The 2026 World Cup has seen a number of changes to the tournament format and match rules, most notably the expansion to 48 teams.

A recent YouGov survey found that the tournament expansion has been generally received positively, as have various tweaks to VAR usage and flow-of-play rules. However, there is strong negativity towards ‘hydration breaks’ half way through each half.

To dig deeper into public perceptions of this year’s tournament, we used our new YouGov AI Interviewer tool to ask World Cup watchers more broadly: “what do you think of the changes to the rules and tournament format that have been made for the 2026 World Cup?”

The AI agent then conducted interviews with each respondent, following up on their responses, in order to provide ‘the why’ behind what Britons think. Our AI tools then catgorised responses into the categories shown below with select quotes, but first, here are some examples of full interviews:

Tournament Expansion and Format

Sentiment tended more to the positive than the negative when it comes to the new expanded tournament format, with positive aspects including more games to watch and the ability to include more smaller nations, but criticisms including the lower stakes of the group stages and the impact on tactics.

  • I think it's good to give more smaller nations a chance to gain experience, but it has resulted in teams who are not up to standard making it to the world cup – 18-24, Female
  • I think that the quality hasn't been affected much as the smaller nations have raised their games overall. – 45-54, Male
  • Smaller nations with lots of pride, working hard and together to stop or slow down the bigger nations from scoring, and then scoring from their limited chances. Its great to root for the underdog and they succeed, it can really open up a game when a big nation needs to show more creativity to win from a goal behind – 18-24, Male
  • That's good, it means more teams get to play, it is a WORLD Cup after all, so as many teams as possible should get to play. – 25-34, Female
  • Expanding the size of it is a great move as it's more inclusive to some of the smaller nations and adds more underdog stories, but the method for the best of the rest doesn't particularly seem to work as teams can know before a match what they need to qualify – 25-34, Male
  • 8 third place teams going through is a farce… Removes any real jeopardy… there is almost zero chance a big team won’t go through. – 35-44, Male
  • There’s been teams happy to put everyone behind the ball and hope they can defend enough to get a point thinking if they draw all three games they’ve still got a chance of going through. It’s discouraged attacking football. – 45-54, Male
  • There is a higher advantage to a team playing for 3 draws and going through on goal difference than trying to win the match against a better opponant. For me this breeds negative football – 35-44, Male
  • I think the change was made to make fifa more money to be honest, however it has been entertaining to have so many matches, shame it’s in the USA as the times of the matches aren’t great for us in the UK – 35-44, Male
  • Couldn’t understand at all who would be playing who after the group stages. It all seems too complicated and not necessary. Some of the included teams were never going to get anywhere so it seems to have dragged the whole process out for nothing. – 55+, Female
  • It’s all about the experience as a fan. As a child I used to fill in charts as the competition progressed and so did my children but this time it’s far too complicated for the grandchildren ( future supporters) to do – 55+, Female
Quotes - Tournament Expansion and Format

Hydration Breaks and Momentum

So-called ‘hydration breaks’ were received very negatively in our poll, and likewise it was one of the most common themes brought up by respondents in interviews, with sentiment overwhelmingly negative.

  • The 5 second rule for throw ins, stops time wasting, speeds the game up. I don't think all the hydration breaks are necessary in cooler stadiums. It seems to me more of an opportunity for adverts/commercial breaks. Especially as it's in North America. Football is a game of two halves, not a game of four quarters. – 35-44, Female
  • You have 3 minutes where you can speak to the coach, get ideas, go through strategy. The other side mightve had a lot of time with the ball. This "break" allows a reset which shouldn't happen in a normal game. Subs should not be involved in hydration breaks either. I think all players should stay in the circle and only Waterboys come to them. No strategy, no gimmicks – 35-44, Female
  • In the case of the tournament being hosted in countries which are extremely warm, I feel it is important that players are given the chance to rehydrate. I am feeling cynical that these hydration brakes are actually just advertising breaks. – 55+, Male
  • It feels like it disrupts the game so there have been cases where teams have had the best flow of the game but after the break the pattern of play changes. I understand why it’s sensible for players to take fluids during hot weather but team talks from the coach should not be allowed. – 55+, Female
  • The hydration breaks have been created less for player welfare and more for advertising revenue. If they were confined to stadia with no aircon, I could believe it was for health and safety…but there is blanket use of them – 55+, Female
  • I think the additional teams are a good idea. VAR seems to be working well. My only gripe is the hydration break, if the medical people say it is absolutely necessary fine, but that is exactly what it should be. The opertunity to take fluids not get instructions from the manager. The fluids should be given by FIFA officials. – 55+, Male
  • In the very first game of the tournament the players tried to quickly restart during the break but the referee continued the delay because Fox was still showing ads. The breaks occur even when it's pouring down with rain or the AC is on in the stadium, yet FIFA maintains the excuse that the breaks are for the player's welfare. The breaks should be cut to a minute maximum. – 18-24, Male
  • If one team is carrying momentum in a match before the hydration break and is threatening to score but then the hydration break is called, it takes away the prospect of a goal being scored as after the hydration break the opposition will have more energy and advice from their coach on how to stop the momentum of the other team – 18-24, Male
  • Hydration breaks are woke – 18-24, Male
Quotes - Hydration Breaks and Momentum

Game Flow and Time Management

Many of the criticisms regarding game flow relate to the hydration breaks, which we won’t repeat here. However, many others cited improvements due to other rules regarding the use of VAR and new time limits for throw ins and substitutions.

  • Some I'm favourable of and some not. The hydration breaks are annoying and destroy any momentum for teams on top. I like the 5 second throw in rule and the 10 second substitution rule – 45-54, Male
  • I really like the way time wasting has been reduced. Throw ins, subs, it has made the game flow much better. Also players needed physio on the pitch having to go off for a minute has also stopped players feigning injury. It's been great! – 55+, Female
  • The game of football is not organised around quarters where an official time out enables team huddles. As I said it means teams can change tactics and disrupt the flow. – 55+, Female
  • The 5 second rule for throw ins, stops time wasting, speeds the game up. – 35-44, Female
  • The use and interpretation of VAR has wholly improved the match day performance from the VAR room to the referee. Much more efficient and effective than the premier league version… Where previously game management would condition players to slow the clock down by taking momentum away from the challenging team chasing a victory/ goal, this new strategy has clamped down on intentional game time wasting . – 55+, Male
  • The 10s rule for subs as well as VAR intervention on Diving have been welcome changes to speed up and improve the game… Professional football already only spends a median 62 mins of ball in play so any thing to speed up the game by 2 mins a game on average is welcome imo – 18-24, Male
  • Yes, the levels of disruption and time wasting by players (potentially all professional fouls) needs to be curtailed. The games seem (apart from hydration breaks) seem to flow better and make a better spectacle – 55+, Male
Quotes - Game Flow and Time Management

Commercialisation and Governance

Again, many of the complaints around commercialisation were tied directly to suspicions that hydration breaks were only being used as an excuse to show commercials, so we again won’t replicate a bunch of extra hydration breaks quotes. However, respondents did raise other issues on the subject:

  • Its clear from the pricing of every element that extracting cash and maximising capital gains is the main goal (pun intended) for FIFA and its partners. Everything from ticket costs, prices in the stadium, hostility towards fans of and the teams from less economically favoured nations, it all adds to the picture of what is going on as being more exploitative than sporting. – 45-54, Male
  • So that they can continue to collect massive advertising revenue without the PR disaster of saying ‘we care more about the money than the format of the game’. It’s a terrible indictment of the USA’s hyper capitalist culture; they can’t do anything without maximising money from it. So they call it ‘hydration breaks’ to try to cover this up, and also to pretend to be caring for the players. – 35-44, Female
  • The American style is flashy, tacky, and just doesn’t match football. It works ok, but it feels weird, because I’ve never seen football with this American feel before. It feels too commercial, too flashy, and too much like forced fun, rather than grittier, football-focused presentation at any other World Cup. The usa games feel like the football is a vessel for the commercial stuff, rather than the other way around. – 35-44, Female
  • Fifa have completely lost control of their tournament and are blind to the slow commercialisation of this tournament. The tournament has been Americanised by American brand sponsorship and over-saturation of commercials to turn the game into the NFL and the Superbowl. – 18-24, Male
Quote - Commercialisation and Governance

Officiating and Technology

Some respondents also highlighted officiating standards and the use of VAR technology.

  • It works but only interferes when asked, even it something is obviously wrong unless asked it doesnt do anything. It should be able to interrupt and point things out – 45-54, Female
  • Yes and I have noticed players do not crowd around the refs as much. Being a ref is hard and it allows them a bit more time and help coming to a decision – 35-44, Male
  • Generally the response time in reviewing video footage has been good and not as cumbersome or time consuming. – 55+, Male
  • the changes in rules impede the flow of the game and overrule the referee whose decision should be paramount – 55+, Female
  • Rules are essential for any sport. What they lack is a consistent interpretation by all the officials (including VAR) involved… In one of the early games a goalkeeper was penalised for not taking a goal kick fast enough. In other games goalkeepers have dithered way beyond time but not been penalised. – 55+, Male
  • I do wish that VAR for offside was more flexible - millimeters offside can have a disproportionate effect on the outcome of a match. – 55+, Male
  • There was at least one clear penalty, where Var should have stepped in but it just didn't. No one agreed with the referee – 25-34, Female
Quotes - Officiating and Technology

Logistics and Host Suitability

Others expressed criticism of hosting the tournament across the entirety of North America, including travel requirements, geographical scheduling, and the unfairness of games being played in very different climates.

  • The fact that it is spread across 3 countries, and only 1 of them cares about football… The atmosphere is lacking when the tournament is geographically dispersed. It’s also not fair on the fans in attendance. – 35-44, Male
  • the venues are too spread out geographically compared to the 2022 tournament in Qatar – 18-24, Male
  • Only that with more teams in the world cup, more games need to be played, and more football grounds need to be used which limits the places the tournament can be held or means it must be held in 2 or more countries – 55+, Male
  • It's spread over huge areas, varied temperatures, venues etc so some are very hot, some are air-conditioned. If it was played in a smaller area it would be fairer – 35-44, Female
  • Not all fans are able to attend matches, or as many matches, as they would like to. The games are spread over a wide area, this time 3 countries, so in addition to match ticket pricing, fans must factor in flights which are expensive and environmentally challenging, as well as accommodation. – 55+, Female
  • If I were a player I think the constant travel would wear me out. And it must be a trial for the supporters. – 55+, Male
  • The main issue is the time difference but you've also got to consider for the fans going to which country. As there is three of them it can be difficult to get the transportation right? Then you've got things like the American weather. You've got things like the American border 4 etc. Making it hard for some fans and players to go to the games – 25-34, Male
Quotes - Logistics and Host Suitability

Social and Cultural Impact

While not strictly answers about the rules and tournament format, our AI topic categoriser also saw enough respondents talking about “fostering social connection, community engagement, and national pride through shared cultural experiences” to justify its own category.

  • The world cup should not be political! What Iran had to endure was beyond correct. What the homeland security guy said about dancing when Iran didn't make it through was absurd and not following the nature of what the game represents and the fact that the president thinks he can stand with the winning team and be involved in their celebrations is crazy. This is the north American tournament. Expecting mexico and Canada leaders to be up there too – 35-44, Female
  • It's nice to see the spirit of football and how it's a unifier. Despite the commercialisation in bigger colonial nations - it's inspiring to see the passion and determination of those smaller nations that otherwise wouldn't be on a global stage – 35-44, Female
  • Football and other sport is a great leveller and we can see human beings interacting and enjoying, getting frustrated and seeing the same emotions. Makes us realise we are all the same. V the media stereotyping countries – 55+, Female
  • The atmosphere looks great and its so nice to see how Americans are embracing the sport. – 35-44, Female
  • Well, it seems more like a World cup to be able to watch different countries teams and actually, the culture of the fans that attend. It really opens others up to different cultures and realising how much we have to offer each other. – 55+, Female
  • We do a sweepstake at work for fun. My family have ‘pizza night’ sometimes where we get together and watch it whilst eating pizza. Lots of people with their national flags or t shirts, it makes people feel like part of a community with a common interest or something to talk about. – 25-34, Female
Quotes - Social and Cultural Impact

Interested in taking YouGov surveys? What do you think about the 2026 FIFA World Cup, football in general, and everything else? Have your say, join the YouGov panel, and get paid to share your thoughts. Sign up here.

Interested in commissioning YouGov research? We connect in real-time with real people around the world to gather their thoughts, behaviours, and opinions, to ensure that our research data is powered by reality. Explore our survey services here.

Photo: Getty

Subscribe to the YouGov newsletter