World Cup 2026 Teams: My Rating of All 48 Squads
Loading...
Introduction
Rating 48 football teams on a 10-point scale sounds like the kind of exercise that should take an afternoon. It took me three weeks. The reason is that a number on a scale is meaningless unless you can explain what it represents, and explaining why I rate Colombia as a 7/10 while the Netherlands get a 6/10 requires more than a gut feeling — it requires a framework.
My rating system for these World Cup 2026 teams weighs four factors equally: squad quality (the current ability of the best 23 players available), tournament pedigree (historical performance at World Cups and recent major tournaments), tactical identity (whether the team has a clear, repeatable way of playing under the current manager), and squad depth (whether losing two or three key players to injury or suspension would fundamentally alter the team’s competitive level). Each factor is scored out of 2.5, combined into a total out of 10. A team scoring 8/10 or above is a genuine contender for the trophy. A team scoring 6-7/10 is dangerous but carries identifiable flaws that could be exposed in knockout football. Below 5/10, you are looking at teams that might cause an upset in a single match but lack the depth to sustain a deep tournament run.
I have grouped the 48 squads into four tiers. This is a subjective exercise — it is my ranking, based on nine years of covering international football markets. You will disagree with some of my placements, and that is the point. If we all agreed, there would be no betting market. The disagreements are where the value lives. Every team below is rated, ranked within its tier, and assessed for betting relevance. If a team does not appear in your accumulator or each-way portfolio by the end of this page, it is because I have told you not to bother.
Tier 1: The Genuine Contenders
I was at a wedding in Galway last autumn when someone at my table asked me to name the World Cup winner without thinking. I said France. Then I spent the next 20 minutes explaining why I actually think England are the better bet. The point is that this tier contains teams where the margins are so thin that gut instinct and data-driven analysis can produce different answers, and both can be defensible. These are the six squads I believe have a realistic probability of lifting the trophy on 19 July at MetLife Stadium.
Spain — 9/10. Squad quality: 2.5/2.5. Tournament pedigree: 2/2.5. Tactical identity: 2.5/2.5. Depth: 2/2.5. Spain are the most complete squad in the tournament. Lamine Yamal, at 18, is already a top-10 player in world football — his ability to create something from nothing in tight knockout matches is the kind of x-factor that wins tournaments. Pedri and Gavi rotate in midfield alongside Rodri, who controls tempo like no other defensive midfielder alive. The defence is functional rather than spectacular, which is why I dock half a point on depth — an injury to one of the starting centre-backs exposes a meaningful drop-off. Luis de la Fuente won Euro 2024 with a clear tactical identity built on possession and rapid transitions. The risk for Spain is fatigue and the additional knockout round. Eight matches is a lot for a squad that relies heavily on a core of 14-15 players. Group H (Uruguay, Saudi Arabia, Cape Verde) is tougher than it looks on paper. But 9/10 is 9/10, and Spain are the team everyone else has to beat.
England — 8.5/10. Squad quality: 2/2.5. Tournament pedigree: 2/2.5. Tactical identity: 2/2.5. Depth: 2.5/2.5. England’s depth is their greatest asset. Thomas Tuchel can rotate across every position without a significant quality drop-off — Jude Bellingham, Phil Foden, Bukayo Saka, Cole Palmer, Anthony Gordon in the attacking positions alone. Declan Rice anchors the midfield, and the centre-back options include players from the top four or five clubs in the Premier League. The tactical identity under Tuchel is still crystallising — he has had limited time with the squad — but his club record suggests a pragmatic, adaptable approach that suits knockout football. Tournament pedigree is strong: semi-final in 2018, final at Euro 2020, quarter-final in 2022, semi-final at Euro 2024. The pattern is clear. The missing piece is a trophy, and the pressure of that absence will define England’s tournament as much as the football. Group L (Croatia, Panama, Ghana) is demanding but navigable. England’s full odds assessment makes the case for them as the best value among the top tier.
France — 8.5/10. Squad quality: 2.5/2.5. Tournament pedigree: 2.5/2.5. Tactical identity: 1.5/2.5. Depth: 2/2.5. France have the highest individual ceiling in the tournament. Kylian Mbappé on his best day is unplayable — the pace, the finishing, the ability to produce a decisive moment when the match is locked at 0-0 in the 85th minute. The pedigree is impeccable: 2018 winners, 2022 finalists, a squad culture that expects to compete for the trophy. Where I dock France is tactical identity. Didier Deschamps has been criticised for years for relying on individual talent rather than a coherent system, and while that approach has produced results, it also produces chaotic performances where France look disjointed for long stretches before a moment of brilliance bails them out. In a 48-team tournament with an extra knockout round, those chaotic stretches become more dangerous because you face more opponents and the cumulative risk of conceding a decisive goal increases. Group I (Senegal, Norway, playoff qualifier) is manageable. France should be in every serious bettor’s consideration, but the 8.5 reflects a team that could win it all or exit in the quarter-finals with equal plausibility.
Argentina — 8/10. Squad quality: 2/2.5. Tournament pedigree: 2.5/2.5. Tactical identity: 2/2.5. Depth: 1.5/2.5. The defending champions face the defining question of any World Cup cycle: can you defend the title without the player who defined the previous campaign? Lionel Messi will be 39 during the tournament, and his role — if he travels at all — is likely to be as an impact substitute or a talisman presence rather than a 90-minute starter. Argentina’s depth score suffers because the drop-off from the starting eleven to the bench is steeper than for Spain, England or France. Enzo Fernandez, Julian Alvarez and Emiliano Martinez form a strong spine, but the wide positions and full-back areas lack the embarrassment of riches that other Tier 1 teams enjoy. Lionel Scaloni has built a squad culture that transcends any individual — the 2022 triumph was a collective effort as much as a Messi highlight reel — and that cultural resilience is worth a full point on pedigree. Group J (Austria, Algeria, Jordan) is comfortable. Argentina will be competitive, but 8/10 reflects the reality that they are slightly less formidable than in Qatar.
Brazil — 8/10. Squad quality: 2/2.5. Tournament pedigree: 2/2.5. Tactical identity: 2/2.5. Depth: 2/2.5. Carlo Ancelotti’s Brazil are the most intriguing project in international football. The most decorated club manager of his generation took charge of a national team that had been underperforming for a decade, and he has imposed a structure and tactical discipline that previous managers could not. Vinicius Junior is the attacking centrepiece, Rodrygo provides creativity, and the midfield rebuild around Bruno Guimaraes is progressing. The depth is genuine — Brazil can field two competitive elevens — but the concern is cohesion. Ancelotti has had limited time to work with the full squad, and international football’s compressed schedule means the tactical identity is still being refined. Group C (Morocco, Scotland, Haiti) is the toughest group for any Tier 1 team, and a slow start against Morocco could set a difficult tone. At 8/10, Brazil are a team I respect but approach with caution in the outright market.
Germany — 8/10. Squad quality: 2/2.5. Tournament pedigree: 2/2.5. Tactical identity: 2/2.5. Depth: 1.5/2.5. Julian Nagelsmann has rebuilt Germany with a clear tactical identity: high pressing, rapid transitions, and an attacking axis of Florian Wirtz and Jamal Musiala that is arguably the most exciting partnership in European football. The Euro 2024 quarter-final exit — a narrow defeat to Spain — showed both the progress and the limitations. Germany can compete with anyone for 90 minutes, but the depth behind the starting eleven is thinner than for Spain or England. An injury to Wirtz or Musiala would fundamentally alter the team’s attacking output. Group E (Ecuador, Ivory Coast, Curaçao) is the softest draw of any Tier 1 team, and the bracket pathway is favourable. At 8/10, Germany are my best value pick in this tier — the gap between their rating and their odds is the widest of any contender.
Tier 2: Dangerous but Flawed
These are the teams that will ruin someone’s accumulator. Every single one of them is capable of beating a Tier 1 side on a given night — and equally capable of losing to a Tier 3 team the following week. The inconsistency is the flaw, and it is why none of them rate above 7/10. But if you are looking for each-way value or individual match upsets to bet on, this tier is your hunting ground.
Croatia — 7/10. Two World Cup finals in three editions is an astonishing achievement for a nation of four million people. The Modrić generation is not finished yet — Luka is 40 but still dictating matches — and the next wave of talent (Gvardiol, Majer, Baturina) blends seamlessly with the veterans. The flaw is goalscoring. Croatia create chances through midfield dominance but lack a clinical number nine. In knockout football, that deficiency costs you in matches decided by a single moment. Group L (England, Panama, Ghana) is tough, but Croatia should qualify. Each-way at 33/1 remains my recommendation.
Portugal — 7/10. The post-Ronaldo era has left Portugal searching for an identity. Rafael Leao is electric but inconsistent. Bernardo Silva is brilliant but not a tournament talisman. Bruno Fernandes divides opinion even among Portuguese supporters. The squad has individual quality in abundance — that is not the issue. The issue is whether Roberto Martinez can organise that quality into a coherent tournament team. The Copa America-winning version of Colombia in Group K is a genuine threat to top the group ahead of them. At 14/1, I rate Portugal as fairly priced — no edge, no trap.
Netherlands — 6/10. I am lower on the Dutch than most analysts, and I will explain why. Virgil van Dijk at 34 is approaching the end of his peak defensive years. Memphis Depay, once the attacking fulcrum, has been rotated at club level. The next generation — Xavi Simons, Ryan Gravenberch — is talented but untested at a World Cup. Japan in Group F are a genuine threat to the group title. The Netherlands have underperformed at every recent tournament relative to expectation, and I see no reason to assume 2026 will be different. At 20/1, the market is pricing in a quarter-final run that I assign only a 20-25% probability. Pass.
Colombia — 7/10. The 2024 Copa America finalists are a squad that plays with genuine joy. Luis Diaz is a nightmare for full-backs, Jhon Arias provides width and goals from the right, and the midfield workrate is relentless. Nestor Lorenzo has built a team with a clear identity: press high, transition fast, and use set-pieces as a primary weapon. Group K (Portugal, Uzbekistan, playoff qualifier) gives them a legitimate shot at topping their group. The flaw is defensive fragility — Colombia concede chances against any team that can play through their press. At 50/1, they are underpriced for what they are. I back them each-way.
Belgium — 6/10. The golden generation is over. Saying it plainly feels harsh to a Belgian squad that produced Kevin De Bruyne, Eden Hazard, Romelu Lukaku and Thibaut Courtois, but the evidence is clear. Belgium’s best performance at a major tournament was third place in 2018, and they have regressed at every tournament since. The current squad has talent — Doku, Onana, Openda — but lacks the cohesion and experience of the previous iteration. Group G (Iran, Egypt, New Zealand) is manageable. The round of 16 or quarter-finals is the ceiling. At 25/1, you are paying for a name that no longer matches the product.
Uruguay — 7/10. Uruguay are perpetually underestimated and perpetually competitive. Darwin Nunez is a chaotic force who can score goals that no other striker on the planet would attempt. Federico Valverde is one of the best box-to-box midfielders in the world. Ronald Araujo anchors the defence. Marcelo Bielsa’s influence has added tactical flexibility to a squad that was already well-drilled. Group H (Spain, Saudi Arabia, Cape Verde) is demanding, but Uruguay should qualify. Their each-way odds at 40/1 represent real value, and I have included them in my tournament portfolio.
United States — 6/10. The hosts have a squad that is competent at every position and exceptional at none. Christian Pulisic is the talisman, and his form at club level over the past two seasons has been strong. Weston McKennie provides midfield industry, and the defence has settled. The home advantage is genuine — crowd support, no travel, familiar climate — but it does not close the gap to the Tier 1 teams. My concern is that the US lack a Plan B. When their pressing game does not work, they do not have the individual quality to unlock organised defences. Group D (Australia, Paraguay, European playoff qualifier) is beatable. At 20/1, the market overcharges for the host-nation premium.
Morocco — 7/10. Semi-finalists in 2022, and they deserved it. Achraf Hakimi and Hakim Ziyech are genuine world-class players, the defensive organisation under Walid Regragui is among the best in the tournament, and the squad has the kind of collective belief that comes from a breakthrough tournament run. Group C (Brazil, Scotland, Haiti) is brutal — the toughest group for any Tier 2 team — but Morocco have the quality to qualify. At 40/1, they offer each-way value for a team that has already proven they can reach the semi-finals of a World Cup. I rate them as one of the most likely dark-horse semi-finalists.
Tier 3: Dark Horses and Dreamers
A friend of mine who runs a tipping service told me last month that dark horses are the most overrated concept in football betting. He is wrong. The issue is not with the concept — it is with how punters apply it. A dark horse is not a bad team you bet on because the odds are long. A dark horse is a good team that the market undervalues because of name recognition bias. Every team in this tier has a realistic path to the round of 16 or beyond. None of them will win the tournament. The question is whether their odds for a deep run are generous enough to justify your stake.
Japan — 5/10. Japan beat Germany and Spain in the 2022 group stage. That is not a typo and not a fluke. Hajime Moriyasu’s side play with a tactical precision and pressing intensity that European teams struggle to cope with. Takefusa Kubo and Kaoru Mitoma provide flair in wide positions, and the midfield is disciplined and technically accomplished. Group F (Netherlands, Tunisia, European playoff qualifier) is a group they can win. I have Japan as my pick to top that group at 7/2, and their round-of-16 ceiling could extend to the quarter-finals if the bracket falls kindly. At 80/1 outright, the each-way is speculative but not absurd.
Senegal — 5/10. Africa Cup of Nations winners in 2022, with a squad that blends European league experience and athletic power. The loss of Sadio Mane from his peak years is felt, but the squad has evolved around Ismaila Sarr, Krepin Diatta, and a defensive core that does not panic under pressure. Group I (France, Norway, playoff qualifier) requires them to beat Norway for second place, which I rate as a 55-60% proposition. Senegal reaching the round of 16 is plausible. A quarter-final appearance is the ceiling. At 80/1, the each-way carries value for a patient bettor.
Ecuador — 5/10. Moises Caicedo is a player who elevates the entire squad around him. His ability to break up play, transition the ball quickly, and dictate the pace of a match from defensive midfield is world-class. The rest of the squad is functional — Enner Valencia provides goals, Pervis Estupinan offers width from left-back, and the defensive shape is well-drilled. Group E (Germany, Ivory Coast, Curaçao) should produce a second-place finish. The round of 32 is a near-certainty; the round of 16 is the real target. At 100/1, a small each-way stake is justifiable.
Austria — 4/10. Ralf Rangnick has turned Austria into one of the most tactically interesting teams in European football. The aggressive pressing system, the vertical passing in transition, and the collective intensity are all hallmarks of a well-coached side. David Alaba’s absence through injury remains a concern, but the squad has adapted. Group J (Argentina, Algeria, Jordan) is a challenge — Argentina are too strong — but second place is achievable. At 150/1, the outright is fantasy, but the “Austria to qualify from Group J” market at around evens is where the value sits.
Mexico — 4/10. Co-hosts with a passionate fanbase and a squad that has been through too many World Cup disappointments to count. The “quinto partido” curse — Mexico’s inability to reach the quarter-finals — has defined their tournament history for four decades. The current squad has pace in wide areas and experienced players who know the domestic stadiums intimately. Group A (South Korea, South Africa, European playoff qualifier) is beatable. A round-of-16 exit remains the most probable outcome, which is exactly what the market expects. No betting value here.
Canada — 4/10. Alphonso Davies is a generational talent, and Jonathan David provides the goalscoring that most CONCACAF teams lack. Canada’s first World Cup in 2022 was a three-match education — competitive but outclassed. The four-year gap has allowed the squad to develop, and home advantage in Group B (Switzerland, Qatar, European playoff qualifier) is significant. A round-of-16 appearance would be a historic achievement. At 150/1 outright, the each-way has a whiff of value if you believe the home crowd can carry them to a semi-final shock — but that is a very big if.
Ivory Coast — 4/10. AFCON 2024 winners on home soil, with a squad built around pace, power, and collective spirit. Sebastien Haller’s recovery from cancer and subsequent return to competitive football is one of the great stories in the sport. Group E (Germany, Ecuador, Curaçao) requires them to beat Ecuador for second place, which is a genuine 50/50 contest. At 200/1 outright, there is no betting value. The “Ivory Coast to qualify” market is where to look, priced around 6/4.
Scotland — 4/10. I will cover Scotland in detail on their dedicated page, but the short version is this: they are well-organised, limited in attacking quality, and drawn into the worst possible group (Brazil, Morocco, Haiti). Qualifying from Group C would be a remarkable achievement. The each-way outright at 250/1 is a sentimental bet, not a value bet. If you are an Irish punter with Celtic family ties, go for it — but know that your money is buying hope rather than probability.
Tier 4: Along for the Ride
There is no shame in being here. Every team in this tier qualified on merit for the biggest sporting event in the world. They will represent their nations in front of global audiences, and some of them will produce individual moments that nobody in the stadium will ever forget. But from a betting perspective, these are teams where the outright and each-way markets offer nothing. Their value, if it exists, lives entirely in individual match bets — a specific upset, a specific scoreline, a specific half-time draw — rather than in any tournament-long position.
Iran — 3/10. Iran are organised, physical, and genuinely difficult to break down. They gave England a scare at the 2022 World Cup before conceding late. Carlos Queiroz (or whoever manages them by June) will set up to frustrate, and Group G (Belgium, Egypt, New Zealand) is a group where frustration could be enough for second or third. The match against Egypt is the key — Iran winning that match at around 6/4 is a specific single-match bet I would consider. Beyond the group stage, there is nothing to bet on.
South Korea — 3/10. Son Heung-min may be playing his final World Cup, and his individual quality can produce moments of magic. But the squad around him has not evolved sufficiently since 2022, and Group A (Mexico, South Africa, European playoff qualifier) is a group where finishing third and hoping for the best third-placed qualification is the realistic ceiling. No betting value beyond individual match props.
Norway — 3/10. Erling Haaland at a World Cup is appointment viewing, and that alone justifies their inclusion in anyone’s fixture planning. But Norway’s squad beyond Haaland and Martin Odegaard is limited by international standards, and Group I (France, Senegal, playoff qualifier) is tough. Third place and qualification through the best third-placed route is the most likely outcome. Haaland as an anytime goalscorer in individual group matches at around 4/5 per game is the only market I would touch.
Egypt — 3/10. Mohamed Salah at a World Cup is another must-watch individual. Egypt’s 2018 campaign — Salah injured, three defeats, no goals from open play — was a disaster, and the squad has not improved dramatically since. Group G (Belgium, Iran, New Zealand) is one where Egypt should qualify for the round of 32 — third place behind Belgium and Iran is achievable. No outright or each-way value. Salah goalscorer props in individual matches are the angle.
Australia — 3/10. The Socceroos reached the round of 16 in 2022 — their best-ever World Cup result — and the current squad benefits from a generation of players competing in European leagues. Group D (United States, Paraguay, European playoff qualifier) is a group where second or third is realistic. At 200/1, there is no outright value. “Australia to qualify from Group D” at around 6/4 is fair.
Paraguay, Panama, Ghana, Tunisia, Algeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia — 2/10 each. These teams represent the solid middle of international football — competitive enough to qualify, limited enough that a deep knockout run is improbable. Paraguay’s South American grit, Panama’s 2018 World Cup experience, Ghana’s pace in transition, Tunisia’s North African discipline, Algeria’s physical intensity, Qatar’s home-tournament learning, and Saudi Arabia’s 2022 upset potential all provide moments of individual match excitement. None of them offer pre-tournament betting value in any market. If you want to bet on these teams, do it match by match, in-play, based on what you see on the pitch.
Jordan, Cape Verde, Uzbekistan, Haiti, New Zealand, Curaçao, South Africa — 1/10 each. These are the debutants, the minnows, and the teams for whom participation is the achievement. Jordan are at their first World Cup since — well, their first World Cup ever. Cape Verde, population 600,000, are representing an entire archipelago. Curaçao, population 156,000, are the smallest nation by population to qualify for a World Cup. Uzbekistan are Central Asia’s first qualifier since, arguably, the Soviet era. Haiti have not been at a World Cup since 1974. Each of these teams carries a story that transcends betting. From a market perspective, they offer nothing except potential individual match upsets that you cannot price in advance. Enjoy them for what they are — football’s version of the Olympics, where showing up matters.
European playoff qualifiers (six spots). At the time of writing, six World Cup spots remain to be decided through European and intercontinental playoffs. The four European playoff paths could produce teams like Czechia, Italy (eliminated from the European qualifying group stage), Turkey, Wales, or Sweden — any of whom would meaningfully alter the composition of their group. The two intercontinental playoff spots could see Congo, Jamaica, New Caledonia, Bolivia, Iraq or Suriname complete the 48-team field. Until those playoffs are resolved, any group containing a playoff qualifier carries additional uncertainty that the pre-tournament market cannot fully price.
The Irish Angle: Who Should We Get Behind?
Ireland are not at this World Cup. That hurts to write, and it hurts more to know that the Republic had a pathway to the 48-team field and still could not find a way through. The qualifying campaign under Heimir Hallgrimsson delivered moments of hope — the home draw against Greece, the competitive showing in France — but ultimately the consistency was not there, and Ireland’s absence from the biggest World Cup in history is a bitter pill for every football fan on this island. So the question becomes: as neutral Irish punters watching from pubs, living rooms and late-night streams, who do we support?
The sentimental answer is Scotland. The Celtic connection runs deep — shared culture, shared history, and a shared experience of watching English football dominate the conversation while we scrap for qualification crumbs. Scotland qualified for this World Cup through a nervy playoff victory that carried the kind of drama Irish fans recognise all too well. They are in Group C with Brazil, Morocco and Haiti, which means every match will be a battle, and the Scottish approach — organised, aggressive, set-piece-dependent — is the kind of football that Irish supporters instinctively understand and appreciate. If Scotland get out of that group, the celebrations in Glasgow will be felt in Dublin. I rate them at 4/10 for the tournament, but my heart rates them higher.
The practical answer, for those who want a team to follow through to the later rounds, is England. I know. I can hear the collective groan from Cork to Donegal. But hear me out. The Premier League is the default domestic football for the vast majority of Irish fans. We watch these players every weekend — Saka at Arsenal, Foden at City, Bellingham at Real Madrid, Palmer at Chelsea. The familiarity creates a connection that transcends the historical rivalry, especially among younger Irish supporters who grew up watching Declan Rice (born in London to Irish parents, briefly capped for Ireland before switching to England) anchor the midfield. The England squad in 2026 is the most watchable and the most accessible for Irish viewers, simply because we already know every player’s strengths and weaknesses from 38 weekends of Premier League coverage. From a betting perspective, England at 11/2 are my top value pick among the favourites, which means following them through the tournament doubles as a rooting interest and an investment thesis.
The romantic answer is Brazil. Every Irish supporter over 40 has a memory of Brazilian football that transcends any club allegiance — Romario in 1994, Ronaldo in 2002, the Joga Bonito era that made us fall in love with the game in the first place. Ancelotti’s Brazil are not the samba stylists of those golden eras, but they carry the same weight of expectation and the same capacity to produce moments of individual brilliance that make you leap from your chair at 1am. For the late-night Irish viewer, staying up for a Brazil knockout match in a West Coast stadium is a pilgrimage, not a chore.
The contrarian answer is Croatia. A small European nation — four million people, roughly the same as Ireland — that has produced two World Cup finalists in the space of five years. If Ireland cannot be at this tournament, there is a vicarious satisfaction in watching another small nation punch above its weight on the biggest stage. Luka Modrić’s final World Cup, the midfield artistry, the collective spirit of a team that refuses to accept its limitations — that is a narrative that resonates with Irish football culture in a way that supporting a traditional superpower never quite captures.
My advice: pick one team to follow, one team to bet on, and accept that they might not be the same team. Follow Scotland for the emotion. Bet on England for the return. And set an alarm for the Brazil knockout matches, because some things are worth losing sleep over.
Forty-Eight Teams, One Framework
Rating all 48 World Cup 2026 teams on a single scale is an exercise in controlled subjectivity. The framework — squad quality, pedigree, tactical identity, depth — gives the ratings structure. The numbers give them precision. But behind every rating is a judgment call, and judgment calls are where reasonable people disagree. If you think I have Germany too high or Portugal too low or Morocco underrated, that disagreement is not a problem — it is the raw material of a betting market. Your conviction against my rating is what creates the price.
The actionable takeaway from this page is tiers, not individual ratings. Tier 1 teams (Spain, England, France, Argentina, Brazil, Germany) are the only realistic outright selections. Tier 2 teams (Croatia, Portugal, Netherlands, Colombia, Belgium, Uruguay, USA, Morocco) are where each-way value and accumulator legs live. Tier 3 teams (Japan, Senegal, Ecuador, Austria, Mexico, Canada, Ivory Coast, Scotland) provide individual match upsets and specific market angles. Tier 4 teams are for watching, not for betting. If your World Cup portfolio contains teams from all four tiers, you have spread too thin. Concentrate on Tier 1 for outrights, Tier 2 for each-way, and Tier 3 for match-specific plays. Leave Tier 4 to the broadcasters and the romantics.
The odds verdict on this site translates these ratings into specific betting positions. This page is the foundation — the assessment of who these teams actually are, stripped of market noise and public sentiment. Everything else builds from here. The tournament kicks off on 11 June. By then, squad announcements will have confirmed or undermined several of my ratings. When they do, I will update this page. Until then, these are my 48 verdicts, and I stand behind every one of them.