Rangers’ Nicolas Raskin started tonight’s World Cup quarter-final against Spain, a match Belgium lost 2-1 as the Spaniards progressed to set up a semi-final against France on Tuesday at 8pm.

Raskin was the first Scottish-based player to start a World Cup quarter-final since Josip Juranović for Croatia at the last World Cup in Qatar. For Rangers, he was the first quarter-final starter since Brian Laudrup in 1998 against Brazil, although Laudrup had officially joined Chelsea two days before the match.

For this exercise, I have counted the team that the player represented in the season leading up to the World Cup, and hence Laudrup is included. By the same criteria, I omit Arthur Numan, who had joined Rangers in May 1998 but was yet to play for the club before starting the World Cup quarter-final for the Netherlands.

The following graphic lists all World Cup quarter-finalists who played in Scotland, had previously played in Scotland, or would later sign for a Scottish club. The next graphic is the same idea, but for semi-finalists, something Raskin will not be. Rangers’ Thelo Aasgaard of Norway could still join that list, should Norway overcome England tomorrow night at 10pm. The article ends with the nine World Cup finalists to have played their club football in Scotland at some stage in their career.

This data was quickly pulled from my own spreadsheet vault, and I am less confident about the level of lineup data I have pre-2000. There may be some players omitted especially in earlier World Cups - please point any out if you notice them and I can add them in post-publication.

Quarter-Finalists

In total, only seven players have started a World Cup quarter-final following a club season in Scotland. However, there are 73 players who have been in a World Cup quarter-final squad and either played for a Scottish club at that time (19), had previously played for a Scottish club (13), or would later sign for a Scottish club (41).

Read more

My discussion on BBC Scotland’s Reporting Scotland at 7pm tonight.

Scotland’s World Cup campaign was finally ended on the final night of the group stage, after the last unlikely set of results didn’t come in. It was death by a thousand cuts, as we went from needing any four of ten results to go our way to needing four outcomes from the last four groups to see us through to the last 32.

In the end, only one of 10 results went our way, as Spain beat Uruguay, meaning Scotland were ranked 11th of the 12 third-placed teams. Incidentally, both Scotland’s and Uruguay’s managers left their posts after their group-stage eliminations.

The reality is that Scotland were already out long before the final night, with the pendulum swinging dramatically from “should go through” to “probably out” after Scotland lost to Brazil and South Africa beat South Korea within a few hours of each other.

The threshold to be in the top eight rose on a daily basis, and in the end, for Scotland to go through with three points, they would have required a 5-0 victory against Haiti and two 1-0 losses against the top two seeds..

That is a better goal difference than the pre-tournament simulation models predicted, with most, including Opta Stats, expecting that three goals and even a slender negative goal difference would likely be good enough to progress in most scenarios.

New Format Issues

Part of the problem with the pre-tournament simulations was the change in format for this World Cup. The two main issues were firstly FIFA’s decision to tie-break the groups on head-to-head rather than goal difference for the first time, resulting in several final games where teams had nothing to play for.

For example, one of the results Scotland needed was Germany avoiding defeat to Ecuador, which would have resulted in one more team finishing below us in the third-placed rankings. However, the Germans were already assured of top spot with nothing to play for, courtesy of their head-to-head record against Ivory Coast. Ecuador, on the other hand, needed a victory or they’d face elimination, and so played like a team with everything to play for.

If we are honest, Scotland progressing at the expense of someone like Ecuador would have been a crime against football. The South Americans played like a team that needed a result against one of the top teams in the world, and truly believed they could get it. As a result, it is Ecuador, the team that lost the fewest World Cup qualifying matches in South America (2), that will have their last-32 showdown with hosts Mexico in Mexico City, while Scotland watch on from home, as usual.

The second issue with the new format was the timing of the last matches. FIFA have regularly scheduled the final match within each group to kick off at the exact same time, to reduce the chance of collusion within the group where two teams could play out a required result at the expense of another team in the group.

They continued with that this time, but importantly, all the groups still kicked off at different times and on different days. The outcome in many groups was already decided before the final game, and it was the ranking of third-placed teams that became more important, with the later groups knowing exactly what result was required to reach the last 32. This was a big disadvantage to Scotland, as we were the second group to finish and had no idea what the threshold was to progress. For this to be truly fair for all teams, all 24 final group-stage matches would have to kick off at the same time and on the same day, as happens in UEFA club competition.

The Group Was Difficult

Those defending Scotland’s tournament will ask: “What did you expect the team to do?” Many will state that beating the Pot 4 team before losing to Morocco and Brazil is probably about par for a country like Scotland. Furthermore, of all 12 groups, Group C was a very difficult group to progress from, as it was the only one to contain two teams within the top 10 of the FIFA rankings at the start of the tournament.

While that may be true, Scotland categorically did not have the “hardest” set of opponents. In fact, 23 teams had fixtures with a higher average FIFA ranking than Scotland’s.

Those of us who think the fixtures were tougher than average would point to the fact the above “hardest fixtures” graphic is skewed by the average of our opponents being dragged down by Haiti, the second-lowest-ranked team in the tournament (83), behind only New Zealand (85).

Incidentally, both Haiti (2) and New Zealand (3) scored more goals than Scotland, with Panama (0) the only team in the tournament to score less than us. Elijah Just scored all three goals for New Zealand, making him one of the joint-top World Cup scorers among players based at Scottish clubs.

The average ranking of the three opponents doesn’t accurately reflect the fact that, in the end, only one third-placed team progressed with three points. Therefore, beating the Pot 4 team was not going to be enough for most sides. A further point was needed against one of the top two sides in the group.

This is where the difficulty of Scotland’s group is laid bare. When we remove the weakest opponent from each group, and look only at the top 2 sides faced, Scotland had the highest ranking average of top two opponents of any side in the tournament. Had Scotland’s top two sides been Belgium and Iran instead of Brazil and Morocco, then we might have stood more of a chance.

The Hosts Were In Pot 1

The last bowl of sour grapes I will serve you before moving on to Steve Clarke is the draw itself back in December. It is understandable that FIFA want the hosts to stay in the tournament as long as possible, and so putting them in Pot 1 probably makes sense.

However, the fact there were three hosts meant that placing them all in Pot 1 led to a great imbalance in some groups. There were 12 teams per pot and all three of the USA, Canada and Mexico were placed in Pot 1, despite none of them being an actual Pot 1 team based on FIFA ranking.

What this meant is that three teams that “should” have been Pot 1 (Croatia, Morocco and Colombia) were pushed into Pot 2. Any team in Pot 3 could then get fortunate and draw one of the hosts as their Pot 1 team, such as Canada, or get really unlucky and draw one of these “true” Pot 1 teams as their Pot 2 team, such as Morocco.

For instance, Switzerland topped a group including Canada, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Qatar. By contrast, Scotland were eliminated at the hands of Brazil and Morocco, when based on FIFA rankings we should only have faced one of these sides.

As an aside, UEFA doesn’t automatically assign the hosts to Pot 1, and so although Scotland’s 2028 matches will be at Hampden Park, we won’t automatically be a Pot 1 side. If FIFA did this too, and all teams were placed based on FIFA World Ranking, then the pots would look like this instead:

Scotland drew the 8th side in Pot 1, which was Brazil. If the hosts had entered Pot 2, as per their FIFA ranking at the time of the draw, the 8th Pot 1 side would have been Belgium. Similarly, Scotland drew the 2nd side in Pot 2, which was unlucky in itself, but this was Morocco, truly a Pot 1 team. Based on FIFA ranking, this would have instead been Mexico.

Of course, having the hosts in Pot 2 would not have guaranteed Scotland a draw against Belgium and Mexico, as there were many specific restrictions on which teams from which confederation could go in which groups. Scotland may have lost both of these games too, but the exercise shows that Scotland were disadvantaged by FIFA’s decision to push Morocco into Pot 2 to ensure the hosts were in Pot 1.

Was it an Under Performance?

In isolation, beating Haiti, losing to Morocco and Brazil, and missing out on goal difference feels about par.

The difficulty comes when viewed with the context that this is the third consecutive tournament where Scotland players have scored only one goal. At Euro 2024, Scotland scored twice, but one of those was an own goal, and in three of our last six tournament matches we had zero shots on target.

Cape Verde, with a population smaller than Glasgow’s, have progressed after going undefeated through a group that included both Spain and Uruguay. They scored more goals than Scotland and were more deserving of a place in the knockout rounds.

All nations in the top 10 of the FIFA rankings progressed, so we will look at the teams from 11th down, as that’s who we really want to measure ourselves against. This graphic shows the FIFA world ranking, progression status, goals scored and average opponent FIFA ranking.

The likes of DR Congo, South Africa, Bosnia, Cape Verde and Ghana all showed that a team’s FIFA ranking didn’t have to determine its showing, as they all progressed to the next round and all scored at least one more goal than Scotland.

Steve Clarke

Now a look at Steve Clarke’s tenure, covering the records he’s broken, the players he’s used and the guys that have scored for him. You can read more about previous Scotland managers in an article on Clarke from last year.

Record Holder

Steve Clarke is Scotland’s most successful manager ever. Regardless of your opinions on the man, the manager, or our performances at the major tournaments, the man is a record holder.

He’s managed his country for more games than anyone in history, recorded more wins than anyone in history and led the men’s team to more tournaments than any manager in history. I suspect history will be kinder on Steve Clarke than perhaps the emotional rawness of another failed campaign is right now, but what’s for sure is he has raised the bar for the next man coming in.

In 2018, Scotland had four games at Hampden in the autumn where attendances ranged between 17,000 and 21,000. When Clarke joined in 2019, expectations were low, given our major tournament drought. Apathy had set in amongst the Scotland support. The SFA have openly admitted the remit for Clarke was simply to qualify for a major tournament, by whichever means necessary.

He did that at the first attempt, reaching the delayed Euro 2020 through the “back-door” play-off earned by previous manager Alex McLeish in the Nations League. He then qualified in style for Euro 2024 by winning the opening five matches of that campaign. Clarke then did the truly unexpected by returning us to the World Cup after a long 28-year absence, while giving us probably the most memorable night in the history of Hampden Park with the last-gasp 4-2 win over the Danes.

The remit for the next manager will be to reach these tournaments regularly, then go one step further and progress beyond the group stages. Be it Postecoglou, Moyes, Hjulmand, McCann, Naismith, Fletcher or A.N. Other, Clarke has left big shoes to fill.

Loyalty

Read more

This article will be updated daily until Scotland are eliminated from the 2026 World Cup.

As if Scotland’s performance was not hard enough to take, the results since then have all but eliminated us. According to simulation models such as Opta’s, in less than 48 hours Scotland have fallen from an 85% chance of progression to 40%, then 25%, then 14%, and now to around just 7%.

The three-goal defeat to Brazil started the drop. Since then, South Africa have beaten Korea Republic, Ecuador have beaten Germany, and Australia and Paraguay played out a predictable 0-0 draw that sent both teams through.

Scotland’s Tournament History

Scotland ended the group stage, and now almost certainly their World Cup, with only one goal scored. That is their second-lowest goal tally at a World Cup, level with 1986 and ahead only of 1954, when they failed to score in either match.

When our four European Championships are included, Scotland have won only seven major tournament matches in 38 games. We have also never won more than once at a single tournament.

The last time Scotland scored more than once in a major tournament match was in 1992, against the Commonwealth of Independent States. The CIS team was created after the Soviet Union had qualified for Euro 1992, allowing a combined post-Soviet side to take up the place already earned in qualifying.

The Current Third-Place Rankings

Scotland now sit 8th in the third-place rankings, but could still finish as high as 6th if results go our way. That is, of course, very unlikely given the results still required.

What Do Scotland Need To Progress?

If third-placed teams in nine or more groups finish on three points or more, the eight best sides will be ranked by points, goal difference, goals scored, team conduct and then FIFA ranking.

Scotland need four other third-placed teams to finish below them, either on points or on goal difference. The graphic below shows the specific results now required in the remaining groups - we need any combination of four groups to go our way. Unfortunately, we’ve gone from needing four from ten, to four of six.

Read more

This article will be updated daily until Scotland are eliminated from the 2026 World Cup.

A 3-0 defeat to Brazil, the most successful nation in World Cup history, has left Scotland’s chances of progression hanging by a thread. Results later in the night were equally damaging, if not more so.

If Scotland are eliminated, it would likely be on goal difference, or even goals scored. That would be the fourth time in nine World Cup appearances that Scotland have been eliminated on a tiebreaker - more than any other country in history.

Scotland’s Tournament History

Scotland ended the group stage, and potentially their World Cup, with only one goal scored. That is their second-lowest goal tally at a World Cup, level with 1986 and ahead only of 1954, when they failed to score in either match.

When our four European Championships are included, Scotland have won only seven major tournament matches in 38 games. We have also never won more than once at a single tournament.

The last time Scotland scored more than once in a major tournament match was in 1992, against the Commonwealth of Independent States. The CIS team was created after the Soviet Union had qualified for Euro 1992, allowing a combined post-Soviet side to take up the place already earned in qualifying.

The Current Third-Place Rankings

Scotland’s defeat dropped them from second to seventh in the third-place rankings. It is still not over, but the overnight Group A results were a major blow.

Scotland needed Mexico and South Korea to avoid defeat. Mexico did their part, beating Czechia 3-0, but South Africa’s 1-0 win over South Korea means Korea Republic finished third in Group A with three points, a goal difference of -1 and two goals scored. That puts them above Scotland, and reduces Scotland’s probability of progression to around 40%.

What Do Scotland Need To Progress?

If third-placed teams in nine or more groups finish on three points or more, the eight best sides will be ranked by points, goal difference, goals scored, team conduct and then FIFA ranking.

Scotland need four other third-placed teams to finish below them, either on points or on goal difference. The graphic below shows the specific results now required in the remaining groups - we need any combination of four groups to go our way:

Read more

This article will be updated daily until Scotland are eliminated from the 2026 World Cup.

Tonight is the night Scotland’s group stage campaign comes to an end, in Miami against the most successful nation in World Cup history: Brazil. Before that, an update on how things stand after the most recent matches.

With eight of the 12 groups sending their third-placed team to the last 32, it would take either a heavy defeat tonight or a serious dose of bad luck for Scotland to be eliminated in the group stage. Even a heavy defeat may still be enough, and this article will show how the picture stands.

1. A win tonight: Scotland through automatically

   1. Scotland would finish second behind Morocco, or first if the African Champions* fail to beat Haiti at the same time.

2. A draw tonight: Scotland through in 3rd place (not officially confirmed)

   1. Scotland cannot finish in the top two with a draw, as Morocco would stay ahead of us on head-to-head, even if they lose to Haiti.

3. A loss tonight: Waiting for the remaining groups to finish to see whether three points is enough to progress as one of the best third-placed teams:

   1. On goal difference: if 8 or more 3rd placed teams finish on 3pts or more.

   2. On points: if 4 or more of the 3rd placed teams finish on fewer than 3pts.

If Scotland do go out, it would likely be on goal difference, or even goals scored. That would be the fourth time in nine World Cup appearances that Scotland have been eliminated on a tiebreaker.

The Current Third-Place Rankings

The third-place table is now starting to take shape, as all teams have played 2 of their 3 games. From this point on, the final two fixtures within each group kick off at the same time, in an attempt to protect sporting integrity and prevent teams from being able to play for a mutually beneficial result.

Of course, with third-placed teams now going through, that risk does not disappear. In some groups, a draw in the final match could suit both sides. Algeria Vs Austria, Egypt Vs Iran and Paraguay Vs Australia are all examples where a draw sends both sides through to the knockouts.

The staggered finish to the group stage makes that even more complicated. Later groups will know exactly what is required before they kick off, while earlier groups - like Scotland’s - do not know for definite.

Algeria Vs Austria is the final group-stage match, so both teams may know not only whether a draw is enough, but also the exact margin of defeat they can afford and still progress.

That would usually be less of an issue. No team should want to lose a World Cup match. But the complication here is the bracket, and which teams await in the next round. The winner of Algeria Vs Austria finishes second and is will, almost certainly, face Spain. The team finishing third would avoid Spain and, as things stand, could land a more favourable round-of-32 tie instead, against Canada or Egypt. The exact opponents waiting will be known before the match starts, and so if the loser will play Canada instead of Spain then this match could be a wild watch.

Could All Teams on 3 points Progress?

The results shown are the ones required to guarantee that a group’s third-placed team finishes on two points or fewer. If that happens in four of the 12 groups, every third-placed team on three points would progress, regardless of goal difference.

So far, five of the 12 groups already have three teams on three points or more. That includes Scotland’s group, Group C. Groups D, F, L and J are also marked as “already 3+” because their third-placed teams can no longer finish on two points or fewer. That’s not to say we have no interest in these groups; Scotland could still progress at the expense of the third-placed teams in Groups D or F on goal difference, if we finish level on points….

What If It Goes To Goal Difference?

If third-placed teams in nine or more groups finish on three points or more, the eight best sides will be ranked by points, goal difference, goals scored, team conduct and then FIFA ranking.

This graphic is less definitive before tonight’s match because we do not yet know Scotland’s final goal difference. I am including it now due to the number of requests for me to do it. If Scotland lose to Brazil, I will update it at full-time with the specific results required in each group, down to the goal.

Read more

This article will be a daily summary of how things stand for Scotland until they are eliminated from the 2026 World Cup.

After a disappointing result at the impressive Boston Stadium in Foxborough, Scotland’s World Cup campaign surely has at least two more games still to run.

With eight of the 12 groups sending their third-placed team to the last 32, it would take either a total collapse against Brazil on Wednesday night in Miami or a serious dose of bad luck for Scotland to be eliminated in the group stage. Spoiler alert - even a total collapse may still see us through.

A win against Brazil would send Scotland through automatically in one of the top two positions. We would finish second behind Morocco, unless the African Champions* fail to beat Haiti at the same time, in which case Scotland would top the group.

A draw in Miami would also send Scotland through, but as one of the best third-placed teams. A defeat would leave us waiting for the remaining groups to finish to see if we’ve done enough, although Scotland could still progress even after a heavy loss to Brazil, as this article will show.

Scotland cannot finish in the top two with a draw. Even if Morocco lost to Haiti, they would finish above us on head-to-head after beating us in Boston.

If Scotland do go out, it would likely be on goal difference. That would be the fourth time in nine World Cup appearances that Scotland have been eliminated on a tiebreaker.

As an aside, three points for a win was not introduced at the World Cup until USA 1994. Scotland’s Italia ’90 elimination, as one of the lower-ranked third-placed teams, would also have come down to goal difference under the modern system. Our one win would have put us level with the Netherlands’ three draws, so we would have gone out on goal difference again, rather than by a point under the old two-points-for-a-win system.

The Current Third-Place Rankings

The third-place table is starting to take shape, with eight of the 12 groups having now played two matches. Over the next two days, every team will move to within one match of completing the group stage, so we will have a much clearer idea of where Scotland stand going into Wednesday night’s game against Brazil. But for now, it looks good.

Will 3 points be Enough?

I will update this permutations graphic daily, showing which results Scotland want elsewhere. After the Scotland Vs Brazil, I will also include goal-difference scenarios for the third-placed teams, if Scotland finish third.

For now, the results shown are the ones required to guarantee that a group’s third-placed team finishes on two points or fewer. If that happens in four of the 12 groups, every third-placed team on three points would progress.

Read more

Defeats to Morocco and Brazil would leave us on three points and, at best, a -1 goal difference. We’d then face a nervous few days before finding out whether that would be enough to progress. Scotland’s group campaign finishes on Wednesday 24 June in Miami against Brazil, with the final group not ending until Saturday 27 June.

If Scotland can avoid defeat against either Morocco or Brazil, it will almost certainly be enough to reach the knockouts for the first time in our history. It would be 13th time lucky, after 12 previous group stage campaigns without progression - the most of any European nation by far.

Across those 12 previous campaigns, we’ve never managed more than one win at a tournament. The victory over Haiti ended our longest winless run in major tournament history: nine matches.

I am here in Boston and can’t wait for the Morocco game tomorrow night, and am on my knees for Scotland to remain unbeaten come full time.

However.

If we lose both remaining games and go out on goal difference, it would remarkably be the fourth time this has happened to Scotland in nine World Cup campaigns. That would extend our unwanted record as the nation eliminated on a tiebreaker more than any other; only Scotland and South Africa have suffered such a fate more than once:

Read more

A Scottish top-flight player scoring at a World Cup is actually a pretty rare achievement, and Eli Just has already become the joint-second-highest scoring World Cup player based in Scotland.

He is only the second player to score a World Cup double while playing for a Scottish club, after Celtic’s Henrik Larsson scored twice against Nigeria in Sweden’s 2-1 win in 2002. Larsson also scored against Senegal in a last-16 defeat at the same tournament, making Henrik the highest-scoring Scottish-based World Cup player ever.

With two goals, Just is now level with Brian Laudrup, who scored against both Nigeria and Brazil at France 1998, in the final few weeks of his Rangers contract before joining Chelsea on 1st July that year.

The list of all 13 Scottish-based World Cup goalscorers:

Read more

That is broadly in line with football overall, where around 1 in 4 matches are drawn. In the Scottish top flight, there have been 7,316 draws since league football was established in 1890, accounting for 22% of matches. This century, since 2000/01, that has increased only marginally to 23.7%, with 1,395 draws.

At the time of writing, each of the last four World Cup matches has been drawn, equalling the longest such run in group-stage history. After Scotland lost 2-1 to Brazil in the opening match of France ’98 on 10 June, the next four matches were all drawn: Morocco 2-2 Norway, Italy 2-2 Chile, Cameroon 1-1 Austria and Paraguay 0-0 Bulgaria.

The 50% rate is well above the 24% average for total group-stage draws, shown in the left-hand column in the image below. The 2026 World Cup group stage is still less than a quarter of the way through, so we can expect this percentage to regress towards the average over the next two weeks

However, it is already clear that we are seeing more draws in the opening round of matches than at an average World Cup. There will be 24 opening matches by the time we get through all 12 groups, with 16 of them played so far.

Even if none of the next eight matches is drawn, 2026 will still have produced the largest actual number of draws ever in the opening round of World Cup matches. That is clearly partly because this is the largest World Cup ever, but the percentage tells a similar story, in the right-hand column of the below image.

Even if there are no more draws in the opening round, 2026 will have had 8 of its 24 opening matches drawn, or 33.3%. That would be the second-highest percentage since 1982, behind only South Africa 2010, when 37.5% of opening-round matches were drawn.

Three draws from the next eight matches would mean 46% of opening matches were drawn at the 2026 World Cup, the highest percentage in World Cup history.

Is This Good News?

For a nation probably looking to progress as one of the eight best third-placed teams, is this run of draws good for Scotland?

Read more

On Sunday morning, Scotland played their first World Cup game in 28 years. They recorded their first World Cup victory in 36 years, their first clean sheet in 40 years, their first win to nil in 52 years, and now sit top of a World Cup group for just the third time in history.

John McGinn scored the only goal, taking his Scotland tally to 21 goals, all of which have come since Steve Clarke took over in 2019. Excluding the ‘selection committee’ - which was how the national team was picked before the appointment of our first manager Andy Beattie in 1954, no player in the history of the Scotland men’s national team has scored more goals for a single manager than McGinn has for Clarke. He’s tied with Denis Law who scored 21 of his 30 goals under manager Ian McColl.

Given the longevity of Scotland’s longest-serving manager, several of Clarke’s regulars feature in the top 10 of such a ranking, with McTominay third, Adams fifth and Lyndon Dykes completing the top ten.

John McGinn is Scotland’s fifth top goalscorer ever and his winner moved him one closer to Lawrie Reilly in the actual all-time goalscorers chart. McGinn is now four goals short of claiming the outright third top goalscorer in Scotland’s history, a mark he will hope to reach in the next few years. Scott McTominay has also moved into the all-time top ten after scoring his 15th goal for Scotland in the warm-up friendly against Bolivia last week. McSauce needs three goals to catch Kenny Miller and four would draw him level with Ally McCoist - which would be a phenomenal achievement for a man who is not a striker and who played centre back for many of his early caps with the national team.

A missed opportunity?

Leaving Foxborough with three points was obviously the most important aspect of matchday 1, however there is a fair argument that it was also a missed opportunity. Given the eight best third-placed teams will be decided on goal difference, beating the pot 4 side by just a solitary goal leaves us vulnerable.

It means that if we lose both remaining games then the best case scenario becomes three points and a goal difference of -1. If either, or both, of the top-10 ranked sides in our group put more than one past us then we are in danger of going out on goal difference for the fourth time in nine World Cups.

Only four of the 12 third-placed teams will be eliminated, and so the target is to be in the top 66% of third-placed teams. Since France ‘98, when a 32 team format was introduced, there have been eight groups at each World Cup. A rough equivalent would be finishing as the fifth-best third-placed team across the eight groups at each tournament.

The comparison is flawed of course, as this was when there were only eight groups - but also none of the third-placed teams progressed. There would have been some meaningless games at the end of the group stages where the teams playing knew they couldn’t catch the top two and so their record in third place was irrelevant.

Read more

The 207 days since that euphoric night at Hampden Park, when Scotland defeated Denmark 4-2 to secure automatic qualification, have flown by. FIFA have done their level best to ruin it, of course. From ticket allocations to drink prices, transport arrangements and allowing the reselling of disabled tickets at an unlimited price, so long as they receive 30%, FIFA have made the choice that maximises profit at the expense of the match-going fan at every juncture.

They embody everything wrong with modern football, and the treatment by the host nation of some visiting referees, teams and fans should be enough to see president Gianni Infantino resign, given all the promises and guarantees he has made regarding this tournament.

But FIFA cannot ruin it, no matter how hard they apparently are trying to. Scotland are back on the big stage and, with the expansion of the tournament, we are rightly odds-on with the bookies to make history and finally play a knockout match at a major tournament.

Scotland’s World Cup History

This will be Scotland's ninth World Cup after a truly torturous 28-year absence. It felt like we would never qualify again, with the younger generation living off tales of the glory days, when we were one of only five teams to qualify for every World Cup from 1974 to 1990, alongside Argentina, Brazil, Italy and West Germany. Our full record across the previous eight tournaments ultimately all show the same outcome - eliminated in the group stages. However, that doesn’t tell the full story.

When analysing some of our previous failed finals, Scotland managed a tally of at least three points in four of eight tournaments, when adjusting for three points for a win. In the current format in 2026, three points will be enough for several teams to progress in third place, even with a negative goal difference.

In 1974, Scotland became the first team to be eliminated in the group stages despite not losing a game, a cruel fate suffered by only three other nations since: Cameroon in 1982, Belgium in 1998 and New Zealand in 2010. One win and two draws in a group containing Brazil was a fantastic achievement and, in the modern format, would result in qualification with a game to spare, rather than the goal difference elimination it resulted in back then.

Similarly, the four points earned in 1978 and 1982 would be enough to progress in 2026 in near enough 100% of simulations, but it meant elimination on goal difference, again, back then. So, although our World Cup record is poor, with no team having played in more competitions without ever progressing, the context is that we have been unlucky.

Also, given we are now at 48 teams in a World Cup tournament, Scotland would have to win two knockout ties to technically go further than ever before. Given we have qualified for 16-team World Cups, "the last 16" is strictly speaking our best-ever showing, something we have managed four times.

If we progress with a win against Haiti while losing to Morocco and Brazil, but are then eliminated in the last 32, can we truly say it was a better effort than Willie Ormond's men in 1974, who were undefeated in the group stage, including against the 1970 world champions Brazil?

Do not get me wrong, I fly to Boston on Wednesday hoping to witness history next Friday night as a Scotland team progresses to the knockout stage of a major tournament for the first time. And I would probably be in tears, not just because of the price of beer in the stadium.

But realistically, I think it is fair to say that for it to truly be Scotland's most successful World Cup ever, we need to not only reach the last 32, but win a knockout tie to reach the last 16 too. That is not too much to ask, surely?

What Is Needed to Progress?

So, without getting ahead of myself (spoiler: this whole article is me getting ahead of myself), it is obvious that we must beat Haiti. As an aside, if Hearts striker Lawrence Shankland scores against Haiti, it will be the 23rd time a Scotsman has scored in three consecutive matches, and just the fifth time this century:

Read more

For generations of football fans, the Panini album has been the unofficial start of the tournament. The crinkle of a foil packet before you tear it open, revealing either the unbridled joy of getting a ‘shiny’, or the frustration of finding the same South American full back - who you assume to be shite - for the fourth time. It is football reduced to its simplest playground thrill: got, got, got, need!

Panini’s story began in Modena, Italy, where Giuseppe and Benito Panini turned a newspaper distribution business into a sticker empire in 1961, later joined by brothers Franco and Umberto. They produced the first World Cup sticker album for Mexico 1970. Since then, the 'Panini’ album has become part of the tournament’s furniture, passed from one generation to the next. The children who once begged for another packet at RS McColl’s are now the adults, buying the overpriced stickers for their own children. The adults of course find themselves just as invested in completing the album as the kids - if not more invested. “Get to school and don’t come back without a Haaland shiny, wee man.”

Over time, the size of the books has naturally increased with the size of the tournament, and the 2026 World Cup collection reflects the largest ever 48-team format, with 980 stickers to collect, including 68 special stickers. That’s a 263% increase in number of stickers from the 270 stickers in the first edition.

What was once a modest childhood habit has become a global collecting phenomenon, with adult collectors, online trading groups and completed vintage albums now commanding serious money. It’s estimated it could cost up to £1,300 to complete this years book, as buying the seven-sticker packs at £1.25 would mean at least 140 packets are needed, but the likelihood of duplicates increases the minimum cost dramatically. That’s why swaps wth other collectors are so important, meaning you could complete the book for ‘only’ a couple of hundred quid.

The collection in its current guise will end soon though, as this World Cup tradition approaches the end of an era. FIFA has agreed a long-term exclusive collectibles deal with ‘Fanatics’, with products to be produced under the ‘Topps’ brand from 2031. That means Panini’s official World Cup sticker run will finish after the 2030 tournament, bringing down the curtain on a 60-year partnership that began in 1970.

By then, Panini will have covered 16 men’s World Cups across seven decades, with Scotland featuring in seven of those albums so far, and hopefully eight by the time 2030 comes around. A 50% participation rate in the Panini era feels almost hard to believe, given our near 30-year drought means you’d need to be in at least your mid 40s to have been able to legally buy alcohol at the last one!

Thanks to a colleague of mine, a Panini-head from Switzerland called Izzie, I can bring you to the main point of this article, involving numbers and pictures. Izzie has her own personal collection of every Panini book in existence, completed and in its original beauty. She has very kindly sent me pictures of the Scotland squads from her collection, to share with you all, and from that I of course had to analyse Panini’s success rate when it comes to the Scotland players they have chosen for each album over time. Enjoy.

Mexico ‘70 - Did not Qualify

Germany ‘74

In 1974, Panini had 79% accuracy in their sticker selection, with three of their 14 chosen players not making the final squad. Alistair Hunter and Derek Parlane were chosen by Panini but not by manager Willie Ormond, while George Connelly missed the World Cup through injury, suffered during Celtic’s European Cup tie against Basel.

Argentina ‘78

Read more

In a circular letter sent to all FIFA member associations, FIFA has outlined how the Club Benefits Programme will work this summer.

FIFA: “The new system and distribution model are intended to be more inclusive and solidarity-driven by increasing the number of clubs that benefit from the Programme.”

For the 2026 World Cup, clubs will receive less for player participation in the tournament than they would have in previous years - because qualifying matches are now included for the first time. This means the overall pot will be split between more clubs, as more players and matches are now covered. These numbers are broadly as expected, after an SPFL club spoke to me for an article about Lawrence Shankland signing for Rangers two weeks ago, stating that the $10,950 per player per day fee from the last World Cup would be much reduced.

Following UEFA’s lead

For the first time, FIFA’s programme now compensates clubs for players released for World Cup qualifiers. Previously, payments were linked only to the tournament itself.

In 2025, UEFA revealed that €2.79m flowed to Scottish clubs for the previous four-year cycle, from Celtic through to Dunfermline.
These were payments to cover the qualifiers and tournaments for the Euros & Nations League.

Both the UEFA equivalent and the FIFA programme have grown over the last 10-15 years, meaning more money filtering down to the clubs that actually pay the national team players. A bigger pot allows for qualifying matches to be included, ensuring more clubs are compensated for releasing their players for international football. Last year, 901 clubs benefited from the UEFA payment, sharing in a record €233m.

A larger FIFA pot

Like UEFA, it will be a record year of ‘club benefits’ payments for FIFA, with the 2026 pot increasing by nearly 70% to hit $355m. This is substantial growth from the $70m pot just 12 years ago.

However, as FIFA is now - for the first time - compensating clubs for releasing their players for qualifiers, this won’t actually result in an increase in tournament payments this summer.

The $355m pot will be split as follows:

Read more

The 2026 World Cup is now only 8 days away, where Mexico host South Africa in the opener in the Estadio Azteca in Mexico City. It’s 11 days until Scotland’s long-awaited return to the world stage, when we face Haiti in Boston.

This is the biggest World Cup in history by number of teams, with the largest expansion the tournament has ever seen. FIFA has moved from a 32-team format, which was used for seven tournaments, to a 48-team World Cup for the first time. That means that after the group stage, 32 teams will progress, with only 16 eliminated.

Two-thirds of teams will reach the knockout rounds, as the top two in each of the 12 groups progress, along with the eight best third-placed teams. Therefore, a single victory will be enough for some teams to go through, depending on goal difference. In a later article this week, I’ll discuss what Scotland need to do to progress and which destinations could be lying in wait in the knockout round.

But first, for this article, I have created:

• a ‘stats pack card’ for all 48 World Cup participants.

• a graphic showing the UK kick off times for all group stage games

  • Scroll to the end for this

• World Cup stats cards, 1 for the tournament itself and 3 for the squads

  • Scroll to the end for this

As ever, if you spot any errors, no matter how small, please get in touch. I pride myself on keeping the website as accurate as possible.

GROUP A
Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, Czechia

GROUP B
Canada, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Qatar, Switzerland

Read more

Spain are one of only eight nations to have won the World Cup, having lifted the trophy in 2010. That side was arguably the best squad in the world, and included five Real Madrid players: Iker Casillas, Raúl Albiol, Sergio Ramos, Álvaro Arbeloa and Xabi Alonso.

Real Madrid have had a poor season, finishing eight points adrift of champions Barcelona and ending the campaign without a trophy. As a result, Los Blancos have agreed a deal to bring José Mourinho back to the Bernabéu on a two-year contract this summer.

That difficult club campaign has coincided with no place in the Spain squad for Dani Carvajal, Dean Huijsen, Álvaro Carreras or Gonzalo García. There will still be Real Madrid players in action at the World Cup, just none for Spain. The club has seven representatives across six nations, including France’s Kylian Mbappé, England’s Jude Bellingham and Scotland’s next tormentor, Brazilian superstar Vinícius Júnior.

This summer’s tournament may make for less enjoyable viewing for patriotic Real Madrid fans, given the club’s long association with the Spanish national team. It will sting even more that eight members of the Spain squad come from Madrid’s great rivals, Barcelona.

Most Represented Clubs

Barcelona’s eight players are the largest representation from any single club in any squad at this World Cup, ahead of the seven Bayern Munich players named in Germany’s squad. Eight is around the usual level for the most-represented club within a World Cup squad, although the high of 13 occurred only four years ago: at the last World Cup, half of Qatar’s squad came from Al-Sadd.

Scotland’s Equivalent

Read more