Analysis of the finalists’ attacking and defensive strengths gives Argentina a 58% chance of lifting the trophy, leaving Spain at 42% to win. By only losing to a late goal in the semifinal, England performed better than expected – though over-optimistic forecasts mean it might not feel like that.
The tournament semifinals this week ended with wins for the two teams that were favourites in their matches, according to our scorecasting analysis: Spain beating France 2-0; and Argentina overturning a one-goal deficit against England to triumph 2-1.
Should we have expected these two outcomes?
Football’s low-scoring nature arguably lends itself to particular strategies that hinge crucially on that low probability of the ball hitting the back of the net.
Spain’s strong midfield has ensured that they’ve restricted their opponents throughout this competition to a third of an expected goal per match, and they’ve conceded just one in seven matches. Our forecasts gave Spain a 55% chance of beating France, as they did.
The match between Argentina and England fundamentally changed each time that a team took the lead, with England slightly edging a tight match before they scored, then Argentina overwhelming England until they’d taken the lead, then allowing England to bombard them aerially for the remaining time until the whistle blew.
England fell short, but our model had given them a 71% chance of being eliminated by Argentina – and indeed a 51% chance of it happening, as it did, within 90 minutes.
Should England have done better?
The recriminations in both England and France will surely rumble on for some time. For France, a team so favoured, and who had cantered through the competition until facing Spain, there will be new management as Didier Deschamps retires. And yet, according to our own Economics Observatory Elo ratings, France have not been the world’s best team since 2008.
For England, will Thomas Tuchel survive as manager? Football churns through managers at a rate far higher than perhaps any other sector. England faced the World Cup holders having made the final four for just the third time since 1966, and only lost to an injury time goal – and yet the pressure is now heavily on Tuchel.
Equally though, England have not been top of our Economics Observatory Elo ratings since 1970, and barely even in the top four. Even since 2018, their average rank is only sixth.
Chart 1. The current top four’s long march to the semifinals
Elo ratings are based on results. This makes them entirely backward-looking, and hence they do not factor in current or future events. For example, an Elo prediction for the World Cup final wouldn’t be able to take account of such potential eventualities as Messi being unable to play for Argentina or Rodri for Spain.
A backward-looking approach also doesn’t factor in potential – how good could this team be? Approaches that use, say, Transfermarkt player values do this – and by these methods, England look very good. There’s economic merit to such an approach – after all, there’s wisdom in crowds, and plenty of academic evidence says that Transfermarkt values are very good predictors of outcomes.
Our backward-looking Elo-based approach then is based on the results that have happened – outcomes and goal outputs. Those past results tell us that England are good – the fourth best team in the world, in line with FIFA’s own rankings. But that is not as good as second, which England would be by Transfermarkt values.
As the fourth best team in the world then, England can perhaps expect to make semifinals. But England have only been the fourth best team since March 2026, and haven’t been above that since 1991.
So, it is worth emphasising that this is something new. Prior to 2018, England’s previous semifinal appearances in any kind of major tournament were 1966, 1968, 1990 and 1996. Over sixty years of major tournament participation – and just four semifinals.
We can document this using our Elo ratings. Since 1950, England have, on average, been the sixth best team in the world; they’ve ranged from being the best (in the late 1960s) down to 13th in 1963, 1981-82 and 2000.
Over that time, the average gap in Elo points between England and the best team in the world has been 87. An 87-point difference means that the Elo prediction for that match (England versus the current best team) would be 38%. Hence, in a knockout tournament match, England would lose 38% of the time against the best team in the world.
Chart 2. How far England have been behind the world’s best
The expectation for this week’s semifinal, not least fuelled by bookmaker odds putting England at slight favourites, was that Tuchel’s team would win and that it would be close. Elo ratings, however, would have put the match more like 60/40 in Argentina’s favour.
Our model went further, giving Argentina a 71% chance on Wednesday. That is, were the match to be played ten times, England would win just three of them. Arguably then, by only succumbing to an injury time goal, England performed better than would be expected.
Explore: Economics Observatory Elo ratings
| # | Team | Elo rating |
|---|
Use the slider to see the world’s top 12 nations in any month since 1872; click a team in the table to trace its rank through history.
Have England improved in recent years?
England have improved over the last eight years if we take as a measure matches against teams better than them. Elo ratings produce a prediction for each match, where if the teams are evenly matched, the prediction is 0.5. So, any prediction below 0.5 means that the team is facing a stronger opponent.
Between 2012 and 2018, England didn’t face any teams ranked better than them in competitive fixtures – a fact that is indicative of a lack of progression in major tournaments. Since 2018, they have played 11 matches against teams ranked better than them. Those teams are Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain.
Of those matches, England have won four – a rate that might be expected given that they’re playing better teams (the mean Elo prediction across these matches was 0.44). Two of those wins have been in the Nations League (against Belgium and Spain), one in Euro 2024 qualification (Italy) and one in the Euro 2024 semifinal (Netherlands).
Chart 3. England’s recent climb up the Elo rankings
This does not mean that there shouldn’t be scrutiny of the manager’s decisions made over the course of the tournament and the course of Wednesday evening. But there should be recognition that these are tight matches against teams as good as or better than England – as measured by actual results.
What will happen in the final and third-place playoff?
On Saturday, England will face France in the third-place playoff, a match in which they are competing for the third time. Each time that England have made it, the media sentiment has been that the game is a waste of time. In a pressured footballing calendar, these players could already be starting their much-needed vacations and getting some rest before the new domestic season starts in just a month’s time.
That attitude has perhaps permeated England’s performance each time, losing the previous two fairly comfortably – to Italy in 1990 and Belgium in 2018. Our backward-looking approach doesn’t allow for any lack of motivation on either side, with both teams likely to be feeling some level of disappointment.
France have expected goals of 1.2 to England’s 1.1, and thus have the slight edge, with a 1-0 France win at 12% to a 1-0 England win on 11%. As such, France are 51% to win one way or another to England’s 49%.
On Sunday, the final will take place between and Argentina and Spain, the former seeking their fourth World Cup, the latter their second. This is the two strongest teams by our Elo ratings facing off, and as the pair’s Elo ratings are essentially equal, the potential outcome boils down to attacking and defensive strengths.
Both sides have defensive resilience. Spain’s defensive strength is conceding just 0.3 expected goals per match – both in this tournament within matches, and according to our Poisson modelling approach. Argentina’s defensive strength is even more impressive – just 0.2 goals conceded per match in expectation.
As such, there is a 14% chance of a goalless World Cup final. Argentina are 16% to edge it 1-0, Spain 11% for a 1-0 win, and there’s a 13% chance of a 1-1 draw. Overall, our analysis puts Spain at 42% to win, and Argentina 58%, with a 43% chance that Argentina can win in normal time, and just a 27% chance that Spain will do so.
Chart 4. Match explorer: the final and the third-place playoff
Author: James Reade
- J. James Reade
University of Reading
View Profile
