2026 World Cup Predictions: Best Long Shots to Bet Now

Come along as we focus on how to bet on long shots at World Cup 2026 while detailing the four outsiders with the best chance of winning the tournament. 

That list includes: Norway (+2000), Italy (+3000), Ecuador (+5000), and Uruguay (+6600). The guide below also looks at the frequency of long-shot winners, what odds qualify as a long-shot futures bet, and the long shots to avoid this summer. 

🎯 Best long Shots to win World Cup 2026

Odds via FanDuel, one of the best sports betting sites.

🇳🇴 Norway (+2200) 

It will be the first time Norway, which finished with an unblemished record in European qualification, will play in a World Cup since 1998. The world's most prolific striker, Erling Haaland, led the way, scoring a remarkable 16 goals in eight World Cup qualification games.

That's eight more than Austria's Marko Arnautović, Netherlands' Memphis Depay, and England's Harry Kane. 

They have a favorable group, too, nestled in Group I with France, Senegal, and either Bolivia, Iraq, or Suriname. I like their chances of securing advancement to the knockout stage, where anything is possible with Haaland leading the line. 

Long shot confidence: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

🇮🇹 Italy (+3000) 

Italy hasn't even qualified for the World Cup yet, but they will, right? 

Italy will have to defeat Northern Ireland for the right to face the winner of Bosnia and Wales on the road. If successful, they will qualify for their first World Cup since 2014. Italy finished second in their qualification group, six points behind Norway. 

If Italy qualifies, which I believe they will, they'll be added to Group A with Canada, Qatar, and Switzerland. Despite Italy not being at its traditional best, that's a tasty group for the +3000 outsiders. 

Long shot confidence: ⭐⭐⭐

🇪🇨 Ecuador (+5000) 

Ecuador has a 1.96% chance of winning the World Cup, according to its +5000 World Cup odds. I backed them as the best long shot pick in my early World Cup 2026 predictions, and I'm doubling down. 

Allowing just five goals in 18 CONMEBOL World Cup qualifiers, they are arguably the best defensive side in the world.

Ecuador finished second behind Argentina in the CONMEBOL World Cup qualification group. That's right, they finished ahead of Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay. Sebastián Beccacece's side will be hellbent on showing that oddsmakers undervalue them. 

Long shot confidence: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

🇺🇾 Uruguay (+6600) 

No team ever wants to play Uruguay in the knockout stage, and the same will be true this summer. They finished in a four-way tie for third place in CONMEBOL with Colombia, Brazil, and Paraguay, one point behind Ecuador. 

It's a well-balanced squad, with everyone knowing precisely what role they're responsible for. And they have elite players from across the globe, including: Real Madrid's Federico Valverde, Barcelona's Ronald Araújo, and Saudi Pro League club Al-Hilal's Darwin Núñez. Other key players include Tottenham's Rodrigo Bentancur, Atlético Madrid's José María Giménez, and Galatasaray's Lucas Torreira.

Long shot confidence: ⭐⭐⭐

🤔 How often does a long shot win the World Cup? 

Seldomly, extremely seldomly. I guess that's why they call it a long shot. Of the 22 World Cups, only two winners were quasi long shots. 

Here's that abbreviated list: 

• In 1950, Uruguay won the World Cup. While they were a soccer power at the time, their win over Brazil is widely considered one of the most substantial upset in a World Cup final. However, Uruguay was not a long shot to kick off the tournament
• In 1982, Italy won the World Cup after tying all three group games. At that point, the Italians were a decent long shot to win it all. They eventually beat West Germany in the final to secure their third world title.
• While they didn't win, Morocco enjoyed a miraculous World Cup 2022 campaign, beating Spain and Portugal before losing to France in the semifinals.

🔢 What odds qualify as a long shot?

There is no hard-and-fast rule about what odds qualify as a long shot. The term is relative, so it's up to you to put a number on it. There are parameters to follow, though, as I wouldn't consider a team like Portugal (+1100) a long shot. 

Those +1100 odds imply a 8.33% win probability. 

I qualify any team with an implied probability of 5% or less as a long shot. The lower the probability, the bigger the long shot. That's why Norway (+2200) is the first long shot on my preferred list. They have a 4.35% chance of winning the World Cup, the highest probability of the long shots featured. 

What odds are too long to justify a futures bet? 

This, again, is relative. However, there are a few things to consider before deciding whether a long shot's odds are too long to justify a futures bet. 

• Is there something about the long shot (one difference maker, a sound defense, a lethal counter-attack) that provides hope of pulling off the improbable?
• Are they in a group with two top-tier teams, or is there some wiggle room with one juggernaut and two middle-of-the-road teams?
• Are they playing at home, which, for World Cup 2026, only applies to Canada, Mexico, and the United States?

As a general rule of thumb, I wouldn't back any team whose odds are +25000 or longer. The +25000 odds carry a 0.40% implied probability, and these are the teams that fall into the "I wouldn't bet on" category:

❓Why is betting on long shots different at World Cup 2026?

As you can see by the exhaustive list above, 30 long, long shots are in the "I wouldn't bet on category." That's only two fewer than the 32 teams that qualified for the World Cup before FIFA expanded it to 48 for the 2026 edition.

So, yes, I'm saying there's a maximum of 18 teams, probably 16, that have a chance of winning the World Cup.  

That's because this tournament is more diluted, and the quality gap between the betting favorites like England, my World Cup prediction, and those on the no-go list above is so large.

Three teams, Jordan, Curacao, and Uzbekistan, are making their World Cup debut, while Suriname and New Caledonia still have a glimmer of hope.

I'm sure this goes without saying, but as far as futures go, avoid, avoid, avoid.