For the full Macro Hive World Cup Playbook, click here!
Heavily criticized, the World Cup in Qatar between 20 November and 18 December is the 22nd World Cup, and the first to be held in the Arab world. Other known knowns worth remembering.
- The World Cup has only ever been won by nations from two continents, Europe and Latin America. Bookmakers, and most people in general, are certain that this will be the case again in Qatar.
- Continental home advantage has often (not always) mattered if we look at Europe and Latin America. This we can ignore since neither Europe nor Latin America is playing at home this time.
- Finally, only eight nations have won the World Cup since the first tournament in 1930. Brazil five times, Germany and Italy four times each, Argentina, France, and Uruguay twice, and England and Spain once each.
FIFA Rankings – An Indication of Current Form or Largely Irrelevant?
Armed with these facts, what else should we be aware of ahead of this World Cup? A good starting point is FIFA’s world ranking going into this tournament, currently topped by Brazil. This is nothing unusual as Brazil is usually very highly ranked going into World Cups. They were ranked 2nd before the last World Cup in Russia in 2018, 4th before the 2014 WC, and 1st prior to the 2010 WC in South Africa.
Brazil is currently followed by Belgium, Argentina, France and England in that order, with Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal and Denmark making up the rest of the top-10 ranking.
What is noteworthy, though, is that world football’s other [than Brazil] historical giants, Germany and Italy, are both struggling. Italy did not even make it to the World Cup, while Germany has dropped out of the top-10 ranking, languishing in 11th currently! This is the big step down from Germany’s ranking ahead of the previous three world cups in 2018, 2014 and 2010, which was 1st, 2nd and 6th respectively.
Having said that, does the ranking tell us anything?
Maybe something, at least if we look back at the more recent World Cups. In 2018 the winners France were ranked 7th in the run-up to that tournament, while the other three semifinalists Belgium, Croatia and England were in 3rd, 18th and 13th respectively. Ahead of the 2014 tournament, ultimate winners Germany were ranked 2nd, and the semifinalists Argentina, Brazil and the Netherlands were 4th, 7th and 15th. And in 2010, the champions Spain, were ranked 2nd before the tournament, and semifinalists Germany, the Netherlands and Uruguay were in 6th, 4thand 16th.
In other words, in the more recent past the winner has typically been ranked well into the top-10, which is not promising for Germany’s chances in December. The recent past also shows that the semi-finals often include at least one ‘surprise’ (lower-ranked team).
Experience – A Help or Hindrance?
Another factor pundits and sofa-chair experts alike are keen to emphasize is the importance of experience – the team and the players that have ‘been there, seen it, done it’ all before.
While the average age of the squads typically does not differ wildly, the importance of experience does not quite fit with what we have seen in recent world cups. In 2018 France won it with the 22 most valuable squad players averaging a mere 24 years old. The other favourites, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil and Spain, had older squads (an average age of between 26-27 years) and only Belgium reached the semi-finals, after having beaten another slightly older team, Brazil, in the quarterfinals.
In 2014 Germany won it, with a squad again averaging 24 years old. Out of the main rivals Argentina, France and Portugal were the most ‘advanced’ in age (averaging 26-28 years old). Portugal were knocked out already at the group stage, France lost in the quarterfinal against Germany, while Argentina did go all the way to the final, maybe helped by its continental home advantage.
In 2010 Spain won it with a squad averaging 25 years, while rivals with older squads (averaging 26-27 years) underperformed. France imploded and did not get out of the group, England and Portugal were knocked out at the round of 16 by the younger German and Spanish teams (the German squad averaging a mere 23 years old), while Brazil were beaten by the Netherlands in the quarter-final.
How Important Is Squad Value?
What else, other than ranking and experience, is useful as guidance ahead of the World Cup? Having worked in financial markets for 25 years, it would at least be re-assuring if the market value provided some sort of indication of the quality of the asset in question (the players).
If we use Transfermarkt as an independent valuation tool and look at the 22 highest-valued players in the top-ranked squads, England leads at EUR1,199mn. They are closely followed by Brazil on EUR1,123mn and France at EUR1,055mn. There is then a bit of a gap to the next most valuable squad, in the form of Portugal (EUR907mn), followed by Spain (EUR866mn), Germany (EUR850mn), Argentina (EUR618mn), the Netherlands (EUR575mn), and Belgium (EUR564mn).
So, did valuation matter in the past? It certainly looks that way. At the time of the 2018 World Cup in Russia, France had clearly the most highly valued squad of [22] players and ended up winning it. In 2014 in Brazil, Spain and Germany, in that order, were the most highly valued squads, well ahead of the rest, which resulted in Germany winning but fiasco for Spain (knocked out in the XX).
In South Africa in 2010, Spain had by far the most highly valued squad and won the World Cup for the first time ever!
In other words, the last few World Cups have been won by the team that was the most highly valued twice, and once by the 2nd-highest-valued team. Also, in 2014, Germany’s more highly valued team beat Brazil in the semis by a remarkable 7-1, and then Argentina in the final. This suggests that while continental home advantage is important (after all both Brazil and Argentina reached the semis and the final respectively), if there is enough of a valuation gap, value matters more!
Value, Helped by Youth, Form to Decide the 2022 World Champions
So what can we tell from the brief assessment of the last three World Cups? First, none of the likely winners are playing at ‘home’, so from that perspective the playing field is even.
Second, ranking matters to some extent, probably as an indication of form and the current state of the national team going into the tournament. This should make it hard for Germany in particular, given their relatively low rank currently. Having said that, at least one lower-ranked team typically features in the semi-finals (Netherlands 2014, Uruguay 2010) or even the final (Croatia 2018), though they have yet to go all the way and win it all.
Third, experience appears to matter little, at least not in a ‘the-more-the better’ way. Focusing on the typical favourites over the past three World Cups, they have all been won by squads with an average age closer to the lower end of the broad 23-28 years of age of all the squads we looked at. Meanwhile, the squads with an average age closer to the upper end of that range have underperformed more often. Maybe football still is a young person’s sport, despite improved training methods/science prolonging the careers of the likes of Messi and Ronaldo?
Finally, valuation matters. That probably surprises no one, and it probably only matters when there is a meaningful difference in valuation. Still, of the last three world cups, two have been won by the team that was the most highly valued going into the tournament, and the other time it was won by the 2nd-highest-valued team.
All in all, given the valuation gap between the top three, England, Brazil, and France, and the rest, history would suggest the winner of this year’s World Cup is likely to be one of these three.
Of them, Brazil is ranked the highest (1st), while France’s squad on average is slightly younger (25yrs) than Brazil’s and England’s squads (26yrs). The World Cup tree means England and France might play each other already in the quarterfinals, while Brazil is on the other side. A World Cup final on 18 December between Brazil and the winner of the England vs France quarterfinal does not seem like a longshot.
Finally, for all of us with no real skin in the game, i.e. our nations did not qualify, we will still follow the World Cup with a lot of excitement. Some of the World Cups I personally have the fondest memories of are not necessarily the ones where I followed my team (Sweden), but where I was mesmerized by maybe the most gifted but flawed team and player in modern football history (Brazil 1982 and Maradona 1986, 1990 and 1994). Or where I was entertained by the underdog defying the odds (Cameroon 1990), or fascinated by games which took on greater importance than just football because of historical grudges (Germany vs Netherlands 1990, Argentina vs England 1986 and again 1998), and many more.
Over the next 5-6 weeks, I will hopefully add to that list of memories forever etched into my mind.