France and England face off in World Cup third-place playoff

Saturday's rebranded "bronze final" between France and England in Miami might feel like a modern, Gianni-coded exercise in squeezing the product dry, but the third-place playoff is a staple of World Cup history, even if it remains the game nobody wants to play in.

The very first third-place playoff came in 1934, with Germany defeating Austria 3-2 in a match engulfed in murky, menacing geopolitics. Thankfully, the fixture quickly became a more knockabout affair – Brazil swaggered on to the world stage by beating Sweden 4-2 in 1938, and France put six past West Germany in a nine-goal feast of football 20 years later. Just Fontaine scored four that day, later to be joined by Thomas Müller, Davor Suker and Toto Schillaci in using the fixture to pad their Golden Boot stats – a tactic Kylian Mbappé might want to try against a punch-drunk England side and pip Lionel Messi to another personal accolade as a result.

Yes, the third-place playoff can have a hungover, world-weary vibe, but it can also be a lot of fun. The goals-per-game average is higher than in the final, and the third-place playoff has never gone to penalties. But does the result matter? It depends who you ask. Back in 1982, France lost an all-time classic semi-final on penalties to West Germany, and were extremely laissez-faire against Poland just two days later. "Our hearts were elsewhere," Alain Giresse recalled 40 years on. "We had pulled the plug." On the other hand, Poland's 3-2 victory meant they matched their best-ever performance, having also won the third-place playoff against Brazil in 1974. Plenty of other teams have secured a new personal best via this fixture, including Austria, Chile, Portugal, Turkey and Belgium, whose 2-0 triumph over a checked-out England sealed third place in 2018, and a rousing civic reception when the squad returned home.

Even if no player or team truly enjoys this game, England still like it less than most. Their two previous appearances have ended in defeat – against Italy in 1990, and the aforementioned Belgium clash in 2018. Not even Carlo Ancelotti would raise an eyebrow if England come up short again on Saturday, against an all-star France attack eager to take out their frustration on anyone in their path. But if England can be a little more Azteca, a little less Atlanta, then their best men's World Cup performance since 1966 is in reach. So dig Kobbie Mainoo out of storage, fire up Wonderwall and get in the mood.

What do you reckon, Thomas Tuchel? "None of our players and none of the French players want to play this match." Ah. Still, would victory at least earn Tuchel some breathing room, a shiny bronze medal to point at as hacks keep banging on about the Argentina game? The short, and indeed long answer is no. But there are just two bites left at this summer-long buffet of football, so we're going to watch it anyway.

Ibrahima Konaté provided a contrasting perspective: "None of us wanted to play for this third place but we have no choice. We want to pay back our coach. He did so much for the France team. We must be grateful to him for that and we need to do everything we can to win this game … to get this chocolate medal, this bronze medal." The remark sets the tone ahead of what may be Didier Deschamps' final game with France.

Reader correspondence included reflections on the tournament's hosting and ceremony. Dave Butler noted that the Global World Cup has been hosted by three countries who advanced to the same stage, suggesting final presentations should be represented by Canada, Mexico and the USA on behalf of FIFA, not solely by Donald Trump. Phil Taverner quipped about potential imaginary awards for Trump at the final, while Daniel Solomons proposed renaming the 2030 World Cup "Brave New World Cup" given its split across three global power zones.