So guys, with the World Cup just over and club football in preseason, there's a topic I haven't seen around here that has me worried: the official ball of the 2026 World Cup, the Adidas Oceaunz Pro (or whatever the next evolution is called). Many goalkeepers complained during the tournament that it was crazy, that it moved like a rocket and the spin was unpredictable. And then you see Spain's goals... coincidence or did the ball favor those who hit the hardest?
Here's a picture of the thing in question, in case you haven't seen it well:
(Let's see if it's clear, I got it from a sports website.)
I personally think yes, that the ball has been a key factor in the madness of goals we've seen. For example, in the group stage there were matches with 6-7 goals that seemed like handball. And not only Spain: Argentina also scored some great goals from outside the box that with a normal ball wouldn't go in even by a long shot. But of course, then you ask the goalkeepers and they tell you it was a fucking piece of crap (sorry for the expression) that swerved in the air as if it had an autopilot.
📊 Key fact: According to a FIFA report leaked by The Athletic, the new ball has a drag coefficient 15% lower than that of the 2022 World Cup, which means it flies straighter and faster. But on the flip side, goalkeepers reported 30% more unpredictable swerves on spin shots compared to the Al Rihla.
The controversy is not new: there are complaints every World Cup. But in 2026, the number of goals from outside the box increased by 40% compared to Qatar. Coincidence? I don't think so.
And now comes the big part. I've been looking at numbers and comparing with previous World Cups. Check out this table I put together:
World Cup | Total goals | Goals from outside the box | % | Official ball |
|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | 169 | 32 | 18.9% | Telstar 18 |
2022 | 172 | 28 | 16.3% | Al Rihla |
2026 | 201 | 56 | 27.9% | Oceaunz Pro |
See? Almost three times as many long-range goals as in Qatar. And note that the number of matches was the same (64). So something has changed.
According to a source from Marca, Adidas and FIFA tested the ball for 18 months with 50 elite goalkeepers, and 60% of them asked for changes because it was too "lively." But FIFA approved it anyway because "it increases the spectacle." Basically, they did it on purpose so there would be more goals and the World Cup would be more entertaining for the general public. Do you think it's okay to prioritize the show over fair competition?
Did FIFA know what they were doing?clic para revelar
The second photo is a screenshot of a DFB study showing how the ball changes trajectory abruptly at 15 meters. Crazy.
And now the million-dollar question: Did this ball benefit Spain because we have a brutal striking school (Olmo, Yamal, Fermín…) or did it harm goalkeepers like Unai Simón, who also had to deal with it? Because look, Unai had an incredible World Cup, but some goals went in that with another ball maybe wouldn't have.
I'll start: for me the ball is a spectacle for the neutral fan but a pain for goalkeepers and for the defense. And yes, Spain took advantage of it well, but it could also have given us a scare. What do you think? Was it amazing or awful? I'm reading you! 🏆⚽
1
100%