WC 2026 · Forecasting Oxford Football Forecasting
🇪🇨

Ecuador

CONMEBOL Group E
1.9% Champion probability ±0.04 MC-SE
Coach
Sebastián Beccacece foreign · Argentine
Elo (model)
1,938 world 8th
Squad value
€290M
Power → Reality
12th 13th −0.04 pp · neutral draw

Fig. D1 Fixture-aware · 100k sims

Ecuador — stage progression

Round of 32: 93.26% (95% MC 93.10%–93.41%; MC-SE ±0.08 pts) Round of 32 reach 93.3% ±0.08 Round of 16: 50.68% (95% MC 50.37%–50.99%; MC-SE ±0.16 pts) Round of 16 reach 50.7% ±0.16 Quarter-final: 23.29% (95% MC 23.03%–23.55%; MC-SE ±0.13 pts) Quarter-final reach 23.3% ±0.13 Semi-final: 11.05% (95% MC 10.85%–11.24%; MC-SE ±0.10 pts) Semi-final reach 11.0% ±0.10 Final: 4.74% (95% MC 4.61%–4.87%; MC-SE ±0.07 pts) Final reach 4.7% ±0.07 Champion: 1.87% (95% MC 1.79%–1.96%; MC-SE ±0.04 pts) Champion reach 1.9% ±0.04

On the central forecast, Ecuador more likely than not reaches the Round of 16 (51%). Champion probability is 1.9% ± 0.04 pts.

Source · Oxford Football Forecasting model
Group E Confed Advance (top 2) Reach R32
1🇩🇪GermanyUEFA62.5%98.1%
2🇪🇨EcuadorCONMEBOL50.7%93.3%
3🇨🇮Côte d'IvoireCAF31.8%80.2%
4🇨🇼CuraçaoCONCACAF0.4%5.2%

Source · Oxford Football Forecasting model

Bracket position Half 0 · Quadrant 0

Earliest possible meetings

No collision rows recorded for this team.

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

Match 9 · 2026-06-14 · Philadelphia Stadium away
Ecuador Côte d'Ivoire
44.9% win 33.6% draw 21.5% loss
Most likely 0–0 (17.2%) λ 1.13–0.70 Over 2.5 28% · BTTS 35%
Match 34 · 2026-06-21 · Kansas City Stadium home
Ecuador Curaçao
82.3% win 14.1% draw 3.6% loss
Most likely 2–0 (18.5%) λ 2.38–0.35 Over 2.5 51% · BTTS 27%
Match 56 · 2026-06-25 · New York/New Jersey Stadium home
Ecuador Germany
29.4% win 30.7% draw 39.9% loss
Most likely 1–1 (14.3%) λ 1.02–1.23 Over 2.5 39% · BTTS 46%
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 Ecuador. 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

Ecuador vs the field

Elo rating: 1938 vs field median 1780 (1.09× the field) Elo rating 1938 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: €290M vs field median €286M (1.01× the field) Squad value €290M med €286M Squad form (global): 0.158 vs field median 0.211 (0.75× the field) Squad form (global) 0.158 med 0.211 Fitness readiness: 0.710 vs field median 0.707 (1.00× the field) Fitness readiness 0.710 med 0.707 Familiarity / chemistry: 0.012 vs field median 0.015 (0.80× the field) Familiarity / chemistry 0.012 med 0.015 Experience (mean caps): 25 vs field median 25 (1.01× the field) Experience (mean caps) 25 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

Ecuador on the decoupling axis

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

g = −0.55 ± 0.06: 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
24.0mean age
25mean caps
31%in a top-5 league
23distinct clubs
3largest club bloc
# Player Pos Club League Club min Gls Caps NT gls
1Hernán GalíndezGKHuracánCopa Argentina +0.10z6,8980350
2Félix TorresDFInternacionalno club data495
3Piero HincapiéDFArsenalPremier League +2.21z2,7631523
4Joel OrdóñezDFClub BruggeJupiler Pro League −0.07z3,7605170
5Jordy AlcívarMFIndependiente del ValleLiga Pro −0.72z3,0693111
6Willian PachoDFParis Saint-GermainLigue 1 +1.70z4,1082342
7Pervis EstupiñánDFMilanno club data545
8Anthony ValenciaMFAntwerpJupiler Pro League −0.07z1,331431
9John YeboahFWVeneziaSerie B +1.70z2,71612233
10Kendry PáezMFRiver Plateno club data262
11Kevin RodríguezFWUnion Saint-GilloiseJupiler Pro League −0.07z2,93911312
12Moisés RamírezGKKifisiaSuper League 1 +0.03z2,520070
13Enner Valencia (captain)FWPachucaLiga MX +0.22z1,376810549
14Alan MindaMFAtlético Mineirono club data202
15Pedro ViteMFUNAMno club data171
16Jordy CaicedoFWHuracánno club data204
17Ángelo PreciadoDFAtlético Mineirono club data550
18Denil CastilloMFMidtjyllandSuperliga −0.53z2,374450
19Gonzalo PlataFWFlamengoSerie A +1.03z3,3219508
20Nilson AnguloFWSunderlandPremier League +2.21z5030142
21Alan FrancoMFAtlético Mineirono club data581
22Gonzalo ValleGKLDU QuitoLiga Pro −0.72z1,751040
23Moisés CaicedoMFChelseaPremier League +2.21z5,1255613
24Jeremy ArévaloFWVfB StuttgartBundesliga +1.84z59040
25Jackson PorozoDFTijuanaLiga MX +0.22z3,4864101
26Yaimar MedinaDFGenkJupiler Pro League −0.07z2,119160

Source · Official squad announcements · API-Football (global club coverage). 8 of 26 players have no club season matched in API-Football — shown as “— no club data”, not imputed. Form coverage for this squad: 69%.

Diaspora in the hosts

444,906

25.0 per 1,000 of home population

Host-language familiarity

Shared

primary language Spanish · spoken in a host

Climate adaptation gap

+5.1°C

home-vs-venue heat differential

Venue extremes

37°C

peak heat index · altitude up to 273 m

Travel

1h

max time-zone shift · nearest venue 2,917 km

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

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

Ecuador — Elo since 1953

2028 world #8
Ecuador Qualified-field median

Ecuador ends the series at 2028 Elo, the world’s 8th-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.

69% Squad club-form coverage Share of this squad with a matched club season feeding the global form layer.
69% 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 Ecuador, 8 of 26 players are shown as “— no club data”. Full validation, calibration & conformal coverage →