If economies played football: the 2026 economic World Cup

This article is a part of Poland Unpacked. Weekly intelligence for decision-makers

Imagine a World Cup in which economies, rather than footballers, take to the field. Instead of players’ form, GDP growth matters. Instead of technical skill, export sophistication counts. And instead of dressing-room morale, citizens’ satisfaction with life makes the difference. We created a ranking of countries based on 12 economic indicators and staged a tournament from the group stage all the way to the final. How far did Poland advance, and who ultimately became world champion?

The World Cup is a celebration for fans across the globe. We decided to join the fun – but from an economic perspective.

For each country, we developed a ranking designed to reflect its economic strength. We based it on 12 indicators to ensure a reasonably comprehensive assessment covering a broad range of economic and social dimensions. Complete data were available for 109 countries.

The indicators we used – and their footballing equivalents – were:

GDP per capita at purchasing-power parity (PPP) – the team’s overall quality level,
GDP growth (average over the past three years) – the team’s current form,
Economic size (GDP at PPP) – the depth and quality of the talent pool,
Institutions (Freedom House Freedom Index) – the conditions that foster players’ creativity,
Unemployment (average over the past three years) – whether all players are available, free from injuries and setbacks,
Human Development Index (HDI), adjusted for income inequality – whether the balance between the team’s units (defense, midfield and attack) is maintained,
Happiness/life-satisfaction score – the team’s “chemistry”, dressing-room atmosphere and team spirit,
Inflation (average over the past three years) – the stability of the team’s tempo and its control of the match,
Public debt as a percentage of GDP – tactical discipline and the quality of coaching,
Export Complexity Index (ECI Trade) – the team’s technical ability,
Research Complexity Index (ECI Research) – the team’s analytical backroom staff,
Software and digital-economy complexity (ECI Software) – the ability to produce a breakthrough moment in a tightly contested match.

GDP matters...

We assigned weights to each component to calculate a team’s overall strength. We gave the greatest importance to GDP per capita (18%) and the size of the economy (18%). This reflects the perennial dilemma in international comparisons of economic power: what matters more – productivity per person or total economic output? We therefore included both factors with equal weight.

Form is crucial in any tournament. For that reason, we assigned a relatively high weight (13%) to average real GDP growth over the past three years. This captures the fact that countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom and Finland have recently experienced relative economic stagnation.

...but GDP is not everything

Historically, the single most important factor underpinning economic strength has been the quality of institutions (10%). We measure this using the Freedom House index. As a result, China performs poorly in this category. In the short term, the consequences of China’s political system may not be fully visible, but economic history suggests that countries with a high degree of economic and political freedom tend to outperform over time. The Nordic countries lead the field, while the United States has recently fallen below Poland’s score.

People do not live by GDP alone. That is why we also take into account the Human Development Index (HDI) (7%), which incorporates national income, education and health outcomes while adjusting for inequality. We also include life satisfaction and happiness (5%).

In addition, our assessment considers an economy’s ability to maintain full employment. We therefore include the average unemployment rate over the past three years (7%), as well as the deviation from a 2% inflation rate. Deflation is not beneficial for an economy either, so our indicator measures the absolute deviation from that target.

We also take public debt into account. Admittedly, this is not a perfect measure in this context. In some countries, low debt levels result from high inflation (Turkey) or from the fact that developing economies have limited access to borrowing (Afghanistan). In other cases, high debt levels reflect genuine economic weaknesses (Senegal) or the legacy of past crises (Greece).

Finally, we incorporate three advanced indicators from the Economic Complexity Observatory, measuring the complexity of trade, research activity and the digital economy.

Ranking the economies

It is important to note that our index should be interpreted in line with the ceteris paribus principle – that is, under the assumption that all other factors remain unchanged.

Each variable was subjected to a process of winsorization, a statistical technique that reduces the influence of extreme outliers by replacing them with values from a specified percentile. For example, according to IMF data, Singapore’s GDP per capita at PPP reaches an extraordinary USD 164,000. We replaced this figure with USD 85,000 (the 95th percentile), roughly equivalent to the GDP per capita levels of the Netherlands or the United States.

We then standardized all variables so that each falls within a range of 0 to 100. By construction, six countries (5% of the sample) receive the lowest possible score of 0, while another six receive the highest possible score of 100. All remaining countries fall somewhere in between.

The table below presents the results for each of the 109 countries included in our analysis.

Rules, seeding and the group draw

Qualification for the Economic World Cup was based on the points earned by each country in our ranking. Every country was assigned to a region, with the number of teams from each region matching the allocation used in the FIFA World Cup.

The draw was conducted among 48 teams divided into four seeding pots based on their ranking scores, while also taking host-country preferences into account. In Pot A, the highest-ranked team was the United States (82.94 points), while the lowest-ranked was Mexico (55.52 points). The draw produced 12 groups, each consisting of one team from each pot. Poland, seeded in Pot B with 66.80 points, was drawn into Group E alongside South Korea, Panama and Benin.

The most evenly matched group was Group G, featuring the Netherlands, Sweden, India and the United Arab Emirates. It could reasonably be described as the tournament’s “group of death”.

Group phase

The groups shown above were generated through this draw. During the group stage, each team played three matches in a round-robin format. The outcome of every match was determined by a combination of the team’s underlying ranking score and a random factor ranging from –15 to +15 points. If the difference between the two teams’ scores was less than five points, the match ended in a draw. A win was worth three points, a draw one point and a loss zero points.

After three rounds of matches, teams within each group were ranked by total points. If teams were level on points, the tiebreaker was point differential across all matches played. In other words, a seven-point victory counted as +7, while a seven-point defeat counted as –7.

The top two teams from each group advanced automatically to the knockout stage. In addition, the four best third-placed teams across all 12 groups also qualified for the Round of 32, ranked according to the same criteria used in the group standings.

In total, 32 teams progressed to the knockout phase.

Knockout stage: round of 32

The knockout stage followed the rules below:

As in the group stage, the outcome of each match was determined by a combination of the teams’ baseline ranking scores and a random factor ranging from –15 to +15 points.
If the difference between the two teams’ scores was less than 6 points, the match went to a penalty shootout, with the result decided by a coin toss.

The round of 32 produced several clear surprises.

Czechia eliminated Spain with a score of 73:52. Norway were knocked out on penalties by Canada, even though the Canadians had achieved a slightly better result in regular time. Meanwhile, the United States defeated the Netherlands in a dominant 91:57 performance.

Poland eliminated Brazil, winning 72:64 in one of the most closely contested matches of the round. Sweden and China advanced after penalty shootouts against Mexico and the Dominican Republic respectively. Great Britain also progressed on penalties after a match against Ireland, despite Ireland posting a slightly higher score in regular time (82 points to 80).

Japan, South Korea, Germany, Australia, India and Switzerland advanced without major surprises.

Knockout stage: round of 16

In the next round, the tournament favorites performed more convincingly.

France defeated Japan, the United States comfortably beat South Korea, and Germany overcame Australia. Great Britain advanced after a tightly contested match against Sweden, decided on penalties.

Meanwhile, the clash between the world’s two most populous economies – China and India – ended in a draw. India ultimately secured a place in the quarterfinals after winning the penalty shootout.

At this stage of the tournament, Poland’s run came to an end. The match against Canada finished 62:69, meaning Poland fell just short. The Polish team played slightly below its potential, but the result still placed Poland among the 16 strongest economies in the world.

Quarterfinals: a clash of giants

The quarterfinals delivered a series of heavyweight encounters. The United States–France match was widely described by fans as a “premature final.” The Americans showed exceptional form, sweeping aside a visibly fatigued French team 96:70.

The remaining matches once again brought high tension and surprises. First, Czechia defeated India 58:52. Canada then held a long lead against Germany, only to end in a draw; the match went to penalties, where Germany ultimately prevailed.

In the final quarterfinal, the United Kingdom’s economy was beaten by Denmark, 60:79. This was largely attributed to Denmark’s strong performance, as the two teams’ baseline rankings were very close – 73 points for Denmark versus 72 for the UK. Immediately after the match, the British Prime Minister resigned.

Semifinals: no room for surprises

The semifinals featured two encounters between major powers and smaller economies.

In the first match, the host nation – the United States – faced Czechia. Although the Czech team performed well and clearly exceeded expectations relative to its ranking, the Americans left no doubt about the outcome, winning 93:74 and advancing to the final.

In the second semifinal, Germany faced Denmark. Here too, there was little suspense. Germany delivered a strong performance, while Denmark, still fatigued after its clash with the United Kingdom, clearly fell short. The match ended 82:67.

Third-place match: Denmark vs. Czechia

The match for third place in the Economic World Cup featured Czechia and Denmark. On one side stood the “new Europe” economy, which has undergone rapid development only in recent decades. On the other, “old Europe,” represented by one of the continent’s wealthiest and most innovative countries.

Denmark dominated from the outset. Czechia had its moments – they performed better, for example, in export complexity and recorded lower unemployment – but ultimately had to concede superiority to the Nordic side. The match ended 65:52 in favor of Denmark, securing them the bronze medal.

Most Poles supported Czechia in this encounter. Experts emphasized that the team’s strong performance underlined the growing importance of Central and Eastern Europe in the global economy. Others, however, regretted that Poland had not reached the medal stage. In the end, Czechia’s defeat was received with a degree of schadenfreude, mixed with a sense of relief.

The final has arrived

Finally, the most important day of the tournament arrived – the grand final. Would the young, innovative economy of the United States prevail? Or would experienced Germany, despite recent crises, come out on top?

The match was extremely balanced, with both economies trading blows throughout. In terms of GDP and GDP per capita, the United States held the advantage. However, Germany performed better in life satisfaction and institutional quality. Shortly afterward, the United States came out ahead in terms of economic growth, while Germany maintained lower unemployment.

At one point, the Americans launched a surge and took the lead thanks to significantly higher innovation performance. Fans went wild, and the commentator shouted: “America, what are you doing?!”

Toward the end of the match, Germany managed to level the score, supported by a much lower public debt-to-GDP ratio and a higher Human Development Index.

And so it ended in a draw.

Penalties decide the champion

The outcome had to be decided by a penalty shootout. This time, the hosts prevailed. The United States were crowned world champions of the 2026 Economic World Cup.

Celebrations were boundless, and the President of the United States described the victory as “one big beautiful win.”

With that note, we conclude this year’s tournament. We now hand over to the studio. At the end, we present the pre-tournament ranking of economic strength, based on the weighted factors assigned to each indicator.

We built a ranking of economies based on 12 indicators (including GDP per capita, GDP growth, institutional quality, unemployment, and export complexity), which served as the foundation for a simulated football World Cup featuring 48 countries.
Poland reached the Round of 16, notably eliminating Brazil along the way, before being knocked out by Canada. This can be interpreted as placing the Polish economy among the world’s 16 strongest economies.
The United States won the tournament, defeating Germany in the final after a penalty shootout. The bronze medal went to Denmark, which beat Czechia in the third-place match, the biggest surprise of the entire competition.