The 2026 FIFA World Cup will be different from anything football has seen before. For the first time, the tournament will be hosted by three countries, with the USA, Canada and Mexico sharing responsibility for staging the biggest edition in history.
With 48 teams, more matches and wider travel demands, the tournament brings excitement, opportunity and risk in equal measure. It also opens the door for more debate on how the competition may unfold.
Three voices gave their views on the tournament: Rowen Camilleri, Malta Sport journalist and host of the World Cup podcast Trident; Christopher Francalanza, Malta Sport Editor; and Simon Peter Farrugia, a veteran TVM Sport journalist with plenty of experience.
Their answers show common ground, but also clear differences. All three believe the tournament can be memorable, unpredictable and challenging. However, each one looks at the World Cup through a different lens.
A three country World Cup brings scale and pressure
Camilleri sees the three-nation format as a major opportunity. He believes the USA, Canada and Mexico can benefit from “greater resources, wider reach, and shared responsibilities,” making the tournament “bigger and more exciting than ever.”
His view is based on the strength of spreading the tournament across three major countries. More stadiums, bigger markets and wider international exposure can all help the World Cup grow.
However, Camilleri also warned that such a structure brings problems. He pointed to “different laws, languages, and borders” as areas that could complicate the organisation. For him, the risk is that a bigger tournament may also bring bigger logistical headaches.
Francalanza agreed that the 2026 World Cup brings opportunity, but he was more focused on the sporting and travel demands. He also made an important distinction, saying this is not the first shared World Cup, as South Korea and Japan hosted the tournament in 2002. The difference is that 2026 will be the first World Cup hosted by three countries.
For Francalanza, the biggest challenge is travel. He said, “players, staff and supporters will move across huge distances, different time zones, and different weather conditions.” That, he argued, can affect preparation, recovery and performance.
While Camilleri focused more on laws, borders and organisation, Francalanza looked at how the tournament could affect the football itself. His concern is that the distances involved may become a major factor once the competition begins.
Farrugia offered the widest overview. He highlighted tourism, job creation, economic benefits, cultural diversity and international cooperation as major positives for the hosts. He also said the tournament could help increase the popularity of football across North America.
At the same time, Farrugia listed several challenges, including security, transport, cross-border travel and environmental impact. His key point was that cooperation between the three countries will be essential if the tournament is to be remembered for the right reasons.
On this first question, all three agreed that the 2026 World Cup has huge potential. The difference lies in what they each see as the biggest test. Camilleri pointed to administrative complexity, Francalanza to travel and recovery, and Farrugia to overall coordination and legacy.
Expansion to 48 teams: more stories, but more questions
The move from 32 to 48 teams was another area where the three views overlapped, but not completely.
Camilleri welcomed the expanded format. He believes it gives smaller nations more chances to compete and increases the possibility of upsets. In his view, more teams means more underdog stories and more pressure on traditional football powers.
His dark horse is Norway. With Erling Haaland leading the attack, Camilleri believes Norway have the firepower to trouble any opponent. His argument is built around the impact one world-class forward can have in a tournament setting.
Francalanza was more cautious. He said he still prefers the 32-team format and warned that a 48-team tournament could lead to more “one-sided games,” especially in the early stages.
He also raised concerns about the structure of the competition. With more teams progressing, including third-placed sides, Francalanza believes there is a risk of unusual routes, where a team may suddenly face a major football nation earlier than expected.
Still, Francalanza accepted that the format can create space for a “Cinderella story.” His main dark horse is Morocco. He pointed to their 2022 World Cup run as proof that they can compete with elite nations, adding that they have the “mentality, structure and quality to trouble anyone.”
He also mentioned Norway and Türkiye as dangerous outsiders, but made it clear that Morocco appears to be the most complete underdog option.
Farrugia also named Morocco as a possible dark horse. His reasoning was similar to Francalanza’s. Morocco reached the semi-finals in 2022 and already showed they can handle the biggest stage.
This is where Francalanza and Farrugia are closest in their thinking. Both see Morocco as a serious outsider because of what they have already achieved. Camilleri, on the other hand, looks more towards Norway and Haaland’s individual quality.
The contrast is clear. Camilleri’s dark horse is based on star power. Francalanza and Farrugia’s choice is based on tournament experience and proof.
England, France, Spain or Portugal: who makes the biggest impact?
The third question produced the clearest differences.
Camilleri believes England can make the biggest impact beyond the traditional favourites. Although he still thinks Brazil can win the tournament, he sees England as the side with the potential to finally make a major breakthrough.
His reasoning is based on talent, squad depth and Premier League experience. Camilleri believes England have enough quality to compete with anyone and that, after several near misses, this could be the tournament where they finally turn potential into a serious title challenge.
Francalanza took a different route. He challenged the idea that Brazil should automatically be seen as one of the strongest favourites. He argued that Brazil’s qualifying campaign was not convincing and that the current team does not carry “the same fear factor as past Brazilian generations.”
He also treated Argentina with caution. While respecting them as defending champions, Francalanza pointed out that several key players are now older, including Lionel Messi, who is no longer playing every week at the highest level in Europe.
For Francalanza, France and Spain are the teams with the greatest potential impact. He sees Spain as a side with a fresh identity and a strong technical base, but he believes France stands out because of their depth, athleticism and attacking options.
His main point is that squad depth wins tournaments. In tight knockout games, the quality available from the bench can make the difference.
Farrugia chose Portugal. He described them as one of the most talented and balanced squads in international football, with strength in every area of the pitch.
For Farrugia, Portugal have both experience and emerging quality. He also highlighted the Cristiano Ronaldo story, suggesting this could be his final chance to win the World Cup. In his view, such a triumph would be “a fitting end to one of the all-time greatest.”
Here, the three journalists clearly diverge. Camilleri looks at England’s talent and hunger. Francalanza looks at France and Spain’s overall strength. Farrugia looks at Portugal’s balance and the emotional weight of Ronaldo’s final chance.
Yet there is still one shared theme: depth. Camilleri sees it in England, Francalanza sees it in France, and Farrugia sees it in Portugal.
A World Cup open to different interpretations
In the end, the three journalists all see the 2026 World Cup as a tournament full of possibilities, but each approaches it from a different angle.
Camilleri focuses on the excitement of expansion, new stories and the chance for nations like Norway to make a statement. Francalanza takes a more critical view, highlighting travel, format concerns and the strength of teams such as Morocco, France and Spain. Farrugia looks at the bigger picture, from organisation and cooperation between the hosts to Portugal’s chance of making a major impact.
Their views may differ, but they all point to the same conclusion: this World Cup could be unpredictable, demanding and wide open.
