The 2026 Draw: Death, Life, and a lot of gray

The balls had barely stopped rolling at the Kennedy Center before the same two questions flooded timelines around the world.

Where’s the group of death? And who just lucked into the group of life?

With 48 teams, three co-hosts and a reworked format, this World Cup was always going to mess with how we talk about “easy” and “impossible” groups. The draw proved it. More middling groups than ever. More safety nets for heavyweights. More third-place tickets to the knockouts. None of that has stopped anyone from arguing.

So which group actually earns the death label?

Most people land on Group I.

France, Senegal, Norway, and an intercontinental playoff winner (Bolivia, Iraq, or Suriname) create the kind of four-way tension that phrase was made for. France arrive as reigning finalists with Mbappé at his peak. Senegal are one of Africa’s strongest sides—ranked inside the global top 20, with a recent knockout run on the board. Norway finally made it back, and they’ve got Haaland and Ødegaard as the headliners.

But there’s a strong second contender: Group L.

England, Croatia, Ghana, and Panama don’t have the same individual star wattage as Mbappé versus Haaland, but the overall pedigree is nasty. England sit inside the global top five. Croatia have turned deep World Cup runs into a personality trait at this point. Ghana are better than their ranking suggests, and Panama aren’t the wide-eyed debutants England smashed 6-1 in 2018.

Public verdict? Group I first. Group L is right behind.

When the numbers disagree

Here’s where it gets interesting: the analytics crowd landed somewhere else entirely.

Opta’s power rankings crown Group J as the strongest by average team rating. Argentina, Austria, Algeria, and Jordan produce the highest combined score in the tournament. On pure math, that’s your statistical group of death—even though nobody’s writing scary headlines about Austria.

Group F sneaks into the conversation, too. Netherlands, Japan, Tunisia, and whatever comes out of UEFA Path B (probably Poland or Ukraine). Spanish outlet AS points out that if Ukraine or Poland qualify, Group F’s cumulative FIFA ranking would be lower than any other section. It’s the nerdiest possible choice for group of death, even if it lacks Mbappé-versus-Haaland headline appeal.

So the split looks like this:

Eye test: Group I, with Group L as co-headliner.

Spreadsheet view: Group J by rating, Group F by rankings, with I and L still in the mix.

But here’s the thing: when eight third-place teams still advance, nobody really goes home empty-handed. ‘Group of death’ used to mean somebody dies. Now it just means the road gets harder.

The group of life debate is even messier

The term itself is still up for grabs. “Group of life.” “Group of comfort.” “Cupcake group.” Take your pick.

One name keeps surfacing: Group K.

Portugal, Colombia, Uzbekistan and a playoff winner (DR Congo, Jamaica or New Caledonia). This group tilts hard toward two favorites. Portugal and Colombia both sit in the global top ten by power rating. Uzbekistan and the playoff winner drag the bottom down. It would be genuinely shocking if both favorites fail to advance.

That’s why fans have spent the day suggesting Cristiano Ronaldo just got handed the easiest road he’ll ever see at a World Cup. Social feeds are calling it “a joke” and “rigged in Portugal’s favor”—even though Colombia’s data profile quietly screams contender.

Other nominees, depending on your rooting interest:

Group J gets called “very easy” for Argentina by rivals, even though Opta says it’s actually the strongest section in the field. Make that make sense.

Group B has the lowest average rating of any group—Switzerland clearly ahead of Qatar and a UEFA playoff winner. By the numbers, it’s the weakest section overall.

Group D, the USMNT’s draw, is already being christened a “dream” section in American coverage. Paraguay and Australia are dangerous, but there’s no France, Brazil, or Spain lurking.

So: Group K is the softest draw for a contender. Group B is probably the weakest overall. And Group D? Americans will keep calling it easy right up until kickoff.

What this actually tells us

These debates probably say more about the new format than any specific group.

Of the 32 teams that reach the knockouts, 24 will be group winners or runners-up and 8 will be third-place finishers. A strong side can still survive a brutal group with a couple of ugly draws and sneak through. Co-hosts and top seeds get protection in the draw. The easiest groups are the ones where a Pot 1 team draws only one serious rival instead of two. And the field includes more debutants and lower-ranked sides than ever, so the bottom team in several groups really does look like filler.

And so the argument goes in circles. Some people say the phrase is dead. Others swear France and Senegal are living proof it isn’t. The spreadsheet crowd just shrugs and points at Argentina.

The truth sits somewhere in between. Group I probably gives us the closest thing to the old danger zone. Group K looks like the most forgiving spot for a favorite. Everything else lives in the grey space the expanded format was always going to create.

For storytellers, that’s not a problem. The labels still matter—but the real drama will come from places we’re not looking at today.