A strange puzzle lies at the core of events like the World Cup and Olympics. Many people who care little about a particular sport, whether football, figure skating, or swimming, still passionately want their nations to succeed in that sport on the international stage. They also often become emotionally invested in how other nations do, rooting against perceived adversaries and supporting countries that they admire.
One key reason is that many interpret national sporting achievements as a measure of the health and prosperity of a nation. Great accomplishments like the 1980 Miracle on Ice can even boost national confidence. Meanwhile, sporting failures can be taken as a sign of national weakness.
At the start of the 2026 World Cup group stage, for instance, the renowned sports commentator Colin Cowherd credited American society for the success of the U.S. national team while blaming the struggles of some European teams on supposed “political upheaval, economic dysfunction, [and] sports dysfunction in Europe.” A week later, the United States team lost to Belgium 4-1. Six European countries reached the final eight, joined by Morocco and Argentina.
Does sports success really reflect national strength and vitality? What does success in international sports actually say about a country?
In 1945, George Orwell cautioned against interpreting football matches as “tests of national virtue.” Part of what makes football a poor indicator of how well a country is really doing is that who wins often comes down to randomness. A shot on goal just goes in or barely misses; a pass rolls a little too far or not quite far enough; a referee makes a borderline call in favor of one team and against another. Luck is often the decisive factor rather than team quality.
At the start of the 2026 World Cup, 48 teams had the opportunity to emerge victorious. According to ESPN, France was the favorite with about a 22% chance (+350). If this projection was roughly accurate, it would imply about a 78% chance that the eventual World Cup winner would not be the best in the field. Instead, it would be one of the other 47 teams that was not the best, but the luckiest.
The element of luck in international football makes it hard for any nation to stay on top. Since 1962, no country has won back-to-back World Cups. The UEFA European Championships features a similar trend. In the entire history of the tournament, which goes back to 1960, only one country has won two consecutive championships (Spain in 2008 and 2012).
Even when a team becomes dominant in international football, the country it represents might not be headed in the right direction. For example, the most dominant historical run in men’s football may well have been Fascist Italy’s team in the 1930s. Italy won both the 1934 and 1938 World Cups. It also won gold in football at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Yet Italy’s success on the playing field masked a corrupt and dysfunctional government.
As I explain in my new book, Beyond the Stadium: How Sports Change the World, Italy’s sporting success was driven by Mussolini’s obsession with using elite sports for propaganda. In the 1920s, Mussolini’s government harnessed Italian sporting institutions to promote fascism. It utilized sports to stoke nationalism and make citizens more loyal to the Italian state. In soccer, Mussolini’s government forced foreign players out of its domestic league, as these athletes could not play for the Italian national team and were thought to be limiting the development of Italian players. It also brought in talented South Americans with Italian ancestry to fortify its national squad. The country succeeded on the playing field. However, Italy’s excellence on the pitch contrasted sharply with its legendary incompetence in military affairs.
When Argentina won the 1978 World Cup, it did so while its military dictatorship was carrying out a brutal campaign of domestic repression in the country. From 1976-83, the dictatorship killed or disappeared an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 Argentine citizens. The crackdown continued even during the 1978 World Cup, which Argentina hosted. Its victory far from signalled a prosperous nation. Instead, the dictatorship used the tournament to distract from international criticism and sanitize its image to a global audience.
Beyond international football, the Olympics has also proven a less-than-reliable indicator of national vitality. From 1956 to 1988, the Soviet Union attended every Olympics except the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Games. Out of its 17 Olympic appearances over this period, it placed first in total medals 14 times and finished second in the remaining three. Of course, the Soviet success did not signify a thriving nation. It was instead fueled by performance enhancing drugs (PEDs).
PEDs explained two other apparent Olympic success stories – East Germany in the 1980s and Russia at the Sochi Olympics in 2014. In both cases, corrupt authoritarian governments were able to point to impressive medal hauls to appear more competent and successful.
Yet international sporting success can also reflect positive qualities of a nation. A standout country at this World Cup has been Norway, beating Brazil to advance to the quarter finals. Norway also has a stunning record at the Winter Olympics. With less than two percent of the population of the United States, it has placed first in the medal count at the last three Winter Olympics. In fact, it dominated each of those competitions in total medals.
The explanation appears to be that Norway has a high GDP per capita, high sports participation rates, and in the case of the Winter Olympics, a lot of snow and mountains. It also has a more health-focused approach to sports that may confer a competitive advantage by allowing athletes to feel less pressure. Since 2007, sports for Norwegian children under the age of 13 have not featured trophies, league tables, or national championships. Instead, children have the opportunity to engage in many different sports for the joy of playing.
As Simon Kuper puts it, “Rich democracies, especially social democracies, are good at taking care of their inhabitants. That includes providing people of all income levels with the opportunity to play sport.” His statistical research with economist Stefan Szymanski on national athletic achievement has led him to conclude that international sports success is strongly correlated with national wealth and human development. Yet there can be other ways to achieve victory on the international stage, as past dictatorships and totalitarian regimes have demonstrated.
In sum, interpreting what a country’s sporting performance actually says about that country is not straightforward. The results might reflect national wealth and vitality. However, they might also be explained by luck or an authoritarian government hijacking sports for political gain. The final standings may captivate sports fans, but alone they reveal little about how countries are doing beyond the playing field.
© IE Insights.
