LEFT NODE — Competitive Intake
SPI and GEI classify the 12 group environments: Open, Balanced, Suppressed, Dominant, and Inverted.
FIFA World Cup 2026 Complete Results and Football Analytics
This single-page World Cup 2026 research dashboard preserves the complete tournament record across all 48 teams and 32 knockout matches. It includes the final standings, every knockout result, team progression, group-stage statistics, FIFA prize money, continental financial distribution, official FIFA ranking methodology, soccer analytics, football research, and downloadable machine-readable data.
Spain finished as World Champion, Argentina as runner-up, England in third place, and France in fourth. The dashboard also applies the Name The Game Dogbone Postulate, Strategic Performance Index, Group Environment Index, Tournament Carryover Index, Final Spark Index, and Environment Preservation Index to examine how group-stage conditions carried into the knockout rounds.
What this dashboard includes
- FIFA World Cup 2026 final results
- Complete Round of 32 through Final match results
- World Cup team statistics for all 48 teams
- Group-stage and knockout goal analysis
- FIFA World Cup prize money by team and continent
- FIFA ranking methodology and reconciliation
- Soccer and football analytics
- Team progression and tournament survival data
- Research references and evidence repository
- Downloadable CSV, JSON, and full tournament snapshot
COMPLETED TOURNAMENT RECORD
The Dogbone Postulate Meets Moneyball
The complete sporting and financial record is preserved below.
CHAMPION
Spain
1–0 Argentina
Spain
1–0 Argentina
RUNNER-UP
Argentina
Argentina
THIRD
England
6–4 France
England
6–4 France
FOURTH
France
France
FINAL PERFORMANCE POOL
$655M
$655M
FINAL-STAGE DELTA
+$17M
+$17M
UNRESOLVED VALUE
$0M
$0M
🌐 Independent FIFA Ranking Audit
How the official tournament result, FIFA rating movement, financial payout, and NTG competitive environment work together.
ONE TOURNAMENT — FOUR CONNECTED OUTPUTS
1. Sporting result
Official bracket finish and match outcomes.
Official bracket finish and match outcomes.
2. Financial result
Official stage-based payout attached to survival.
Official stage-based payout attached to survival.
3. FIFA rating result
Cumulative SUM rating movement based on opponent, result, and match weight.
Cumulative SUM rating movement based on opponent, result, and match weight.
4. NTG environment result
Open, Balanced, Suppressed, Dominant, or Inverted group conditions used to test variance.
Open, Balanced, Suppressed, Dominant, or Inverted group conditions used to test variance.
This section does not replace FIFA’s ranking table. It places FIFA’s official rating system beside the bracket, payout, and NTG environment so the same tournament can be read through four transparent and independently identified layers.
OFFICIAL FIFA RANKING SYSTEM — INDEPENDENT VALIDATION LAYER
How FIFA evaluates every match after the bracket result is known
Pafter = Pbefore + I × (W − We)
Expected result
We = 1 ÷ (10−dr/600 + 1)
dr = rating-point difference
World Cup weight
50 / 60
50 through R16; 60 from QF onward
Penalty shoot-out
Winner W = 0.75
Loser W = 0.50
Loser W = 0.50
Not scored as a full win/loss
Knockout protection
No negative deduction
If W − We < 0, points remain unchanged
Why the post-World Cup table can look strange: FIFA rankings are cumulative rating points, not a restatement of tournament finishing order. A lower-rated team can gain heavily for an upset, a favorite can gain little for an expected win, and knockout-stage losers are protected from negative point deductions.
Officially published by FIFA
- The SUM formula and expected-result equation.
- Match-importance coefficients and result values.
- The knockout-stage protection against negative deductions.
- The official ranking release, rank position, and rating-point total.
Calculated and interpreted by NTG
- Before/after rank and rating-point variance.
- Reconciliation with tournament finish and financial payout.
- Grouping of variance by Open, Balanced, Suppressed, Dominant, and Inverted environments.
- Association testing; no causal claim is assigned to the environment category.
How FIFA turns a match into ranking points
1. Start
Use each team’s published pre-match rating.
Use each team’s published pre-match rating.
2. Expectation
Calculate We from the rating-point difference.
Calculate We from the rating-point difference.
3. Result
Assign W for win, draw, loss, or penalty shoot-out.
Assign W for win, draw, loss, or penalty shoot-out.
4. Weight
Apply the competition coefficient I.
Apply the competition coefficient I.
5. Update
Add I × (W − We) to the prior rating.
Add I × (W − We) to the prior rating.
6. Publish
Order all teams by the resulting official point totals.
Order all teams by the resulting official point totals.
Systems compared
4
Sporting finish · Financial payout · FIFA rating · NTG environment
Canonical import status
Official release published
FIFA published the post-tournament ranking update on 20 July 2026. This page does not yet contain the complete 48-team before/after ranking-point dataset.
Method version
SUM + GEI
FIFA rating movement reconciled against NTG group environment
NTG environment categories used in the variance audit
Open
Competitive pressure is distributed across the group. Multiple teams remain credible, so teams are repeatedly exposed to consequential matches.
Balanced
Competitive pressure is broadly even without the same degree of volatility as an Open group.
Suppressed
Scoring or competitive expression is constrained. Advancement may occur with lower offensive separation.
Dominant
One team controls a disproportionate share of group output, potentially reducing resistance before the knockout phase.
Inverted
Expected ordering breaks. Lower-seeded or lower-expected teams overtake the projected advancers, increasing structural unpredictability.
How the comparison is read: ranking variance is measured as post-tournament movement in FIFA rank and rating points, then grouped by the NTG environment from which each team emerged. The audit tests association—not causation—between competitive environment, tournament progression, and FIFA rating movement.
Official FIFA Ranking Reconciliation
Import and verification status
✓Tournament resultComplete
✓Match dataset32 / 32
✓Financial tiersEmbedded
✓NTG environmentsEmbedded
○FIFA team rows0 / 48 imported
The official methodology and ranking source links are identified. Team-level before/after rank and rating-point values have not been imported into this frozen snapshot, so the site intentionally leaves the analytical tables unpopulated.
| Team | Group | Environment | GEI | Final Position | Prize / Payout | Rank Before | Points Before | Rank After | Points After | Rank Δ | Points Δ | Variance Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Official FIFA team-level ranking rows are not yet present in this snapshot. No values are estimated or fabricated. The table will appear automatically after the authoritative before/after release rows are imported. | ||||||||||||
Environment-level ranking variance
| Environment | Teams | Avg Rank Δ | Median Rank Δ | Avg Points Δ | Positive Movers | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environment-level variance remains pending because 0 of 48 official team rows are currently imported. The summary will calculate automatically when the authoritative rows are available. | ||||||
Implementation details for the canonical ranking import
Canonical import requirement: the official FIFA releases must be preserved in a top-level
fifa_ranking_audit object containing methodology_publication_date, ranking_release_before, ranking_release_after, official_method_url, official_ranking_url, and one row per team with before/after rank and rating points. Each row should also carry group, environment_type, gei, rank_change, points_change, and an optional variance_reading. Historical snapshots remain frozen; each ranking reconciliation is published as a new versioned snapshot.
Source and reproducibility rule. FIFA is the authority for the official methodology, release date, rank, and rating-point total. NTG preserves those published values unchanged and computes only transparent derived fields. A reconstructed match calculation must be labeled NTG reconstruction until it reconciles exactly to FIFA’s published post-match or release total. The site therefore separates official input, derived calculation, and NTG interpretation rather than blending them.
Official sources: FIFA/Coca-Cola Men’s World Ranking Procedures and the official men’s ranking table. FIFA states that the SUM model took effect in August 2018 and adds or subtracts match points from the previous total. This dashboard reproduces the published method for audit and comparison; it does not replace FIFA’s official ranking table.
📚 Football Research & Evidence Repository
Original studies, official records, open methods, and NTG cross-references—linked directly to the source whenever a verified public URL exists.
XPGuess RESEARCH HUB · CRAWLABLE + DOWNLOADABLE
A reference layer—not a replacement for the original authors
This repository indexes official FIFA materials, peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, open datasets, and industry methodologies. Each source remains the work of its original author or institution. NTG adds a separately labeled cross-reference showing how the source may relate to competitive environment, tournament compression, financial allocation, ranking movement, and governance. Inclusion does not imply endorsement or causal validation.
Official benchmark
FIFA
Results · rankings · finance · documents
External body of work
Research
Peer-reviewed · systematic · industry methods
NTG contribution
Cross-reference
Derived comparison clearly separated
Distribution
HTML + JSON
Human-readable, crawlable, downloadable
Repository standards
1. Direct source links
Every verified public source opens the original publisher, journal, data repository, or official institution.
Every verified public source opens the original publisher, journal, data repository, or official institution.
2. Evidence status
Official, peer-reviewed, systematic review, industry methodology, user-supplied, or under review.
Official, peer-reviewed, systematic review, industry methodology, user-supplied, or under review.
3. No forced agreement
Relationships may be official benchmark, complementary, divergent, contextual, or require replication.
Relationships may be official benchmark, complementary, divergent, contextual, or require replication.
4. Crawlable provenance
The complete index is embedded as JSON and offered as a separate downloadable JSON file.
The complete index is embedded as JSON and offered as a separate downloadable JSON file.
Important source-status note: the Orlov & Sequeira distance-covered item remains indexed because it was supplied as part of this research record, but a public paper, DOI, or publisher URL has not yet been independently verified. It is therefore labeled user-supplied source, not peer-reviewed. The related physical-performance literature below provides independently accessible methodological context without being presented as a substitute for their work.
Research source index
Open a title to read the original source. NTG's relationship statement is a separate analytical layer and does not alter the source's findings.
| Publication / Source | Primary Question | Evidence Level | Relationship | NTG Cross-Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FIFA/Coca-Cola Men's World Ranking Procedures FIFA · 2025 | How does FIFA calculate men's international ranking points? | Official | Official Benchmark | Provides the official SUM method used by the independent ranking audit; NTG preserves published inputs and labels derived calculations separately. |
| FIFA/Coca-Cola Men's World Ranking FIFA · 2026 | What rank and rating-point totals has FIFA officially published? | Official | Official Benchmark | Authoritative source for official rank and points; compared with tournament finish, payout, and environment variance. |
| FIFA Council approves record-breaking FIFA World Cup 2026 financial contribution FIFA Council · 2025 | How is the USD 655 million performance prize pool allocated by finishing tier? | Official | Official Benchmark | Defines the stage-based prize tiers used in NTG's financial-lock and stage-delta calculations. |
| FIFA Reports & Documents FIFA · 2026 | Where are FIFA regulations, technical reports, financial reports, and official documents preserved? | Official | Official Benchmark | Primary document index for future technical-report reconciliation and archival source verification. |
| Distance Covered During the FIFA World Cup 2026 Public link not independently verified Ilya Orlov, Adam Sequeira · 2026 | Does total distance covered explain tournament success? | User Supplied Source | Complementary | Physical output is treated as one input layer; NTG separately tests environment, progression, and financial concentration. |
| Match performance of high-standard soccer players with special reference to development of fatigue Magni Mohr, Peter Krustrup, Jens Bangsbo · 2003 | How do physical fitness, match activity, and fatigue differ across professional playing standards? | Peer Reviewed | Methodological Reference | Supplies foundational time-motion context for interpreting total and high-intensity running without treating running volume as a complete tournament-success model. |
| High-intensity activity profiles of elite soccer players at different performance levels Paul S. Bradley et al. · 2010 | How do high-intensity activity, acceleration, speed, position, and fatigue vary by performance level? | Peer Reviewed | Methodological Reference | Provides an empirical basis for the planned sprint-distance audit and for conditioning physical load by match context and environment. |
| Evaluation of the most intense high-intensity running period in English FA Premier League soccer matches Marco Di Mascio, Paul S. Bradley · 2013 | How much does peak high-intensity demand exceed match-average demand? | Peer Reviewed | Complementary | Supports separating average movement from peak pressure periods when testing whether Open and Suppressed environments prepare teams differently. |
| Exploring elite soccer teams' performances during different match-status periods of close matches' comebacks Miguel-Ángel Gómez et al. · 2020 | How do possession, passing effectiveness, and shots change across match-status phases? | Peer Reviewed | Complementary | Shows that possession is context-sensitive; the planned NTG audit tests possession by group environment and tournament stage rather than as a universal success variable. |
| How to be Successful in Football: A Systematic Review H. Lepschy et al. · 2018 | Which performance indicators and methodological approaches are associated with football success? | Systematic Review | Contextual | Broad literature benchmark for distinguishing validated performance indicators from NTG's additional tournament-governance variables. |
| What are Expected Goals (xG)? StatsBomb · 2026 | How does an xG model estimate the probability that a shot becomes a goal? | Industry Methodology | Methodological Reference | Defines the variable for a planned stage-dependent audit; NTG does not replace xG and instead tests where its relationship with survival changes. |
| What is Expected Threat (xT)? Possession Value Models Explained StatsBomb · 2026 | How can ball progression and possession actions be assigned goal-probability value? | Industry Methodology | Methodological Reference | Adds event-value context beyond possession percentage and supports future analysis of progression patterns across environments. |
| A public data set of spatio-temporal match events in soccer competitions Luca Pappalardo et al. · 2019 | How can open event data support reproducible football analytics, including passing-network analysis? | Peer Reviewed | Methodological Reference | Reproducibility benchmark for future downloadable NTG research datasets and network-analysis replication. |
| Defining a historic football team: Using Network Science to analyze Guardiola's F.C. Barcelona Javier M. Buldú et al. · 2019 | What do player passing networks reveal about team structure and historical playing identity? | Peer Reviewed | Complementary | Provides a peer-reviewed foundation for testing network density, centrality, resilience, and environment-specific team structure. |
| Consistency and identifiability of football teams: a network science perspective Daniel Garrido et al. · 2020 | Can teams be identified consistently from their passing patterns? | Peer Reviewed | Complementary | Supports the proposition that team structure can be measured separately from outcomes and compared across group environments and knockout gates. |
Physical output
Distance, high-intensity running, sprint peaks, fatigue, and environmental conditions are indexed as measurable performance layers—not universal explanations of tournament survival.
Tactical and event value
Possession, xG, xT, and match-status research provide established methods that NTG can test by environment and tournament gate.
Networks and reproducibility
Open event datasets and passing-network studies provide a body of work for testing structure, centrality, density, identity, and resilience.
Institutional outputs
FIFA rankings, financial decisions, regulations, and technical reports remain official benchmarks and are not treated as independent validation of NTG.
EVIDENCE FLOW
Original source → evidence status → source-level finding → NTG cross-reference → reproducible question → future validation or replication
View embedded research-repository JSON
🏆 System Reconciliation — World Cup 2026
The official tournament result, FIFA ranking method, financial distribution, and NTG competitive environment are reconciled as one auditable system. Every claim below links to live data.
STAGE 1
COMPLETE
Group Stage
--
Loading group stage data from database...
Loading...
STAGE 2
COMPLETE
Knockout Round of 32
--
Current guaranteed tournament prize total
Loading R32 data from database...
Loading...
STAGE 3
COMPLETE
Round of 16
--
Loading R16 data from database...
Loading...
STAGE 4
LOADING
Quarter-Finals
--
Loading Quarter-Final data from database...
Loading...
STAGE 5
LOADING
Semi-Finals
--
Loading Semi-Final data from canonical snapshot...
Loading...
STAGE 6
LOADING
Third Place & Final
--
Loading Finals fixtures from canonical snapshot...
Loading...
TOURNAMENT PROGRESS
Loading stage states from canonical snapshot…
💰 Financial Progression — Stage Delta
Loading from canonical snapshot...
🎯 Competitive Environment — Quarter-Final Field
Historical resolved-stage analysis — not the current Finals composition.
Loading from database...
🌎 Confederation Distribution — Quarter-Final Field
Historical resolved-stage analysis — not the current Finals composition.
Loading from database...
The organizing framework
The Dogbone — Group Construction → Knockout Compression → Financial Lock
The Dogbone is the spine of this study. Each tournament gate tests whether the competitive environment created in the group stage carries forward, which environments disappear, and where guaranteed financial value becomes concentrated.
Loading published snapshot…
→
MIDDLE — Tournament Compression
48 → 32 → 16 → 8 → 4 → 2 → 1. Every gate removes teams, environments, regions, and pathways.
→
RIGHT NODE — Financial Lock
Each completed gate fixes a new prize tier. Sporting survival and financial allocation move together.
Central audit question: Is the tournament selecting the strongest sporting survivor—or progressively preserving and concentrating the system’s highest-value competitive and financial assets?
📋 Prize Truth / Data Integrity
This dashboard separates three independent layers:
- Official FIFA performance prize tiers — sourced from inside.fifa.com
- Tournament-stage survival movement — who advances, who exits
- NTG delta analysis — by team, group, continent, and environment
The key metric is not static prize money. The key metric is stage-to-stage delta: how value moves after each elimination round. Stage Delta = jump from previous round. Cumulative Delta = total gain from $9M baseline.
| Stage ↕ | Position ↕ | Prize (USD) ↕ | Stage Delta ↕ | Teams ↕ | Cumulative Delta ↕ |
|---|
Source: FIFA Council — Record-breaking World Cup 2026 financial contribution
📈 Prize Delta by Stage — Visual
How much each stage adds to the prize pool. The bars show the irreversible financial commitment made at each elimination round.
- The Dogbone — Stage-by-Stage
- Tournament Summary
- Knockout Tracking
- Knockout Results
- 🔒 TCI KPI Report
- 🔒 Knockout Group Metric
- 🔒 Goal Progression Tracker
- 🔒 Continental Financial KPI
- 🔒 Final Spark Index (FSI)
- 🔒 Environment Preservation Index (EPI)
- Team Profiles (Sortable)
- The Framework
- Post-Tournament FIFA Ranking Reconciliation
- Football Research & Evidence Repository
- Machine-Readable JSON / Bot Extraction
- Published Snapshot
- Dataset Validation
- Download Dataset
Last Updated: Loading... — Loading tournament stage...
Next: After each knockout round
Coverage: Loading from database...
Next: After each knockout round
Coverage: Loading from database...
📊 Group Stage Results
Loading group-stage status from database...
SPI Preservation
—
Loading SPI from group standings...
View fixtures
Matchday 3 — SPI Breakdown
| Group ↕ | Fixture ↕ | Expected ↕ | Result ↕ | SPI ↕ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPI requires matchday 3 fixture data (expected vs actual results). Add wc2026_matchday3 table with fields: group, fixture, expected_team, actual_result, spi_held. | ||||
GEI Classification
4 Types
12 groups classified by competitive environment: Constrained, Open, Dominant, or Inverted.
View group breakdown
Group Data by GEI Type
GEI = Top Team’s Goal Share % — the % of all group goals scored by the #1 team.
| Group ↕ | GEI ↕ | Top Share ⓘ ↕ | Top GF ⓘ ↕ | TGG ⓘ ↕ | Rule ↕ |
|---|
How to read: SPI measures whether group-stage competitive ordering held through Matchday 3. Higher = stronger teams advanced as expected. Lower = upsets disrupted expected ordering.
👥 Knockout Tracking — All 48 Teams
Loading team survival status from database...
Track every team from group seed through Round of 32 → Round of 16 → Quarter-Finals → Semi-Finals → Final. Admin edits update live.
| Grp ↕ | Team ↕ | Seed ↕ | Knockout Position ↕ | Path ↕ |
|---|
🏆 Knockout Results — Match by Match
Loading knockout results from database...
Live results from Round of 32 through the Final. Updates automatically from your Supabase database.
✅ Stage 2 — Round of 32 (Complete)
| Match ↕ | Stage ↕ | Date ↕ | Team 1 ↕ | Score ↕ | Team 2 ↕ | Winner ↕ | Notes ↕ |
|---|
🏅 Stage 3 — Round of 16
✅ Completed
| Match ↕ | Stage ↕ | Date ↕ | Team 1 ↕ | Score ↕ | Team 2 ↕ | Winner ↕ | Notes ↕ |
|---|
🏆 Stage 4 — Quarter-Finals
| Match ↕ | Stage ↕ | Date ↕ | Team 1 ↕ | Score ↕ | Team 2 ↕ | Status ↕ | Notes ↕ |
|---|
🏆 Quarter-Final Bracket
🏆 Stage 5 — Semi-Finals
| Match | Stage | Date | Team 1 | Score | Team 2 | Status | Notes |
|---|
🏆 Semi-Final Bracket
🏆 Stage 6 — Third Place & Final
🥉 Third-Place Match
| Match | Stage | Date | Team 1 | Score | Team 2 | Status | Notes |
|---|
🏆 World Cup Final
| Match | Stage | Date | Team 1 | Score | Team 2 | Status | Notes |
|---|
🏆 Finals Bracket
📊 TCI KPI Report — By Environment Category
⚡ Framework metrics — How are GEI/SPI environments performing? Advancement rates, preservation scores, TCI verdicts by environment type (Constrained, Open, Dominant, Inverted).
Key Performance Indicators for each group environment type. Calculated from live match results.
| Environment ↕ | Groups ↕ | Teams ↕ | Played ↕ | Advanced ↕ | Eliminated ↕ | Advance % ↕ | Avg GEI ↕ | Avg Goals ↕ | TCI Verdict ↕ |
|---|
Data refreshes from database on page load. Export full dataset via Download Dataset section.
🏆 Knockout Group Metric — Day by Day
📅 Tracking — Each group's knockout performance as matches complete. Wins, eliminations, survival %, day-by-day progression.
Track every group through the knockout rounds. Updates live as matches complete.
| Grp ↕ | Env Type ↕ | GEI ↕ | Teams Qualified ↕ | Still Alive ↕ | Eliminated ↕ | Wins ↕ | Losses ↕ | Survival % ↕ | Latest Round ↕ | TCI Trend ↕ |
|---|
📅 Day-by-Day Progression
Survival % = teams still alive / teams that qualified. TCI Trend shows whether the group is overperforming or underperforming expectations based on GEI.
⚽ Goal Progression Tracker — Group Stage Baseline → Knockout
📈 Offense model — How does goal production change through knockout rounds? Group-stage baseline plus R32, R16, QF, SF, and Final additions. The offensive decay curve.
Each team's group-stage goal total is their baseline. Knockout rounds add game-by-game. Groups are color-coded. Eliminated teams are marked ❌.
📈 Group Goal Trajectory
| Group ↕ | Env ↕ | Group Stage Goals ↕ | R32 Goals ↕ | R16 Goals ↕ | QF Goals ↕ | SF Goals ↕ | Final Goals ↕ | Knockout Total ↕ | Tournament Total ↕ | Goal Drop % ↕ |
|---|
🔍 Team-by-Team Goal Breakdown
| Team ↕ | Grp ↕ | Seed ↕ | Group Stage (Baseline) ↕ | R32 ↕ | R16 ↕ | QF ↕ | SF ↕ | Final ↕ | Knockout Total ↕ | Tournament Total ↕ | Status ↕ |
|---|
📊 Goal Output Analysis
Group Stage = total goals scored in 3 group matches (baseline). Knockout rounds = goals per match. Goal Drop % = (group goals - knockout goals) / group goals. Negative = teams scored MORE in knockouts.
💰 Team Financial Delta — Prize Money by Stage
💰 Individual teams — How much additional FIFA prize money has each team earned? Current stage, prize, delta, alive status, next matchup.
Track every team’s prize money from the $9M group-stage baseline through each knockout round. Delta = current prize minus $9M baseline. Eliminated teams lock their prize at the exit stage.
| Team ↕ | Grp ↕ | Seed ↕ | Continent ↕ | Status ↕ | Current Prize ↕ | Delta ↕ | Exit Stage ↕ | Next Matchup ↕ |
|---|
Baseline = $9M (group stage exit). Each advancement adds the stage delta. Champion = $50M (+$41M delta). Data updates after each match.
🌎 Continental Knockout & Financial Resilience
🌎 Survival story — Which continent is surviving best? Original teams, alive, eliminated, QF+ reached, finalists, champion.
Track every continent through the knockout rounds. Prize money estimates based on FIFA WC2026 announced tiers. "Resilience" = earnings vs. team count expectation.
| Continent ↕ | Teams ↕ | Alive ↕ | Eliminated ↕ | R32 Out ↕ | R16 Out ↕ | QF Out ↕ | SF+ ↕ | Earnings/Team ↕ | Total Earnings ↕ | Resilience Score ↕ |
|---|
💰 Prize Money Breakdown by Continent
WC2026 prize pool: ~$1.1B. Official performance ladder: Group stage exit = $9M, Round of 32 = $11M, Round of 16 = $15M, Quarterfinals = $19M, 4th = $27M, 3rd = $29M, Runner-up = $33M, Champion = $50M. Resilience Score = actual earnings / expected earnings (equal distribution). >100% = overperforming.
🏆 Continental Advancement & Financial Yield
💰 Money story — Which continent is capturing the tournament's financial value? Total prize, yield per team, CER, FSR, financial share.
Formula-driven continental advancement metrics. All values computed from live data — group standings, match results, and FIFA prize tiers. Numbers change automatically after every match result.
| Continent | Original Teams | Total Prize | Stage Delta | Avg Prize/Team | Financial Share | CER % | FSR % |
|---|
Methodology: CAE = teams_reached_current_stage / original_continent_teams. Incremental Advancement Value = teams_reached_r16_or_deeper × stage_delta (R16 prize - R32 prize). CER = current_total_prize / baseline_total_prize. FSR = remaining_possible_prize / max_possible_prize. Status rules: lost completed match = Eliminated; won completed match = Alive; scheduled/pending match = Pending; no match record = Unknown/Awaiting. Never treat missing data as eliminated.
⚡ Tournament Value Redistribution — Economic Impact Dashboard
⚡ Value movement — Calculated from completed match rows, prize tiers, and team metadata.
This framework measures how tournament results redistribute competitive and financial value. For every match, it tracks the economic movement created by the outcome — not which team "should" have won, but how the result changed the tournament's competitive and economic landscape.
Projected Value Score (0–10): A composite score derived from group performance, environment type, advancement opportunity, and prize exposure. Higher = the team entered the match representing more accumulated tournament value. This is not a prediction — it describes each team's competitive-economic position.
| Match ↕ | Stage ↕ | Team 1 (Score) ↕ | Team 2 (Score) ↕ | Result ↕ | Prize Before ↕ | Prize After ↕ | Value Preserved? ↕ | Score Gap ↕ | Continent Impact ↕ |
|---|
Methodology: Projected Value Score (0–10) = composite of group position weight, GEI environment multiplier, and prize exposure. Prize Before = combined prize value both teams represented entering the match. Prize After = prize value of the advancing team at the next stage. Value Preserved = did the team with the higher Projected Value Score advance? This measures structural value retention, not prediction accuracy.
📈 Environment Preservation Index (EPI) — Survival Curves
📈 Environment story — Survival rates are calculated from the current database state.
Executive interpretation
Which competitive environments are still surviving?
EPI = Remaining Teams ÷ Qualified Teams. This view translates the live database into a plain-language tournament story.
Formula
Remaining Teams
Qualified Teams
Current Observation
Updated after each knockout round.
How to read this view: higher EPI means a larger share of teams from that environment remains alive. An environment at 0% has no teams left in the tournament.
Research metrics
Detailed EPI, EVI, offensive preservation, and survival curves
Use this pane to inspect the underlying metrics, daily movement, and stage-by-stage evidence.
Environment Volatility Index (EVI)
How much did each environment move today? EVI measures stability, not just survival.
📈 Environment Survival Curves
| Environment ↕ | Groups ↕ | Qualified ↕ | Alive ↕ | EPI ↕ | Group Goals ↕ | KO Goals ↕ | Offensive Preservation ↕ | Trend ↕ |
|---|
📅 Daily EPI Snapshots
| Day ↕ | Suppressed ↕ | Balanced ↕ | Open ↕ | Dominant ↕ | Inverted ↕ | Notes ↕ |
|---|
EPI measures environment preservation across tournament phases. Offensive Preservation = (Group Goals - Knockout Goals) / Group Goals. Higher decay = environment lost offensive production in knockouts. Survival curves update after each match day.
📈 Team Profiles (Sortable)
👥 All 48 teams — Compare across SPI rank, GEI environment, TCI score, goals, knockout progression. Click column headers to sort.
Compare every team — 48 total across 12 groups. Click any column header to sort by SPI rank, GEI environment type, TCI score, goals scored, and knockout progression.
| Team ↕ | Grp ↕ | Seed ↕ | SPI Rank ↕ | GEI Type ↕ | GEI % ↕ | TCI ↕ | R16+ ↕ |
|---|
📐 The TCI Methodology — NTG Framework
📖 Framework documentation — How SPI, GEI, and TCI work. The theory behind the dashboard. Understanding the tournament framework.
ⓘ What is TCI?
The Tournament Carryover Index (TCI) is a predictive metric developed by Name The Game (NTG) under the Natural Technical Governance (NTG) framework. TCI asks: Does a team's group-stage environment predict their knockout success?
TCI is built on two verified indices — SPI and GEI — combined into a single carryover score for each team.
📈 SPI — Strategic Performance Index
SPI measures whether the competitive ordering established by Matchday 2 was preserved in Matchday 3. If favorites held their positions, SPI is high and the group is "honest."
SPI = (% of seed positions held from Matchday 2 → 3)
✓ SPI computed from group standings after data loads
Threshold: >66% = "held", ≤66% = "broke"
✓ SPI computed from group standings after data loads
Threshold: >66% = "held", ≤66% = "broke"
👥 GEI — Group Environment Index
GEI classifies each group by measuring how much the top team dominated goal-scoring. A high share means the group was flat or suppressed; a low share means it was open and competitive.
GEI = (Top Team Goals / Total Group Goals) × 100
Dominant >60% share — one team overwhelmed the group
Constrained 45–60% share — top team won a flat group
Open <45% share + SPI held — competitive, honest group
Inverted <45% share + SPI broke — competitive but upsets occurred
Dominant >60% share — one team overwhelmed the group
Constrained 45–60% share — top team won a flat group
Open <45% share + SPI held — competitive, honest group
Inverted <45% share + SPI broke — competitive but upsets occurred
⚙ TCI Calculation
TCI = α(SPIteam) + β(GEIgroup) + γ(Knockout Path)
Where:
• SPIteam = did this team hold its Matchday 2 seed? (1/0)
• GEIgroup = group environment score (0–100 normalized)
• Knockout Path = progression depth bonus (0, 1, 2, 3, 4)
• α, β, γ = NTG-calibrated weights
Where:
• SPIteam = did this team hold its Matchday 2 seed? (1/0)
• GEIgroup = group environment score (0–100 normalized)
• Knockout Path = progression depth bonus (0, 1, 2, 3, 4)
• α, β, γ = NTG-calibrated weights
💡 Current Observation
Teams emerging from Open + Honest groups (GEI <45%, SPI held) have shown stronger knockout performance in matches analyzed so far.
The Tournament Carryover Index continues to evaluate whether this pattern persists as additional knockout rounds are completed. Teams from dominant groups may be under-prepared for the intensity shift.
🔗 NTG Ecosystem Links
• NTG: Natural Technical Governance — the decision-science framework powering TCI
• HUGS ID: Athlete identity system connecting player data across NTG platforms
• name-the-game.com: Primary NTG platform for tournament analytics
• Learn.XPGuess.com: Educational deployment of NTG methodology (this dashboard)
🤖 Machine-Readable JSON / Bot Extraction
Canonical public dataset — stable schema for AI agents, researchers, search crawlers, and external integrations.
Verified extraction target:
Dataset version: —
<script id="wc2026-tci-machine-data" type="application/json">Dataset version: —
Extraction rule: use the embedded canonical JSON for match facts and status. Dashboard-computed KPI exports remain available through “Download JSON” and “Download Full Snapshot.”
Schema vocabulary note: Published snapshots are never rewritten after freezing. Each release renders under its own declared schema_version; the dashboard validates the embedded JSON against the snapshot's own coverage fields and never against hardcoded historical values.
Source of truth: This dataset is loaded from the latest validated and immutable WC2026 snapshot published in Supabase. Live tournament tables prepare future releases; published snapshots remain frozen, hashed, auditable, and reproducible. Browser-side access logging records supported page, copy, validation, and download events but is not a substitute for complete server or CDN request logs.
💾 Download Dataset
📥 Export — Download full TCI dataset as CSV or JSON. Group standings with GEI/SPI + knockout matches with scores and preservation delta.
Export the full TCI dataset as CSV or JSON for analysis in Excel, R, Python, or Tableau.
🔄 Import Dataset
Upload a previously exported JSON snapshot to restore the full dashboard without hitting the database.
CSV: A flat export suitable for Excel, R, Python, and Tableau. JSON: Tournament data containing group standings and knockout matches. Full Snapshot: Complete raw and computed tournament state for audit, restoration, and reproducibility. Can be re-imported later.
🔒 Admin — Edit Knockout Results
🔑 Admin only — Two-step authentication required. Edit knockout positions, save to database, update all tables live. Authorized NTG administrators only.
Two-step authentication required. Only authorized NTG administrators can edit knockout data.
Continue Learning
- Learn Index
- How XPGuess Works
- Earn XP on XPGuess
- Athlete Transfer & Mobility Systems
- Informal Performance & Visibility Paths
- What XPGuess Is — and Is Not
- Secure Sports Analytics Infrastructure
- Why Most Athletes Don’t Go Pro
- Why Traditional Metrics Miss the Full Picture
- Fitness, Wellness, and Support Model
- Training, Fitness, and Wellness Infrastructure
- Why Fundamentals Matter in Youth Sports
- How XPGuess Handles Age, Learning, and Responsible Access
- How XPGuess Rankings Work Across Sports, Education, Cognition, and Real-World Skill
- Bracket: A Structured Prediction Game for Learning, XP, and Ranking
- Sport XP Bracket Ranking Governance | Anti-Corruption XP Flowchart | XPGuess Learn
Compliance Notice
XPGuess is an educational platform. It does not provide medical services, act as a healthcare provider, or replace professional care. All fitness and support tools exist for training documentation, reflection, and athlete protection.
Terminology, Frameworks, and Foundational Work
XPGuess — Extended Performance Guessing — is an educational decision-learning construct used to explore how development paths and outcomes unfold over time.
Natural Technical Governance (NTG) documents training and participation using first principles rather than subjective opinion.
The conceptual foundations derive from earlier technical work by Michael A. Piña, including biomechanical and developmental research.
Reference: “Beginning and Staying with the Basics: Building from the Ground Up”
Additional work: Coach Teaches Animals: Gymnastics Stretching
XPGuess Learn content is educational, governance-focused, and non-commercial.
🌎 Support the Mission
Supports Learning, Culture and Opportunities
Name The Game builds open tools so that athletes, artists, and communities can train, preserve their languages, and share their culture with the world.
Through projects like CaptureLabz™, ArteRegistry™, and Mic Mode™, we are creating a global archive of voices, languages, cultural histories, and talent development. Every language contains cultural knowledge — CaptureLabz helps communities record and preserve their voices for future generations.
Donate to Support the Platform
Name The Game
Powered by HUGS ID™
A global platform for learning, culture, athletics, and creative talent. Our mission is to empower people everywhere with the tools to train, share their culture, preserve languages, and create opportunities through education and technology. Built so that every nation can learn from each other — and every person can grow.
Name The Game Ecosystem
🏆 Platform: Panel, KITE Wallet, Evidence ·
💪 Train: Athlete Profiles, Training and Fitness ·
🎙 Culture: CaptureLabz™ Voice Studio, ArteRegistry™ Archive, Mic Mode™ ·
🎯 Learn: Educational Library, Nutrition and Training
System: Train · Earn XP · Compete | Opportunities: Funding (CaptureLabz™) · Ownership (ArteRegistry™) · Partner Portal | Expression: Voice (Mic Mode™)
Part of the Name The Game ecosystem powered by HUGS ID™
© 2026 Name The Game. All rights reserved. HUGS ID™ is a registered trademark of Name The Game.
Supports Learning and Opportunities
© 2026 Name The Game. All rights reserved. HUGS ID™ is a registered trademark of Name The Game.
Supports Learning and Opportunities
Frequently Asked Questions — FIFA World Cup 2026
Who won the FIFA World Cup 2026?
Spain won the FIFA World Cup 2026, defeating Argentina 1–0 in the Final.
Who finished third in the World Cup 2026?
England finished third after defeating France in the third-place match.
What is the Dogbone Postulate?
The Dogbone Postulate is the Name The Game framework connecting group-stage competitive conditions, knockout-stage compression, and the financial value locked at each tournament gate.
What is the Tournament Carryover Index?
The Tournament Carryover Index evaluates whether a team’s group-stage competitive environment carries forward into knockout-stage performance.
What does the World Cup 2026 dashboard include?
It includes complete results, team progression, group environments, goals, prize money, FIFA ranking methodology, football research, and downloadable tournament datasets.
Can the World Cup 2026 data be downloaded?
Yes. The page provides CSV, JSON, canonical JSON, and full snapshot downloads.