England will be hoping to finally end more than half a century of World Cup heartache by bringing home football’s most sought-after trophy from Qatar.
But the Three Lions face a tough route to the final at the Lusail Stadium in Doha in December.
Gareth Southgate’s side have already taken their first step on the road to international football’s biggest game, having won Group B to land a place in the round of 16.
But, depending on the way results fall, tricky ties against the likes of France, Portugal and Brazil potentially await them.
Here Sky News maps out the route that England could face on the road to the World Cup final.
Round of 16
One thing we do know for sure is England’s round of 16 opponents.
More from UK
As winners of Group B, England now face the runners-up of Group A, Senegal, at the Al Bayt stadium at 7pm this Sunday.
The two sides have never met on the football field in their history.
Advertisement
But it promises to be an exciting encounter with the African side, who are ranked 18th in the FIFA World Rankings and have a host of star names including Chelsea stars Kalidou Koulibaly and Edouard Mendy and Everton midfielder Idrissa Gueye.
Senegal will, however, be without star forward Sadio Mane.
The Bayern Munich and ex-Liverpool star was ruled out of the World Cup earlier this month after undergoing surgery on a knee injury.
Quarter-finals
If England beat Senegal they will go into the quarter-finals in what will be game 59 of the tournament.
Just like the round of 16, the game will be played at the Al Bayt stadium, at 7pm on Saturday 10 December.
This is where it gets a bit trickier, but England’s most likely opponents at this stage will be France.
Les Bleus look set to top Group D after winning both their opening games ahead of their final group game against Tunisia on Wednesday.
Their round of 16 opponents will be the runners-up of Group C – which is still very much up in the air at this moment.
Poland currently top the group with four points, with Argentina in second on goal difference ahead of Saudi Arabia – who beat the South American side in their opening match.
Argentina face Poland in their final game and although La Albiceleste will be the favourites, they are in for a difficult match.
And even a draw might not be enough for Argentina if either Mexico or Saudi Arabia claim victory in their last game.
While Argentina will be France’s toughest opponents if they finish second in the group, Didier Deschamps’s side will be favourites to win and clinch a quarter-final tie against England.
A game between England and France will be the first World Cup match between the two sides in 40 years.
The last game, at the 1982 World Cup, ended 3-1 to England.
Before that was England’s 2-0 victory in 1966 on the road to the Three Lions’ only World Cup win.
Semi-finals
Again, another tricky prediction given much is still in the balance in the group stages, and England will have to beat one of the tournament’s favourites to get to this stage.
One thing is for certain, if England can make it to the semi-final, they will return to the Al Bayt stadium for a third time for game 62, which will be played at 7pm on Wednesday 14 December.
At the moment, England’s likely semi-final opponents will be Portugal.
Against the odds, Morocco looks likely to clinch the top spot in Group F. They sit second behind Croatia on goal difference with bottom side Canada left to play.
Croatia faces a stuttering Belgium side, with the winner of that game clinching the other spot.
Presuming it is Morocco, they face a potential clash with Germany in the round of 16, who, while currently bottom of Group E, face a final group game against Costa Rica needing a win and for in-form Spain to beat Japan.
Despite Germany’s less-than-impressive start to the tournament, Hansi Flick’s side will be favourites to overcome Morocco.
Meanwhile, Portugal look set to storm Group H and set up a round of 16 tie with the runner-up of Group G – which looks likely to be Switzerland.
Presuming Portugal wins that quarter-final tie, they could set up a semi-final against England.
Such a tie would be a chance for redemption for England, who suffered two dramatic penalty shoot-out defeats to Portugal in the 2000s.
The Three Lions were beaten 6-5 on penalties in the Euro 2004 quarter-finals after a 2-2 draw.
Portugal then dumped England out of the World Cup at the same stage in 2006, winning 3-1 on penalties after a tense 0-0 draw.
Final
There’s a long route to the final, with plenty of twists and turns still to come.
But if England can overcome Senegal, France and Portugal, they could face tournament favourites Brazil in the final at the Lusail Stadium in Doha.
The game is set to take place on Sunday 18 December at 3pm.
While it is by no means certain that they will face the five-time World Cup winners in the final, Tite’s side looks like strong favourites to be in the mix.
At is it currently stands, Brazil will likely face Ghana in the round of 16, followed by a strong Spain side in the quarter-finals.
The semi-finals are, again, a bit trickier to predict, but the Netherlands look the mostly likely to be there with them, but only if they can beat their likely opponents of USA and Denmark in the round of 16 and quarter-finals.
Should Brazil’s impressive firepower, with an attacking line-up containing the likes of Neymar, Vinicius, Raphinha and Richarlison, see them through, a potential final clash with England awaits.
England fans will no doubt remember the heartbreak of the 2002 quarter-final defeat in Japan.
The Three Lions took an early lead through Michael Owen but were pegged back through Rivaldo, before Ronaldinho scored a spectacular long-range free-kick to beat David Seaman and dump England out.
That match was one which saw two golden generations go head-to-head.
And while Brazil will be favourites with their squad of superstars, England’s emerging talents will be no doubt hopeful of pulling off an upset should they face the South American side in the semi-final.
A murder investigation has been launched after a woman’s body was found in the boot of a car in east London.
Detectives said a murder inquiry has been launched into the “suspicious” discovery in Ilford.
The woman, who has not been named but is from Corby in Northamptonshire, may have been the victim of a “targeted incident”, police say.
“Fast track” enquiries were made after the force was contacted by a member of the public with concerns about the welfare of the woman.
This led to the discovery of a body inside a car boot.
Northamptonshire Police said: “The investigation is ongoing and there will be continued police activity over the weekend in various locations, including Corby and Ilford.
“Although we believe that this was a targeted incident and there is no wider risk to members of the public, extra patrols will be taking place in Corby in the coming days for reassurance purposes.”
Detectives from the East Midlands Special Operations Unit major crime team and the Metropolitan Police are working on the case, to try and establish the circumstances that led to the woman’s death.
Essex Police say they are investigating an alleged criminal offence of inciting racial hatred, after Daily Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson said she was “dumbfounded and upset” when officers knocked on her door last Sunday.
Ms Pearson revealed she was told she was being investigated over a year-old deleted post online.
She said she wasn’t informed which post had been reported, but suggested it could have been related to the 7 October attacks in Israel or pro-Palestine marches.
She claimed the officers told her she was being investigated for a NCHI (a none crime hate incident) an incident involving an act which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic, but is not illegal.
NCHI reports have long been controversial, with many citing free speech concerns, and Ms Pearson’s account of the police visit has led to widespread support from Conservatives and online commentators, including Tory leader Kemi Badenoch.
But an Essex Police spokesperson has told Sky News its investigation was never for an NCHI, and that the matter was always being treated as an investigation into an alleged criminal offence of inciting racial hatred.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Speaking on her Planet Normal podcast on Wednesday, Ms Pearson said she found the visit “chilling”.
More from Politics
“I was dumbfounded, upset, it’s not very nice,” she said. “I was in my dressing gown on the step of the house, these two coppers were there just outside the door.
“There were people gathering for the Remembrance Day parade so there were people watching from the other side of the road.
Advertisement
“Whatever I did or didn’t tweet, if somebody found it offensive, that to me is still not a reason for two policemen to come to my house on a Sunday morning.
“You know, they don’t do that for burglars, do they? We know policing is under-resourced and they are unable to attend often quite serious crimes.
“This was the most extraordinary overreach and state intrusion into my private life and I don’t think I did anything wrong and I think their response was outrageous.”
In a statement, Essex Police said: “Officers attended an address in Essex and invited a woman to come to a voluntary interview.
“They said it related to an investigation into an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, linked to a post on social media.
“For clarity: a complaint of a possible criminal offence was made to the police and this is why we called; to arrange an interview.
“Everyone was polite and professional throughout the brief conversation.”
They said an officer told Ms Pearson: “It’s gone down as an incident or offence of potentially inciting racial hatred online. That would be the offence.”
Essex Police say they have complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) over what they call “false reporting” regarding the ongoing investigation.
What is a non-crime hate incident?
Non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) are defined by the government as an incident involving an act which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic.
Those characteristics can include race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity.
These incidents do not amount to a criminal offence, but they are reported to police and recorded in case they escalate into more serious harm or indicate heightened community tensions.
It can be reported to police by anyone, whether they are directly affected by the alleged NCHI or not.
Not all incidents reported to police are recorded as NCHIs.
They need to meet this threshold, according to the government: “A single distinct event or occurrence which disturbs an individual’s, group’s or community’s quality of life or causes them concern.”
Furthermore, the personal data of the person reported should only be included in the reports if the incident in question presents a “real risk of significant harm” to individuals or groups with a particular characteristic and/or a real risk that a future criminal offence may take place against them.
The origins of NCHI recordings stem from the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, who was murdered by a gang of racist attackers in southeast London as he ran to catch a bus.
An inquiry into his death in 1999 called for the creation of “a comprehensive system of reporting and recording of all racist incidents and crimes”.
The first guidance on NCHI was published in 2005, but there have been updates over the years in response to scrutiny over protecting free speech.
The latest guidance was published in June 2023, when an updated code of practice set out a “common sense and proportionate approach that should be adopted by the police”.
The guidance, introduced under the Conservative government, clarified “that debate, humour, satire and personally-held views which are lawfully expressed are not, by themselves, grounds for the recording of an NCHI” and that an NCHI should not be recorded if police deem a report to be “trivial” or “irrational”.
In an interview with The Telegraph published yesterday, Kemi Badenoch said police visiting a journalist over a social media post was “absolutely wrong” and that “we need to look at the laws around non-crime hate incidents”.
“There has been a long-running problem with people not taking free speech seriously,” she said.
She challenged the prime minister to review the laws, saying: “Keir Starmer says he is someone who believes in these things. Now he needs to actually show that he does believe it. All we’ve seen from him is the opposite.”
Ms Badenoch added: “We need to stop this behaviour of people wasting police time on trivial incidents because they don’t like something, as if they’re in a nursery.
“It’s like children reporting each other. And I think that in certain cases, the police do it because they’re afraid that if they don’t do it, they will also be accused of not taking these issues seriously.”
Essex Police said the officers went to the address to invite Ms Pearson to attend a voluntary interview as part of their investigation, which was passed to them by another force.
“The report relates to a social media post which was subsequently removed,” the statement read.
“An investigation is now being carried out under Section 17 of the Public Order Act.”
Essex Police also said they made attempts to contact Ms Pearson before the visit.
Other prominent Conservative voices such as Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Chris Philp have also leapt to Ms Pearson’s defence online, as has X owner Elon Musk, who quoted a post about the incident and said: “This needs to stop.”
Police commentator Graham Wettone told Sky News the police are “duty bound to investigate allegations of crime”.
“They’ve had an allegation of crime made there,” he said. “They will investigate it. If at the end of this they decide that no criminal offence has been committed – and we’re not at that stage yet – then it can still be recorded as a none crime hate incident.”
The police, he said, are duty bound to keep a record of none crime hate incidents.
“Parliament said they want the police to do this, to investigate and record incidents like this. So they are doing exactly what parliament and society asked them to do, and they are getting criticism for doing what people want.”
Sir Keir Starmer has said he will defend the decisions made in the budget “all day long” amid anger from farmers over inheritance tax changes.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced last month in her key speech that from April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40% applied to other land and property.
The announcement has sparked anger among farmers who argue this will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay for the tax.
Sir Keir defended the budget as he gave his first speech as prime minister at the Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno, North Wales, where farmers have been holding a tractor protest outside.
Sir Keir admitted: “We’ve taken some extremely tough decisions on tax.”
He said: “I will defend facing up to the harsh light of fiscal reality. I will defend the tough decisions that were necessary to stabilise our economy.
“And I will defend protecting the payslips of working people, fixing the foundations of our economy, and investing in the future of Britain and the future of Wales. Finally, turning the page on austerity once and for all.”
He also said the budget allocation for Wales was a “record figure” – some £21bn for next year – an extra £1.7bn through the Barnett Formula, as he hailed a “path of change” with Labour governments in Wales and Westminster.
And he confirmed a £160m investment zone in Wrexham and Flintshire will be going live in 2025.
Advertisement
‘PM should have addressed the protesters’
Among the hundreds of farmers demonstrating was Gareth Wyn Jones, who told Sky News it was “disrespectful” that the prime minister did not mention farmers in his speech.
He said “so many people have come here to air their frustrations. He (Starmer) had an opportunity to address the crowd. Even if he was booed he should have been man enough to come out and talk to the people”.
He said farmers planned to deliver Sir Keir a letter which begins with “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.
Mr Wyn Jones told Sky News the government was “destroying” an industry that was already struggling.
“They’re destroying an industry that’s already on its knees and struggling, absolutely struggling, mentally, emotionally and physically. We need government support not more hindrance so we can produce food to feed the nation.”
He said inheritance tax changes will result in farmers increasing the price of food: “The poorer people in society aren’t going to be able to afford good, healthy, nutritious British food, so we have to push this to government for them to understand that enough is enough, the farmers can’t take any more of what they’re throwing at us.”
Mr Wyn Jones disputed the government’s estimation that only 500 farming estates in the UK will be affected by the inheritance tax changes.
“Look, a lot of farmers in this country are in their 70s and 80s, they haven’t handed their farms down because that’s the way it’s always been, they’ve always known there was never going to be inheritance tax.”
On Friday, Sir Keir addressed farmers’ concerns, saying: “I know some farmers are anxious about the inheritance tax rules that we brought in two weeks ago.
“What I would say about that is, once you add the £1m for the farmland to the £1m that is exempt for your spouse, for most couples with a farm wanting to hand on to their children, it’s £3m before anybody pays a penny in inheritance tax.”
Ministers said the move will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.
But analysis this week said a typical family farm would have to put 159% of annual profits into paying the new inheritance tax every year for a decade and could have to sell 20% of their land.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The Country and Land Business Association (CLA), which represents owners of rural land, property and businesses in England and Wales, found a typical 200-acre farm owned by one person with an expected profit of £27,300 would face a £435,000 inheritance tax bill.
The plan says families can spread the inheritance tax payments over 10 years, but the CLA found this would require an average farm to allocate 159% of its profits each year for a decade.
To pay that, successors could be forced to sell 20% of their land, the analysis found.