There is a particular kind of football fan, and you may know one. You may be one. Every August they build a FPL team full of hope. By October, that team has become a burden they carry out of duty or they may even think about giving up already. Their mini-league position is best described as mediocre and half their team is carrying a yellow or red flag.
Gameweek XI would like to offer this person, and everyone else, a clean slate.
So, what is it?
Gameweek XI is weekly fantasy Premier League, for cash prizes. That’s more or less the whole idea, and it’s a good one.
Each gameweek you pick a brand new team with a £100 million budget. Your players score points for what they do on the pitch, much like the fantasy football you already know. Goals, assists and clean sheets all count, and so do the small heroics in between. When the gameweek ends, so does your commitment. You don’t carry a team over, you don’t sit through a slow decline, and you don’t have to explain to anyone why you still own that midfielder.
Next week you start again, with a fresh budget and fresh hope.
Why it’s rather fun
There’s something freeing about a team that only has to last a few days. You can back the in-form striker without worrying about his fixtures in March. You can take a chance on the newly promoted side’s surprise goalscorer. You can go all in on a hunch, because if it goes wrong, the whole thing resets next week.
It also means every single gameweek matters. There’s no “my season’s gone” by November. If you had a bad week, it’s gone, and you’re level with everyone else again. That, frankly, is more than real football has ever offered anyone.
Better with friends (and a little something riding on it)
You can enter public contests and take on the wider Gameweek XI community. The real joy, though, might be closer to home.
Say you and four mates fancy a game this weekend. One of you sets up a private contest, sets the entry fee at £5, and sends the invite round. Five of you pick your teams, and the winner takes the whole pot, along with bragging rights that will be mentioned in the group chat for a good while.
The next week, you can do it all again. The person who finished last gets a chance at redemption. Whether they take it is another matter.
Try it for free: win £50 in Gameweek 6
If you’d like to get to know the app before putting any money down, we’ve made it easy.
For Gameweek 6, we’re running a free-to-play contest with £50 for the top scorer. It’s open to everyone and costs nothing to enter. Pick a team, see how it all works, and find out whether your instincts are as sharp as you’ve always told people they are.
The worst-case scenario is that you learn how the app works for free. The best-case scenario is £50 and a very smug weekend.
Enter the free Gameweek 6 contest, or set one up with your mates.
Watch the weekend unfold, and refresh the app more often than is strictly healthy.
A new gameweek, a new team and a new chance. What could possibly go wrong? Well, quite a lot, actually. But it’ll all be over by Monday.
18+ only. Please play responsibly. Gameweek XI is operated by Fantasy Boss Ltd, licensed and regulated by the UK Gambling Commission. For support, visitBeGambleAware.org.
September fantasy football can feel like educated guesswork. One unexpected touchdown can send a player straight to the waiver-wire wish list, while a quiet afternoon from an early draft pick can have managers wondering what went wrong.
October changes the mood. The surprises don’t stop, but there are more games to study and more clues about how teams intend to use their players. The NFL’s 2026 schedule moves from Week 4 into Week 8 during October, giving fantasy managers a growing body of regular-season evidence to work with.
Stop Chasing Points and Start Tracking Roles
Fantasy points show what happened. Usage often provides a better indication of whether that production is attached to a role that is actually growing.
The Giants provide an early 2026 example. After rotating their running backs heavily through the first two weeks, New York kept Cam Skattebo on the field more frequently in Week 3. A change like that matters even before the fantasy totals become consistent because it shows that the offense itself may be settling on a clearer role.
Useful indicators include:
Snap share: How often the player is actually on the field,
Routes run: Whether a receiver or tight end is consistently involved on passing plays,
Targets and carries: How frequently the offense is directing opportunities toward the player,
Red-zone usage: Whether touches are arriving in areas where touchdowns are more likely,
Goal-line carries: Whether a running back is trusted near the end zone.
Matchup Data Becomes More Position-Specific
Three weeks into 2026, there is already more defensive evidence to work with than there was on draft day. Matchup analysis can begin moving beyond preseason reputation toward what teams have actually allowed through September.
Quarterback decisions can consider pressure rate, sack production and the wider scoring environment. Running back matchups may depend more on rushing efficiency allowed, goal-line opportunities and whether the likely game script supports sustained carries. Receivers can be assessed through target volume, explosive passes allowed and the way an opponent has handled different receiving roles.
Betting markets can provide another signal. Game totals, spreads and player props available when fans wager on NFL can offer an additional indication of expected game environment and player opportunity. A higher total may point toward more potential scoring, while passing, rushing and receiving props can reflect market expectations around individual volume.
Those numbers should not replace fantasy analysis. They are most useful alongside workload, injuries, opponent strength and recent role changes.
Injuries Start Reshaping Depth Charts
By October, teams have also provided evidence about what actually happens when a starter misses time. That can be more valuable than simply looking at the preseason depth chart. Broader NFL analysis can add context around injuries, team performance and changing tendencies before weekly lineup decisions are made.
Miami provided an early example in Week 3. After De’Von Achane left the game, Ollie Gordon handled 83.6% of the offensive snaps, 17 rushing attempts and three targets. That workload offered an immediate indication of how the Dolphins could divide backfield opportunities if Achane misses further time.
Other teams may respond very differently, using committees or shifting touches across several positions. The important fantasy question is therefore not simply who sits next on the depth chart, but where the missing carries, routes and targets actually go.
The Waiver Wire Becomes a Search for Future Volume
Kenyon Sadiq’s Week 3 breakout shows why October waiver decisions need more than a box score. The Jets tight end caught seven passes for 105 yards and a touchdown, but he was still on the field for only 57.6% of offensive snaps. His 22.2% target share showed substantial involvement when he did play, making his October usage as important as the Week 3 fantasy total itself.
That is the distinction managers can increasingly make as September ends. Rising snap share, routes, targets and carries can reveal players whose roles are expanding before their fantasy production becomes consistent.
The waiver wire therefore becomes less about chasing whoever scored most recently and more about identifying which September surprises are developing into dependable October roles.
October Is When Roles Start to Matter More Than Scores
October is less about reacting to the latest big score and more about identifying which players are consistently earning valuable opportunities. The most useful trends are often the quieter ones: a growing route share, more red-zone work or a workload that has increased for several consecutive weeks.
Those patterns do not guarantee future production, but they provide a stronger foundation for lineup and waiver decisions than one standout Sunday.
Leeds United found exceptional value when they signed Jayden Bogle from Sheffield United for £5 million. Three league matches into the season, the right-back was beginning to resemble an equally clever purchase for Fantasy Premier League (FPL) managers. Budget defenders generally ask you to choose between security and ambition. Bogle had offered both, collecting 22 points to lead the Leeds FPL rankings despite an ownership figure of only 2.1 per cent. The club’s confidence in him extends beyond his current form. Bogle helped secure promotion during his first season, then carried his attacking game into the Premier League strongly enough to earn a contract until 2030. Fantasy managers are being offered that established starter for £4.5 million.
BREAKING: Sheffield United defender Jayden Bogle is undergoing a medical at Leeds 🚨⚪ pic.twitter.com/XqkQobTe8i
Much of Bogle’s appeal rests on a Leeds side that looks more secure in its second Premier League season. Daniel Farke’s team collected five points from their opening three games and conceded only twice.
Three unbeaten matches also altered how Leeds were viewed beyond FPL. The online sports betting markets priced them at 12/1 for relegation, an assessment that placed their resilience in useful context without treating safety as settled. A budget defender becomes more attractive when his club can protect its goal away from home.
The more instructive return came during the draw at Brighton. A close-range goal and maximum bonus helped him reach 14 points, the kind of haul normally associated with a premium defender.
Farke withdrew him after 60 minutes, before Brighton equalised, so Bogle retained the fantasy clean sheet. It was a valuable reminder that FPL rewards an individual’s time on the pitch rather than his team’s final defensive record.
The Forward Runs Predate This Season
That Brighton finish was not an isolated appearance in unfamiliar territory. Across his first two campaigns at Elland Road, the right-back produced eight goals and six assists in 84 appearances.
🫶 Thanks to everyone who travelled down to the south coast, safe journey home and we’ll see you at Chelsea on Wednesday pic.twitter.com/JVAqR6Pt7v
A tactical change last winter pushed him into more advanced areas. During February’s 2-2 draw at Chelsea, he started on the right wing and contributed to both Leeds goals. Supporters had already seen his willingness to attack the right half-space, where markers can lose track of a defender arriving from deep.
Some restraint is still required. Almost all of Bogle’s 0.9 expected goals across the opening three matches came from his chance at Brighton. That number records one outstanding opportunity rather than a dependable supply of shots.
His previous campaign produced 96 FPL points, useful evidence without identifying an automatic starter. Managers can bench a £4.5 million defender when the match-up looks hostile and still benefit when Leeds appear capable of controlling a game.
For such a lightly owned asset, that flexibility is appealing. You are buying a regular starter in an improving defence whose manager is comfortable releasing him towards goal. Bogle will not deliver 14 points every week. He may only need to provide enough threat to outperform a crowded field of safer, less adventurous alternatives.
Europe has the largest regulated gambling market in the world. In 2024, gross gaming revenue reached €123.4 billion. Online casinos accounted for €21.5 billion of this amount. By 2025, analysts project that European online casinos will represent 41.2 percent of the global online gambling market. Industry experts expect the number of online casino users to reach 38.1 million by 2029.
By 2029, people in Europe will spend €66.8 billion on online gambling. European online gambling spending will increase by 6.9% each year.
What Do Players Actually Choose to Play?
Slots take 80 percent of all bets on European online casino sites. In 2023, players placed an average bet of €49.95 on each card game hand. When they chose slots, they wagered an average of €0.75 per spin.
In 2023, slots made up over 65 percent of the online casino industry’s revenue. By 2024, slots held a 61.55 percent share of the market. Live dealer games were the next category among online casino offerings after slots.
Players choose some titles because those titles show return rates.
Book of Dead – 96.21% RTP;
Starburst – 96.09% RTP;
Gonzo’s Quest – 95.97% RTP;
Mega Moolah – 88.12% RTP;
Immortal Romance – 96.86% RTP;
Bonanza Megaways – 96.00% RTP;
Reactoonz – 96.51% RTP;
Lightning Roulette – 97.30% RTP.
Mobile Devices Changed How You Play
In 2024, mobile devices made up 58 percent of online gambling revenue. In 2023, this share reached 56 percent.
In 2025, people in Europe use mobile devices for 63.71 percent of online gambling. Mobile revenue grows at almost twice the rate of desktop revenue.
Ericsson’s 2024 report lists 210 million 5G subscriptions in Western Europe. With 5G, live dealer games can run with latency below 50 milliseconds.
Top-rated sites are fully optimized for mobile devices. Mobile optimization uses responsive design or dedicated iOS and Android apps. Modern platforms track player behavior across multiple touchpoints. Tracking player behavior enables personalized rewards.
How Fast Can You Withdraw Your Funds?
Many European online casinos accept crypto, which lets users transfer funds and keep their privacy. Players also use e-wallets, choosing options like Skrill and Neteller. Others select banking methods and rely on Trustly for transfers. Some prefer prepaid cards, with Paysafecard allowing them to stay anonymous.
SEPA Instant transfers funds in under ten seconds. However, operators conduct AML and KYC checks, which can cause payouts to take hours.
Industry data shows payment checks can add 12 to 48 hours to withdrawal times in regions. Users receive Visa and Mastercard deposits. Withdrawals may take days.
At betting sites, 34% of players use cryptocurrency transactions at online casino Europe platforms. E-wallet withdrawals are typically processed on the same day. KYC systems can verify accounts within minutes, while manual staff document checks may take up to 48 hours.
What Are Bonuses Actually Worth?
In most regulated markets, wagering requirements range from 35x to 45x. Players must bet the bonus amount that many times before they can request a withdrawal.
A €500 bonus with a 40x requirement means the player must bet €20,000 before the casino allows withdrawal of the bonus as cash. Some people dislike offers that give “100% up to €500 + 100 Free Spins.
Bonus structures depend on offer type, with player tier affecting their application.
Welcome match bonus – 35x–50x wagering;
Free spins packages – 40x winnings requirement;
Reload bonuses – 30x–40x wagering;
Cashback offers – 1x–5x turnover;
No-deposit bonuses – 50x–60x wagering;
VIP rewards – 20x–30x wagering;
High-roller bonuses – 25x–35x wagering;
Loyalty points conversion – 1x turnover;
Tournament prizes – 0x–10x wagering.
How to Read the Requirements
A 20x to 30x wagering requirement is fair in 2025. Players can use slots to meet the amount. Table games count for only 10% or 20% of the total required.
Many sites give users 20 to 50 spins when they create an account, with the spins offered as a bonus for slots from Pragmatic Play, NetEnt, or Play’n GO. Some packages offer up to 200 or 300 spins.
No-deposit bonuses are more common as VIP perks for regular depositors. Behaviour-based bonuses adjust wagering requirements according to individual player profiles.
In April 2024, Italy’s gambling authority established new rules for casino bonuses. The rules created three bonus categories, and European casinos adjusted how they offer promotions as a result of the new rules. Players must meet new requirements to receive rewards through 2026.
Who Makes the Games You Play
Playtech works with operators. Both Bet365 and William Hill use Playtech infrastructure. The game provider sets the RTP, decides the game’s volatility, and manages certification.
Playtech started in 1999. The company now has more than 200 operator licences in 25 markets. It runs a catalogue with over 1,000 titles. Each year, Playtech adds around 60 new releases.
Microgaming began in 1994 and is one of the earliest online casino software providers. Developers use the Quickfire API, which gives access to more than 3,000 games from over 100 independent studios. Evolution leads the live casino market and holds licenses from the UKGC, Malta MGA, and other authorities.
An EU casino offers at least 500 games. Players can access games from Nolimit City, Pragmatic Play, Play’n GO, Hacksaw, Lucky Streak, and Novomatic. Staff add new games every week.
Steps to Check Provider Quality
Players should check a provider’s credentials before depositing money. Following a set process for these checks protects money and personal information from fraud or poor service.
Look at the homepage footer. Find license numbers from the MGA, UKGC, or GGL there.
Visit the regulator’s website, enter the licence number, and verify that the licence is valid and current.
Enter the provider’s name with “complaints” or “scam” to find shared experiences.
Review the withdrawal policy page to confirm timelines and ensure listed fees match what the site promised.
Check SSL encryption before signing up. Click the padlock icon in the browser address bar to confirm security.
Ask live support your question. Track the time it takes live support to reply and compare it with the standard of less than 90 seconds.
Check the provider’s RTP disclosure page. Look for game return rates above 95 percent, which indicates transparency.
Find the software providers the site lists. Compare these names with studios licensed in your jurisdiction.
Licensing Determines What You Can Trust
In most European countries, 27 out of 31 use a multi-licensing model. With this system, many operators run under licences. Regulators set minimum standards for player protection.
The Malta Gaming Authority, established in 2001, oversees online gambling by monitoring casinos, poker rooms, and sports betting sites, issuing both B2B and B2C licences, and enforcing a 5 percent tax on gross gaming revenue.
Forming a company in a jurisdiction takes 4 to 6 weeks, while the UKGC processes licence applications in about 16 weeks. Revenue tax rates vary by jurisdiction, ranging from 15 to 50 percent.
In Italy, online licence fees for 2024 are €7 million, with each concession lasting nine years. Unlicensed offshore operators account for 15 to 20 percent of European online gambling spending. Automated KYC checks let staff clear accounts in minutes, whereas manual checks may take up to 48 hours.
Photo by Huy Phan: https://www.pexels.com/photo/building-of-emirates-stadium-17160674/
Gameweek 5: Template vs Differentials
Gameweek 5 has thrown up one of those weeks where the template picks and the differentials are pulling FPL managers in opposite directions, and the international break sitting right behind it makes the decision sharper than usual. Get a transfer wrong now and you’re stuck with it through a fortnight of no football to fix it.
The template names are doing what template names do. Gibbs-White is sat in more than 10% of squads off the back of 26 points, and nobody’s arguing with that. But the more interesting conversation this week is happening further down the ownership charts. Daniel Muñoz is putting up defender numbers that don’t match his 5.4m price tag or his 5.5% ownership, and Crystal Palace’s underlying defensive shape means he’s not a one-week story. Jayden Bogle is the one that should really sting anyone who benched him early: he’s the top scorer in the entire game right now, and he’s sat in just 2.7% of teams.
It’s a good week to be reminded that fixture planning and fortune both matter more early in a season than reputation does, and Iceland is a useful example of just how far obsession with English football can travel, even from a country of its size.
Iceland’s Other Football Currency
Icelandic support for the Premier League isn’t just idle fandom either. FISO’s forum runs global, and a fair few of the Icelandic members asking about Gameweek 5 transfers are also asking about the wider gambling landscape back home, where domestic operators are still limited by law. For anyone in that position, working out the best casinos in Iceland is a genuinely open question in a market that has never issued its own online licences, leaving most of that demand to be met from abroad.
A Nation That Travelled for Euro 2016
Iceland’s relationship with the Premier League goes back further than any of that, though. When the national team qualified for Euro 2016, 26,985 Icelanders applied for tournament tickets, 8.15% of the country’s population of roughly 330,000. Some estimates put the number who actually made it to France at close to one in ten. For a country with a population smaller than most English cities, that’s not fandom, it’s closer to a national migration.
Heimir Hallgrímsson, Iceland’s joint coach during that tournament, explained the depth of it a few years later in an interview with FourFourTwo: “All Icelanders watch the Premier League and have a favourite English team, so we knew every player like they were our friend. If Icelanders aren’t supporting Iceland, they support England.” It’s a strange thing to hear from a national team manager, conceding that his own players grew up split between two flags, but it matches everything else known about the country’s relationship with English football.
Join the Debate
That history is exactly why the Icelandic contingent on FISO doesn’t feel like an outlier once you know it’s there. Anyone wanting to dig into this week’s picks in more depth, or see what the rest of the community makes of the Gibbs-White, Bogle and Barry debate, can do so over on our forum, where the Gameweek 5 threads are already running hot.
Midfield and Forward Picks Worth a Look
Back on the pitch, midfield is where it gets genuinely stubborn. Josh King at 5.5m has put together 22 points this season, more than every midfielder in his price bracket bar two, and Fulham’s fixture run into the international break, Ipswich away then Manchester United at home, looks soft enough to keep him relevant into Gameweek 6 and beyond. Marcus Tavernier at 6.1m is arguably the sharper long-term hold: only three players have outscored him among midfielders this season, and his underlying numbers, an xG figure more than three times his midfield rival Scott’s, suggest the returns aren’t a fluke of fixture list or fortunate deflections.
Up front, Thierno Barry at 5.6m is the value forward worth a serious look. Ipswich have conceded more than every side bar Crystal Palace, and a forward at 6.5% ownership facing that kind of defence is exactly the sort of gap the FanTeam side of the site tends to flag before it becomes obvious to everyone else.
FISO has been doing this since March 2000, long enough to have seen plenty of “nailed” picks fall apart by Gameweek 8. The pattern with the current international break is the same as always, whether you’re transferring in from Manchester or Reykjavík: get your moves in now, or spend a fortnight regretting the ones you didn’t make.
Gameweek 4 is complete and the opening weeks of the 2026/27 Fantasy Premier League season have already changed our view of several Premier League clubs.
The planner now covers GW5 to GW14, giving FPL managers a ten-Gameweek view of the fixtures ahead. More importantly, we have substantially revised our club Strength ratings.
Our original ratings were heavily influenced by the final 2025/26 Premier League table. After four Gameweeks of the new season, we now have enough evidence to make 2026/27 performances the main influence on our ratings, while still retaining some weighting for what we knew about the teams before the season began.
Some of the biggest changes have come from clubs whose opening four matches have challenged their pre-season expectations.
Leeds have risen to a Strength rating of 77 following their excellent start, culminating in their 4-1 victory over Newcastle.
Brighton have climbed to 78, while promoted Hull are now rated 72 and Ipswich have moved up to 65.
At the other end, Manchester United have dropped to 76, while Coventry are now our lowest-rated team at 48.
At the top, Arsenal remain our strongest side at 95, just ahead of Manchester City on 93.
These ratings aren’t designed to remain static. We’ll continue reviewing them as the season develops and the evidence from 2026/27 becomes increasingly reliable.
Man City have the best next five fixtures
For this week’s analysis, we’ve sorted the FDR according to GW5-GW9, giving us a useful five-Gameweek planning period.
Manchester City come out on top with an Avg 5 fixture rating of +23.4.
Their next five are:
Sunderland (H) Liverpool (A) Ipswich (H) Aston Villa (A) Brighton (H)
The Liverpool trip is the obvious complication, but the other fixtures look extremely attractive according to our current Strength ratings.
Sunderland at home scores +29, Ipswich at home is +30, Villa away is also +30, and Brighton at home scores +17.
Looking further ahead makes City even more interesting. They subsequently face Nottingham Forest, Fulham, Arsenal, Leeds and Brentford, giving them an Avg 10 of +20.6.
For FPL managers considering City assets, this isn’t simply a short run to target. The fixtures remain strong virtually all the way through to GW14.
Arsenal are close behind
Arsenal rank second over the next five with an Avg 5 of +19.8.
The FISO ratings make Leeds at home +20, Forest away +25 and Everton at home +26.
Liverpool away is harder, but still only scores +13 because of Arsenal’s very high Strength rating.
Arsenal also have the best Avg 10 score at +20.8, narrowly ahead of City’s +20.6.
After Liverpool they face Hull, Newcastle, Manchester City, Brentford and Tottenham. Spurs away in GW14 currently receives an extraordinary +36 rating.
That final number demonstrates an important feature of the FISO FDR: fixture difficulty is relative to the Strength of the team you own.
A fixture against Tottenham is considerably more attractive for a team rated 95 than it would be for an average Premier League side.
Chelsea complete the top three
Chelsea’s next five produce an Avg 5 of +13.4.
They face Brentford away, Bournemouth at home, Everton away, Tottenham at home and Manchester United at home.
Tottenham at home is the standout at +27, while Bournemouth at home scores +17.
Chelsea’s fixtures also remain attractive over the longer period. Their Avg 10 is +12.6, with Sunderland, Leeds, Nottingham Forest and Crystal Palace all appearing before GW14.
Manchester United have good fixtures despite their Strength downgrade
One interesting consequence of the new ratings is Manchester United.
We’ve downgraded United’s Strength to 76 following their opening four matches, but their upcoming schedule is still attractive.
Their Avg 5 is +7.0, with Fulham, Tottenham, Leeds, Bournemouth and Chelsea next.
They also finish the ten-Gameweek period with Aston Villa, Liverpool, Brentford, Newcastle and Coventry.
Coventry at home in GW14 receives a +30 rating.
So while our assessment of United themselves has weakened, their fixtures remain potentially useful for FPL managers who believe particular United players can outperform the team’s early-season form.
Newcastle look better in the short term than the long term
Newcastle are a good example of why we’ve included three different averages in the FDR.
Their figures are:
Avg 3: +8.3 Avg 5: +5.6 Avg 10: -0.5
Hull, Coventry and Aston Villa make the immediate schedule attractive.
However, the longer period eventually brings Arsenal, Brighton and Manchester United.
Newcastle therefore look much more interesting as a short-term fixture play than as a team to target throughout GW5-GW14.
Leeds’ improved rating changes their FDR dramatically
Leeds are perhaps the clearest example of why updating the Strength ratings matters.
They were originally treated as one of the weaker Premier League sides based largely on last season. Four Gameweeks into 2026/27, that no longer looks appropriate.
Their new Strength rating of 77 means fixtures that previously looked relatively difficult now become much more manageable.
Leeds’ Avg 5 is +3.4 and their Avg 10 is +5.9.
The next five include Crystal Palace at home (+17), Sunderland away (+9) and Bournemouth away (+8), although Arsenal away is understandably difficult at -20.
Further ahead, Tottenham at home is rated +22 and Coventry at home +31.
For FPL managers, Leeds are no longer simply a team whose opponents should automatically receive a green fixture.
Everton begin a much tougher group
At the other end of our GW5-GW9 rankings, Everton have an Avg 5 of -5.8.
Ipswich at home is favourable, but that is followed by Hull away, Chelsea at home, Arsenal away and Newcastle away.
The Arsenal match receives a -26 rating.
Interestingly, Everton’s Avg 10 improves to +0.5, demonstrating again why managers should consider the period that best matches their transfer plans.
Sunderland face an immediate problem
Sunderland have one of the least attractive short-term schedules.
Their Avg 3 is -14.0 and Avg 5 is -7.0.
The biggest problem comes immediately: Manchester City away in GW5 scores -29.
Brighton, Bournemouth and Leeds follow before Coventry provide a much more attractive fixture in GW9.
The longer-term picture remains difficult, with Sunderland’s Avg 10 at -5.5.
Crystal Palace have a difficult five-Gameweek run
Palace have an Avg 5 of -8.0.
Their next five are Leeds away, Nottingham Forest at home, Brighton away, Newcastle at home and Tottenham away.
Brighton away is currently rated -18, while Leeds away is -17.
Things don’t improve dramatically afterwards, with Liverpool and Chelsea among their later opponents.
Palace’s Avg 10 of -7.5 therefore suggests this isn’t simply a short-term fixture problem.
Ipswich have improved – but the fixtures haven’t
Ipswich are another promoted side we’ve upgraded substantially, moving from 52 to a Strength rating of 65.
However, they still have a difficult immediate schedule.
Their Avg 5 is -8.2, including Everton away, Manchester City away and Hull away.
City away receives a -30 rating.
The longer-term picture is more encouraging. Tottenham, Aston Villa and Coventry appear between GW11 and GW13, helping their Avg 10 recover to -2.8.
Tottenham’s ten-Gameweek run stands out for the wrong reasons
Tottenham’s immediate Avg 3 of -4.0 isn’t disastrous.
Look further ahead, though, and the picture deteriorates considerably.
Their Avg 5 is -8.4, while their Avg 10 is -11.8.
Manchester United away (-21), Chelsea away (-27) and Leeds away (-22) all appear before the particularly difficult GW14 meeting with Arsenal.
That Arsenal fixture is rated -36, the reverse of Arsenal’s +36 rating for the same match.
Spurs therefore have one of the least attractive longer-term schedules in the entire FDR.
Coventry have the hardest fixture run
Coventry sit at the bottom of our five-Gameweek ranking with an Avg 5 of -15.4.
They also have an extraordinary Avg 10 of -19.0.
Their next ten are Nottingham Forest, Newcastle, Tottenham, Fulham, Sunderland, Everton, Crystal Palace, Leeds, Ipswich and Manchester United.
Although those club names might not initially appear to represent an exceptionally difficult run, Coventry’s Strength rating of only 48 changes the calculation dramatically.
Forest away is -22, Newcastle at home -18, Sunderland at home -16, Everton away -25, Leeds away -31 and Manchester United away -30.
It is another good illustration of why fixture difficulty cannot really be judged by the opponent alone.
Why use Avg 3, Avg 5 and Avg 10?
There isn’t one correct period over which to judge fixtures.
A manager considering a one- or two-week punt might care primarily about the Avg 3 column.
For normal FPL transfer planning, Avg 5 provides a useful medium-term view. That’s why we’ve used GW5-GW9 to rank the clubs in this article.
Meanwhile, Avg 10 can be particularly useful when considering goalkeepers, defenders or premium players you hope to keep for a substantial part of the season.
The ability to switch between these periods can reveal teams that have good immediate fixtures but a difficult longer-term schedule – or vice versa.
Don’t agree with the FISO ratings? Create your own
Our new default option is FISO ratings – after GW4.
But these ratings are our assessment rather than a statement of fact.
If you think Leeds should be higher than 77, change them.
If you think Manchester United’s 76 is too low, increase it.
If you believe Spurs will recover quickly and shouldn’t be rated only 57, adjust their Strength.
Select User custom and the planner will recalculate the fixture scores, colours and Avg 3, Avg 5 and Avg 10 figures according to your ratings.
You can also change the home-advantage setting and share your customised version.
That’s the main difference between the FISO planner and a conventional static FDR: you decide how strong the teams are.
FPL fixture planning from GW5
Using the FISO post-GW4 Strength ratings, Manchester City and Arsenal clearly have the outstanding five-Gameweek fixture runs.
Chelsea are also very well placed, while Manchester United, Newcastle and Hull sit towards the favourable end of the GW5-GW9 rankings.
At the other extreme, Coventry have comfortably the toughest schedule according to our model. Aston Villa, Bournemouth, Tottenham, Ipswich, Crystal Palace and Sunderland also face difficult five-Gameweek periods.
But the opening four Gameweeks have already shown how quickly perceptions can change.
We’ll therefore continue updating both the ten-Gameweek fixture window and the FISO Strength ratings as the 2026/27 season develops.
The 2026/27 summer transfer window has closed its doors, having posed far more questions about the Premier League’s emerging order than it answered. Anyone checking the top betting sites in the UK for title and relegation prices this week will have watched those markets move almost as fast as the deals themselves.
It began sluggishly, the usual-suspect clubs circling their targets without conviction. Then deadline day arrived, and the pace transformed.
There was a familiar sense of theatre as the clock ticked towards the deadline. Agents moved between hotels and training grounds.
Clubs tried to find solutions for problems that had been allowed to linger most of the summer, and managers waited for the calls that could alter the complexion of their squads and ultimately where sports betting sites will have their sides down to finish come May.
Panic buys filled the void where genuine strategy had failed. Managerial philosophies collided with the financial reality of leaving your business until the last minute.
The early Premier League campaign has already delivered surprises. Coventry City, Hull City and Ipswich Town have begun their return to the top flight with mixed results.
Five of the traditional “big six” have different managers than the ones who started the 2025/26 season. Fulham, Crystal Palace, Nottingham Forest and Bournemouth have all turned to fresh leadership in the dugout, too.
The unpredictability feels genuine. Teams can’t strengthen again until January, which means deadline-day mistakes are amplified and shrewd recruitment becomes currency.
With that reality in mind, the picture emerging from the final hours of the transfer market reveals which clubs genuinely planned for this campaign and which ones simply reacted to circumstance.
Maresca’s Man City midfield rebuild
There was never going to be a gentle transition from Pep Guardiola to Enzo Maresca. Pep’s departure brought an end to one of the defining managerial eras in Premier League history, but the more immediate problem facing his successor was the loss of the player who had come to symbolise the control at its heart.
Rodri’s departure meant City were not simply replacing an influential midfielder. They were losing the player around whom their rhythm, security and possession game had been organised for years.
Iliman Ndiaye followed from Everton for £65m, while Elliot Anderson had already arrived from Nottingham Forest in a £116m deal.
Those numbers tell you something about the expectations placed on Maresca. City are building for Maresca’s tactical philosophy rather than simply maintaining what came before. Jack Grealish departed for Everton. Téjani Reijnders left after just one season.
The question hovering over City isn’t whether they’ll adapt quickly. It’s whether the adaptation will take so long that the season slips away early.
Liverpool lacks the depth to sustain anything serious
Liverpool’s summer told a different story entirely. Mohamed Salah’s departure in May created an enormous void that Andoni Iraola had to try to fix in just three months at Anfield.
The Reds needed attacking reinforcements at scale. Instead, they acquired Bradley Barcola from Paris Saint-Germain and essentially hoped the rest would sort itself out.
Cody Gakpo remains. Harvey Elliott joined Valencia on loan, freeing up squad space but surrendering attacking depth. Ismaila Sarr from Crystal Palace eluded their grasp.
The goalkeeping department welcomed Lucca Brughmans for £30 million, but he won’t arrive until next summer, which raises questions about Iraola’s time frame at Anfield. Stefan Bajčetić departed for Spain after three years without a meaningful contribution.
It’s a transfer window that suggests either extraordinary confidence in Iraola’s ability to develop youth or extraordinary complacency about the demands facing a new manager in his opening campaign.
Winless across two opening matches with only encouraging performances to hang onto, Liverpool looks underprepared for a title charge. That was supposed to be different under Iraola. The summer window suggested otherwise.
Real Fulham under Arbeola?
Álvaro Arbeloa is one of the first names to be sacked in the betting markets, and as ruthless as the managerial gauntlet is, there’s only so much the former Liverpool defender can rely on his links with Real Madrid.
The Spaniard arrived at Craven Cottage following Marco Silva’s departure with an opportunity to change the identity of the club.
Silva had spent several seasons turning Fulham into one of the Premier League’s more sustainable sides, built on organisation, transition and an ability to make west London an uncomfortable place to visit.
Arbeloa wants something different. The early recruitment suggests a more technical, possession-oriented side.
Manuel Ángel has followed his former coach from Los Blancos, while Hugo Larsson and David Affengruber have also arrived as part of a summer designed to give Arbeloa the personnel required to impose his football.
There is an obvious appeal to the project. Arbeloa comes with a reputation forged inside one of Europe’s great academies, and Fulham have spent the summer investing not merely in players but in a different footballing philosophy.
But after two losses in the opening two games, reputation and ideas alone won’t give a manager the time they need. Results have to come in quickly, or it’s the chopping block.
Tottenham’s chaotic window
If any club needed a transformative summer, it was Tottenham Hotspur. The previous campaign left the club with little room for sentiment.
Roberto De Zerbi arrived late in the season to rescue Spurs from trouble and was then tasked with rebuilding a squad that had fallen well short of expectations.
Arsenal lifted the title for the first time in 22 years while Spurs remained in limbo, directionless under previous management, though they can take some comfort knowing they’ve splashed the cash for the first time in a few years, while their neighbours failed to land their marquee acquisition in Julian Alvarez. He joins Morgan Rogers and Vinicius Junior in not moving to the Premier League champions this summer.
Early spending at Spurs seemed coherent. Jan Paul van Hecke and Sandro Tonali arrived for substantial fees. The club appeared to have identified targets and executed deals. Then deadline day arrived, and Tottenham’s summer became something altogether more frantic and reactive.
After signing City duo Savio and Omar Marmoush, it was a deadline-day double raid on Chelsea that brought in Mykhailo Mudryk on loan and Tosin Adarabioyo permanently.
Both represent quality, but the timing felt desperate. Mudryk carries the baggage of previous underperformance at Chelsea and is being positioned as a panic buy after Spurs failed to land both Ndiaye and Gakpo.
Kevin Danso departed for Sunderland as part of the reorganisation. Richarlison remained in limbo following his own failed exit. Dane Scarlett joined Leyton Orient to seek regular football. The window ultimately cost Tottenham over £320 million, a considerable investment that felt less like strategy and more like a reaction.
De Zerbi is supposed to be in control. The erratic late moves suggested otherwise. Only time will tell if the new players sit the ground running.
The transfer window’s closure revealed something uncomfortable about the Premier League’s power dynamics heading into the 2026/27 season. Big clubs with clear philosophies got their work done early. Manchester City moved deliberately. Tottenham panicked late. Liverpool appeared to hope rather than plan.
The unpredictability of the season won’t be sorted by January recruitment. Teams that got this window right will benefit all season. Teams that got it wrong will spend six months wishing they’d acted differently.
For continued analysis as fitness news and squad rotations start shaping matchday selections through the autumn, our Team News & Injuries forum is tracking every fitness update club by club.
England and Spain both reached the last four in North America, and they got there in completely different ways. Spain won the tournament by conceding once in eight matches. England finished third by winning a bronze final 6-4. Anyone reading the England vs Spains odds for Wembley on 26 September is pricing a meeting between the meanest defence in World Cup history and one that shipped 10 goals in five knockout ties.
Spain won five knockout matches and conceded once
Spain beat Austria 1-0 in the round of 32, then Portugal 1-0 in the round of 16 through a Mikel Merino goal in the first minute of stoppage time. Belgium got the only goal anyone managed against them in a 2-1 quarter-final. France were beaten 2-0 in the semi-final and Argentina 1-0 in extra time in the final, Ferran Torres scoring in the 106th minute at MetLife Stadium.
That is a World Cup record
One goal conceded across an eight-match tournament is the fewest by any winner. The previous best was two, shared by Spain in 2010, Italy in 2006 and France in 1998. Unai Simon kept seven clean sheets, more than any goalkeeper at a single World Cup, and went 650 minutes without conceding, beating a mark Walter Zenga had held since 1990.
The back four barely changed
Luis de la Fuente finished the tournament with Pedro Porro and Marc Cucurella as full-backs, Pau Cubarsi and Aymeric Laporte in the middle and Rodri screening them. Cubarsi was 19 throughout. Spain conceded nothing in three group games and nothing in either match against Kylian Mbappe or Lionel Messi.
England conceded in every knockout round
England beat DR Congo 3-1, then Mexico 3-2 at the Azteca with Jarell Quansah sent off after 54 minutes. Norway took them to extra time before a 2-1 defeat, and Argentina won the semi-final 2-1 with goals in the 85th minute and in stoppage time. Add the bronze final and it comes to 10 goals in five matches.
The 6-4 was two different games
England led France 4-0 at half time in Miami Gardens through Declan Rice, an Ezri Konsa header and two from Bukayo Saka. It was the first time France had been four down at the break in any international since 1930. Then Mbappe scored in the 48th minute, Bradley Barcola made it 4-2 six minutes later and Mbappe’s second brought France within one. The lead England built in 45 minutes almost vanished in 18.
What held it together
Saka completed his hat-trick from the penalty spot and Jude Bellingham ran through in stoppage time for 6-4 after Ousmane Dembele had pulled France back to 5-4. Saka became the second England player to score a knockout hat-trick at a World Cup, after Geoff Hurst in 1966. England scored 15 goals in five knockout matches, which is why the defensive numbers were survivable.
Wembley asks a narrower question
Spain will not give England a 4-0 head start, and England will not get 15 knockout goals out of a single match. Jordan Pickford’s back four in the semi-final was Reece James, John Stones, Marc Guehi and Djed Spence, and it held a 1-0 lead until the 85th minute before conceding twice. Spain punish that window better than Argentina did.
The market and the evidence
Spain arrive as world champions who conceded one goal in eight games. England arrive with a third-place medal, their best finish since 1966, and the highest-scoring bronze final ever played. Anyone comparing the football odds available for the opener should start with the same question the tournament left open, which is whether England can keep a clean sheet against a team that has forgotten how to concede.
Big Bass Bonanza and Big Bass Splash belong to the same Pragmatic Play slot series and share a similar fishing theme and core setup. Big Bass Splash builds on the original Big Bass Bonanza formula with additional bonus mechanics and a higher maximum-win ceiling. This article will compare: 1. Core gameplay, 2. Free spins, 3. Bonus mechanics, 4. RTP and volatility, 5. Maximum win, and 6. Overall gameplay style. We will not explore the broader franchise history here; instead, you can read our existing Big Bass Bonanza series overview for that context.
Big Bass Bonanza vs Big Bass Splash: Key Differences at a Glance
The comparison table below outlines the primary mathematical and structural distinctions between the two games so players can immediately understand the main differences.
Feature
Big Bass Bonanza
Big Bass Splash
Release
2020
2022
Layout
5×3
5×3
Paylines
10 fixed
10 fixed
Published RTP
Up to 96.71%
Up to 96.71%
Volatility
High/Medium-High
High
Max Win
2,100x
5,000x
Gameplay Style
Simpler
Feature-heavy
Bonus Variation
Streamlined
Modifiers/Nudges
Note: Exact RTP configurations can differ between operators, so players should check the information displayed within the specific version of the game they are using to confirm the active payout percentage.
Big Bass Bonanza provides the simpler baseline for understanding how the series works. Readers who want to see those original mechanics firsthand can play Big Bass Bonanza before comparing how Big Bass Splash expands on the formula. The original title relies on a straightforward progression, establishing the foundation that later entries use as a launching pad for more complex modifier systems.
What Do Big Bass Bonanza and Big Bass Splash Have in Common?
Before examining the differences, it is helpful to establish the shared foundation of both games. Both titles utilize a standard 5×3 reel layout with 10 fixed paylines. They share a similar fishing theme and use the same core Money Fish collection mechanic.
The core bonus mechanic in both games revolves around Free Spins, the Fisherman Wild, and Money Fish symbols. During the Free Spins feature, the Fisherman acts as a Wild substitute and also collects the cash values attached to visible Money Fish symbols.
Both games feature a progressive collection and multiplier system. As you accumulate Fisherman Wilds, you climb a retrigger ladder that grants additional spins and increases the cash prize multiplier up to 10x. Because both games use these broadly similar core mechanics, the major differences only become noticeable once the bonus features are triggered.
How Are the Free Spins and Bonus Features Different?
The bonus mechanics represent the biggest practical difference between the two games.
Big Bass Bonanza Keeps the Formula Simpler
The original game follows a streamlined version of the Big Bass bonus formula. The Free Spins feature is triggered by three, four, or five Scatter symbols, awarding 10, 15, or 20 Free Spins respectively. During this round, the Fisherman Wild symbol collects all visible Money Fish values. Progression during the bonus relies entirely on accumulating these Fisherman symbols on a progressive trail. Every fourth Wild collected retriggers the feature with 10 additional spins and increases the multiplier potential as progression milestones are reached, moving from 2x, to 3x, and finally capping at a 10x multiplier for all collected values. It is a straightforward, linear climb.
Big Bass Splash Adds More Variation
Big Bass Splash is significantly more feature-heavy. One of the most notable additions occurs before the Free Spins begin: a pre-bonus modifier system that can randomly award up to five different modifiers. Possible modifiers include adding more Money Fish or Fisherman symbols to the reel strips, increasing the frequency of Dynamite, Hook, and Bazooka features, starting the bonus at level two, or adding two extra spins at the beginning and on subsequent retriggers.
Furthermore, Big Bass Splash also includes random Dynamite, Hook, and Bazooka features that can help bring Fisherman Wilds and Money Fish together when they do not align naturally. There is also a two-Scatter second-chance mechanic in the base game, where a random nudge, respin, or Hook effect can create another opportunity to land the third Scatter and trigger Free Spins.
These additions mean there is far greater variation in how the bonus round can begin and develop in Big Bass Splash compared to the original. The gameplay experience includes many more feature combinations and unpredictable animations. However, it is important to note that these additional mechanics do not automatically make it a better game; they simply provide a more complex, highly active bonus sequence.
RTP, Volatility and Maximum Win Compared
When comparing the mathematical models, both games offer highly similar theoretical payout frameworks. The published, default RTP for Big Bass Bonanza can reach approximately 96.71%. Similarly, the default RTP for Big Bass Splash can also reach approximately 96.71%.
Exact RTP configurations may vary by casino and operator, as Pragmatic Play allows adjustments to align with local regulations or business strategies. Therefore, readers should always check the information panel in the specific version they are playing to confirm the active configuration.
Both games are positioned toward the volatile end of slot gameplay, meaning results can involve greater swings between losing and winning sequences, with larger payouts concentrated less evenly across play. The primary mathematical difference lies in the payout ceiling. Big Bass Bonanza has a maximum win of up to 2,100x your stake. In contrast, Big Bass Splash increases this potential, offering a maximum win of up to 5,000x your stake.
Keep in mind that RTP represents a theoretical long-term return calculated over a very large number of spins and does not predict results from an individual session. Furthermore, Big Bass Splash having a higher theoretical maximum win does not mean it is more likely to produce a payout.
Graphics and Gameplay Style
Aesthetically, both slots share a nearly identical aquatic environment, but the way they feel to play differs considerably.
Big Bass Bonanza utilizes the original visual presentation of the series. The gameplay flow is noticeably simpler, featuring fewer on-screen distractions and no pre-bonus interactive menus. Because there are fewer additional bonus variations, the game delivers a more straightforward version of the series formula. It is a quiet, focused experience where the objective is clear from the first spin.
In contrast, Big Bass Splash delivers a much busier bonus experience. While it retains the similar fishing theme, the game features a more energetic presentation. The inclusion of the pre-bonus modifier sequence and in-game Dynamite, Hook, and Bazooka animations altering the Free Spins setup creates a highly kinetic environment. The additional mechanics ensure that the screen is frequently moving, making it feel faster-paced and more chaotic than its predecessor.
Big Bass Bonanza or Big Bass Splash: Which One Should You Choose?
There is no universally better choice between these two titles; the decision depends entirely on your gameplay preference.
Big Bass Bonanza May Suit Players Who Prefer:
Simpler mechanics
The original Big Bass format
A more streamlined bonus structure
Fewer feature variations
Big Bass Splash May Suit Players Who Prefer:
More bonus mechanics
Greater variation during Free Spins
Additional modifiers
A higher theoretical maximum-win ceiling
Ultimately, both games share the same basic Big Bass formula but provide noticeably different bonus experiences. Regardless of which title you choose, remember that slot outcomes are determined by random number generators. Always practice responsible gambling, manage your bankroll carefully, and avoid chasing losses, maximum wins, or specific payout outcomes.
Crypto is a common payment method for sports betting and online casinos. Deposits in USDT, BTC, ETH and LTC can credit faster than cards, while withdrawals may clear in minutes rather than days. That speed is useful before kick-off or during a live session, but crypto transfers leave little room for error.
When funding an account at https://1xbet.ie/en or another betting platform, a wrong network, poisoned address or careless wallet approval can send funds somewhere they cannot easily be recovered.
1. Separate Betting Funds From Long-Term Holdings
Keep long-term holdings away from the wallet used for gambling. A hardware or cold wallet can hold savings, while a smaller hot wallet or exchange balance contains only funds intended for betting or casino play.
Avoid connecting a long-term wallet to a casino lobby or unfamiliar “connect wallet” prompt. Malicious approvals can allow a contract to move tokens without obtaining the seed phrase.
Separation also makes results easier to read. A winning football accumulator paid in BTC can lose fiat value if Bitcoin falls. A stablecoin bankroll reduces that additional price exposure.
2. Match the Coin and Network
USDT can be transferred through TRC-20, ERC-20, Solana, BNB Smart Chain and other networks. Sending USDT-TRC20 to an address intended for ERC-20 can result in lost or inaccessible funds.
Before sending a betting deposit, check:
the cryptocurrency and supported network;
the complete deposit address;
minimum deposit and withdrawal amounts;
network and platform fees;
required confirmations;
whether a test transaction is practical.
If the cashier specifies USDT (TRC-20), use Tron. If it specifies ETH mainnet, do not assume an L2 will work unless explicitly supported.
Stablecoins can avoid the price movement associated with BTC or ETH while a transfer is processed. Fees still matter: a reasonable charge on a $200 transfer can make a $15 test send disproportionately expensive.
3. Verify the Full Address Every Time
With address poisoning, an attacker creates a lookalike address sharing the first and last characters of a genuine one, then sends a tiny transaction so it appears in the wallet history.
Do not copy a betting deposit address from transaction history. Take it from the platform’s cashier and check the full string, including the middle characters. For a first or large deposit, a small test transfer can confirm that the betting balance credits correctly.
The same applies to withdrawals. After a successful football bet, the withdrawal address still needs to match the wallet controlled by the player.
4. Treat Wallet Connections and Approvals Carefully
Browser wallets make crypto payments quick, but a payment and a token approval are different. Fake deposit pages, malicious dApps and unlimited approvals can expose more funds than intended.
Use the genuine betting or casino address rather than unsolicited “deposit bonus” links. If a wallet connection asks a contract for permission to spend tokens later, check what is being authorised.
Old permissions can be revoked when no longer needed. Two-factor authentication should also be enabled on both the gambling account and any exchange used to fund it.
5. Size Crypto Deposits Around the Betting Session
Fast transfers can make moving an entire bankroll onto a platform tempting. That leaves more funds outside the player’s wallet and makes increasing stakes easier simply because the money is already available.
For a match day, a deposit might cover planned pre-match stakes plus a defined live-betting reserve. Casino play can use a predetermined session limit.
Withdrawals need similar planning. Check minimum amounts and network fees before moving a small balance, especially when transaction costs represent a significant share of it.
Keep the Wallet Side of Betting Simple
A practical setup can remain straightforward: a separate hot wallet, the correct network, a verified address and a sensible deposit size.
Sports bets and casino rounds create gambling risk; cryptocurrency adds price, network and wallet risks. Keeping the two separate makes the betting result easier to track and reduces the chance that a transaction error determines the outcome instead.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. Our Ad Partners may also use technology to customise ads shown to you. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
