Egypt: Clubs Ranked - 1961 to 2026 (Updated)

Egypt is a strong football nation in Africa and that includes club level. That's helped by having the talent mostly focused within a few clubs. 

The chart to the right shows success achieved domestically (Egy) and then with success in Africa being added (Tot). Al Ahli and Zamelek lead the way, both from the Cairo area.

So how do the points work? In the Premier League (Division 1) the top four are rewarded with 6, 3, 2 and 1. The Egypt Cup 4 and 2 points for the finalists only. In the African Champions League (from 1965), it's 8, 4 and 2 points. The CAF Cup (same as the Europa League; since 1992 ) 6,3,2,1. The Cup Winner's Cup (1975 to 2003) 4 and 2. 

The Premier League is dominated by the three clubs to the left. Since 2014 Al Ahly has won the title eight times and Zamalek the other four. The 2013 season wasn't completed due to a coup d'état.

Since 2013 the top two listed have dominated. Zamalek eight times and Al Alhy four. Pyramids has won tow and the current holder. The cup wasn't held in 2012 due to a deadly riot at a match.  

The Egyptian League Cup has been held five times since 2022. Cerramica Cleopatra have won it three times and Al Masry once, the latter is the current holder. 

Egyptian success in the three African tournaments has increased over this period. It started to get serious in the 1980's and Al Ahly in particular has dominated this decade so far. The most recent major success was Pyramids winning the Champions League in 2025.

All put together, the clubs are below. The grand total is shown for each club, divided into regions with a ranking number (Rk) which gives their place compared to all the other clubs. In some years there have been no tournaments held due to war, riots and political unrest but thankfully most seasons have been completed.

Cairo is a sprawling metropolis that has many clubs within its urban reach. 78.9% of all success is from that area. The East which basically runs down the Suez Canal and it claimed 12.0%. Alexandria (4.4%) Central (4.2%) and South (0.5%) make up the rest.  

FIFA Governance

I have long disliked the way FIFA is run. It's been widely criticised for many years and currently is probably at its lowest point ever. 

Historically, my gripe was around hosting rights. The voting system was based around blocks of nations supporting applications based on political considerations. Some applications were shoe-ins while others  were a waste of time, such was the bias involved. This was regardless of what was good for the game or who was putting up the most credible pitch.

Money has long been used to buy votes and maintain the leadership status quo. In 2015 the U.S. Department of Justice even waded in, exposing decades of racketeering, fraud, and bribery. In came Gianni Infantino in 2016.

I was glad the Sepp Blatter era was over and was hopeful Infantino, as the new president,  would do things in a more transparent way and generally fairer in how decisions were reached. I felt that FIFA couldn't sink any lower. How wrong I was.

Infantino seemingly makes major decisions without consulting member associations or committees. His closeness to political leaders such as Donald Trump, testing FIFA's code of political neutrality. This led to a red card suspension being nullified after a telephone call from a world leader. Coincidence?

Member nations are being offered money to accept a proposal that no one has even been consulted on. As to whether the intention to spin off the commercial rights of the FIFA World Cup is good or not is overshadowed by how it is being handled. 

Details of decisions could be argued. The red flag here is power and how it is being used or abused. There seems to be a lot of power in the hands of one or a few. That power is being wielded in a way that few are comfortable with.

It's human nature that power has a corrupting influence. It goes to people's heads. Democratic becomes autocratic without constraints on the amount of power an individual holds. The problem is, when power is not subject to sufficient checks and balances, things can get out of hand. It's then hard to rein it back in. 

WC 2026 Summary

With 48 teams and talk of going to 64 teams, the WC could end up so broad in its coverage. What are some of the effects expanding the attendees has? The 48 team format will be the main focus here. 

Minows: There was usually a country that had a poor WC but in this one, six. They were all eliminated in the group stage. 

The three games they played resulted in a combined total of 10 goals, but they conceded 62. Is it worth quite a few one sided games to have more participants? 

There could be arguments both ways but going to 64 nations would surely add to the number of blow out scorelines. Not ideal, but I can see both sides. 

Third placed qualifiers: There were eight of them in 2026. In other words, coming third gave a nation 67% chance of progress. One of the eight qualified to the round of 16, but fell there. 

A 48 format creates this situation, whereas a 32 or 64 format can have the top two from each group progressing. I'm not a fan of two in every three contestants progressing. 

Matches played to win: With the move from 32 to 48 countries, that went up from seven to eight. Moving up to 64 teams won't increase that any further. 

Top sides: I counted these as nations that exceeded eleven goals scored. Two went out in the round of 32 and one the round of 16. Germany and USA averaged 2.75 goals per game, conceding 1.25. 

Belgium scored 2.33 per game and conceded 1.2. Norway threw a game against France and ended up with 2.17 and 1.83. 

England managed 2.5 and 1.5. France 2.5 and 1.25. Argentina was 2.38 and 1.0. Spain was 1.75 and 0.13

This doesn't cover minutes played through extra time. Still, there is something to learn. 

Most teams in these later rounds scored at a reasonably consistent rate (the third placed match affected England and France figures). What is obvious is that the finalists had the best defences, 1.0 and a ridiculous 0.125 for Spain. Argentina was helped in the final with Spain denied a legitimate goal which would have lifted Argentina's goals conceded to 1.125 but still the second lowest. 

Two of my favourites were France and England as they had a lot of strike power but both failed with defences that were too leaky. Spain won with a super defensive effort right across the tournament. 

Please note: The lower chart has group match totals and finals totals separated. The red is the two combined.