The 2026 World Cup qualifying match between France and Ukraine at the 'Parc des Princes' stadium in Paris ended in a convincing victory for the hosts with a score of 4:0. This result deprived Ukraine of the chance for first place in Group D, leaving Serhiy Rebrov’s team to fight for second place through a win over Iceland and the playoffs. The result (victory) was entirely predictable for local journalists, but the final score (4:0) surprised many, as it was France’s largest victory in this qualifying tournament.
Photo: uefa.comFrench media, such as L’Équipe, Le Figaro, and RMC Sport, met the game with a sense of relief and irony, emphasizing the predictability of the visitors' tactics—seeking to play 0:0 to avoid the necessity of winning in Iceland—and marveling at the complete lack of attacks. The press calls the match the «easiest in the qualifying cycle,» ironically reflecting on Ukraine’s defensive approach, fully closing up but still unable to play decently even with five defenders and three holding midfielders.
French publications write that «the Blues» took control from the first minutes. L’Équipe writes: «The first half ended in a 0:0 draw, as Ukraine wished. But in the second half, France performed much better, and the Ukrainians simply couldn’t keep up with Deschamps' team’s fast-paced attacking players.» Le Figaro adds: «Ukraine played for 0:0 in the first half, but even after conceding a goal, they went completely into defense, not hitting the target even once.» RMC Sport emphasizes: «With five defenders and three holding midfielders, Ukraine was supposed to look like a real fortress, but this fortress fell as if made of cardboard.» L’Équipe notes: «Even after 2:0, Rebrov did not take risks, thinking about the next match, which made this clash easy for us.»
The French press sees the victory as predictable but is surprised by Ukraine’s passivity. L’Équipe writes: «It was the easiest match of the qualifying cycle—Ukraine thought defensively from the first minutes, and after the second goal, simply gave up.» Le Figaro adds: «the Blues dominated, but even we are surprised: the opponent didn’t try to attack, as if resigning to defeat in advance.» RMC Sport ironically states: «Rebrov’s overly cautious tactics were a gift for France since Rebrov didn’t surprise Deschamps at all. If the Ukrainians had chosen to play attacking football—it would truly have been an unpleasant surprise.» L’Équipe praises the French: «Mbappe and Oliseh shone, and Ukraine didn’t hit on target even once since it was a warm-up for Iceland. It was a match to play and forget. Rebrov put everything on the last round to take the second spot.»
French media criticize Rebrov’s tactics. L’Équipe notes: «Ukraine deserved the defeat—their 0:0 plan was predictable, but even after the second goal, they did not dare to attack in force. Five defenders didn’t stop France, and three holding midfielders made the game boring, as there was no one to ignite Ukraine’s attacks.» Le Figaro adds: «Rebrov surprised, but not with tactics: the team that could have contested for first place chose defense and didn’t hit on target once. It’s not the kind of football that fans like.» RMC Sport writes: «Ukraine looked doomed—after conceding a goal, they only thought about survival, but even that didn’t work. With such an approach, the playoffs are their ceiling.» L’Équipe concludes: «The chances for first place are gone, but even in the second half, Ukraine didn’t try to just please the Ukrainian fans, of whom there were quite a few in Paris—this is disappointing.»
French media see the match as confirmation of «the Blues'» strength. L’Équipe predicts: «4:0 is a signal to everyone: defensive tactics don’t work against France. We completed the minimum task and can wait for the draw. And the spectacular victory over Ukraine made this day even more pleasant for all the French.» Le Figaro adds: «Ukraine must win in Iceland to get to the playoffs, but with such tactics, their chances of reaching the World Cup are slim, even if they achieve second place.»
