SerpApi.Org
That's a wrap! Mexico defeated South Africa 2-0 at the Azteca on June 11 to open the tournament, and now the 2026 FIFA World Cup is officially complete after 104 games.
The stars truly came out to shine, with Lionel Messi, Kylian Mbappé, Erling Haaland and Jude Bellingham all turning in some superlative performances along the way, but in the end, Spain were worthy winners.
Now that the dust has settled, what better time to pause and reflect on what we've seen? This is Marcotti's World Cup Musings.
- Grading the 2026 FIFA World Cup: From Spain's A, to Infantino's F - Ogden: The World Cup's best and most disappointing XIs - How will 2026 World Cup be remembered: Messi? Haaland? Trump?
10. Spain are the standouts, and we had a clean finish
Not "clean" because the final was a testament to fair play (more on this later). But "clean" in the professional wrestling sense: There was a clear winner, with very few "might-have-beens" or "controversies" that would have produced a different outcome.
That's not something to be taken for granted in World Cup finals. From Randal Kolo Muani's miss (2022), to Gonzalo Higuain's blunder (2014), to Zinedine Zidane's head-butt (2006), to whatever happened with the original Ronaldo before the final (1998), to Geoff Hurst's "ghost goal" (1966), to Ference Puskas' disallowed goal (1954), there's a list as long as Victor Wembanyama's arm -- and that's post-war only.
There's no plausible alternative reality that suggests any other outcome than Spain as world champions. They are a nation that might currently be lighter than say England or France in the superstar count, but which has been doing everything right from the top of the federation on down.
Spain's men are the reigning world, European, Olympic and European under-19 champions. Spain's women are the reigning world and European under-19 champions (and only lost the Women's Euros on penalties). This isn't randomness or happenstance. This is culture, leadership and methodology percolating down from the top.
9. Messi deserved better after the final ...
What's the lasting postmatch memory of his final Argentina World Cup appearance? A brawl on the pitch after the final whistle, with Nahuel Molina, Leandro Paredes and legendary defender-turned-assistant coach Roberto Ayala clashing with their Spanish counterparts. And Messi joining his teammates in turning their backs to the podium and Spain's celebrations as they lifted the trophy, even after the Spanish players had given them a guard of honor.
There's pain, intensity and rage, and then there's self-delusion and performative sore loserdom. I get the first parts, not the second. Argentina -- who, lest we forget, didn't even attempt a shot on goal until the 117th minute -- were comprehensively beaten by a better opponent on the day and throughout the tournament. That's not injustice; that's how football is meant to work: The better team wins. It was so extreme that it forces us to talk about this, rather than the tears of a living legend who gave us the gift of six World Cups and who we will never again see on the biggest stage.
8. ... and he deserved better throughout the tournament
Argentina coach Lionel Scaloni did what so many title-winning coaches do. They stick with the guys who got them there, and they put the "dressing room" and its leaders above all else. That's understandable, maybe, but in this World Cup it compounded Argentina's issues. Already, because of Messi's age and stamina, Scaloni built a side packed with veterans high on experience and Messi proximity but low on dynamism and -- yeah, I'll say it -- quality.
That carried Argentina through the group stage, but it was clearly wanting in the knockouts. They had that scare against Cape Verde, then they needed a historic comeback against Egypt, a stupid decision by an opponent against Switzerland, and a craven self-destruction by England to reach the final. They didn't play well in any of those games, even as they got lost in the drama and Messi's ability to create out of nothing.
And still Scaloni persevered, playing one winger at a time (and, alas, too often it was Nico González), alternating Julián Álvarez and Lautaro Martínez, and giving Nico Paz zero minutes of football in the knockouts. Messi was always going to be the star, but he needed more of a supporting cast than just loyal warriors around him.
7. France remain the most gifted squad in world football
And I'm not sure how close it is. Forget the stat-padding freak show of the third-place game (I would have been fine with Mbappé not playing, staying on eight goals and sharing the Golden Boot with Messi), Les Bleus' stars shone throughout the tournament, with the exception of one half against Senegal in the opener and the Spain debacle. Was it a perfect team? Not by any stretch, but the sheer weight of talent and quality thrown up -- even when intermittently -- by Mbappé, Michael Olise and Ousmane Dembélé was a sight to behold.
Didier Deschamps leaves having taken France as far as they can go (which is pretty far: two World Cup finals and a UEFA European Championship final) with his "players' manager" approach and Hippocratic method of coaching ("above all, do no harm").
Will his successor (and former teammate) Zidane be different? Nobody knows, he hasn't coached in five years, and the great stone face is as inscrutable as ever. We'll find out, though, and it will be fun.
6. England backslide under Thomas Tuchel
And you hope the one thing keeping him around isn't just the giant contract the Football Association foolishly gave him before the World Cup. Hopefully they see more. England's squad was arguably only second to France's in terms of individual quality and yet, somehow, we saw it play well only against Croatia in the opener and, at times, against a Panama side that exited with three defeats and zero goals scored.
England fell behind in each of their knockout games before the semifinal (against Congo DR, Mexico and Norway), and when they did score first, against Argentina, they blew everything by not wanting the ball and sitting absurdly deep, inviting Messi to hurt them (which he did).
Tuchel, of course, had warned after the Norway game that they had played poorly (but then weirdly insisted they played well against Argentina). Whatever the case, England are the opposite of Spain: They're less than the sum of their parts. It's up to him to fix it.
5. Let's hear it for the officials on the pitch ...
No, they weren't all good. But when it comes to refereeing performances, I can count only a handful that were notably subpar (Ilgiz Tantashev in Paraguay vs. France, Francois Letexier in Argentina vs. Egypt stand out). Over 104 games, that's not a bad return. And the fact that we saw officials from beyond Europe, South America and Mexico (the usual go-tos of the past for pedigree and experience) oversee nine of the final 16 games of the tournament (including both semifinals) speaks to how well prepared, as a group, they were.
While we're at it, let's also note how some of the tweaks to the laws of the game designed to speed up matches (on substitutions, throw-ins, goal kicks, etc.) and the use of VAR for simulation (sorry, Breel Embolo!) led to more free-flowing football and less cheating.
4. ... less so for some of the officials off the pitch
As in the people upstairs making decisions. We've covered Folarin Balogun's sudden "suspended ban" before, but, simply put, it's a stain that won't easily go away. And the shady way the process unfolded -- with a single person, the head of the FIFA's disciplinary committee, Mohammed Al-Kamali, making the decision entirely on his own (if you believe the official version) -- leaves a really bad taste. The clunky justification -- citing Garrincha in 1962 or Cristiano Ronaldo (!) whose red card was before the tournament started -- only made things worse. It wouldn't be a bad thing if Gianni Infantino made sure the rules were rewritten to ensure this never happens again (except in cases of mistaken identity).
Equally disturbing was the way Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan was sent home after his visa to the United States was withdrawn, after having been originally granted. Any country is free to do what it likes when it comes to providing entry (and is entitled to change its mind about it). But given Canada and Mexico had no objection to his being in the country, it was disappointing that, even as a symbolic gesture (he likely would have been, at best, a fourth official holding up a board), he wasn't allowed to stay and officiate in those co-hosts. The explanation offered by FIFA that "referees are a team and they need to train together, and their base is in Miami" is thoroughly unsatisfying.
3. FIFA needs to review some of its marketing folks
Such as the guys who suggested that the halftime show (27 minutes long) was a good idea, presumably because they watched the Super Bowl a couple of times. The show itself was fine -- given what it cost, in the tens of millions, it had better have been -- it's just that it added nothing to the experience beyond giving most fans another reason to get annoyed at FIFA. So, too, did the cramming of celebrities past and present into the other pre- and postgame activities. Nicole Scherzinger, Post Malone, Tom Cruise, Laura Pasini and Robbie Wiliams were all there, too, in secondary roles. If any of them hadn't been there, would you have noticed? Nope, me neither.
And while we're at it, enough of telling broadcasters to show celebrities in the stands. It's not news, it doesn't generate revenue, the game doesn't need the hype. I don't need to see Rob Gronkowski or A$AP Rocky or IShowSpeed sitting in a luxury suite surrounded by canapés. (If I want to see Speed, I'll tune in to his livestreams.) All it does is remind everyone of the two-tier system where celebs get freebies and VIP hospitality and the rest either pay through the nose or watch on TV.
2. It works with 48 teams, but it won't work with 64
Or, rather, a 64-team World Cup will work only as a football festival, a celebration of the game, a chance for sides like Northern Ireland, Zimbabwe and Cuba to show that they too can compete at a decent standard (as Haiti, Curaçao and Cape Verde did for stretches this time around). If that's the route we want to go down, let's do it. Turn it into one big party. The vibes were legitimately great with 48 teams at this World Cup, and many doom merchants said they wouldn't be -- and they were wrong.
But there are two reasons a 64-team tournament shouldn't happen. One is purely the format. Sixty-four teams means 16 groups of four and that, in turn, means more meaningless games, with sides knocked out after two matches. Yes, this was the case at 32 as well; it's just that we'd have many more situations like this. It would also stretch the tournament, not so much in terms of matches (we'd go from 104 to 124) but in terms of time (assuming you don't want to cram in five games a day).
The other reason -- and why I don't think FIFA will do it -- is that it doesn't make financial sense. You now need to split your revenue 64 ways instead of 48 ways, and you only gain an extra 20 games to justify an increase in media rights (20 group stage games, I might add, with fewer heavyweight encounters early in the competition). It's going to be tough to make that work. Not to mention the fact that a World Cup in Mexico, Canada and the U.S. gives you a domestic population of around half a billion, ensuring that even the tiniest nations are likely to have support (and ticket sales). That's hard to replicate in other regions.
1. The world came together
I know, it's corny. But, despite globalization and commercialization, we as a planet have very few common cultural touchstones. The World Cup one isn't just one of them, it's arguably the biggest. Many don't care at all -- especially in nations that are uninvolved -- but many do.
Or, at least, they care while the tournament is on. For many it's literally their only point of contact with some of the foreign cultures and nations they see on their screens. For six weeks, the world became that little bit smaller. And we're all better off for it.
