“The more a country is downgraded economically, the better it performs on a football pitch”

Sébastien Laye is an entrepreneur and director of economic studies at the Thomas More Institute.

Elodie Laye Mielczareck is a semiolinguist, specialized in the analysis of verbal and non-verbal language, author of several books.

In 2013, the Ministry of Sports published expected results: the distribution on French territory of sports practices.

They come to confirm unqualified sociological data: to the rich, tennis or golf, to the poor, football.

Thus distributed, sports practices reveal a two-headed map of France, where tennis is concentrated in urban areas, to be the most practiced sport, for example in Paris and its western suburbs (Haut de Seine and Yvelines), Lyons or Bordeaux.

The practice of golf finds its preference in seaside areas and holiday towns.

So where do we play football the most?

As you will have understood, in the most popular places, Paris and its eastern suburbs (Seine-Saint-Denis and Val-de-Marne) and in rural areas.

Read alsoWorld Cup: the keys to the consecration of Argentina

How to explain it?

Let us give at least three non-exhaustive reasons.

Let's start with the simplicity of the hardware and the set-up of the equipment.

Regarding football, a vacant lot and a ball are enough.

A second aspect arises from this, which is that of a double accessibility.

Financial on the one hand, since the maintenance costs are low (compared to a golf course which requires special maintenance logistics), or even non-existent (the case of a vacant lot).

The cost of licenses remains low compared to other sports practices.

Next, accessibility is also psychological, so to speak: everyone can easily identify with a player, even at an international level.

Could the same be said for other sports, such as bodybuilding,

Paradoxically, this poor man's sport remains one of the most important financial windfalls that our humanity is currently experiencing.

Football enriches dribbling in turn

as much as it is the manifestation of social inequalities.

The Mondial is a big party, but not everyone is invited.

France, a great footballing nation, but also the world's fourth largest economy before the 1990s, was unable to win a single World Cup.

Sebastien Laye and Elodie Laye Mielczareck

It has become obvious to say that football is linked to powerful corporate interests and

Moreover, it is enough to take a curious look at the foreign press to retain only the themes of corruption and miscellaneous.

This time, and outside France, the net economic balance of the Qatari organizer is rather negative.

Does this mean that football, undeniably a capitalistic issue, targets rich countries?

This is not the case, and in fact, when one studies the statistical correlations between performance in football, and the economic environment of the winner, the results are rather troubling.

First consider the nations dominating world football for twenty years: Brazil, France, Argentina, Italy mainly.

If we look at their economic and social development over the past twenty years, these countries have rather accumulated problems and are often in a situation of failure.

Sometimes starting from considerable achievements, they have often become poorer and we can even say that their economic decline began in the 1990s. The only counter-example is that of Germany, winner of the tournament in 2014;

but the great team of Germany which accumulated victory after victory and dominated the world scene, it was more that of the FRG!

Indeed, the selection of 2014 is based on the excellent training schools but we do not find the popular enthusiasm for the

FRG team of the 1980s. When the FRG was overtaken economically by France, his team regularly beat the French selection.

Since the German economic triumph following reunification, the balance of power has reversed and the French selection is infinitely superior to the German team as a general rule.

Read alsoWorld Cup: Didier Deschamps, legendary despite everything

France, a great footballing nation, but also the world's fourth largest economy before the 1990s, was unable to win a single World Cup.

From 1998 and even more in the last five years, France finally reached the pinnacle of the football cult.

What has happened in the meantime to its economy?

A slow and constant decline which today places the country in seventh place in the world in terms of GDP.

It's as if the economic stall has prompted our nation to invest more interest behind our national football team.

We also note that some of the poorest cities in the world, such as Naples, may have had legendary clubs, massively supported by the population.

So, of course, it takes money to have a good club.

We have no justification for this link (substantiated many times by statistics) between the economic and social dropout (it is the delta that counts, not the level of GDP) on the one hand, and on the other hand a sort of of local emotional overinvestment in football.

Sebastien Laye and Elodie Laye Mielczareck

Paris, a city still very rich in the 1980s, did not have a good club at that time: today's PSG is ultimately more in line (or a good derivative?) with the failure of this city under Hidalgo .

The wealthy colonial Marseille of the 1950s and early 1960s saw no particular football team shine.

But with the end of our colonial empire, the city became impoverished in the 1970s, paving the way for the great Tapie team of the 1980s;

at that time, OM's great rival was the Girondins de Bordeaux, another cesspool city in total decline.

Today, nobody talks about the Bordeaux football club anymore: the city's prodigious trajectory of recovery between the mid-1990s and 2020 eradicated any sustained interest in football.

But correlation is not worth explanation.

There is no justification for this link (confirmed many times by statistics) between the economic and social dropout (it is the delta that counts, not the level of GDP) on the one hand, and on the other hand a kind of local emotional overinvestment in football.

Only, it is not only the victories that count, but also the strong interest of the nation or the city for its footballing performances, those which animate the discussions, the hopes, the expectations.

Faced with economic and social downgrading, a nation can react by overinvesting in a sporting activity.

Sebastien Laye and Elodie Laye Mielczareck

However, it is possible to put this dynamic into perspective.

As mentioned above, the prevalence of football in Latin countries (even though the origin of the sport is culturally English), in rather rural areas, enlivened by mythical clubs in cities that are in economic failure.

This phenomenon attests again to the “plebeian” nature of this sport.

Faced with economic and social downgrading, a nation can react by overinvesting in a sporting activity: and for this

modern (the politicians, never stingy with recovery, have understood this well), football is definitely the king sport!

We must of course congratulate ourselves on the popular jubilation, on the unity around our football team: but for the analyst who seeks to think beyond the foam of the days, beyond the

of his time, it is in fact a rather worrying sign on the economic and social future of the nation.

Note that the quality of the Brazilian team is beginning to deteriorate: does this mean that if the Brazilian take-off finally takes place, the country will gradually turn away from football, a true national passion?

When France has caught up with Brazil in number of victories in the world, we can bet that it will be at the time of the changeover in the economic rankings, when France will fall behind Brazil in terms of GDP (possible within twenty years).