The 2026 World Cup is giving the expanded 48-team format an early answer to its skeptics: smaller football nations are producing results that matter. Cabo Verde has held Spain and Uruguay, Curaçao has shut out Ecuador, and DR Congo has claimed its first point at a World Cup. Japan, meanwhile, is making a different kind of underdog case—as a potential contender.
These results don’t settle the debate over whether a larger tournament produces more meaningful competition. A draw can reflect disciplined defending, a favorable match-up or a moment of opportunity; one result doesn’t erase the gap in resources and experience between national teams. But the early evidence is harder to dismiss as mere participation. Several teams have made established opponents work for their points, and that changes the story of the expanded format.
More places, more chances to make an impression
Qualification can give a national team a platform to build on. Canada’s progress offers one example. The co-hosts finished bottom of their group in 2022, their second appearance after debuting in 1986, and had never won a World Cup match. Four years later, they’ve reached the knockout stage. Fans can follow the Canucks through the country’s World Cup betting sites.
That arc matters because a first appearance can create experience that’s difficult to replicate in qualifying alone: players encounter the pace and pressure of the tournament, while supporters and the wider football system get a clearer sense of what competing at this level demands. Canada’s progress doesn’t establish a pattern for every new entrant, and one tournament can’t guarantee continued improvement. Still, it gives teams with less World Cup history a concrete example of how time on the biggest stage can become part of a longer development story.
Canada’s path gives this tournament’s emerging teams a useful reference point as they look toward 2030. The competition is still underway, but several have already shown that a debut or a smaller footballing profile doesn’t preclude a serious challenge.
That distinction is important. Expanding the field creates an opportunity to qualify; it doesn’t automatically make a team competitive once the matches begin. The results from Cabo Verde, Curaçao and DR Congo carry weight because they’ve turned that opportunity into performances against teams with greater tournament pedigree. This is more significant than it looks, though the knockout rounds will provide a tougher measure than a handful of group-stage results.
Cabo Verde and Curaçao make defensive stands
Cabo Verde’s Blue Sharks have delivered two of the tournament’s standout performances. They opened by holding Spain, the reigning European champions and tournament favourites, to a goalless draw. Goalkeeper Vozinha, 40, made seven saves to preserve the result.
A shutout against a highly rated side requires more than a goalkeeper having a good afternoon. It depends on the whole team keeping its shape, limiting the quality of chances and staying composed when the opponent controls possession. The seven saves give a vivid measure of Vozinha’s contribution, but the result also points to collective discipline. Spain’s standing made the draw notable; Cabo Verde’s organization made it possible.
The team followed with a 2-2 draw against Uruguay, matching the South Americans and at times outplaying them. The result put Cabo Verde close to a place in the knockout stage. The country’s run has brought fresh attention to the Blue Sharks, as Africa Is a Country has reported.
Two different opponents and two draws suggest a team capable of adjusting its approach rather than relying on one isolated upset. That said, the tournament’s final tables will determine whether the performances translate into progression. For now, Cabo Verde has done something valuable in its own right: made its opponents treat the match as a contest that could turn on small details.
Curaçao also responded to a difficult start. After a heavy loss to Germany, the team held Ecuador 0-0. Eloy Room faced 28 shots and made 15 saves, keeping his side in the match.
The contrast between the loss and the shutout makes Curaçao’s response worth watching. A heavy defeat can expose the scale of the challenge for a smaller team, but it can also force a quick reassessment of how to manage pressure. Room’s workload shows how much Ecuador tested the defense; it also signals the limits of the performance. A goalkeeper can keep a score level, but a team facing that many shots will need more control if it wants to sustain results.
DR Congo earn a first tournament point
A 1-1 draw with Portugal gave DR Congo its first-ever point in a World Cup tournament. Yoane Wissa scored deep in first-half stoppage time, rising in the box to head in Arthur Masuaku’s precise cross. Against one of the tournament frontrunners, that point marked a milestone for the team.
The goal’s timing gave the equalizer extra force: it arrived just before the break, at a point when a team can carry a late first-half setback into the dressing room. Wissa’s finish also depended on the quality of the delivery, making the goal a clear example of how a well-executed attack can change the terms of a match even against a favored opponent. A point won’t rewrite the team’s history, but it gives DR Congo a result to build on and a first entry in the tournament record that belongs to the players who earned it.
Japan’s challenge is about what comes next
Japan’s underdog story has a different shape. The Blue Samurai are being discussed as serious contenders, after years of steady development under a 100-year plan to win the World Cup launched in 1992.
A long-range ambition of that kind is easy to reduce to a slogan, but the useful question is what it means for the team on the field now. Japan’s progress is framed here as the outcome of sustained development, with the present squad carrying expectations shaped by earlier generations. The century-long horizon also makes the objective unusually demanding: this tournament can show progress without deciding whether the ultimate goal is within reach.
The current squad includes players inspired by Japan’s co-hosting of the 2002 tournament, and the team considers this its strongest ever. Wins over England and Brazil in the year before the World Cup offered an early measure of its potential.
Those wins provide evidence of capability, not a guarantee of results under tournament pressure. If you’re working in this space, that’s the distinction to keep in view: preparation and strong performances against elite opponents can raise expectations, while the World Cup asks a team to sustain its level across a different kind of competition. Japan’s confidence may be justified, but the test is still ahead. And this is the part most people overlook: sustained development is measured over time, while a knockout match can turn on one mistake.
Drawn into a demanding Group C with the Netherlands, Sweden and Tunisia, Japan has looked ready for the test. The knockout stage will show how far the team can go—and how much ground it has already made up on that century-long ambition.
What the early results could mean
The expanded format is already producing a more varied set of stories: first points, defensive resistance and a team entering the tournament with ambitions beyond an underdog label. The numbers here are underwhelming if the measure is simply how many surprises have occurred; the more useful measure is whether teams can turn competitive group matches into continued progress. That’s still unresolved.
For smaller football nations, attention can be as fleeting as a single result. Repeated performances offer a stronger basis for recognition, while advancement would give teams more matches in which to demonstrate their level. For established sides, the lesson is plain: reputation doesn’t secure points, and a disciplined opponent can make a match uncomfortable. The format has opened the door. The teams have to show what they can do once they’re through it.
One test at a time.