The FIFA 2010

World Cup Analysis

Based on Thirteen Different Factors

History, demographics, world economy, and

tendencies have had an effect on each team‟s
preparation towards the greatest football event
worldwide.

Football Analysis Society

06/10/2010
Daniel Cadena Jordan
Victor M. Sosa
Part I

Which thirteen factors have a say on what might happen

during this World Cup?
By Daniel Cadena Jordan
Despite being completely unpredictable, certain aspects tend to influence in one way or
another, the outcome of most processes. Sports, specifically football, are no exception.
Football is often classified as the world‟s most popular game, and for a good reason: it is
played on every continent of this planet, regardless of age, gender, creed, race, or social
status. Few things are as universal to mankind as this simple eleven-on-eleven game. Part
of the game‟s success, is based on two main qualities it possesses:

1- The amount of rules and the complexity of them make the game appealing right
from the start. Few sports are so elemental it results inevitable to feel attracted
towards it. Besides the offside rule, a concept hard to grasp by many, football‟s
premise is essentially easy. The game consists of two teams with the same number
of players, who kick a ball back and forth without the use of hands, until one side is
able to score in their rival‟s goal.
2- The requirements to play football are numbingly accessible. All that is needed is
some open space, a ball or a ball-shaped object, and something that can be called a
goal. Compared to other sports, such as hockey, American football, basketball,
baseball, cricket, rugby, polo, swimming, etc., association football needs essential
material: people, a place, and a round object that can be kicked around.

So, given the fact that football has been played for over one and a half century, it has been
able to spread everywhere. Of course, not every place is the same. Some have ice and snow
to deal with, others sand and a burning sun. Part of the greatness of the game lies in how
people have found a way to play it, despite whatever might be a possible obstacle to the
practice of the sport.

This is where statistics come in. Since every region of the world is considerably different
than another one, context begins to play a fundamental role in how the sport must be
studied. We assembled thirteen different factors which can attempt to answer one sole
question, whilst still keeping in mind how each scenario can affect the outcome: Who may
win the World Cup this year?

The list of variables is as follows:

 Historical Outcome
 GDP per head
 Last four years‟ performance
 The coach‟s record with the squad
 Players‟ average height
  Players‟ market value
 Average position in previous World Cup appearances
 World Cup 2006‟s performance
 Head-to-head results between the 32 qualified teams
 Each country‟s population
 Each league‟s quality
 Last ten games played
 Difficulty of the team‟s qualifying region

All these factors can be put into four major categories: performance, history, economy and
demography. The reason why each one of these four categories plays a part in this study is
because it does determine one way or another, how football can be played, and how are the
people that play football in one specific region. A thorough study over these four groups
can further clear any doubt of their partaking in this analysis:
History:
Beyond the obvious reason, which is how well has one country in particular performed
throughout time, history enables the understanding of how the sport has evolved inside
each country. Even neighboring countries have completely different evolution cycles. In
football, the value history adds to the equation, is giving a proper answer to the „exposure
and experience‟ issue. If a person has to compete with bigger and better rivals in any
discipline, his chances of becoming just as good as his stronger counterparts are higher
than those of who play against easier to beat rivals. To make it simpler: the better your
rivals are, the better the quality of game you‟ll end up playing.

A perfect demonstration of this is the British Isles in the early 1900s. While the sport was
still being practiced on an amateur level in continental Europe, the English, Scottish,
Welsh and Irish had been playing each other time and time again for the past 30 years. Of
course, when they decided to play against the continents finest, the outcome was
scandalously favorable for the British and Irish. Whopping 7:0 victories were common, and
a sense of unmistakable superiority began to arise among the islanders. Just after World
War I, things had started to change, and the 7:0‟s were no more. They were still British
wins, but with a more discrete score. Nowadays, in the 21 st century, the two main
powerhouses in Europe are Germany and Italy.

So, in order to study how a team might perform, it is important to consider how it has
performed under similar circumstances. Since the World Cup has always had more or less
the same format, many of the same issues continue to affect players: the great number of
games in such short time, hence the fatigue, morale problems, lack of concentration, etc.
Curiously, one can conclude that certain countries have always been better than the rest in
handling these issues. Proof of this is that in all the eighteen finals played so far, at least
one of these four countries has been present: Brazil, Italy, Germany and Argentina.

It is important to not see history as mere results, but more as the experience and
knowledge on how to handle certain situations. A common problem in „smaller‟ squads is
precisely the lack of understanding on how to deal with the tournament‟s excruciating pace
(Spain is considered by most to be the best representation of this). It‟s not enough to have
good players, it‟s also important to know how to pace their performances. A 5:0 win in the
first round will do no good, if it means sacrificing energy.

The factors we‟ve chosen to expose to represent history‟s influence are:

 Historical Outcome, with a 13% worth.

 Average position in World Cups, with a 12% worth.
 Head-to-head with tournament rivals, with 10%‟s worth.
 The coach‟s history with the team with a 5% worth.
Demography

Despite being the group of subjects that weigh the least in this study, demographic
information is key to the sport, because it allows a profound analysis on the environment
in which the sport is being played. It reflects patterns that are equal throughout the
country and shows the habits of some of the players. A player‟s height can reveal the eating
patterns of players, if believed that someone‟s height is determined by the calorie intake of
a person. So, if a person eats three good meals a day, he is stronger, taller and more
capable of practicing a sport properly.

In group sports, physical strength and stamina is important in order to succeed. And in
order to be able to develop fully in an activity of great energy requirements, a considerable
amount of calories must be taken in daily. In African countries or other countries where
the amount of food available is scarce, one can notice a difficulty to gain muscle and
physical strength from early on. European players are on average about four centimeters
(inch and a half) taller than African players, despite them playing for European teams,
living in European countries and eating European meals. What differences them is their
eating background. Usually raised in a very poor family, African children have a more
limited amount of food.

Another important issue is how many people live in a certain country. The amount of
inhabitants allows a bigger pool of talents from which to pick from. The more people live in
a country, the higher the number of people who practice a sport. This translates into more
potential talent.

Stated this, the two demographic factors that will me taken into consideration are:

 Population, with a 5% value.

 Average Height, with a 2% value.

Economy

It can be the most underestimated of all groups. The influence of economic values reflects,
theoretically, the ability and quality of both players and teams. Any team wouldn‟t be
willing to pay 50 million Euros for most players, despite being willing to pay them for
Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo, for instance. That proves that value does play an
important symbolic role in the overall equation of quality in teams.

Regarding teams, the market value of players reflects how professional and qualified the
team as a whole is. The only real problem with these values is the possibility of the
overpricing of certain players. A country that suffers this is Spain. Their overall market
value almost doubles the second best team‟s value. Despite this, it is the only real
assessment that can translate player quality into numbers.

Another important addition from economics is the Gross Domestic Product per inhabitant.
This reflects the average income of every citizen in any given country, which is a way of
knowing how much money a person can invest in food, sports and education. Although not
definitive, the availability of the right amount of food, recreation and education, does
predispose certain people above others. This translates into a simple formula: the more
accessible money is the higher the calorie intake, the better the knowledge, and the better
the training conditions.

Economic factors should not be seen as simply a figure. They‟re an accurate representation
of resources available to the development of players and teams alike. They do not
determine which country is more likely to produce superstars, but they do reveal which
countries count with the proper conditions for the growing of talent.

The two economic variables are:

 Gross Domestic Product per inhabitant, with a 5% value.

 Market Value, with 5% value in the overall study.

Form and Recent Performance

Of all the four groups, this one has the last word on how well countries will do in the
overall study. It simply measures how have teams performed in different categories, all
which respond directly to the results obtained in the latest games. The need for different
measurements is to effectively view the different issues which could alter, one way or
another, a team‟s performance.

Naturally, the main figure in this group is the performance in the last ten games. It studies
a specific segment of the recent past, and the one chronologically closest to the World Cup.
In those ten games, one can see how well a team has played with virtually the same players,
against a selected number of rivals, and usually with the same coach.

The performance in the 2006 World Cup is also taken into consideration, because it shows
in a wider picture, how has this generation of players been performing recently in the same
tournament under question. To understand how different teams function in such a
demanding environment is key to see whether or not they possess the know-how in
managing themselves during this World Cup.

The World Cup performance is complemented with the four years‟ performance of all
qualified countries. All official games played after the 2006 World Cup in Germany are
tabulated and kept track of. In these, a more detailed study of latest form reveals exactly
how has each squad dealt with changes within, as well as different types of matches, such
as regional cups, qualifying games and friendly games.

Not all squads are as good, and not all confederations are as tough as others. This plays an
important role in making a difference between one team‟s performance and another. It is
not as worthy to win ten matches against central-Asian countries, which tend to rank
among the 70‟s, 80‟s, 90‟s and 100‟s in the FIFA World Ranking, as to win ten matches
against South American squads, which rank twice as higher.

Finally, the last factor to have a say in this study, is the quality of each country‟s domestic
league. It reflects the quality of football in every country. The influence of foreign players in
the world‟s biggest leagues leaves a mark on their fellow teammates. It increases the
quality of competition, therefore the quality of the national players.

The value of each variable:

 Last ten games: 18%

 2006 World Cup performance: 5%

 Four Years‟ Performance: 10%

 Region Difficulty: 5%
 League Quality: 5%
The Study’s Results

As mentioned at the beginning of this document, the purpose of this study isn‟t to predict a
World Cup winner. It is merely to suggest how all 32 teams ought to perform, based on
thirteen different premises. The relevance of these factors may coincide with the end result
of this year‟s World Cup, however it is not a guide to how the tournament will play out.
History:

Historical Outcome:
Country Historical Outcome
Germany 4,1600
Brazil 4,0300
Italy 3,9000
Argentina 3,7700
England 3,6400
France 3,5100
Spain 3,3800
Mexico 3,2500
Serbia/Yugoslavia 3,1200
Uruguay 2,9900
Netherlands 2,8600
Switzerland 2,7300
Chile 2,6000
Paraguay 2,4700
USA 2,3400
South Korea 2,2100
Portugal 2,0800
Denmark 1,9500
Cameroon 1,8200
Nigeria 1,6900
Australia 1,5600
Japan 1,4300
North Korea 1,3000
Algeria 1,1700
South Africa 1,0400
Ghana 0,9100
Honduras 0,7800
Cote d'Ivoire 0,6500
New Zealand 0,5200
Greece 0,3900
Slovenia 0,2600
Slovakia 0,1300
Average Position in World Cups
Avg pos. In
Country WC's
Germany 3,8400
Brazil 3,7200
Italy 3,6000
England 3,4800
Argentina 3,3600
North Korea 3,2400
Netherlands 3,1200
France 3,0000
Denmark 2,8800
Spain 2,7600
Serbia/Yugoslavia 2,6400
Uruguay 2,5200
Switzerland 2,4000
Portugal 2,2800
Chile 2,1600
Mexico 2,0400
Ghana 1,9200
Paraguay 1,8000
Australia 1,6800
Nigeria 1,5600
USA 1,4400
Cameroon 1,3200
Honduras 1,2000
South Korea 1,0800
Algeria 0,9600
Cote d'Ivoire 0,8400
South Africa 0,7200
Japan 0,6000
New Zealand 0,4800
Greece 0,3600
Slovenia 0,2400
Slovakia 0,1200
Head-to-Head with Tournament Rivals
Hist. Head to
Head with
Country crosses
Brazil 3,2000
Italy 3,1000
England 3,0000
Argentina 2,9000
Netherlands 2,8000
Germany 2,7000
Spain 2,6000
France 2,5000
Mexico 2,4000
South Korea 2,3000
Serbia/Yugoslavia 2,2000
Australia 2,1000
Denmark 2,1000
Portugal 2,1000
USA 1,9000
Paraguay 1,9000
Switzerland 1,9000
Uruguay 1,6000
Ghana 1,4000
Slovakia 1,3000
Cote d'Ivoire 1,3000
Honduras 1,3000
Nigeria 1,0000
Japan 0,9000
Algeria 0,8000
Slovenia 0,8000
North Korea 0,6000
Cameroon 0,5000
New Zealand 0,5000
Chile 0,3000
South Africa 0,2000
Greece 0,1000
Coach’s History with current Team
Coach
Country Record
Spain 1,6000
England 1,5500
Brazil 1,5000
Netherlands 1,4500
Germany 1,4000
Mexico 1,3500
Argentina 1,3000
Ghana 1,2500
Nigeria 1,2000
Australia 1,1500
Italy 1,1000
France 1,0500
South Korea 1,0000
USA 0,9500
Portugal 0,9000
Cote d'Ivoire 0,8500
Denmark 0,8000
Honduras 0,7500
Serbia 0,7000
Chile 0,6500
Greece 0,6000
Uruguay 0,5500
Japan 0,5000
South Africa 0,4500
Switzerland 0,4000
Cameroon 0,3500
Algeria 0,3000
Slovakia 0,2500
North Korea 0,2000
Paraguay 0,1500
New Zealand 0,1000
Slovenia 0,0500
Demography

Population
Country Population
USA 1,6000
Brazil 1,5500
Nigeria 1,5000
Japan 1,4500
Mexico 1,4000
Germany 1,3500
France 1,3000
England 1,2500
Italy 1,2000
South Korea 1,1500
South Africa 1,1000
Spain 1,0500
Argentina 1,0000
Algeria 0,9500
North Korea 0,9000
Ghana 0,8500
Australia 0,8000
Cote d'Ivoire 0,7500
Cameroon 0,7000
Chile 0,6500
Netherlands 0,6000
Greece 0,5500
Portugal 0,5000
Serbia 0,4500
Switzerland 0,4000
Honduras 0,3500
Paraguay 0,3000
Denmark 0,2500
Slovakia 0,2000
New Zealand 0,1500
Uruguay 0,1000
Slovenia 0,0500
Average Height
Avg
Country Height
Serbia 0,6400
Greece 0,6200
Slovenia 0,6200
Germany 0,6200
New Zealand 0,6200
Nigeria 0,5400
Denmark 0,5400
Slovakia 0,5400
Switzerland 0,5400
England 0,4600
Australia 0,4600
Cameroon 0,4600
Brazil 0,4600
France 0,3800
South Korea 0,3800
Algeria 0,3800
Italy 0,3800
Uruguay 0,3000
Argentina 0,3000
USA 0,3000
Ghana 0,3000
Netherlands 0,3000
Cote d'Ivoire 0,3000
Portugal 0,3000
Spain 0,2800
Paraguay 0,1400
South Africa 0,1200
Japan 0,1200
North Korea 0,1200
Honduras 0,1200
Mexico 0,0400
Chile 0,0200
Economy

Gross Domestic Product (per capita)

GDP per
Country head
USA 1,6000
Switzerland 1,5500
Netherlands 1,5000
Australia 1,4500
Denmark 1,4000
England 1,3500
Germany 1,3000
France 1,2500
Japan 1,2000
Greece 1,1500
Spain 1,1000
Italy 1,0500
South Korea 1,0000
Slovenia 0,9500
New Zealand 0,9000
Portugal 0,8500
Slovakia 0,8000
Argentina 0,7500
Chile 0,7000
Mexico 0,6500
Uruguay 0,6000
Serbia 0,5500
Brazil 0,5000
South Africa 0,4500
Algeria 0,4000
Paraguay 0,3500
Honduras 0,3000
Nigeria 0,2500
Cameroon 0,2000
Cote d'Ivoire 0,1500
Ghana 0,1000
North Korea 0,0500
Country’s Average Market Value
Market
Country value
Spain 1,6000
England 1,5500
France 1,5000
Brazil 1,4500
Argentina 1,4000
Italy 1,3500
Germany 1,3000
Portugal 1,2500
Netherlands 1,2000
Serbia 1,1500
Cote d'Ivoire 1,1000
Uruguay 1,0500
Cameroon 1,0000
Switzerland 0,9500
Nigeria 0,9000
Mexico 0,8500
Ghana 0,8000
Chile 0,7000
Denmark 0,6500
Slovakia 0,6000
Japan 0,5500
Paraguay 0,5000
USA 0,4500
Algeria 0,4000
Australia 0,3500
South Korea 0,3000
Slovenia 0,2500
Honduras 0,2000
South Africa 0,1500
New Zealand 0,1000
Greece 0,0750
North Korea 0,0500
Form and Recent Performance

Last Ten Games

Last 10
Country games
Netherlands 5,7600
Argentina 5,5800
Spain 5,4000
England 5,2200
Chile 5,0400
Uruguay 4,8600
Mexico 4,6800
Italy 4,5000
Serbia 4,3200
Brazil 4,1400
Slovakia 3,9600
USA 3,7800
Germany 3,6000
South Korea 3,4200
Switzerland 3,2400
Cote d'Ivoire 3,0600
Paraguay 2,8800
France 2,7000
Australia 2,5200
Portugal 2,3400
Ghana 2,1600
Nigeria 1,9800
South Africa 1,8000
Algeria 1,6200
Slovenia 1,4400
Denmark 1,2600
Cameroon 1,0800
Greece 0,9000
New Zealand 0,7200
Japan 0,5400
Honduras 0,3600
North Korea 0,1800
2006 World Cup Performance
Country WC 2006
Italy 1,6000
France 1,5500
Germany 1,5000
Portugal 1,4500
Brazil 1,4000
Argentina 1,3500
England 1,3000
Spain 1,2500
Switzerland 1,2000
Netherlands 1,1500
Ghana 1,1000
Mexico 1,0500
Australia 1,0000
South Korea 0,9500
Paraguay 0,9000
Cote d'Ivoire 0,8500
USA 0,8000
Japan 0,7500
Serbia/
Serbia-
Montenegro 0,7000
South Africa 0,6500
Uruguay 0,6500
Nigeria 0,6500
Greece 0,6500
Algeria 0,6500
Slovenia 0,6500
Cameroon 0,6500
Denmark 0,6500
New Zealand 0,6500
Slovakia 0,6500
North Korea 0,6500
Chile 0,6500
Honduras 0,6500
Four Years’ Performance
4 year
Country performance
Spain 3,2000
Brazil 3,1000
Germany 3,0000
Netherlands 2,9000
England 2,8000
Mexico 2,7000
Japan 2,6000
Nigeria 2,5000
Argentina 2,4000
Portugal 2,3000
Serbia 2,2000
Honduras 2,1000
Chile 2,0000
USA 1,9000
Cameroon 1,8000
France 1,7000
Cote d'Ivoire 1,6000
Australia 1,5000
Italy 1,4000
South Korea 1,3000
Denmark 1,2000
Ghana 1,1000
Greece 1,0000
Uruguay 0,9000
Algeria 0,8000
Switzerland 0,7000
South Africa 0,6000
Slovakia 0,5000
North Korea 0,4000
New Zealand 0,3000
Paraguay 0,3000
Slovenia 0,2000
Region Difficulty
Country Region difficulty
Netherlands 1,6000
Spain 1,6000
England 1,5000
Germany 1,4500
Italy 1,4000
Nigeria 1,3500
Serbia 1,3000
Slovakia 1,3000
Cameroon 1,2000
Denmark 1,1500
Cote d'Ivoire 1,1500
Switzerland 1,1500
France 1,0000
Portugal 1,0000
Greece 0,9000
Slovenia 0,8500
Brazil 0,8000
Japan 0,7500
Ghana 0,7000
Paraguay 0,6500
Chile 0,6500
USA 0,5500
Algeria 0,5000
Australia 0,4500
South Korea 0,4000
Argentina 0,3500
Mexico 0,3000
New Zealand 0,2500
Uruguay 0,2000
Honduras 0,2000
North Korea 0,1000
South Africa 0,0500
Domestic League Quality
League
Country Quality
England 1,6000
Spain 1,5500
Germany 1,5000
Brazil 1,4500
Italy 1,4000
France 1,3500
Argentina 1,3000
Netherlands 1,2500
Mexico 1,2100
Portugal 1,2000
Greece 1,1500
Paraguay 1,0500
Chile 1,0500
Uruguay 0,9500
Denmark 0,9000
Japan 0,8500
Switzerland 0,8000
Nigeria 0,7500
South Korea 0,7000
Serbia 0,6500
Slovakia 0,6000
USA 0,5500
Algeria 0,5000
South Africa 0,4500
Honduras 0,4000
Slovenia 0,3500
Cote d'Ivoire 0,3000
Cameroon 0,2500
Australia 0,2000
Ghana 0,2000
New Zealand 0,1000
North Korea 0,1000
Overall Results

Ranked Results not considering World Cup’s crosses

Country OVERALL
England 28,7000
Spain 27,3700
Germany 27,7200
Brazil 27,3000
Italy 25,9800
France 22,7900
Argentina 25,7600
Netherlands 26,4900
Mexico 21,9200
Portugal 18,5500
Greece 8,4450
Paraguay 13,3900
Chile 17,1700
Uruguay 17,2700
Denmark 15,7300
Japan 12,2400
Switzerland 17,9600
Nigeria 15,8700
South Korea 16,1900
Serbia 20,6200
Slovakia 10,9500
USA 18,1600
Algeria 9,4300
South Africa 7,7800
Honduras 8,7100
Slovenia 6,7100
Cote d'Ivoire 12,9000
Cameroon 11,3300
Australia 15,2200
Ghana 12,7900
New Zealand 5,3900
North Korea 7,8900
Ranked Results considering World Cup’s crosses
Country OVERALL
England 28,7000
Germany 27,7200
Spain 27,3700
Brazil 27,3000
Netherlands 26,4900
Argentina 25,7600
Italy 25,9800
France 22,7900
Portugal 18,5500
Serbia 20,6200
USA 18,1600
South Korea 16,1900
Mexico 21,9200
Paraguay 13,3900
Switzerland 17,9600
Denmark 15,7300
Slovakia 10,9500
Chile 17,1700
Uruguay 17,2700
Cote d'Ivoire 12,9000
Australia 15,2200
Nigeria 15,8700
Japan 12,2400
Cameroon 11,3300
Algeria 9,4300
Slovenia 6,7100
South Africa 7,7800
Greece 8,4450
Ghana 12,7900
New Zealand 5,3900
Honduras 8,7100
North Korea 7,8900
Conclusions

Africa’s Dilemma
Not a single African squad made it past the first round, and the factors to blame are mainly
the historical ones. However, in a seemingly irrelevant factor like GDP, each African nation
lags a point behind from all European teams, and even some Asian and American teams. It
may not seem like much, but this point if nonexistent, would allow all African countries to
gain a couple of positions in the overall ranking. However, there is another issue at hand
regarding the low quality performance of African teams: the groups. The continent‟s
strongest –Cote d‟Ivoire and Ghana- were seeded in very even groups. One must face
Portugal and mighty Brazil, while the latter one must measure up against the mysterious
ways of Australia, the might of Serbia and the everlasting talent of Germany. Africa‟s
biggest hopes have been crossed with the two strongest teams of all (historically speaking).

The remaining African teams weren‟t blessed by this World Cup‟s draw, either. The hosts
seem to have lost any possibilities in being considered favorites in their group, since they
play a two-times-winning Uruguay, a former champion France and Mexico, who have
taken part in over a dozen of these tournaments. Nigeria does have a chance, but they must
overcome South Korea, Greece and also two time winning Argentina, who happen to be
among the favorites to win the cup. Algeria was paired up against England –who seem
stronger than ever, and according to the study, have a pretty good chance of winning this
year-, the United States, who have proven to have what it takes to make it far into the
tournament, and Slovenia, one of the responsible squads for the absentees Poland and
Czech Republic. The remaining country, Cameroon, have been firing emergency signals
ever since the last African Cup, when their early departure from the continent‟s greatest
cup came as unexpected and prompted a complete study of the squad‟s situation. To make
matters worse for them, they were paired up against the best team the Netherlands has
been able to field since 1978, a very confident and stark Denmark and Asian‟s giant, Japan.

The difference the crosses make

Some were blessed, other cursed by their groups and their route to the final. Although the
final top five didn‟t vary because of the way teams were paired up, they were the exception
rather than the rule. Mexico was among the ten best teams, even making an appearance in
quarter finals. Thanks to the way fate, luck and their numbers worked out, they would
meet Argentina in the final sixteen and make an early, shocking exit. Uruguay was another
victim, but a much more tragic one. Thanks to their crossings, they don‟t even manage to
survive the group phase, despite being a shoo-in among the final sixteen.

Then, there‟s the other side of this tale. The teams that do manage to find their crosses as
favorable. Paraguay would survive round one merely thanks to their rivals. South Korea
would gain four extra places, although in both scenarios they would exit in the first playoff
round. Other teams that gain places, but don‟t manage to make it through to the next
round are Slovakia, who gain eight spots and Slovenia who gain five.
Are there any surprises at all?
Yes, but not as many as one could expect. For instance, to most it may be shocking that
Mexico and Serbia belong on the top ten list. However, they rank ninth and tenth
respectively, which means they shouldn‟t surpass the final sixteen round. So if any of them
could finish in the top eight, that would be a huge surprise, specifically Serbia. Since they
would meet (theoretically) England, chances are slim in a quarter-final appearance by the
former Yugoslavs. Mexico has one great advantage: they can actually fight and claim the
first place of their group, which ought to lead to a game against a much more accessible
rival than England, such as Nigeria, Greece or South Korea.

Another surprise could come from teams like Denmark, Slovakia, Slovenia, Paraguay, and
Chile, which all could shock the second best team of their group. The Danes qualified with
honors, after sending Portugal to the knock-off against Bosnia-Herzegovina and Sweden
into the dumpster. Slovakia and Slovenia proved capable of much, once they sent Poland
and the Czech Republic into exile way ahead of the final group fixture. Chile and Paraguay
did their share of damage in CONMEBOL, by giving Argentina and Brazil a scare. They
came in second and third in the overall qualification. Another candidate for a big buzz is
Uruguay. Without being an upfront favorite to take over group A, they have proven to have
what it takes to neutralize their rivals. The only real upset coming from an African country
could be an early exit from Portugal, delivered by Cote d‟Ivoire.

Disappointments
France has had a very tough preparation for this World Cup. Beat by Serbia in their
qualifying group, they were sent to find a ticket against Ireland. Even so if they did find
their place in the final 32, it was from a handball delivered by Thierry Henry. Their latest
results, including a 0:1 against China, as well as of-the-pitch problems –like the underage
prostitute sex scandal that involved three national players; or the problems between
William Gallas and Patrice Evra over the captaincy of the team; or even how much trouble
everybody seems to have with Yoann Gourcuff- have seem to lead the team astray. For a
team like France to not be considered favorite in a group with Uruguay, South Africa and
Mexico, speaks of how low the game quality in les bleus is.

Italy, the defending champions have also had a slow start to this World Cup. To not be
considered one of the main teams to win the cup has demoralized somewhat the squad.
Just as important as Brazil or Germany, Italy‟s glorious past will not be enough to lift the
fallen spirits of a battered team. They have a group that is easy to deal with, but just as
soon as that part is handled, real threats will start to arise.

Spain reaching semifinals should be written somewhere above, in the surprises, since they
are a country with no tradition of making it that far. Only once have they been in the final
four, and that was back in 1950. This year‟s expectations of them have added extra
pressure on a team that usually would settle to make it into the final eight. The lack of a
background in semifinals and what fans wait from them could cross and create the perfect
disaster. If they fail to make it to that sixth game, all hope on Spain winning the title will be
eternally lost. They have their best team in history; they just won the European
Championship two years ago. If not now, then never.

Who really poses a threat?

Four words: Argentina, England, Germany and Netherlands. Of all 32 teams, these four
excelled in virtually all thirteen variables. As the numbers have shown, these four teams
are really the strongest candidates to take the title, along with Brazil, of course. They all
have the know-how, the tradition in the tournament; they‟ve all experienced at least one
final; these teams truly have it all. Young, talented players, combined with coaches who
have managed to sculpt these boys into the world‟s finest. And, to make matters worse,
they all have their particular motivation and a reason to win this cup: England knows it has
been too long. Argentina want to reclaim they membership to the final four realm.
Germany needs to win in order to keep their flame alive, and the Netherlands have a
vendetta on history. They‟re out to win what has eluded them for so long. This extra spark
could give them the fuel needed to feel each game more than their rivals, and to show the
world what they have been working on for the past four years.
Part II of the Study

Brazil and Spain seem destined to meet at the end

Spain will have to show that the past doesn’t matter and Brazil will have to overcome the
pressure of being everyone’s favorite.
By Victor Sosa

Spain, the most successful team since the last World Cup and Brazil, the most successful
team since, well, ever, seem to be the star-crossed protagonists of the upcoming World
Cup. Not only do these teams have the lowest payouts in Sin City, but Goldman Sachs (the
recently-made famous investment services firm) places these two teams as first (Brazil)
and second (Spain) in a probability model put together by some of the best risk analysts
and traders in the bank. Not surprisingly, after a long day‟s work of crunching numbers
and analyzing facts and probabilities, I get the same exact result (see Group Stage Odds
Table and Final Round Odds Table at the end of this paper).

If that indeed is the final, the actual probability of a win by Brazil is 32.95%, Spain 29.54%
and a 37.52% chance of a Draw. Very tight.

However, to get here, these teams had to knock out a whole lot of talent. The Semi Final
puts Capello‟s frightening England against Brazil, and Messi‟s Argentina against Spain. No
matter what the probabilities say, it‟s a safe bet to say that anything can happen from this
point on. Nevertheless, consider the facts: England has not beaten Brazil in 16 years (4
Draws and 2 Defeats), and the last four times Argentina saw Spain in a match, the
Spaniards have gotten the best of them 3 times. This is not to say history always has to
repeat itself, but facts are facts. Argentina made it to Semi Finals by narrowly having a
bigger win percentage than their rival Germany (Argentina Win 36.28%, Germany Win
35.51%, and Draw 28.20). In reality, this game is way too close to call, but in order to move
along with the model the assumption that the most likely event will happen was made.
Italy and Spain and Netherlands and Brazil, other quarter-final matches, were not nearly
as tight, the winner having an average 10% spread over its rival (which in this case
indicated Head to Head dominance by the winner). To end the quarter finals, England
easily beat Nigeria.

In the Round of 16, the generally dominant teams were also dominant in head to head
matches, resulting in easy wins except for the Spain vs. Portugal and Italy vs. Denmark
matches. Even though the first match results in Spain as a winner (Spain Win 41.85%,
Portugal Win 31.17, and Draw 26.98) the probabilities are much closer than in the other
second round matches. Another surprisingly close match is Italy vs. Denmark. The model
depicts Italy drawing with Denmark in the second round, something that, in principle, has
to seem odd considering the Italians are the defending champions. Let‟s see if Azurra is up
for this challenge. The proposed model also shows Nigeria beating France in the Round of
16, helped by their head to head record against the them, and being the only African team
through to the eight most prestigious. Being this the first World Cup in Africa and all the
sentiment and inspiration that this entails for African teams, the model may leave out
some African countries that might be posed to show us an exceptional performance in the
upcoming cup.

For the most part, in the first round there aren‟t any HUGE surprises (but models based on
historic facts or any other for that matter, rarely show these). France and Mexico go
through (yes, South Africa appears to be out), Argentina and Nigeria, England and their
previous colony (yes, USA), Germany and Serbia, Netherlands and Denmark, Italy and
revelation team Slovakia, Brazil and Portugal and Spain and Switzerland all go through. It
appears to be that this will be the only World Cup in which the host does not go through to
the next round.

Probability of Winning World

Cup
Team Probability Rank
Brazil 13.44 1
Germany 9.52 2
England 8.55 3
Spain 7.88 4
Netherlands 7.42 5
France 6.60 6
Argentina 6.51 7
Italy 4.95 8
Portugal 3.55 9
Serbia 2.61 10
Mexico 2.57 11
Denmark 2.43 12
Ghana 2.28 13
Nigeria 2.20 14
Uruguay 2.17 15
USA 2.04 16
Japan 2.03 17
Ivory Coast 1.94 18
Slovakia 1.56 19
South Korea 1.52 20
Cameroon 1.24 21
Algeria 1.15 22
Paraguay 1.12 23
Australia 1.05 24
Greece 0.75 25
Chile 0.72 26
Honduras 0.68 27
 Slovenia 0.54 28
South Africa may go down in history as the only host South Africa 0.45 29
that did not go through to the second round of the Switzerland 0.43 30
World Cup. Some people have pointed out that New Zealand 0.06 31
being the host, they HAVE to go through. In fact if
North Korea 0.01 32
you base your analysis purely on history, you may
have a point. Nonetheless, a more detailed analysis may lead you to a different conclusion.
Let‟s compare the South African situation with South Korea‟s “equally difficult” situation in
the 2002 to edition since this is the example most people give when pleading for the South
African pass to the next round. South Korea‟s group in the 2002 edition ranked in the 20 th
position according to FIFA, South Africa‟s group ranks 11th on average, a noteworthy if not
very significant difference. Another point, South Africa itself ranks 72 (61 positions above
the group average), South Korea ranked 22 (very close to the group average). In other
words, FIFA‟s ranking better hope South Africa doesn‟t make it to the second round, or its
reputation, to me at least, is in stake once again.

My calculations then took to me to calculate the probability that any of these 32 teams have
of actually winning the World Cup (see Probability of Winning World Cup Table).
Keep in mind that these calculations do not consider the matches that these teams have to
go through in order to win the World Cup, but instead consider the historic performance of
these teams in previous World Cups, Las Vegas betting odds, performance in previous
games, and other similar statistics.

This explains why Germany, which is second in this rank, does not even make to the Semi
Finals (since they meet their nemesis Argentina in Quarter Finals, which narrowly beat
them by probabilities). Argentina, on the other hand, appears 7 th in this ranking, reflecting
the poor performance of this team in the most recent editions of the World Cup and the
little faith people seem to have in Maradona‟s game plan. It‟s worth noting that even if
Germany does beat Argentina to go through to the Semi Finals, they will have to go up
against Spain, the team that beat them in the last Euro Cup Final. In the last 6 games these
teams have played, Spain has won twice (we all remember Torres‟s goal), and lost only
once (in a friendly match August, 16th 2000).

This also explains why France a team with a 6.60% chance of winning the World Cup is
knocked out by Nigeria a team with a meager 2.20% chance of accomplishing the feat. The
last time these teams met Nigeria has come out with the better end, increasing its chances
of beating France. On the other hand, Netherlands, who joins Spain as the only team that
has won its previous 10 matches, will have to go up against history and a tough quarter-
finals match against Brazil, a team they haven‟t beaten in the last 16 years (0-4-2).

It‟s also worth saying that his model is only good for working out probabilities, not actual
events. Surprise is something that cannot be forecasted. The best that can be said is that,
taking into accounts the variables that I have taken, the most probable event is this or that.
For instance: the team that will most likely win the World Cup is Brazil, with a whopping
13.44% chance; however this also means that Brazil has a 86.56% of NOT winning the cup.
Now those are tough odds.

Next, a brief description of the methodology used is in the model and in the shown
probability table is presented.

Methodology

Probabilities Model

The model proposed is a three-tiered model in which three different sets of variables are
considered: “Rank variables”, which can only produce results measured by Rank,
“Probability variables”, which produce results that are measured in probabilities, and
“Head to Head variables”, which include past results between opposing teams.

The first stage of the model considers the Probability variables, which include: Overall
World Cup Performance, Performance in Last Four World Cups, Performance through Last
Four Years, Qualifying Matches, and Performance through Last Ten Games.

Variable Weight

WC PERF 0.20

LAST 4 WC PERF 0.25

4 YEAR PERF 0.25

QUAL MATCHES 0.10

LAST 10 GAMES 0.20

The probabilities of winning, drawing, losing, and average goals for and against are
calculated for each team using the weight factors shown. The resulting probabilities are
averaged out for each game with the Head to Head variable (head to head results in the last
16 years) to obtain a final probability spread for the game in question. The Head to Head
variable weighs 30% and the Probability Variables as a whole weigh 70%.

Modifying this final probabilities are the Rank Variables, which are a set of variables that
are meant to describe the condition that each team enters with to the competition. They
also include a component that depicts the general sentiment toward the teams (Odds in
Las Vegas betting and a Goldman Sachs probability model). These variables are shown in
the following table with their respective weight in the final rank:

WEIGHING FACTOR FACTOR

 GDP PER CAPITA 0.06

AVG HEIGHT 0.04

MKT VALUE 0.24

WC RANK 2006 0.15

FIFA RANK 0.12

COACH RECORD 0.07

ODDS 0.19

GOLDMAN MODEL 0.13

The aggregated result is meant to affect the final probabilities calculated in the first two
tiers of the model (Probability variables and the Head to Head variable), sometimes
significantly shifting the outcome of each game.

The model, in its entirety, calculates the odds of winning, drawing or loosing considering
the weight-appropriate variables mentioned. However, games in which the probability of
Team A winning and Team B winning in a match were close, the model opted for a tie
result. After the application of the model, the teams that follow through to the next round
were obtained. The same methodology was applied for the rest of the games until the
winner was chosen.

These results are shown at the end of this paper.

If some of these resulting probabilities seem a bit weird (you are not alone), keep in mind
that Head to Head matches between the facing teams could indeed change things a lot.

Probability of Winning World Cup Table

The probabilities and rank shown above are a weighted average of historic performance in
world cups (“Probability Variables”) and some of the “Rank variables” (mainly Betting
Odds) discussed in the model. These are then recalculated as to show probabilities of
winning the whole tournament.
Facts about 2010 South Africa World Cup and the Model

Only No-Win Teams: Cameroon, Greece, Ghana, New Zealand, and North Korea.

Serbia and Chile are the highest and lowest teams of the World Cup in height.

Spain is the team with the most valued players in the market. North Korea, the market
non-believer, has ironically, the lowest market value.
Since it has become a kind of conventional wisdom in the soccer circle (that poor countries
don‟t generally do much in World Cups, except for Brazil), it‟s worth mentioning that the
richest per capita team is Switzerland and the poorest is Ghana.

Del Bosque (Spain), Capello (England), Domenech (France), and Dunga (Brazil) enter the
World Cup as the best coaches around.

If you were willing to bet 1,000 $ that Honduras reached Semifinals, and they did you
would win 1,000,000 $. That‟s how unlikely it is.

Brazil and Germany have both been to 7 World Cup finals. Brazil has won 5 times;
Germany only three.

Brazil, Germany, Italy and Argentina are the only four teams who have won more than half
of the games they‟ve played in a World Cup. They also happen to be the only four teams
who have scored more than 100 goals (Brazil 201, Germany 190, Italy 122, and Argentina
113) in World Cups. France might enter this last distinguished group if they manage to
score 5 goals or more in the South African World Cup.

England and Uruguay have never lost a World Cup Final.

Germany has never lost in penalty shoot-outs in a World Cup (4-0). England has never
won (0-3)

Pele is the only player to have won 3 World Cups. Maradona only won once.

Goldman Sachs, Elo Ratings, Betting Odds in Vegas, FIFA rankings, and, more
importantly, my Model, all present Brazil and Spain as the most prepared teams, and the
likeliest final.

South Africa has conceded nine goals in their three international encounters against
Mexico. Mexico has won their opening matches at the last three World Cups.

“Some people think football is a matter of life and death.

It is much more important than that.”
Bill Shankly

Group Stage Odds A-D

Group A A B WA % D% WB % Result

1 South Africa Mexico 32.25 22.51 45.24 Mexico

2 Uruguay France 23.80 45.71 30.49 Draw

17 South Africa Uruguay 21.14 42.14 36.72 Draw

18 France Mexico 68.55 15.25 16.19 France

33 Mexico Uruguay 37.82 28.44 33.74 Draw

34 France South Africa 59.76 26.05 14.19 France

Group B A B WA % D% WB % Result

3 Argentina Nigeria 50.48 20.89 28.63 Argentina

4 South Korea Greece 50.60 15.34 34.05 South Korea

19 Greece Nigeria 37.47 11.08 51.45 Nigeria

20 Argentina South Korea 53.63 15.56 30.81 Argentina

35 Nigeria South Korea 43.96 17.98 38.06 Draw

36 Greece Argentina 10.26 10.83 78.90 Argentina

Group C A B WA % D% WB % Result

5 England USA 67.14 12.24 20.62 England

6 Algeria Slovenia 48.00 9.81 42.19 Draw

22 Slovenia USA 39.29 13.56 47.15 USA

23 England Algeria 64.79 9.69 25.53 England

37 Slovenia England 27.31 8.40 64.29 England

38 USA Algeria 45.30 12.85 41.85 Draw

Group D A B WA % D% WB % Result

7 Germany Australia 54.64 13.96 31.39 Germany

8 Serbia Ghana 59.88 11.93 28.19 Serbia

21 Germany Serbia 47.70 25.98 26.32 Germany

24 Ghana Australia 34.07 18.33 47.59 Australia

 39 Ghana Germany 29.40 11.73 58.86 Germany

40 Australia Serbia 33.83 24.05 42.12 Serbia

Group Stage Odds E-H

Group E A B WA % D% WB % Result

9 Netherlands Denmark 43.86 22.75 33.39 Netherlands

10 Japan Cameroon 49.79 23.53 26.69 Japan

25 Netherlands Japan 79.86 8.68 11.46 Netherlands

26 Cameroon Denmark 31.18 28.82 40.00 Denmark

43 Denmark Japan 44.58 20.45 34.98 Denmark

44 Cameroon Netherlands 21.20 30.73 48.06 Netherlands

Group F A B WA % D% WB % Result

11 Italy Paraguay 59.21 19.01 21.77 Italy

12 New Zealand Slovakia 33.25 9.52 57.23 Slovakia

27 Slovakia Paraguay 44.69 19.51 35.81 Slovakia

28 Italy New Zealand 62.12 8.92 28.96 Italy

41 Slovakia Italy 14.61 13.11 72.28 Italy

42 Paraguay New Zealand 52.11 13.38 34.51 Paraguay

Group G A B WA % D% WB % Result

13 Ivory Coast Portugal 36.06 16.50 47.44 Portugal

14 Brazil North Korea 67.92 9.65 22.43 Brazil

29 Brazil Ivory Coast 56.39 11.54 32.07 Brazil

30 Portugal North Korea 57.17 15.19 27.64 Portugal

45 Portugal Brazil 38.71 19.12 42.17 Draw

 46 North Korea Ivory Coast 37.04 15.16 47.80 Ivory Coast

Group H A B WA % D% WB % Result

15 Honduras Chile 36.99 20.90 42.11 Draw

16 Spain Switzerland 77.20 9.89 12.91 Spain

31 Chile Switzerland 33.14 18.50 48.36 Switzerland

32 Spain Honduras 55.45 15.82 28.72 Spain

47 Chile Spain 13.33 17.87 68.81 Spain

48 Switzerland Honduras 37.80 19.33 42.86 Draw

Final Round Odds

Round of 16 A B WA % D% WB % Result

France Nigeria 35.70 13.72 50.58 Nigeria

Argentina Mexico 50.45 22.05 27.49 Argentina

England Serbia 56.27 14.51 29.22 England

Germany USA 55.91 11.21 32.88 Germany

Netherlands Slovakia 52.75 12.78 34.47 Netherlands

Italy Denmark 37.26 28.58 34.16 Draw

Brazil Switzerland 63.97 8.31 27.72 Brazil

Spain Portugal 41.85 26.98 31.17 Spain

Quarter Finals A B WA % D% WB % Result

England Nigeria 51.63 25.69 22.68 England

Netherlands Brazil 31.32 28.54 40.14 Brazil

Argentina Germany 36.28 28.20 35.51 Draw

Italy Spain 30.47 31.01 38.52 Spain

 Semi Finals A B WA % D% WB % Result

England Brazil 28.13 29.66 42.21 Brazil

Argentina Spain 40.11 13.22 46.67 Draw

3rd Place England Argentina 42.63 26.69 30.67 England

Finals Brazil Spain 32.95 37.52 29.54 Draw

Places

Position Team

Champion Brazil

Runner- Spain
up

3rd Place England

4th Place Argentina

5th Place Germany

6th Place Netherlands

7th Place Italy

8th Place Nigeria