What is the central problem discussed?

The core issue involves the potential for collusion between teams, especially with the introduction of three-team groups, where strategic manipulation is more likely. The sequential nature of games in these groups allows teams to adjust their play based on earlier results, increasing the chances of pre-determined outcomes.

Why is the risk of collusion a concern?

The significance lies in the amplified risk of teams collaborating for mutually beneficial results, especially in three-team groups. This undermines fair play, potentially eliminating a team that would otherwise have advanced. The proposed changes could lead to strategically aimed results guaranteeing advancement for colluding parties, at the expense of a third team.

How can the issue of collusion be addressed?

A simple fix involves adjusting the scoring system, as proposed by Ignacio Palacios-Huerta. Introducing group stage penalty shoot-outs to eliminate draws is one approach. A refined approach could create a more equitable system by devaluing drawn games and encouraging decisive results, reducing the incentive for collusion.

How does the current format compare to the proposed three-team group format regarding collusion?

The current four-team format already presents some opportunities for strategic manipulation, but the new structure significantly amplifies this risk. FIFA mitigates this in the current format by staging final group games simultaneously. With three-team groups, however, this becomes more challenging because matches will have to be played sequentially.

What is the impact of the three-team group format?

The introduction of three-team groups is a key element, as it creates more scenarios where collusion becomes a viable strategy. Fewer games in these groups mean each match carries more weight, and the sequential play gives teams the advantage of knowing earlier results. This increases the potential for manipulation and problematic outcomes.

Soccer ball presenting a scoring system to prevent collusion.

Fair Play or Foul? The World Cup's Collusion Conundrum

Samir D’Costa in Sports & Policy December 2025 • 4 min read.

"A simple rule change could eliminate the risk of teams conspiring for a mutually beneficial result in the group stages."

As the World Cup evolves, a looming threat to fair play has emerged: the increased potential for collusion between teams, particularly with the proposed introduction of three-team groups. While the current four-team format already presents some opportunities for strategic manipulation, the new structure significantly amplifies this risk.

Mathematician Julien Guyon has highlighted the core problem: three-team groups, which may be implemented as early as the 2022 or 2026 World Cup, incentivize teams to collude. Unlike the knockout stages, group play allows teams to strategically aim for specific results that guarantee advancement for both colluding parties, potentially at the expense of a third team.

Ignacio Palacios-Huerta proposes a simple yet effective solution to mitigate this growing risk: adjust the scoring system to reduce the incentive for draws and promote more decisive outcomes. By awarding points in a way that diminishes the value of a draw, the potential for collusion can be significantly curtailed, ensuring a fairer competition for all teams involved.

The Problem with Three-Team Groups: Increased Collusion Risk

Soccer ball presenting a scoring system to prevent collusion.

In the current four-team group format, collusion is possible, but FIFA mitigates this by staging final group games simultaneously. This prevents teams from knowing the exact result needed in their game to advance at the expense of another team. However, with three-team groups, this becomes more challenging.

Three-team groups inherently mean fewer games, but they also create a proportionally greater number of scenarios where collusion becomes a viable strategy. Because matches will have to be played sequentially, teams can observe earlier results and adjust their play in the final match to achieve a pre-determined outcome.

Fewer Games, Higher Stakes: Each match in a three-team group carries more weight, making strategic play and collusion more tempting.
Sequential Play Advantage: Teams playing later can exploit the knowledge of earlier results, increasing the potential for manipulation.
Problematic Outcomes: A proportionally greater number of scenarios could arise where a draw or specific result benefits both teams at the expense of the third.

One radical solution would be for FIFA to stage the entire tournament on a knockout basis. Though it would solve the collusion problem, it would also mean half the countries playing just one game. Given FIFA’s insistence on three-team groups, a more practical solution is needed.

A Simple Fix: Introducing Group Stage Penalty Shoot-Outs

Palacios-Huerta suggests introducing group stage penalty shoot-outs to eliminate draws. While simply awarding points for a shoot-out win isn't entirely fair, a refined approach can create a more equitable system. This system involves a modified points system to devalue drawn games and encourage decisive results.

Under this system, a win in regulation time is worth 3 points for the winner and 0 for the loser. However, if a game ends in a draw, a penalty shoot-out determines the distribution of points: the winner of the shoot-out gets 2 points, and the loser gets 1 point. This 3-2-1-0 system creates more possible point combinations, which reduces the number of outcomes that might induce collusion.

By implementing this modified points system, FIFA can significantly reduce the potential for collusion in three-team groups, ensuring a fairer and more competitive World Cup for all participants. It’s a straightforward adjustment that addresses a complex problem, preserving the integrity and excitement of the beautiful game.