How Defeat Can Become Victory in the 48 Team World Cup
June 26, 2026 · Global
This article looks at how Scotland's recent defeat to Morocco may not have been as bad as it seemed, given the new World Cup format allows more teams to progress to the knockout stages, which could change the meaning of wins and losses.
The Athletic provides live coverage of Bosnia & Herzegovina's matches against Qatar and Morocco against Haiti in the 2026 World Cup. In the 97th minute, Scotland, who were chasing an equalizer from a corner kick, failed to execute well and were forced to retreat. Achraf Hakimi got past Anthony Ralston, and a three-on-one situation emerged as Morocco approached the halfway line. In a situation that was almost certain to result in a goal, Ralston committed a very unsportsmanlike foul and almost dragged Hakimi to the ground. The referee blows the whistle for a violation and at the same time signals the end of the match. Scotland lost by one goal at Gillette Stadium, not two. In any other World Cup, this would have been a disappointing and costly ending. However, in this expanded 48-team edition, where eight of the 12 third-place teams advanced to the knockout round alongside the 24 first- and second-place teams, Ralston's act of sabotage may have been the difference between qualification and elimination. With three points and a neutral goal difference after two of three games, Scotland can now possibly endure another narrow defeat to Brazil on Wednesday and still progress to the knockout rounds for the first time in their eight attempts. Should they concede again against Morocco, the margin for error will be riskier. At the end of that game, if there was a button that could be pressed to guarantee a goal but not reveal which team would score it, it is likely that few Scotland fans would press it. Indeed, a 1-0 defeat had been agreed as an acceptable result before the game started. And the final 25 minutes served as a strange risk management experiment that will likely be a harbinger of what's to come in this tournament. Fair to say, Scotland did put more pressure and put players forward in their desire to bet on points that would almost certainly guarantee progress. However, they continued to attack with an element of insurance and even some members of the Tartan Army in the stands could be heard shouting not to be too open when attacking. Is this a healthy risk or a perverse reward for failure? Should coach Steve Clarke's motto "Don't be beaten" really be enough for them to continue? Scotland won't care one bit if they reach the knockout stages, but when losing two games out of three in your group is no longer terminal, this fundamentally reduces the stakes and changes the psychology of winning and losing. Cristiano Ronaldo sets new goals record | World Cup Daily Summary. Scotland looked set for a devastating evening in Foxboro, near Boston, when Ismael Saibari scored Morocco's opener after just 71 seconds. Clarke's team looked shocked and weak, barely engaging with the opposition until they were forced to. Perhaps this explains why, although the entire message from the camp in the last fortnight has been about not leaving this tournament with any regrets, like the last two lackluster European Championship final campaigns, Scotland showed a similar passivity and lack of expression in the United States. After winning their must-win game against Haiti, their task was as much about avoiding a crushing defeat as it was finding a way to score. They faced the same dilemma today (Wednesday) in Miami. According to The Athletic's projection model, a 1-0 defeat against Brazil gives Scotland an 89 percent chance of reaching the knockout rounds. A 2-0 defeat still gives them a 77 percent chance of qualifying for the last 32. Even a 3-0 loss gives them a 62 percent chance. What might teams do about their mindset? "Absolutely not, because we want to win the game; and if we can't win the game, then we don't want to lose," said Clarke. However, the number of teams still able to advance leaves open the possibility of a non-aggression agreement in this final group stage, bringing back memories of West Germany against Austria in the 1982 World Cup. Playing the day after Algeria had finished their three-game group, leaving them tied on four points with Austria, both teams knew that West Germany winning by less than three goals would see them both through at the expense of the north of Africa. After Horst Hrubesch scored in the 10th minute, the match in Gijon, Spain, did not see another goal. Both sides had no reason to risk attacks on goal and in Algeria, the match was known as the 'Disgrace of Gijon'. FIFA has changed the rules so that head-to-head records determine rankings when points are tied in the group stages, not goal difference. Even with those modifications, however, there is a chance for Algeria to be on the right side of their cruel fate in 1982 this time. Their final Group J match against Austria, along with the Paraguay-Australia match in Group D, looked poised for no action. Both feature two teams on three points who know that a draw will take them to four and guarantee mutual progress. Of course, there is the motivation that the winner will finish second, but the goal for these countries at the start of this World Cup is simply to qualify. Why risk losing and potentially being eliminated as one of the four worst third-place teams? There are also matches where a narrow win and a narrow loss can benefit both parties. Scotland's next game is one of them. Brazil drew with Morocco, so if both teams win their final games, who tops Group C will be determined by goal difference. Carlo Ancelotti's side have a two-goal goal difference advantage there, so if they go 2-0 up tonight, that would leave Morocco needing to beat Haiti by four goals to equalize. Does either team feel the need to force the issue? For the sake of spectacle, let's hope that not too many of these endgames end up being exercises in damage limitation or comfortable defeats.