World Cup 2026 group-stage xG by confederation

By the completed group-stage numbers, South American (CONMEBOL) sides had the best xG difference — +0.66 per team-game. CONMEBOL teams banked the most group-stage points-vs-xPts luck (+0.10 per team-game). Everything is per team-game because each confederation sends a different number of teams.

Schedule context: CONMEBOL have the strongest positive group-stage xG read among confederations that faced a real schedule test (27.2 / 48, FIFA #38.2 avg); led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. See team-level schedule strength →

ConfederationTeamsGroup xGD/gGroup Δ/gFin/gDefLuck/gAvg opp fieldAvg opp FIFAxG vs schedule readOver–Under
CONMEBOL
South America
6/6+0.66+0.10-0.10+0.1627.2 / 48#38.2led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field32
UEFA
Europe
16/16+0.46+0.10+0.44-0.2126.9 / 48#36.8led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field63
CAF
Africa
10/10-0.06+0.03+0.18-0.2222.3 / 48#30.8were level on xG against a mid-ranked opponent field43
CONCACAF
North & Central America
6/6-0.30-0.12+0.18-0.0524.5 / 48#31.1trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field23
AFC
Asia
9/9-0.84-0.28+0.04-0.4521.7 / 48#27.9trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field17

Teams = sides with published group-stage xG out of the confederation's total at the tournament. Per game = confederation totals divided by xG match team-games. Avg opp field and Avg opp FIFA are the average World Cup field rank and published FIFA rank of group-stage opponents, weighted by xG matches. xGD = expected goals for minus against; Δ = group points minus group-stage expected points (xPts); Fin = goals minus xG; DefLuck = xGA minus goals conceded; Over–Under counts teams beating / missing their group-stage xPts by more than half a point.

Per-confederation tables: UEFA · CONMEBOL · CAF · AFC · CONCACAF

Standings & xPts · Stat leaders · The xG visualizer