Belgium at the 2026 World Cup — the Golden Generation’s Last Dance?

Table of Contents

Belgium’s golden generation has been the most talented group of players to never win anything that matters. Third at Russia 2018, quarter-finalists at Qatar 2022, and a sequence of major tournament exits that read like a masterclass in underperformance. Kevin De Bruyne is 35. Romelu Lukaku is 33. Thibaut Courtois is nursing a body that has been through two serious knee injuries. The 2026 World Cup in North America is, without exaggeration, the last realistic shot for this core to deliver on a decade of promise.

For Kiwi punters, Belgium are the team at the top of Group G — the side the All Whites must face on matchday three — and understanding whether this squad is genuinely dangerous or merely living on reputation is worth real money. Belgium have been ranked inside FIFA’s top six for the better part of a decade, peaking at number one for extended periods between 2018 and 2022. That ranking flatters them now. The squad has declined, the depth has thinned, and the aura of invincibility that once surrounded this group has cracked visibly. None of which means they are not still the best team in Group G by a comfortable margin. They are. The question is how much better, and whether the gap is as wide as the odds suggest.

Squad Assessment — Who’s Left and Who’s Next

The first thing that struck me when I reviewed Belgium’s squad depth for 2026 was the age profile. De Bruyne, Lukaku, Courtois, Jan Vertonghen (retired from international duty), Toby Alderweireld (retired) — the spine that carried Belgium to their peak has either gone or is running on fumes. What remains is a fascinating mix of fading stars and unproven replacements, and it is the balance between those two groups that determines how far this team can go. The squad that travelled to Russia in 2018 averaged roughly 27 years old and was brimming with players in their prime. The squad that will fly to North America in 2026 will average closer to 29, with the most important players well into their thirties.

In goal, Courtois is the likely starter if fit. His talent is undeniable — one of the two or three best goalkeepers of the past decade — but his body has betrayed him repeatedly since the ACL tear in 2023. If Courtois cannot go, Koen Casteels steps in. Casteels is a perfectly competent Bundesliga goalkeeper, but the gap between him and a fully fit Courtois is significant, especially in high-pressure knockout matches.

The defensive line is Belgium’s weakest area and has been for several years. With Vertonghen and Alderweireld retired, the centre-back pairing is likely some combination of Wout Faes, Zeno Debast and Arthur Theate. Faes, at Leicester, has shown he can compete in the Premier League but is prone to errors under pressure — the kind of mistakes that cost you at a World Cup. Debast has grown at Sporting CP but is still only 22 and lacks major tournament experience. Theate offers versatility but not the commanding presence that Belgium’s golden-era defence had. The full-back positions are stronger: Timothy Castagne provides experience on the right, while the left-back role is contested between Arthur Theate and Maxim De Cuyper, who has impressed at Club Brugge.

Midfield is where Belgium remain genuinely world-class. De Bruyne, even at 35, is one of the most creative passers in football history. His ability to find space between the lines, deliver passes that unlock defences and dictate the tempo of a match is undiminished — his body just cannot sustain it for 90 minutes as reliably as it once could. Alongside him, Amadou Onana has developed into an excellent box-to-box midfielder at Aston Villa, combining physicality with surprising technical quality. Youri Tielemans, if selected, adds further composure. The midfield depth is Belgium’s strongest suit and the primary reason they remain favourites to top Group G.

Up front, Lukaku remains the focal point. Love him or question him — and Belgian fans do both — his international record is extraordinary: Belgium’s all-time leading scorer with over 80 goals. He is not the player he was at 27, but he still offers physicality, hold-up play and a finishing instinct that few strikers can match. Behind him, the creative options include Jérémy Doku (rapid, direct, inconsistent), Leandro Trossard (clever, versatile, underrated) and Johan Bakayoko (the exciting young winger from PSV who could be Belgium’s breakout player at this tournament). The attack has enough quality to hurt any team in Group G — including New Zealand, who will need a near-perfect defensive display in their matchday three encounter.

The bench tells a story. Belgium can replace Doku with Bakayoko, rotate Onana with Aster Vranckx, bring on Loïs Openda as a different striking option. The depth is not what it was in 2018, but it remains comfortably above what Iran, Egypt or New Zealand can offer. This is still a squad that belongs in the conversation for the quarter-finals and beyond — just not, perhaps, for the trophy itself.

Key Players — De Bruyne, Lukaku, and the Next Wave

At the 2022 World Cup, I watched De Bruyne have one of the worst individual performances I have ever seen from a player of his calibre — the group-stage loss to Morocco was a masterclass in disinterest, a display so flat it sparked genuine questions about his commitment to the national team. He later admitted the squad’s dynamics were fractured, that communication between senior players and the coaching staff had broken down. The question for 2026 is whether the reset under Domenico Tedesco has repaired the damage. From what I have seen in Belgium’s recent qualifying and Nations League campaigns, the answer is a cautious yes. De Bruyne has looked engaged, purposeful and — most tellingly — willing to play the full 90 minutes when Tedesco asks him to.

De Bruyne’s influence on Belgium cannot be overstated. When he plays at his level, Belgium are a top-eight side in the world. When he is absent or half-engaged, they are a collection of good players without a conductor. His fitness management will be critical — at 35, playing three group matches in twelve days is demanding, and Tedesco will need to decide whether to rest him for the New Zealand match (if Belgium are already through) or use the fixture to build rhythm. For betting purposes, any market involving De Bruyne’s individual performance — assists, chances created — is worth monitoring, but only if you believe he arrives in North America motivated. I do, for what it is worth. A last World Cup has a way of focusing the mind.

Lukaku’s role is simpler to define. He will lead the line, he will receive the ball with his back to goal, and he will score. The rate at which he scores is the variable. In Belgium’s qualifying matches, Lukaku’s conversion rate was typically clinical. At major tournaments, he has sometimes gone missing — think of his anonymous display against France in the 2018 semi-final, or the disallowed goals against Croatia at Qatar 2022 that broke something inside the squad. The narrative around Lukaku is always more dramatic than the reality: he is a reliable international striker who occasionally has a bad day. His physicality against Asian and African defences — the exact opponents Belgium face in Group G — has historically been devastating. Iran’s centre-backs average around 183 centimetres in height. Lukaku is 191 and stronger than anyone they will face in qualifying. At the prices he will be offered for Golden Boot or group-stage top scorer, he represents fair value but not a bargain.

Jérémy Doku deserves a separate mention. The Manchester City winger is electric on his day — quick enough to beat any full-back in the tournament, direct in his running and capable of producing moments of magic that change matches. The problem is consistency. Doku’s decision-making in the final third remains erratic, and his end product — goals and assists per 90 minutes — still lags behind his talent. At a World Cup, where moments matter more than sustained excellence, Doku could be decisive. Or he could be frustrating. Both outcomes are equally plausible, which makes him a poor bet individually but a crucial piece of Belgium’s overall attacking puzzle.

The player I am watching most closely is Johan Bakayoko. The 21-year-old PSV winger is rapid, technically gifted and utterly fearless in one-on-one situations. He has torn apart Eredivisie defences with the kind of direct, no-hesitation approach that translates well to tournament football, where defenders are often cautious and slow to commit. He has the profile to be Belgium’s breakout star at this tournament — the kind of player who can change a match in five minutes from the bench. If Tedesco gives him significant minutes, Bakayoko’s anytime goalscorer odds in group matches could be the best individual-player bet in Group G.

Group G Outlook — Favoured but Fragile

Belgium should top this group. That sentence carries a lot of weight, and I want to be precise about what it means. Belgium have the best squad, the best individual players and the most tournament experience. The probability of Belgium finishing first in Group G sits at roughly 55-60%, and second place at another 25-30%. The chance of Belgium finishing third or fourth — meaning they are genuinely shocked by Iran and Egypt — is around 10-15%. Those are comfortable numbers, and the market prices them accurately.

The match-by-match outlook reinforces this. Belgium open against Egypt at Lumen Field in Seattle on 15 June. Egypt are disciplined but lack the attacking weapons to threaten Belgium’s midfield dominance — this is a match Belgium should win by two goals, and the historical record of European sides against African opposition in World Cup openers supports that expectation. Matchday two brings Iran at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles, another fixture Belgium should control. Iran will sit deep, defend in numbers and hope to nick something on the counter, but De Bruyne’s passing range and Lukaku’s aerial presence should unlock a compact Iranian block. Six points from the first two matches would mean Belgium face New Zealand in the final group game with qualification already secured.

The fragility comes from the squad’s age and the emotional dynamics within it. The fallout from Qatar 2022, where public arguments between players spilled into the media, left scars. Tedesco has worked to rebuild the culture, and by most accounts he has succeeded, but a bad first-half against Iran or a sluggish opening match could trigger familiar patterns. Belgium’s mental resilience at major tournaments is not what their talent suggests it should be — they have consistently failed to recover from setbacks in the way that France, Germany or Argentina do.

For the All Whites, the matchday three fixture against Belgium is the least likely to produce a shock. Belgium will almost certainly be through by then, which creates two possibilities: either they rest players and approach the match casually (good for New Zealand), or they push for top spot and maximum points (bad for New Zealand). My read is that Tedesco will prioritise rhythm over rest, fielding a strong side even if qualification is secured. The 2018 Belgium side did exactly this against England in their final group match, fielding a near full-strength team despite already qualifying. That makes the Belgium match the toughest assignment, but not necessarily a foregone conclusion — Belgium’s record in “dead rubber” group matches is mixed, and their concentration can wander when the stakes are low.

Belgium Odds — My Rating and Value Calls

Belgium to win the World Cup outright is priced at roughly 15.00-18.00 with most international bookmakers, and I think that is about right — possibly even slightly generous. This is a squad that could reach the quarter-finals or semi-finals on quality alone, but winning seven consecutive knockout matches against the world’s best is beyond what this ageing group is likely to deliver. The tournament structure works against Belgium too: as Group G winners, they would face a third-placed team from another group in the Round of 32 (manageable), but the Round of 16 and quarter-final opponents could include sides from the toughest groups. The outright market is a pass for me.

Belgium to win Group G is priced at around 1.55-1.70, which accurately reflects their ~60% probability. There is no value there either — you are laying short odds on a team with a documented history of disappointing. The risk-reward ratio simply does not work in your favour. If Belgium stumble against Egypt or Iran, you lose at prohibitive odds. If they cruise through, you collect a modest return that barely justifies the capital at risk.

Where I do see value is in the specific match markets and player props. Belgium to beat Iran by two or more goals in their matchday two encounter is likely underpriced, as Belgium tend to produce their best performances against Asian sides — they beat Japan 3-2 in a famous comeback at Russia 2018 and have historically dominated these matchups. Lukaku to score in the Belgium vs Egypt match is another market worth considering — Egypt’s centre-backs will struggle with his physicality, and Lukaku’s record against African opposition at World Cups is strong.

The Belgium vs New Zealand match offers the most interesting dynamics from a betting perspective. If Belgium are already qualified, the anytime goalscorer market for substitute players — Bakayoko, Openda, even a defender looking for a set-piece goal — could provide outsized value. Tedesco may use the match to give fringe players minutes, which opens up prop markets that do not exist in the more competitive fixtures. The total goals market for Belgium vs New Zealand also warrants attention — a Belgian side pushing for goals against a tired All Whites defence could produce a high-scoring affair, particularly if New Zealand’s group-stage fate is already decided and they play with more attacking freedom than in their earlier matches.

Factor X — Can Tedesco Deliver Where Martínez Didn’t?

Roberto Martínez led Belgium through their most successful era and simultaneously became the symbol of their tournament failures. His tactical rigidity — the insistence on a back three that opponents learned to exploit, the reluctance to adapt mid-match — was a recurring theme at Euro 2020, the Nations League and Qatar 2022. When Martínez departed, the appointment of Domenico Tedesco signalled a philosophical shift that went beyond formation changes.

Tedesco is younger, more pragmatic and less wedded to a single system. At Schalke, RB Leipzig and now Belgium, he has shown a willingness to change shape depending on the opponent — something Martínez almost never did. Under Tedesco, Belgium have played 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 and 3-4-2-1, often switching within the same match. This flexibility is crucial at a World Cup, where you face three different opponents in ten days and cannot afford to be predictable. Against Iran’s deep block, Tedesco will likely deploy width and crosses to exploit Lukaku’s aerial threat. Against Egypt, who will press higher, the approach may shift to a more conservative build-up that invites pressure before hitting on the counter through Doku and Bakayoko. Against New Zealand, who will almost certainly sit in a low block, expect Belgium to dominate possession and attack through the flanks.

The German-Italian coach has also addressed the squad culture that imploded in Qatar. The public feuding between De Bruyne, Hazard (now retired), Vertonghen and Lukaku was a symptom of a dressing room that had grown complacent and entitled. Reports from the Belgian camp since Tedesco’s appointment describe a different atmosphere — players who want to be there, younger squad members who feel included, and a coaching staff that communicates directly rather than through media-managed platitudes. Tedesco has brought Debast, Bakayoko and De Cuyper into the fold as regulars rather than afterthoughts, establishing a clearer generational transition that Martínez never managed.

Critically, Tedesco has removed the sense of inevitability that plagued the Martínez era. Belgium under Tedesco feel like a team with something to prove rather than a team expecting to win. That shift in mentality may be the difference between a quarter-final and a semi-final — but it will not, I suspect, be enough to win the whole thing. The defensive fragility is too real, the age profile too skewed, and the weight of a decade’s worth of tournament disappointment too heavy to shake in a single campaign.

My overall rating for Belgium at the 2026 World Cup: 7 out of 10. Strong enough to dominate Group G, talented enough to reach the last eight, but too old and too scarred to go all the way. For Kiwi punters, Belgium are the team to bet around — their predictability in the group stage creates opportunities in every match they play, including the one against the All Whites. The golden generation gets one more dance. Whether the music stops in the quarter-finals or the semi-finals is the only question worth asking.