Credits
| Role | Person |
|---|---|
| Research topics defined by | Aydın Tiryaki |
| Research conducted by | Claude (Sonnet 4.6, Anthropic) |
| Commentary by | Aydın Tiryaki & Claude |
| Date | June 22, 2026 |
This article examines the largest World Cup in history — featuring a 48-team format for the first time — from eight distinct statistical angles. Each section is drawn from FIFA’s official squad lists, Transfermarkt, and verified news sources. Where data reliability varies, the source and level of verification are stated explicitly within each section.
Section 1 — Domestic League or Abroad? A Squad-by-Squad Analysis of All 48 Nations
This is the most original and labour-intensive piece of work in this series. FIFA’s official squad list includes each player’s club along with that club’s affiliated federation code — allowing us to determine, directly and with precision, which players compete in their own country’s league and which play abroad. The result paints a striking picture of the global football economy: some nations build their squads almost entirely from their domestic league, while others draw every single player from Europe’s top divisions.
Source: FIFA Official 2026 World Cup Squad List (June 21, 2026, Version 1). Each player’s last club before the tournament is used as the reference point.
| Country | Domestic League | Abroad |
|---|---|---|
| Algeria | 3 | 23 |
| Argentina | 2 | 24 |
| Australia | 5 | 21 |
| Austria | 3 | 23 |
| Belgium | 3 | 23 |
| Bosnia-Herzegovina | 1 | 25 |
| Brazil | 7 | 19 |
| Canada | 2 | 24 |
| Cape Verde | 0 | 26 |
| Colombia | 1 | 25 |
| Croatia | 2 | 24 |
| Curaçao | 0 | 26 |
| Czechia | 17 | 9 |
| DR Congo | 0 | 26 |
| Ecuador | 2 | 24 |
| Egypt | 17 | 9 |
| England | 21 | 5 |
| France | 8 | 18 |
| Germany | 19 | 7 |
| Ghana | 1 | 25 |
| Haiti | 1 | 25 |
| Iran | 17 | 9 |
| Iraq | 10 | 16 |
| Ivory Coast | 0 | 26 |
| Japan | 3 | 23 |
| Jordan | 12 | 14 |
| Mexico | 12 | 14 |
| Morocco | 2 | 24 |
| Netherlands | 2 | 24 |
| New Zealand | 9 | 17 |
| Norway | 4 | 22 |
| Panama | 2 | 24 |
| Paraguay | 3 | 23 |
| Portugal | 5 | 21 |
| Qatar | 25 | 1 |
| Saudi Arabia | 25 | 1 |
| Scotland | 8 | 18 |
| Senegal | 0 | 26 |
| South Africa | 19 | 7 |
| South Korea | 7 | 19 |
| Sweden | 3 | 23 |
| Switzerland | 2 | 24 |
| Tunisia | 6 | 20 |
| Turkey | 15 | 11 |
| United States | 7 | 19 |
| Uruguay | 0 | 26 |
| Uzbekistan | 16 | 10 |
| Spain | 17 | 9 |
The two extremes: Qatar and Saudi Arabia have 25 of their 26 players at domestic clubs — virtually no export. At the opposite end, Curaçao, DR Congo, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Uruguay, and Cape Verde have not a single player in their own domestic league; all six squads are built entirely from diaspora footballers. England (21/26) and Germany and South Africa (19/26 each) stand out as the major footballing nations most reliant on their own domestic leagues.
Section 2 — Turkish Süper Lig Players at the World Cup
The representation of Turkey’s Süper Lig at the 2026 World Cup is tangible evidence of the league’s growing international profile in recent years. Players in the Süper Lig are not only representing the Turkish national team — they are flying the colours of national teams from across the globe.
Source: Transfermarkt (official count: 43), Odatv (broader count including TFF First League: 45)
- According to Transfermarkt: A total of 43 players currently registered in the Süper Lig are competing at the tournament, representing 20 different national teams.
- According to Odatv (including TFF First League): The broader count across all Turkish football leagues reaches 45 players at the tournament.
World Cup players by Süper Lig club:
Source: Transfermarkt, Mackolik
| Club | Players |
|---|---|
| Galatasaray | 11 |
| Fenerbahçe | 9–10 |
| Başakşehir | 5–6 |
| Beşiktaş | 4–5 |
| Çaykur Rizespor | 3–4 |
| Kasımpaşa | 2–4 |
| Trabzonspor | 2 |
| Samsunspor, Konyaspor, Kayserispor, Alanyaspor, Gaziantep FK | 1 each |
Süper Lig players in the Turkey national squad: 14 according to Mackolik, 15 according to a direct count from FIFA’s official squad list (the minor discrepancy likely reflects the date of squad submission).
Leading national teams drawing from the Süper Lig (Source: Transfermarkt): Turkey (15 players, the largest group), Ivory Coast (5), followed by Germany, Netherlands, Brazil, France, Colombia, South Korea, Mexico, and Portugal.
Section 3 — League Rankings: Where Does the Süper Lig Stand Globally?
One level above club data lies the question of which national leagues have sent the most players to this World Cup. This table clarifies the position of Europe’s Big Five — and of the Türkiye Süper Lig — on the global stage.
Source: Transfermarkt
| Rank | League | Players |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | England – Premier League | 162 |
| 2 | Germany – Bundesliga | 99 |
| 3 | Spain – LaLiga | 80 |
| 4 | France – Ligue 1 | 79 |
| 5 | Italy – Serie A | 66 |
| 8 | Türkiye – Süper Lig | 43 |
Europe’s Big Five leagues combined to send 487 players to the tournament (Source: Transfermarkt). The Süper Lig ranks eighth in the world, ahead of the English Championship, Brazil’s Serie A, the Dutch Eredivisie, the Belgian Pro League, the Portuguese Primeira Liga, and Liga MX. The 43 Süper Lig players carry a combined market value of €399.8 million, an average of €9.3 million per player (Source: Transfermarkt).
Section 4 — Club Rankings: The Top 10 Clubs by Players Sent
Beneath the league data lies the individual club picture. This ranking reveals which clubs are the true “player factories” of world football ahead of this tournament.
Source: Transfermarkt (original report: Bayern 17, Barcelona 14), vietnam.vn/FIFA data (updated figures: Bayern 18, Barcelona 15; also the 10-player tier: Fenerbahçe, AC Milan, PSV Eindhoven, Real Madrid, Slavia Prague), Mackolik (Galatasaray and Real Madrid confirmed) — minor 1-player discrepancies between sources exist
| Rank | Club | Players |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Manchester City | 19 |
| 2 | Bayern Munich | 17–18 |
| 3 | Arsenal | 16 |
| 3 | Paris Saint-Germain | 16 |
| 5 | Barcelona | 14–15 |
| 6 | Atlético Madrid | 12 |
| 6 | Manchester United | 12 |
| 6 | Crystal Palace | 12 |
| 6 | Al-Hilal | 12 |
| 10 | Borussia Dortmund | 11 |
| 10 | Galatasaray | 11 |
| 10 | Liverpool | 11 |
| 13 | Fenerbahçe, AC Milan, PSV Eindhoven, Real Madrid, Slavia Prague | 10 each |
Manchester City’s 19-player tally breaks the record held by Barcelona at the 2022 World Cup (17 players). Real Madrid, meanwhile, has suffered a remarkable fall: after sending 15 players to Qatar 2022 — second on the list — the club has been reduced to just 10 this time around. For the first time in history, not a single Real Madrid player has been named in the Spain national squad (Source: Transfermarkt, Mackolik).
Section 5 — The Italy Paradox: A Powerful League Without a Team
This section examines the most striking illustration of the gap between league strength and national team performance.
Source: beIN Sports, Hürriyet Spor Arena, Transfermarkt
Italy lost to Bosnia-Herzegovina on penalties (4–1) in the UEFA play-off final and failed to qualify for the 2026 World Cup — missing the tournament for the third consecutive time, following 2018 and 2022. The four-time world champions are absent from the pitch.
Yet Italy’s Serie A ranks fifth in the world with 66 players at the tournament — despite the host nation’s own side being absent, its league continues to produce players representing other countries at the highest level. This paradox offers a compelling illustration of how a country’s football infrastructure and its national team’s tournament fortunes can diverge as entirely independent variables.
Section 6 — All 48 Teams in the FIFA World Ranking
The FIFA/Coca-Cola Men’s World Ranking position of each of the 48 qualified nations, as of June 11, 2026.
Source: FIFA/Coca-Cola Men’s World Ranking, June 11, 2026
| FIFA Rank | Team | Group | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Argentina | J | 1877.27 |
| 2 | Spain | H | 1874.71 |
| 3 | France | I | 1870.70 |
| 4 | England | L | 1828.02 |
| 5 | Portugal | K | 1767.85 |
| 6 | Brazil | C | 1765.86 |
| 7 | Morocco | C | 1755.10 |
| 8 | Netherlands | F | 1753.57 |
| 9 | Belgium | G | 1742.24 |
| 10 | Germany | E | 1735.77 |
| 11 | Croatia | L | 1714.87 |
| 13 | Colombia | K | 1698.35 |
| 14 | Mexico | A | 1687.48 |
| 15 | Senegal | I | 1684.07 |
| 16 | Uruguay | H | 1673.07 |
| 17 | USA | D | 1671.23 |
| 18 | Japan | F | 1661.58 |
| 19 | Switzerland | B | 1650.06 |
| 20 | Iran | G | 1619.58 |
| 22 | Turkey | D | 1605.73 |
| 23 | Ecuador | E | 1598.52 |
| 24 | Austria | J | 1597.40 |
| 25 | South Korea | A | 1591.63 |
| 27 | Australia | D | 1579.34 |
| 28 | Algeria | J | 1571.03 |
| 29 | Egypt | G | 1562.37 |
| 30 | Canada | B | 1559.48 |
| 31 | Norway | I | 1557.44 |
| 33 | Ivory Coast | E | 1540.87 |
| 34 | Panama | L | 1539.16 |
| 38 | Sweden | F | 1509.79 |
| 40 | Czechia | A | 1505.74 |
| 41 | Paraguay | D | 1505.35 |
| 42 | Scotland | C | 1503.34 |
| 45 | Tunisia | F | 1476.41 |
| 46 | DR Congo | K | 1474.43 |
| 50 | Uzbekistan | K | 1458.73 |
| 56 | Qatar | B | 1450.31 |
| 57 | Iraq | I | 1446.28 |
| 60 | South Africa | A | 1428.38 |
| 61 | Saudi Arabia | H | 1423.88 |
| 63 | Jordan | J | 1387.74 |
| 64 | Bosnia-Herzegovina | B | 1387.22 |
| 67 | Cape Verde | H | 1371.11 |
| 73 | Ghana | L | 1346.88 |
| 82 | Curaçao | E | 1294.77 |
| 83 | Haiti | C | 1293.10 |
| 85 | New Zealand | G | 1275.58 |
The lowest-ranked participant is New Zealand (85th); the highest-ranked non-qualifier is Italy (12th) — a figure that gives the paradox of Section 5 its numerical dimension.
Section 7 — The Ranking Paradox: 12 Teams Outside the Top 48
FIFA’s expanded 48-team format does not align directly with the world ranking. Because qualification slots are allocated by confederation rather than individual merit, teams ranked far lower than 48th in the world can still secure a place at the tournament.
Source: Derived from the FIFA ranking table in Section 6
Of the 48 qualified teams, 36 sit within the top 48 of the FIFA ranking, while 12 come from outside it (ranked 49th or lower). This gives a 75% alignment rate.
The 12 teams ranked outside the top 48:
| FIFA Rank | Country |
|---|---|
| 50 | Uzbekistan |
| 56 | Qatar |
| 57 | Iraq |
| 60 | South Africa |
| 61 | Saudi Arabia |
| 63 | Jordan |
| 64 | Bosnia-Herzegovina |
| 67 | Cape Verde |
| 73 | Ghana |
| 82 | Curaçao |
| 83 | Haiti |
| 85 | New Zealand |
The gap is largely confederation-driven. In relatively less competitive zones such as AFC (Uzbekistan, Qatar, Iraq, Jordan), CAF (South Africa, Ghana, Cape Verde), CONCACAF (Haiti, Curaçao), and OFC (New Zealand), teams well outside the global top 48 can still win their regional qualification. When this is read alongside the absence of nations like Venezuela (ranked 49th, 1469.18 pts), Mali (ranked 55th, 1455.59 pts), and Burkina Faso (ranked 62nd, 1406.99 pts) — all stronger in the ranking than several qualified sides — the structural paradox of the current format is exposed from both directions (Source: FIFA/Coca-Cola Men’s World Ranking, June 11, 2026 — also referenced in the author’s earlier article on World Cup inclusivity).
Section 8 — Where Were They Born? The Diaspora Effect
The data in this section carries a lower level of verifiability than the preceding sections. FIFA’s official squad list does not include birthplace information, so the figures here are drawn from secondary — though cross-verified — sources.
Source: TUDN/Jaime F. Macías count (Telemundo), Front Office Sports, GZERO Media, Bolavip
Of the 1,248 players at the 2026 World Cup, 289 (~23%) are representing a national team other than the country of their birth — compared to under 9% at the 2006 World Cup (Source: TUDN/Jaime F. Macías count, as reported by RealGM Wiretap and Front Office Sports). FIFA’s 2021 eligibility rule change — allowing players who have appeared in fewer than three senior matches and have not featured in a major tournament to switch national allegiance — has accelerated this trend.
Squads with 100% domestically born players (26/26) — 8 countries (Source: GZERO Media, viz.luarai.com): Brazil, Colombia, Panama, Austria, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Czechia, South Africa
Squads with the highest proportion of foreign-born players:
| Country | Foreign-Born | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Curaçao | 25/26 (24 born in Netherlands) | viz.luarai.com, Bolavip |
| Morocco | 19/26 (12 raised in France/Spain) | Front Office Sports |
| Bosnia-Herzegovina | 17/26 (1990s war diaspora — Germany, Austria, Sweden) | viz.luarai.com |
| Qatar | 13/26 | Bolavip |
| USA | 6/26 | Newsweek |
France — the world’s biggest “football exporter”: 13 France-born players in Algeria’s squad, 12 in Haiti’s, 11 in DR Congo’s, 10 in Senegal’s — a total of 98 France-born players are representing other nations at this tournament (Source: viz.luarai.com; the figure of 98 is also cited by Sözcü Gazetesi, referencing The Athletic data).
This data is conceptually distinct from the “domestic or abroad?” question in Section 1. A player can represent a national team other than the country of their birth, while still being based at a club in their adopted country’s league — or vice versa. Read together, the two datasets reveal that modern national teams are no longer built on geography or citizenship alone, but on a complex, multi-layered network of global mobility.
This article is a compilation of eight separate data studies. Section 1 and Section 6 carry the highest level of reliability, being derived directly from official FIFA sources. Section 8 is based on secondary sources and is marked as such throughout.
| aydintiryaki.org | YouTube | Aydın Tiryaki’nin Yazıları ve Videoları │Articles and Videos by Aydın Tiryaki | Bilgi Merkezi│Knowledge Hub | ░ Virgülüne Dokunmadan │ Verbatim ░ | ░ 2026 Dünya Kupası: Sayılarla Bir Turnuva 2026 │FIFA World Cup: A Tournament in Numbers ░ 22.06.2026
Aydın Tiryaki 