France
France are +0.53 xGD/G and 1.76 xPts/G through 2 xG matches against top-20 field opponents, with opponents averaging 17.5/48 in the World Cup field and FIFA #18.5 globally, the strongest chance profile among teams facing strong opposition.
World Cup 2026 teams by published FIFA ranking
Published FIFA rank numbers for the qualified World Cup teams, sorted by rank, with each team's rank inside the 48-team World Cup field and group-stage xG context. Snapshot: October 7, 2026.
Spain entered as FIFA #1, the top-ranked team in this World Cup field. Field rank sorts only the 48 qualified teams, so it is the better comparison for group difficulty, schedule strength, and ranking-upset context.
DR Congo
DR Congo are -0.19 xGD/G and 1.14 xPts/G through 2 xG matches against top-20 field opponents, with opponents averaging 8.0/48 in the World Cup field and FIFA #8.0 globally, a solid xG read given the opponent strength.
Brazil
Brazil are +2.41 xGD/G and 2.60 xPts/G through 2 xG matches against lower-ranked field opponents, with opponents averaging 40.0/48 in the World Cup field and FIFA #63.5 globally. The xG dominance is real; the schedule context is lighter.
Uzbekistan
Single-match read: Uzbekistan are -1.98 xGD/G and 0.21 xPts/G through 1 xG match against lower-ranked field opponents, with opponents averaging 32.0/48 in the World Cup field and FIFA #40.0 globally, a negative chance profile given the opponent set.
Source: FIFA published men's ranking. Only the rank number is stored here. Published FIFA rank gives pre-tournament opponent context; xG/xPts describe the chances in matches already played.
| WC field | Team | Group | FIFA | P | Group xGD/G | Group xPts/G | Avg opp field | Avg opp FIFA | xG vs schedule read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Spain | H | #1 | 3 | +1.57 | 2.42 | 33.0 / 48 | #47.7 | led xG against a lighter opponent field. |
| 2 |  Argentina | J | #2 | 3 | +1.38 | 2.29 | 30.3 / 48 | #40.7 | led xG against a lighter opponent field. |
| 3 |  France | I | #3 | 3 | +1.03 | 2.02 | 25.7 / 48 | #33.3 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 4 |  England | L | #4 | 2 | +1.05 | 2.18 | 39.0 / 48 | #58.0 | led xG against a lighter opponent field. |
| 5 |  Portugal | K | #5 | 3 | +0.46 | 1.57 | 27.3 / 48 | #36.7 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 6 |  Brazil | C | #6 | 3 | +1.57 | 2.16 | 29.0 / 48 | #44.7 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 7 |  Morocco | C | #7 | 3 | +1.04 | 1.92 | 28.7 / 48 | #44.3 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 8 |  Belgium | G | #8 | 3 | +1.61 | 2.21 | 30.7 / 48 | #45.3 | led xG against a lighter opponent field. |
| 9 |  Netherlands | F | #9 | 3 | +1.01 | 2.00 | 29.3 / 48 | #37.3 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 10 |  Mexico | A | #10 | 3 | +0.74 | 1.89 | 33.3 / 48 | #43.7 | led xG against a lighter opponent field. |
| 11 |  Colombia | K | #11 | 3 | +0.61 | 1.82 | 25.3 / 48 | #34.7 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 12 |  Switzerland | B | #12 | 3 | +1.29 | 2.10 | 34.3 / 48 | #48.0 | led xG against a lighter opponent field. |
| 13 |  Germany | E | #13 | 3 | +1.29 | 1.86 | 31.7 / 48 | #44.3 | led xG against a lighter opponent field. |
| 14 |  Croatia | L | #14 | 2 | +0.44 | 1.62 | 39.0 / 48 | #58.0 | led xG against a lighter opponent field. |
| 15 |  USA | D | #16 | 3 | +0.23 | 1.65 | 27.3 / 48 | #30.0 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 16 |  Japan | F | #17 | 3 | +0.82 | 1.89 | 27.0 / 48 | #34.7 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 17 |  Senegal | I | #18 | 3 | +0.38 | 1.50 | 21.0 / 48 | #28.3 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 18 |  Norway | I | #19 | 3 | +0.80 | 1.86 | 20.7 / 48 | #28.0 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 19 |  Uruguay | H | #20 | 3 | +0.61 | 1.68 | 27.0 / 48 | #41.3 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 20 |  Austria | J | #22 | 3 | -0.26 | 1.29 | 24.3 / 48 | #34.0 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 21 |  Iran | G | #23 | 3 | +0.07 | 1.42 | 26.3 / 48 | #40.3 | level on xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 22 |  Ecuador | E | #24 | 3 | +0.82 | 1.84 | 28.7 / 48 | #40.7 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 23 |  Egypt | G | #25 | 3 | -0.26 | 1.21 | 25.7 / 48 | #39.7 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 24 |  Australia | D | #26 | 3 | -0.20 | 1.17 | 24.3 / 48 | #26.7 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 25 |  Canada | B | #27 | 3 | +1.73 | 2.08 | 30.0 / 48 | #43.0 | led xG against a lighter opponent field. |
| 26 |  Algeria | J | #28 | 3 | +0.17 | 1.44 | 22.3 / 48 | #32.0 | level on xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 27 |  Ivory Coast | E | #29 | 3 | +0.22 | 1.56 | 27.0 / 48 | #39.0 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 28 |  Turkiye | D | #31 | 3 | +0.98 | 1.98 | 23.0 / 48 | #25.0 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 29 |  South Korea | A | #32 | 3 | +0.53 | 1.70 | 27.0 / 48 | #36.3 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 30 |  Paraguay | D | #33 | 3 | -1.01 | 0.63 | 22.3 / 48 | #24.3 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 31 |  Sweden | F | #34 | 3 | -0.37 | 1.21 | 22.0 / 48 | #29.0 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 32 |  DR Congo | K | #40 | 3 | +0.53 | 1.64 | 18.3 / 48 | #25.0 | led xG against a strong opponent field. |
| 33 |  Scotland | C | #43 | 3 | -1.26 | 0.82 | 20.0 / 48 | #32.3 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field. |
| 34 |  Panama | L | #46 | 3 | -0.84 | 0.76 | 20.7 / 48 | #29.3 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 35 |  South Africa | A | #48 | 3 | -0.26 | 1.15 | 25.0 / 48 | #31.0 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 36 |  Czechia | A | #51 | 3 | -1.01 | 0.73 | 24.7 / 48 | #30.0 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 37 |  Saudi Arabia | H | #55 | 3 | -1.41 | 0.46 | 21.0 / 48 | #29.7 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 38 |  Bosnia and Herzegovina | B | #57 | 3 | -0.73 | 0.88 | 25.7 / 48 | #33.0 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 39 |  Uzbekistan | K | #59 | 3 | -1.60 | 0.48 | 16.0 / 48 | #18.7 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field. |
| 40 |  Qatar | B | #60 | 3 | -2.30 | 0.54 | 25.0 / 48 | #32.0 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 41 |  Tunisia | F | #61 | 3 | -1.45 | 0.41 | 18.7 / 48 | #20.0 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field. |
| 42 |  Iraq | I | #63 | 3 | -2.21 | 0.29 | 12.7 / 48 | #13.3 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field. |
| 43 |  Cape Verde | H | #68 | 3 | -0.78 | 0.98 | 19.0 / 48 | #25.3 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field. |
| 44 |  Ghana | L | #70 | 3 | -0.15 | 1.22 | 17.3 / 48 | #21.3 | level on xG against a strong opponent field. |
| 45 |  Jordan | J | #72 | 3 | -1.29 | 0.54 | 16.0 / 48 | #17.3 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field. |
| 46 |  Curacao | E | #80 | 3 | -2.32 | 0.34 | 20.7 / 48 | #22.0 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field. |
| 47 |  Haiti | C | #84 | 3 | -1.35 | 0.67 | 15.3 / 48 | #18.7 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field. |
| 48 |  New Zealand | G | #88 | 3 | -1.43 | 0.75 | 17.3 / 48 | #18.7 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field. |
Group xGD/G and group xPts/G use completed group-stage matches with published xG. The schedule read compares each team's World Cup field rank with the average field rank and published FIFA rank of group-stage opponents; it is context, not a model of team quality.