2026 оны Дэлхийн аварга шалгаруулах тэмцээний талаарх уншигчдын асуултуудад хариуллаа

Last week we asked you, dear readers, what you wanted to know about the 2026 World Cup.

The questions — which came in across discussions and our newsletters — were diverse, ranging from the impact of the heat to stutter run-ups in penalties and how certain statistics are calculated.

Thank you for all the queries. We have selected 10 of the best, edited them for brevity, and asked our writers to answer them…

Was the group phase simply a long filtering process, with the ‘real’ World Cup only starting in the knockout rounds?

This is largely true of any World Cup, or major international tournament, where the box-office clashes only truly begin during the knockout phase.

The point is an interesting one, though. Given the expanded nature of this 48-team iteration, there were fewer opportunities for the dominant sides to crash out after the group stage — but the cream (nearly) always rises to the top eventually.

There have also been a few upsets. The Athletic’s Conor O’Neill recently wrote on the volume of underdog victories this summer, and how it is largely in keeping with the rate seen in previous World Cups — just with more opportunities to see them.

That would also be to ignore some of the great stories that have come from unheralded nations: Cape Verde made it to the knockout stage and then almost dumped out holders Argentina, while nine of the 10 African nations got to the round of 32 following their expanded allocation this year.

The real 2026 World Cup might have only started in the knockouts, but no more than any other edition of the tournament.

Question: Anonymous user, answer: Mark Carey

Is it possible that FIFA would delay the start of a game due to heat?

France’s last-16 victory over Paraguay in Philadelphia was played at around 100F (38C), making it one of the hottest World Cup matches ever.

As we know, FIFA introduced hydration breaks at all matches in this tournament to combat the more extreme temperatures (and to fit in mid-half TV adverts, if you are cynical), even though some of the stadiums being used in North America are domed and air-conditioned.

In the case of extreme heat, FIFA’s emergency care manual states that suspension of a match is only considered when a measurement called the wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) is “near, at or above 32C (89.6F).” WGBT is an estimate of the combined effects of air temperature, humidity, wind, and sunlight on the human body.

This would lead to “communication between the general coordinator/match commissioner, referees, the FIFA chief medical officer/venue medical officer and other persons managing the match”.

Though, unlike thunderstorms, which lead to the halting of a match if within eight miles (just under 13km) of the stadium, there have been no heat delays as of yet.

Question: Charles K., answer: Eduardo Tansley

FIFA is obviously making a fortune off this World Cup. Where does the money go? Asked differently, ‘Who owns FIFA, and is entitled to its profit stream?’

Well, isn’t this marvelous timing? As luck would have it, The Athletic has today published the latest in our BookKeeper series – with FIFA coming under the financial microscope.

Distilling that into a pithy answer is near-impossible, but we can at least easily break down where FIFA has budgeted for its $13billion bounty across the 2023-26 cycle to go: $7.6bn on competition organizing (of which half is going on this World Cup alone); $3.9bn in development funding, principally to FIFA’s 211 national member associations; $1.1bn on the governing of both FIFA and football more widely; and $331m on the commercialisation of FIFA’s broadcasting and marketing rights.

Our piece breaks that down in much more detail, and also deals with your second question.

FIFA is, by design, a not-for-profit organisation. It pays no dividends; it has no shareholders. Instead, as FIFA and its president Gianni Infantino are keen to repeat, all of the money world football’s governing body earns is intended to be recycled into the sport.

FIFA works on four-year financial cycles and repeatedly only forecasts a $100million surplus at the end of each one. But, as our piece unveils, the reality is that FIFA has repeatedly performed well beyond budget, boosting its reserves and hoarding far greater sums than budgeted.

Question: Anonymous user, answer: Chris Weatherspoon

Is it fair that some teams have to play in outdoor stadiums at this tournament while others get closed, indoor stadiums?

Not really, but life is unfair.It’s tempting to wish for all games to be played in identical conditions, leaving the quality of each team’s performance on the day as the only variable to decide the result. But isn’t the fact that football is not an exact science part of why it’s so great?

I have been to AT&T Stadium and Estadio Azteca at this World Cup (among others), and if you have experienced the oppressive heat of a Texan summer, you will agree that the arena near Dallas absolutely requires air conditioning for both the quality of the product and the safety of everyone involved. Extreme heat, as we have reported, can have a major impact on players’ bodies and impact recovery time.

The Azteca in Mexico City provides other obstacles apart from heat. (Yuri Cortez / AFP via Getty Images)

However, the stadiums with roofs and air conditioning are largely spread around the tournament and France, who played in 100-degree heat in their last-16 match with Paraguay to experience one of the hottest matches on record, are still strong favourites to win it.

Mexico City, meanwhile, poses challenges of its own: altitude, rain and an intense home crowd at the Azteca, but not extreme heat. So rather than stadiums with AC giving teams an unfair advantage, it feels more like a leveller; removing a factor that would otherwise destroy players physically and create an awful product.

Question: Lindo O, answer: Reuben Pinder

What is the bra-like harness many players wear under their shirts?

Use of GPS (global positioning system) sports vests, as they are called, has grown rapidly in recent years, along with other wearable technology in football. Between the shoulder blades, these vests hold a sensor.

Via these, the vests collect extensive data in both training and matches, from the volume of sprints to the player’s direction and balance, which is accessible on mobile and tablet devices. This has many benefits for coaches, who can help to manage a player’s physical output to prevent injuries as the data makes players’ fatigue levels and injury recovery clearer.

Data from the vests can also be combined with video analysis to form tactical decision-making, such as understanding the intensity of the opposition’s press.

Hundreds of club teams, including Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Juventus use them, as well as international teams such as Brazil.

In a national-team context, players can be monitored year-round rather than only during the handful of international windows. This gives teams more information about their personnel when making decisions ahead of or during major tournaments.

Question: Stan P., answer: Eduardo Tansley

Can you explain the microchip that’s in the ball?

This year’s World Cup ball, the Trionda from Adidas, has a 500Hz inertial measurement unit (IMU) motion sensor that tracks motion data and enhances the VAR system.

Adidas called it ‘Connected Ball Technology’ (CBT), and it is used to streamline the semi-automated offside process. Because it delivers data 500 times a second, the sensor helps make clear the precise moment a ball was touched in an offside decision.

The CBT also has a sensor that detects “external force” on the ball, which can record the speed at which it travels.

Qatar 2022 was the first time a ball, then Adidas’ Al Rihla, had a motion sensor fitted at a major tournament. Adidas used the same technology in the 2024 European Championship’s Fussballiebe.

Question: Dave S., answer: Eduardo Tansley

Why doesn’t the clock stop when necessary, rather than the mysterious added-time BS?

Unlike in U.S. sports, football has added time at the end of each half, which is determined by the referee based on the number of stoppages during play, such as injuries, substitutions and goal celebrations. This is because the clock is running throughout the game and never stops. It has always been this way.

Added time at the end of a half serves as a minimum amount to be tacked on and is displayed to the crowd and TV audiences by the fourth official, using the hand-held board that also gives details of substitutions. The referee still has the autonomy to add more minutes based on further stoppages that may occur during the initially indicated amount of added time.

For example, Youri Tielemans scored the latest goal in World Cup history (125th minute) as Belgium completed a turnaround 3-2 win over Senegal in the round of 32. Despite only four minutes being added at the end of the second half of extra time in that match, the VAR check and the taking of the penalty pushed the amount of added time to 13 minutes.

Question: Jim E., answer: Eduardo Tansley

Is the refereeing extra inconsistent this tournament? (Incredibly lenient one moment, like with Paraguay against France, then incredibly stringent the next?)

Fans complain frequently that referees are inconsistent, yet at the same time claim they are robots who apply the laws too rigidly. Both cannot be true.

During this World Cup, referees on the field have tried to keep games moving and only use yellow cards for the more serious offences. This has helped facilitate some great matches.

A lack of consistency has been seen more from the VAR centre in Dallas, where the gap between which offences are worthy of intervention and which can be left alone has been too wide.

Let’s use Germany’s (brief) experience as an example. In the group stage, their first goal against Ecuador was allowed to stand despite an obvious foul in the build-up, when Aleksandar Pavlovic raised his boot so high (below) that he grazed the head of Pedro Vite. The ref missed it, and the VAR team stayed silent.

(Patrick Smith – FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images)

In the round of 32, Jonathan Tah’s headed goal was chalked off because a German player and the Paraguay goalkeeper were briefly in contact with each other. The referee saw no offence, but this time the VAR piped up.

FIFA needs to narrow that band of VAR intervention, preferably by supporting the on-field referee whenever possible. Let the game flow, allow fans to celebrate goals and accept that some decisions will divide opinion.

Question: Mary G., answer: Graham Scott (former Premier League referee)

Why do players keep doing the stutter-step penalty run-up when it seems not to work all that often?

The answer here lies in variety and trying to keep a goalkeeper guessing.

A good example of this is Harry Kane. At The Athletic, we have tracked his penalty-taking technique over the years, from his very first, pretty awful, effort to the spot-kick-converting machine he is now.

But even machines make mistakes, as proved in England’s opening-game win against Croatia, in which Kane scored from the spot. However, that goal only came after he had to retake his initial kick — which had been saved by Dominik Livakovic — because the goalkeeper came off his line too soon. For the first penalty, the England captain used his relatively new ‘stutter’ technique (slowing down during the run-up to try and gauge which way the goalkeeper will move, before hitting the ball to the other side of the goal). The retake was a straight ‘goalkeeper independent’ strike (i.e., Kane did not pay attention to Livakovic but picked a spot in the goal to aim at and stuck with it).

The key here is that Kane has multiple ways to try and score a penalty, which makes him less predictable — and our expert’s No 1 taker at the World Cup. With goalkeepers now able to view replays of every penalty taken by their upcoming opponents before a match, they will know if a particular player has a preferred side of the goal, or a consistent technique. The best goalkeepersare now becoming more patient too, waiting as long as they can for those stutter runs to complete before diving.

It is an ongoing game of cat and mouse.

Question: Jeffrey C., answer: Kevin Coulson

How is the momentum tracker calculated?

Each model might be slightly different, but here at The Athletic we have our own version of this graphic to outline the flow of a game, and how it can shift over the course of 90 minutes.

We use bars to show each team’s maximum probability of scoring during every three-minute period in a match (the lighter bars) and the difference between the teams’ scoring chances in that time (the darker bar on the side of the dominant team).

An example can be seen below in England’s last-16 meeting with Mexico. As a casual viewer, you can see that the opening 30 minutes were even, before the drama started at the end of the first half with both sides scoring. After England’s red card shortly after half-time, the momentum and territorial dominance were with Mexico (green bars) for much of the second half as they searched for an equaliser.

A team’s maximum goal probability in each bar is calculated by looking at expected goals (i.e., the quality of chances created) or their possession value (i.e., how much they increased their probability of scoring). At the simplest level, more touches in the attacking third of the pitch are a good indicator that your team has the momentum.

Question from: Andrew D., answer: Mark Carey