the breaks were introduced for commercial purposes. Infantino stated that FIFA received no additional revenue from the breaks because its commercial agreements had already been signed.
However, having two guaranteed stoppages in every game was attractive and reasonable to broadcasters and advertisers because it created predictable windows in the game that could be used to advertise. If the breaks were subject to climate conditions, those advertising windows could not be guaranteed and would likely be less of a commercial opportunity.
The further arguable commercialization of football under Infantino's FIFA presidency is also a wider controversy. One needs to look no further than the recent FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal. Commercialization is obviously part of modern football and always will be, but where is the line drawn and to what extent should the game be kept to satisfy fans rather than commercial partners?
Closing Gap Due to AI and Analytics
For all FIFA has been criticized under Infantino, FIFA's technical and intelligence team under Arsène Wenger deserves credit.
The increasing role of AI and analytics in the game has the potential to be of major benefit to smaller and lower-resource footballing countries. An example from this World Cup? FIFA and Lenovo's Football AI Pro platform.
This was introduced to support all 48 participating teams, using official match data and AI to support analysts and coaching staff through millions of data points.
Whereas Germany, Spain, England and other top nations likely have access to much more infrastructure, technology and better-trained analytics personnel, Haiti, Cabo Verde and other smaller nations may not have anywhere near the same resources. They may only have one or two analysts carrying out jobs that a larger federation can spread across an entire department.
This is where the AI Pro program can help reduce the gap in the availability of data and information. The AI can provide one or two analysts with support and insights that, without automation, may require additional analysts and many more hours of work. This can be especially valuable in tournament football because matches come and go within a few days.
The more analysts? The better.
But for AI to be available with millions of data points and thousands of metrics for a smaller federation with limited staff, automation and artificial intelligence can save hours, generate more insights and help to somewhat reduce the gap in the information available to work with.
However, the issue still arises with technological and football understanding. Two teams can receive the exact same data and number of analysts and use it in completely different ways. They will likely also reach completely different conclusions.
The information is the same. The analysis may not be.
So, the information gap may be reduced. However, larger nations with more resources may still have analysts who are better technologically trained and more exposed to new innovations and methods in the game. This is where the true gap, and the harder one to close, lies.
Having more data does not automatically mean having better analysis, and having better analysis does not automatically mean better football.
The ability of the analysts and coaching staff to understand how to use the data and convert the insights into something that can actually be applied by the players on the field is where there is often a gap.
AI and technology overall can help to reduce the gap between the bigger and smaller nations, but they will be unable to completely close it. Based on this tournament, there are some examples of where that gap could be argued as being reduced. Teams such as Cabo Verde were able to compete with countries such as Spain, Uruguay and Argentina, while FIFA's Technical Study Group overall highlighted the competitiveness shown by a number of the smaller nations.
That does not mean technology and AI on their own caused those performances, but they could have possibly contributed to the reduction in the gap, giving smaller teams more opportunities and resources to go toe-to-toe with bigger teams.
Tactical Trends
There will be a separate article going much deeper into tactical trends from the tournament, but for a shorter summary, some of the biggest tactical trends were:
Counter-Pressing/Quicker Ball Recovery
In most games, the team with the quicker ball recovery time emerged victorious. Spain, the champions, had the best ball recovery time of all the knockout-stage teams, while FIFA's Technical Study Group found during the group stage that winning teams were regaining possession, on average, around four seconds faster than losing teams.
Goalkeeper Involvement
Compared to the 2022 World Cup, where it was 91%, FIFA’s Technical Study Group highlighted that only 52% of goal kicks were kicked by goalkeepers. Goalkeepers were not left to just restart play, but actually be a meaningful part of the build-up to create a numerical advantage, especially when opponents pressed high and man-to-man.
Wide Triangles
With full/wingbacks being heavily involved in attacking phases of the modern game, another trend was the use of wide triangles with central/attacking midfielders, wingers and full-backs to create wide overloads. These overloads often created rotations and underlapping/overlapping runs to penetrate and threaten the opposition defense. The FIFA Technical Study Group also mainly highlighted the attacking of the inside channels, between the opposition full-back and center-back, often through underlapping runs.
Mid and Low Blocks
As teams become more adaptable and flexible tactically in the game, especially seeking to choose moments when to press, teams were more comfortable and open to sitting in a compact mid or low block. Many teams across the tournament sat in a 4-4-2 shape in a mid or low block out of possession, such as Morocco, Brazil, Japan and Haiti. The 4-4-2 defensively has the ability to cover both central and wide areas in a balanced manner, while also being able to not leave too many open spaces between the lines, with two forwards being able to cover passing options and/or lanes by working together.
Attacking Transitions
Given the last point of teams being more comfortable sitting in mid and low blocks, attacking transitions also became important. FIFA's Technical Study Group highlighted two main forms of attacking transition: counter-attacking after recovering the ball from an organized block, and attacking immediately after winning the ball through a counter-press. Both forms of attacking transitions were particularly important and threatening as teams had the ability to attack their opponents when there was often space in behind and/or a disorganized defensive shape.
Man-to-Man High Press
When deciding to press high, many teams pressed man-to-man during the opponent’s build-up. Players would mark directly onto opposition players and try to remove the passing option, forcing the goalkeeper or defenders to play long or giving the team a chance to win the ball if they opted to try to play through the high man-to-man press, which can prove difficult.
Spain & the Spanish Methodology
Spain winning the World Cup also deserves much more analysis than can be included in one section of this article, which I will write about the Spanish methodology in much more detail separately.
However, Spain didn’t just win simply because they had the best team or the best players and coach. It is much deeper than that.
When looking across the football ecosystem from the Champions League, to the Europa League, Premier League, youth-level EUROs and World Cups to the Women’s World Cup, Spain is completely dominating football. Take, for example:
Spain won the men’s EURO 2024 and the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
Spain won the women’s 2023 World Cup and finished runners-up in EURO 2025.
Spain won the 2026 men's U19 EURO, taking their record to 10 titles.
Spain won the U19 Women’s EURO five consecutive times from 2022–2026.
Spanish clubs have won a record 20 Champions Leagues.
Spanish clubs have also won a record 14 Europa Leagues.
Barcelona won the 2026 Women's Champions League, their fourth title in six years.
In 2025/26, Spanish coaches won the Premier League, Ligue 1, Champions League and Europa League.
Five of the 20 Premier League managers in 2026/27 are Spanish.
In 2025/26, 523 Spanish players appeared across Europe’s Top 5 leagues with the most minutes (505,018), while France was second with 397 players.
These are just a few statistics/facts to show how Spain have been dominating the football ecosystem in recent years across senior men, senior women, youth national teams, men's clubs, women's clubs, academies and coach development, suggesting something deeper than just having the best national team at the men’s level.
From a strong, structured and widespread grassroots system to a clear development pathway from youth to senior levels, combined with training methods that emphasize tactical intelligence and technical mastery at the right moments in the developmental stage, Spain has developed a massive cohort of elite football players.
There is a clear overarching football philosophy and language spread across the country and its football ecosystem that plays a role in both player development and the coach development initiatives that the federation has heavily invested in.
Overall, Spain has taken an interdisciplinary and holistic approach combining psychology, sports science, geography, human development, technology and many other disciplines to create a completely dominant football program across men’s and women’s football at all levels.
Conclusion
Overall, the 2026 World Cup accurately gave us an idea of the current state of football. From showing issues with the laws and technology not always working well together, to refereeing inconsistencies and the arguable overapplication and misuse of VAR, there is clearly work to be done. At the same time, the tournament showed some of the positives of technology and AI, along with the continued tactical evolution of the game. However, over-commercialization and political interference were and could remain issues with Infantino leading FIFA. Finally, Spain’s success was no surprise and demonstrated what a clear and structured football development methodology and system for players, coaches and clubs can continue to produce.
