WC 2026 · Forecasting Oxford Football Forecasting
🇲🇽

Mexico

CONCACAF Group A Host nation
1.1% Champion probability ±0.03 MC-SE
Coach
Javier Aguirre
Elo (model)
1,875 world 13th
Squad value
€289M
Power → Reality
18th 18th +0.07 pp · neutral draw

Fig. D1 Fixture-aware · 100k sims

Mexico — stage progression

Round of 32: 92.67% (95% MC 92.51%–92.83%; MC-SE ±0.08 pts) Round of 32 reach 92.7% ±0.08 Round of 16: 54.46% (95% MC 54.15%–54.77%; MC-SE ±0.16 pts) Round of 16 reach 54.5% ±0.16 Quarter-final: 23.24% (95% MC 22.98%–23.50%; MC-SE ±0.13 pts) Quarter-final reach 23.2% ±0.13 Semi-final: 8.93% (95% MC 8.76%–9.11%; MC-SE ±0.09 pts) Semi-final reach 8.9% ±0.09 Final: 3.27% (95% MC 3.16%–3.38%; MC-SE ±0.06 pts) Final reach 3.3% ±0.06 Champion: 1.14% (95% MC 1.07%–1.20%; MC-SE ±0.03 pts) Champion reach 1.1% ±0.03

On the central forecast, Mexico more likely than not reaches the Round of 16 (54%). Champion probability is 1.1% ± 0.03 pts.

Source · Oxford Football Forecasting model
Group A Confed Advance (top 2) Reach R32
1🇲🇽MexicoCONCACAF54.5%92.7%
2🇨🇿CzechiaUEFA35.6%73.4%
3🇰🇷Korea RepublicAFC31.8%68.4%
4🇿🇦South AfricaCAF10.1%34.7%

Source · Oxford Football Forecasting model

Bracket position Half 1 · Quadrant 2

Earliest possible meetings

No collision rows recorded for this team.

Collision = the earliest round the bracket wiring could pit Mexico against that side. Full bracket & collision matrix →

Match 1 · 2026-06-11 · Mexico City Stadium home
Mexico South Africa
68.8% win 21.2% draw 10% loss
Most likely 2–0 (14.5%) λ 1.98–0.62 Over 2.5 48% · BTTS 41%
Match 28 · 2026-06-19 · Guadalajara Stadium home
Mexico Korea Republic
56.1% win 25.7% draw 18.2% loss
Most likely 1–1 (12.2%) λ 1.70–0.88 Over 2.5 48% · BTTS 49%
Match 53 · 2026-06-25 · Mexico City Stadium away
Mexico Czechia
48% win 28.3% draw 23.7% loss
Most likely 1–1 (13.4%) λ 1.47–0.96 Over 2.5 44% · BTTS 49%
How a match forecast is built

Each pairing is scored by the ensemble (Dixon-Coles bivariate-Poisson, the Bayesian hierarchical model and the global LightGBM-Poisson, log-pooled), producing an 11×11 scoreline grid that is marginalised into win/draw/loss, expected goals (λ), over/under 2.5 and both-teams-to-score. These are the same distributions the tournament simulator consumes, oriented here to Mexico. Knockout fixtures are not shown — their occupants are still probabilistic, so there is no single pairing to forecast yet.

Fig. D2 Relative to the 48-team median

Mexico vs the field

Elo rating: 1875 vs field median 1780 (1.05× the field) Elo rating 1875 med 1780 Recent NT form: 1.80 ppg vs field median 1.87 ppg (0.96× the field) Recent NT form 1.80 ppg med 1.87 ppg Squad value: €289M vs field median €286M (1.01× the field) Squad value €289M med €286M Squad form (global): 0.155 vs field median 0.211 (0.73× the field) Squad form (global) 0.155 med 0.211 Fitness readiness: 0.689 vs field median 0.707 (0.97× the field) Fitness readiness 0.689 med 0.707 Familiarity / chemistry: 0.034 vs field median 0.015 (2.19× the field) Familiarity / chemistry 0.034 med 0.015 Experience (mean caps): 36 vs field median 25 (1.43× the field) Experience (mean caps) 36 med 25

Read each row as a multiple of the field median: dots to the right of the dashed line are above-field, to the left below. Raw values are labelled on the right so the comparison is transparent.

Source · Oxford Football Forecasting model

Fig. D3 Bayesian projection residual g

Mexico on the decoupling axis

aligned (0) ← record > squad price squad valued > record →

g = −0.40 ± 0.05: the record outruns the squad price — the team has achieved more than its comparatively modest squad value would predict.

Source · Oxford Football Forecasting model
What g means — and its limits

g is the residual from regressing a team’s current squad market value on its history-based strength in the Bayesian hierarchical model. Positive g means the squad is valued above what the team’s record predicts; negative means the record outruns the squad’s price (the side achieves more than its market value implies). Regressed on out-of-sample success the slope is positive — squad-rich sides go a touch further — but not statistically significant at n = 3 tournaments, so treat a single team’s g as a descriptive read, not a hard prediction. The full decoupling essay →

26players
25.3mean age
36mean caps
27%in a top-5 league
21distinct clubs
5largest club bloc
# Player Pos Club League Club min Gls Caps NT gls
1Raúl RangelGKGuadalajaraLiga MX +0.22z3,6430140
2Jorge SánchezDFPAOKSuper League 1 +0.03z7280593
3César MontesDFLokomotiv MoscowPremier League +0.27z2,2084674
4Edson Álvarez (captain)DFFenerbahçeSüper Lig +0.49z1,0810987
5Johan VásquezDFGenoaSerie A +1.70z3,4911463
6Érik LiraMFCruz AzulLiga MX +0.22z3,9230250
7Luis RomoMFGuadalajaraLiga MX +0.22z2,9641634
8Álvaro FidalgoMFReal BetisLa Liga +2.13z748140
9Raúl JiménezFWFulhamPremier League +2.21z2,5791012445
10Alexis VegaFWTolucaLiga MX +0.22z1,8694527
11Santiago GiménezFWMilanno club data476
12Carlos AcevedoGKSantos LagunaLiga MX +0.22z3,036070
13Guillermo OchoaGKAEL Limassol1. Division −0.31z72001520
14Armando GonzálezFWGuadalajaraLiga MX +0.22z3,637771
15Israel ReyesDFAméricaLiga MX +0.22z3,5470342
16Julián QuiñonesFWAl-QadsiahPro League −0.86z2,72433222
17Orbelín PinedaMFAEK AthensSuper League 1 +0.03z3,51459212
18Obed VargasMFAtlético MadridLa Liga +2.13z751060
19Gilberto MoraMFTijuanaLiga MX +0.22z1,557880
20Mateo ChávezDFAZEredivisie +0.74z1,6091100
21César HuertaFWAnderlechtJupiler Pro League −0.07z6811263
22Guillermo MartínezFWPumasno club data123
23Jesús GallardoDFTolucaLiga MX +0.22z3,09351213
24Luis ChávezMFDynamo MoscowPremier League +0.27z1640455
25Roberto AlvaradoFWGuadalajaraLiga MX +0.22z2,7224675
26Brian GutiérrezMFGuadalajaraLiga MX +0.22z828072

Source · Official squad announcements · API-Football (global club coverage). 2 of 26 players have no club season matched in API-Football — shown as “— no club data”, not imputed. Form coverage for this squad: 92%.

Diaspora in the hosts

10,939,885

84.0 per 1,000 of home population

Host-language familiarity

Shared

primary language Spanish · spoken in a host

Climate adaptation gap

−2.5°C

home-vs-venue heat differential

Venue extremes

30°C

peak heat index · altitude up to 2,287 m

Travel

0h

max time-zone shift · nearest venue 14 km

Source · UN DESA international migrant stock · US Census Bureau · Open-Meteo & venue records

Fig. D4 eloratings.net method · year-end values

Mexico — Elo since 1950

1980 world #13
Mexico Qualified-field median

Mexico ends the series at 1980 Elo, the world’s 13th-ranked side — above the qualified-field median.

Source · eloratings.net
Which Elo is this?

This line is the public eloratings.net series (year-end ratings), which terminates exactly at the current rating and world rank shown on the marker. It is a different number from the Elo shown in the header band (a panel-normalised rating used inside the forecast); the two are ~0.99 correlated but on different scales. We keep them distinct rather than blend them.

92% Squad club-form coverage Share of this squad with a matched club season feeding the global form layer.
92% Fitness-readiness coverage Where below 100%, part of the fitness signal is imputed by the de-biasing layer.
n = 3 Out-of-sample tournaments The model is validated on three held-out World Cups; it matches the market, it does not beat it.

Validated on n=3 held-out tournaments; coverage below 1.0 means part of this squad's club-form/fitness is imputed (the global de-biasing layer). For Mexico, 2 of 26 players are shown as “— no club data”. Full validation, calibration & conformal coverage →