Authoritarian or democratic – which countries fare better at the football world cup?

It is often said – by FIFA President Gianni Infantino and many others – that soccer is the “most democratic sport.” That sentiment is based in large part on the sport’s global appeal and long history of popularity across class and racial lines.

But whether that axiom applies to the quadrennial World Cup tournament is a different question.

On occasions in the past, authoritarian governments have used the tournament to boost their regimes. Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini did so when Italy hosted the 1934 World Cup, manipulating the games and handpicking officials to boost the chances for the home team, who went on to beat democratic Czechoslovakia in the final. Likewise, in 1978, Argentina’s dictatorship used both the tournament’s hosting and the national team’s victory to “sportswash” the brutal repression that had accompanied the military junta’s seizure of power.

In each of those notable cases, the team of an authoritarian country won the tournament. But as a political scientist and soccer enthusiast, I was curious to see how countries in authoritarian versus democratic countries had fared in the World Cup over time.

So in the run-up to this year’s tournament, I looked back through the records of the 22 past World Cups; I also cast an eye over the expanded 48 countries represented at the 2026 tournament.

For the World Cups...

Read more