The Good, Bad and Unavoidable of Shots Betting in Early Games at the 2026 World Cup

By Kevin Pullein, 4 July 2026

I was pleased there was so much agreement – but also slightly surprised.

For both teams in each match during the group stage at the World Cup I compared stats from Fifa and Opta.

Forty-nine out of every 50 times that one said a kick was a shot on target, the other did as well.  A hundred and ninety-nine out of every 200 times that one said a kick was a shot, the other did as well.

Almost always there was harmony. But sometimes there was discord. There were 14 incidents that only one called a shot on target: eight times Opta did, six times Fifa did. There were nine incidents that only one called a shot: seven times Opta did, twice Fifa did.

This corresponds with what I found at the previous World Cup. When there was variation between statistics, Opta gave the higher total more often than Fifa. You would not think so if you read the IBAS mailbox.

Most punters bet high even when there is an option to bet low – and for attempts to score there often is not – so more punters would benefit from a higher total than a lower total.

When Opta give a lower total there will be customers of Opta-settling bookmakers who would have profited from the higher total of Fifa. It works both ways, of course. When Fifa give a lower total there will be customers of Fifa-settling bookmakers who would have profited from the higher total of Opta. But there are far fewer bookmakers who settle on Fifa than on Opta.

Discrepancies between Opta and Fifa were more common four years ago in Qatar than this year during the earliest phase in Canada, Mexico and the United States.

What do we mean by ‘Fifa Data’?

So far when I have said Fifa I have meant the website Fifa.com, which is the best known. But there are actually three official websites on which Fifa give World Cup statistics, and there can be contradictions between them. On Fifa.com there is a Match Centre. On other websites you will find a Match Report and a Post-Match Summary Report.

The Match Report said Brazil took eight shots against Haiti but the Match Centre and Post-Match Summary Report said only seven. The Match Report said Japan took five shots on target against Tunisia but the Match Centre and Post-Match Summary Report said only four. And there were other inconsistencies.

When Fifa’s numbers disagree, which of them should be used? Bookmakers who settle on Fifa may specify in their rules. Or Fifa may say somewhere which figure should be taken as authoritative in the event of a disparity. Otherwise I think bookmakers would find it hard to resist calls to settle some markets on different makeups for different bettors. Without clarity on which Fifa total should be used, there would be an argument for using whichever was most advantageous to each bettor.

Which total is best – out of the one, two or three from Fifa and the one from Opta? Some outsiders would give a different answer to others. There is no definitively right answer.

‘Shots on Target’ and their status with the Laws of the Game

The Laws of the Game define certain things that happen in matches: corners, goal kicks, throw-ins and free kicks, for example. If two people see one of those things happen, they should be able to agree that it did happen. But there will still be times when this person was looking away, or that person was watching television coverage from a broadcaster that missed the restart to finish showing a replay. Or somebody had a brainstorm and somehow came up with a total that was too high.

So there will be disagreements even about things defined in the Laws of the Game.

A shot is not defined in the Laws of the Game. It is just a name we give to some incidents during play. We do not all give that name to the same incidents. There can be differences about what sort of thing should be called a shot. And even when two people agree that a particular type of touch ought to be called a shot, they may disagree about whether this was that type of touch.

Ultimately, whether a kick should be described as a shot, or a shot should be described as on target, is a matter of opinion. Nearly always in recent weeks, as we have seen, leading stats providers have formed the same opinion. I think that most other football watchers would have done so as well. But there will still be a small number of occasions when some or all of those interested observers form different opinions. And I am not at all surprised that those provoke complaints.