2014 FIFA World Cup: How Connected Is A Country's Soccer And Economic Prominence?

According to 2013 International Monetary Fund data, the United States has the largest Gross Domestic Product of any nation in the world at $16.8 trillion.  And according to the current U.S. Census clock, the current population is approximately 318 million people, the third largest country in the world.

So why is Jurgen Klinsmann, the German-born coach of the U.S. men's soccer team, making statements that his team "cannot win this World Cup"?

First, let's note that he's not necessarily harnessing his inner Nostradamus with that statement based on the U.S. history in the World Cup.

Second, he may be trying to play some mind games with his boys.  And perhaps this will motivate an unexpected strong showing which could push the boys through to the knockout stage of the tournament.

But more realistically, this Coach K (i.e. not to be confused with that guy who coaches Duke basketball) is probably just being brutally honest.  He knows that his red, white, and blue will have a devilish time with a menacing group featuring the likes of Ghana, Portugal, and his native Germany.

Casual American sports fans who might be drawn into the 2014 FIFA World Cup over the next several weeks vis-a-vis osmosis will probably wonder why we aren't as good as many smaller nations with fewer resources to invest.  After all, if we have more money and more numbers to drawn from, why couldn't we be better?  Why couldn't we win?

Therein lies the interesting relationship between a country's economic conditions, sporting culture, and relative degree of soccer prominence.

In a vacuum, it makes sense that if a country has a larger population and greater affluence, then it should field a better team because such a nation would have a greater pool of talent to draw from and greater financial ability to develop talent.  However, the major caveat to this theory is the weight of history and cultural norms.  Which itself can be impacted by economics.

Soccer is a relatively inexpensive game to play.  Yes, I realize that for you parents whose kids play on select and travel soccer teams, you probably disagree with my assertion.  But if you take that out of the equation for a minute and if you think about the operational logistics, all you need is a ball and some space.  This might, in part, explain why soccer is the world's most popular sport (and for similar reasons, why basketball may be number two).  You don't need much to play, so the expense of playing either is rather minimal.

The two most prominent soccer continents are unquestionably Europe and South America, but they may have obtained that status for different reasons.  In South America, where there is generally speaking a greater degree of income inequality, a real gulf exists between the poor and rich.  And what sport is economically feasible for the poor masses?  Soccer.  In Europe, where soccer is the unquestioned number one team sport for youth to play and the masses to watch, reams of money exist to support player development, stadium construction, and retention of the world's best players.

In the United States, despite the nation's size and wealth, young athletes have too many other sporting choices - and more lucrative ones at that - if they prefer to work professionally in America.  Because the prospect of becoming a professional football, baseball, basketball, or hockey player is more lucrative if you wish to work in the States, many great athletes who could have become exceptional soccer players never look at a soccer pitch because of the other options at their fingertips.  Furthermore, because the ratings for soccer are not the same in the States as they are in Europe, this further explains the economics of why it is really hard to become a millionaire playing soccer full-time in the U.S...but not as hard to do so in the top European leagues because soccer is king.

It's ironic that most of the world calls the sport "football".  For most countries, "football" is king.  In the United States, the NFL brand of football is king.

All that said and just for fun, I engaged in a little exercise below to compare how the countries who qualified for the 2014 World Cup ranked in terms of various financial and demographic statistics.  Below is a table which provides the following information: (1) the FIFA world ranking of each of the 32 teams that qualified for the tournament, (2) their 2013 GDP per capita world ranking as estimated by the IMF, (3) their GDP world rank, (4) their population world rank, and (5) their Gini coefficient rank relative to the WC-qualifying teams, which goes from one through thirty-two.  A country's Gini coefficient measures the degree of income inequality experienced by a country.

2014 Participants World Soccer GDP/cap GDP Popl WC Gini
Spain 1 33 14 28 22
Germany 2 15 5 16 32
Brazil 3 79 7 5 3
Portugal 4 46 51 83 16
Argentina 5 55 22 32 11
Switzerland 6 7 35 98 26
Uruguay 7 60 88 135 9
Colombia 8 85 28 27 2
Italy 9 31 11 24 20
England 10 21 8 22 24
Belgium 11 20 32 75 27
Greece 12 42 48 79 23
USA 13 6 1 3 10
Chile 14 54 41 60 4
Netherlands 15 12 23 64 30
France 17 23 9 20 28
Croatia 18 57 79 128 25
Russia 19 58 6 9 14
Mexico 20 66 10 11 8
Bosnia 21 100 105 130 19
Algeria 22 105 44 33 21
Ivory Coast 24 158 95 53 13
Ecuador 26 89 58 67 6
Costa Rica 28 76 85 120 5
Honduras 33 127 101 94 1
Ghana 37 138 74 49 12
Iran 43 78 18 17 17
Nigeria 44 143 30 7 7
Japan 46 22 4 10 18
South Korea 55 27 12 26 29
Cameroon 56 149 91 56 15
Australia 62 10 17 51 31

Some interesting facts:

- The 10 highest-ranked soccer teams produce median ranks of 39th, 18th, and 27th as it relates to GDP per cap, GDP, and population.  The next ten teams produce median ranks of 48th, 27th, and 62nd, and the bottom twelve teams produce median ranks of 97th, 51st, and 50th.  On the surface, this provides some evidence that there may be a positive correlation between these various economic and demographic indicators and a country's soccer prowess.

- A high GDP per cap does not guarantee soccer prominence.  Only 14 nations among the top 50 in GDP/cap are in the World Cup.  And among the top 10 ranked soccer nations, only two (Germany, Switzerland) rank among the top 20 in GDP/cap.  Furthermore, 5 of the top 10 soccer teams have GDP per caps ranking 79th, 46th, 55th, 60th, and 85th, with 3 of these nations (Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia) among the worst World Cup nations in terms of income inequality.

- On the flip side, a low GDP per cap does not necessarily equate to soccer inferiority.  Nearly 25% of the World Cup teams (Bosnia, Algeria, Honduras, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast) rank 100th or worse in GDP/cap.

- Regarding overall GDP size, 18 of the 32 teams are among the 32 largest GDPs in the world, and only 8 of the 32 teams rank below the top 60 in GDP.

- Regarding population size, 15 of the 32 teams are among the 32 most populous countries in the world.  11 of the 32 rank below the top 60 in population.

- Regarding income inequality, there is no clear connection on the surface.  Three of the top 10 soccer nations in the world (Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia) are among the 9 worst World Cup participants in terms of income inequality, but two of the top six soccer nations (Germany and Switzerland) experience among the best income equality within their respective nations.


