An analysis conducted by Professor John A. Torres and published on The Conversation website found that democracies are represented at an especially high rate in the World Cup finals.
When France, Spain, England and Argentina reached the semi-finals of the 2026 World Cup, they had another thing in common besides a rich footballing history: all four represent countries defined by Freedom House as free. France received a score of 89 out of 100 in the 2026 index, Spain 91, the United Kingdom – which includes England – 92, and Argentina 85.
The encounter between the two democratic countries provides a topical context for the question raised by Professor John A. Torres, a professor of political science at LaGrange College in the United States: Do teams representing democratic countries do better in the World Cup than teams from authoritarian countries?
בArticle published on The Conversation website On June 26, 2026, Torres examined the results of World Cup tournaments and the types of regimes in the countries that participated in them. Students Jenna Pittman, Danielle Cody, and Eli Rogers from LaGrange College assisted in the research on which the article was based.
Torres began with a statement attributed to FIFA President Gianni Infantino and others, according to which football is "The most democratic sport"The idea is based on the game's global reach and its popularity among different population groups and social classes. However, Torres wanted to examine a more focused question: Do the results of the World Cup itself also reflect an advantage for democratic countries?
From Mussolini's regime to the junta in Argentina
The connection between football and politics is not new. Authoritarian regimes They have used the World Cup in the past to strengthen their legitimacy and present an image of strength, unity, and success, both internally and externally.
Fascist Italy hosted the 1934 World Cup, during the reign of Benito Mussolini. The Italian team won the tournament after defeating democratic Czechoslovakia in the final. Torres notes that Mussolini interfered in the organization of the competition and the selection of officials, in an attempt to increase the chances of the host team.
Another notable case occurred in Argentina in 1978. The military junta took advantage of both the hosting of the World Cup and the victory of the local team to improve the regime's image, while the country was undergoing violent repression of opponents of the government.
Such cases are now often described as “sportswashing” – the use of sporting events and sporting achievements to divert attention from human rights violations and political oppression.
How were the countries classified?
For the analysis, Torres used two databases dealing with types of regimes.
The first is the Polity database, which gives countries a score between minus 10 and plus 10, according to the degree of concentration of power in the political system. Countries that received a score between plus 6 and plus 10 were defined as democracies. Countries that received a score between minus 6 and minus 10 were defined as autocracies. The countries in between were defined as anocracies – intermediate regimes that are neither fully democratic nor fully autocratic.
Torres used Polity data to examine tournaments held between 1930 and 2018.
The second database is the annual Freedom House index, which classifies countries according to their political and civil rights status as “free,” “partly free,” or “not free.” Torres used this index to analyze the period from 1974 to 2026.
In the early years, democracies did not rule.
In the seven World Cup tournaments held between 1930 and 1962, two countries classified as authoritarian won: Italy in 1934 and 1938.
Three winners were classified as transitional regimes: Uruguay in 1930 and 1950 and Brazil in 1962. Only two winners during this period were classified as democracies: West Germany in 1954 and Brazil in 1958, before the establishment of the country's military dictatorship.
The list of participants in the finals of that era also tended to be non-democratic. From 1930 to 1962, six teams from authoritarian countries, four from transitional regimes, and only four from democratic countries appeared in the finals.
The change began in 1966.
The 1966 World Cup final, in which England defeated West Germany, was the first final in which two democratic countries faced each other.
Since then, there has been a clear change. According to Polity's classification, since 1966, only two teams from countries that were defined as authoritarian at the time have won the World Cup: Brazil in 1970 and Argentina in 1978.
All ten winners of tournaments held between 1982 and 2018 were democratic. All the teams that finished in second place since 1962 also represented democratic countries, according to the analysis.
In total, 71.4% of the teams that participated in the finals between 1930 and 2018 came from democratic countries. Less than 20% represented authoritarian countries and 9.5% represented transitional regimes.
Based on the Freedom House index, an even more significant result was obtained: 23 of the 26 teams that appeared in the finals from 1974 to 2018 represented free countries – approximately 88% of all participants in the finals during this period.
Of the winners in the period examined, only Brazil in 1994 was classified as a partly free country, and only Argentina in 1978 was classified as a not free country.
Democracies have succeeded beyond their relative share in the world
Torres also compared the World Cup data to the rate of democracies and autocracies in the world.
In 1930, the year the first World Cup was held, only 21.7% of the countries included in the Polity database were defined as democracies. In contrast, 44.6% were authoritarian and 33.7% were transitional regimes.
Even in 1966, when the trend of democracies becoming more frequent began, they were only 20.8% of the world's countries. Authoritarian states were 40.8% of the countries at that time.
By the 2018 World Cup, the proportion of democracies in the world had risen to nearly 60%, according to Polity, while the proportion of authoritarian states had fallen to about 12%. Despite the changes in the global political system, the data suggests that democracies were overrepresented in the finals, especially in the early decades of the trend.
And what did the situation show ahead of the 2026 World Cup?
According to the calculation published by Torres, 43.1% of the countries participating in the 2026 World Cup were classified by Freedom House as free countries, while 26.7% were classified as not free.
On the eve of the tournament, all 11 of the top 19 countries in the FIFA rankings were free. Of the top 19 countries, only Morocco and Ecuador were not classified as fully free, but as partially free. On the other hand, more than half of the 11 countries ranked at the bottom of the list of participants were not free.
Torres wrote that "The data shows that democracies are overrepresented in the World Cup and also tend to be more successful than authoritarian countries".
However, the analysis does not prove that the mere existence of a democratic regime causes success in football. It presents a statistical relationship between the type of regime and the team's achievements, but does not separately examine other factors that may affect success.
Message against sportswashing
Torres said the results had a significance beyond who won the cup. Authoritarian regimes continue to use sport as a propaganda tool, and FIFA has been criticized for its willingness to host tournaments in countries with problematic human rights records.
In this reality, Torres wrote, the fact that teams from democratic countries tend to be more successful on the pitch "Feels like a victory for the free states".
Tonight, France and Spain will face each other in the 2026 World Cup semi-finals. The result of the match will not prove or disprove the connection that Torres examined, but it will add another team from a democratic country to the list of those qualifying for the final.
For the original publication: Opening the original publication
Questions and Answers
Do democracies do better at the World Cup?
According to the analysis of Professor John A. Torres, democracies are represented at an especially high rate in the finals and tend to be more successful than authoritarian countries.
When was the last time an authoritarian country won the World Cup?
According to the classification used by the study, Argentina in 1978 was the last authoritarian country to win the World Cup.
How many of the teams that reached the final were from democratic countries?
Between 1930 and 2018, 71.4% of the teams that participated in the finals represented democracies. According to Freedom House, 23 of the 26 finalists from 1974 onwards came from free countries.
Does the study prove that democracy leads to success in football?
No. The study suggests a statistical association, but does not prove causation. Factors such as wealth, football tradition, quality of leagues, player training and population size may also play a role.
More on the subject on the science website
- The World Cup as a Parable: From the Ancient Arena to the Grass Field
- 250 years of the United States: This is how the world's greatest scientific power was built — and how it endangers its future
- Did Plato play football?
- What does the World Cup do to our brains?
- Watch a soccer game from the point of view of the ball
