Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions for future (international football) videos! And yes, the thumbnail is heavily inspired by @balon's style: www.youtube.com/@balon-english
I feel like connectivity shouldn't be tied to exports but how often do these teams play teams placed highly on the FIFA rankings/ELO scale, playing better opponents would increase your odds at getting better, this would boost up countries in Europe, South America and I believe even Africa, and nerf Concacaf teams Also, taking GDP that highly completely ruin the chances of African teams, when you could argue Morocco, Nigeria, Algeria and Senegal, etc, have a higher chance then some of these teams, still, great work at coming out with an answer to an impossible question PD: RIP brain4breakfast
This video is a prime example as why gdp per capita is not the best determining factor to world cup success. I would argue teams ranked lower in the top 20 would rank higher than Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland. All three of those national teams are in stagnation. Ireland shouldn't even be in the top 20 their national team has been in decline since 2000. If I was to do a calculation I would place the state of the FA higher than the per capita gdp as well as a varible called scouting/diaspora. That variable would factor in the player pipeline to playing in top 5 european leagues, also dual national recruitment and size of diasporas. Many African teams as well as Eastern European and North American teams benefit from their diasporas. The US, Japan, South Korea and some Francophone African nations like Senegal benefit from their pipelines to Europe's top 5 leagues. At the end the players and managers will determine success. A consistent pipeline of good players and managers will lead to success in the long term.
We also need to notice a lot of East European nations source players raised in western Europe. Croatia 🇭🇷 have had Lovren and Rakitic come through in Switzerland 🇨🇭 and Germany 🇩🇪. Then the British home nations such as Scotland, Wales and Ireland have many players born and produced in England, but they're often there because they're not enough for England. Not national pride.
You are right about Rakitic, but Lovren became a player in Croatia. Croatia have a strong immigration, and most of them want to play for Croatia. Now we have Josip Stanisic from Bayern Munich, and Luka Sucic from Salzburg.
when a national team relies upon many of their players Born outside of their country, it's an indicator that their squad lacks depth and their native Born players are not good enough. This is often the case for some East European and African teams
@@encorefootball Of course nation of 4 million can't have depth as a nation of 30 and more million people. In case of Croatia they are genetically and culturally Croatians and no Germans or Austrians. They have more common with Croatia than those african players have with France, Germany or England. But still, 95% of cro players are produced in Croatia.
This Football Development Conditions Index is great, but Africa and AFCON has an odd situation: most teams source at least 50% of their players born and homegrown in Europe. So-called underdogs Cape Verde 🇨🇻 and Equatorial Guinea 🇬🇶 are actually diaspora squads instead of being national teams. Even DR Congo, who have a huge 100+ million population, have a huge overseas born squad. My choice to be the first African World Cup champions are: 1) Morocco 🇲🇦 2) Egypt 🇪🇬 3) Senegal 🇸🇳. All of them except Egypt source their players heavily born and homegrown in Europe. So wealth, population and GDP means far less in African teams except Egypt, South Africa 🇿🇦 and Namibia 🇳🇦 I've always noticed Uruguay 🇺🇾 is the only side with less than 40 million people to become world champions. Every other winner has a population between 40-80 million, with Brazil 🇧🇷 being the only one with over 200 million.
Large diasporas close the gap on richer nations. Having a good FA does matter but quality of players will always matter. This is why teams like Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden consistently underperform despite smashing these areas. That's why Ireland is in decline currently while you have teams like Morocco and Senegal on thr ascendancy.
Something important to consider is that, since the best teams and leagues in the world are in Europe, nations whose players have easier access to those leagues will be better. Not only do Portugal and Croatia have historic clubs with excellent academies (SL Benfica, Sporting CP, FC Porto, Dinamo Zagreb, Hajduk Split), but they are also EU members. This means that Portuguese and Croatian youth have the option to leave for better academies and teams earlier than players most American, Japanese, and South Korean youth. Having an EU passport also gives you an edge over players without EU passports because you aren't subject to the squad registration rules some leagues have surrounding foreign players.
I'm sure that it will be a complete unexpectet "Golden Generation" or Miracle Team. Nobody would expect Denmark or Greece to win the Euros back then or Germany the Worldcup in 1954. And all ratings and statistics are just possibillities that have THEORETICAL impact but will not matter if a few amazing players do the one run to win it. For example Colombia is right now unbeaten for 20 Games and beat Germany, Brazil and Spain. So I think it will be a Team on nobodys List that will rise with a few exeptional Players.
I would have also put into account fifa rank. I know it’s not perfect but I’m sure it would help factor out nations like Norway from making it so high currently
As for your picks, I agree with most of your top 12 except Sweden, Denmark & Switzerland. They have small populations and rather questionable leagues. Norway shouldn't be any way near the top 17 and Ireland source half of their players born in England & Scotland. So they are reliant upon other nations to develop their players, which is not a reliable foundation for success. As for the African nations, 2 reasons: most of their best players are born and developed in Europe and they lack strong domestic leagues. This is a regular criticism "Where is Africa?" made towards you Seb, which is unfair
There are no miracles in a FIFA World Cup. You need hard work, tradition, MYSTIC, and a bit of luck. My top 3: Netherlands (tradition) Austria (I've seen how hard they work) Japan (mystic -population support-)
I personally think you should've included football viewership rates instead of population and also federation spending and national team spending if those statistics are public. Viewership rates should show how much of the population is interested in football rather than just how many people are in a country. Players sold to better leagues should also be included in my opinion. Countries like Brazil would have a high amount of players sold to better leagues because Brazilian players are often scouted by teams in big leagues while a country like Mexico which has problems with corruption, long contracts and a gentleman's agreement to not to buy or sell abroad causing young players to not get chances to play as much would result in less players being sold to better leagues and in tern having a worse team. To rank if a league is better or worse you could use the UEFA League Coefficients but I don't know if there is a version of that for leagues outside of UEFA so I dunno if that really applies. Just finding out how many players leave the league would already improve the rankings though since it'd show how much the league is scouted. I also think poverty rates and average education levels should be included with higher poverty rates and lower average education levels resulting in more points. When you look at some of the best players in the world of modern football like Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar, Maradona, Ronaldinho etc they all came from poorer backgrounds.
Both Japan and SK have aging populations , their populations are getting Old Faster than predicted With more much Old people than Young they Will eventually start to suck at football Much more in favour of countries with more Young populations,say Iran for example
maybe you should also consider what is the main sport in th country. For example: the USA is horrible at football as they dont focus on it, but football has been growing in America, so we will see.
With USA I am not sure they have been building football global powerhouse since 90s and built nothing special but CONCACAF in nutshell is nothing special. There's one thing sure here rankings mean nothing in football, so who knows Ivory Coast as world champion ranked 49th in curent senseless ranking could happen. Poland 16th for me as polish citizen is very kind but once again it doesn't make any sense even if we talk about potential. The perfect this type of table probably won't be existing.
The big flaw in the system is the lack of African countries. Brazil was poor and not innovative before becoming the most successful national team of all times. I think culture is a big deal and it's totally missing from the equation. India will likely never win because of a lack of footballing culture.
Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions for future (international football) videos!
And yes, the thumbnail is heavily inspired by @balon's style: www.youtube.com/@balon-english
Ei You Schweden
@@istaranlaura4342 ?
You brazilian?
You Sammarinese?
Portugal way above netherlands
I feel like connectivity shouldn't be tied to exports but how often do these teams play teams placed highly on the FIFA rankings/ELO scale, playing better opponents would increase your odds at getting better, this would boost up countries in Europe, South America and I believe even Africa, and nerf Concacaf teams
Also, taking GDP that highly completely ruin the chances of African teams, when you could argue Morocco, Nigeria, Algeria and Senegal, etc, have a higher chance then some of these teams, still, great work at coming out with an answer to an impossible question
PD: RIP brain4breakfast
I think you only miss one little variable: talent... more of those countries don't have that into this equation...
As a Ducthie i know we are going to bottle it again in a final...
Ya you guys can't win
This video is a prime example as why gdp per capita is not the best determining factor to world cup success. I would argue teams ranked lower in the top 20 would rank higher than Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland. All three of those national teams are in stagnation. Ireland shouldn't even be in the top 20 their national team has been in decline since 2000. If I was to do a calculation I would place the state of the FA higher than the per capita gdp as well as a varible called scouting/diaspora. That variable would factor in the player pipeline to playing in top 5 european leagues, also dual national recruitment and size of diasporas. Many African teams as well as Eastern European and North American teams benefit from their diasporas. The US, Japan, South Korea and some Francophone African nations like Senegal benefit from their pipelines to Europe's top 5 leagues.
At the end the players and managers will determine success. A consistent pipeline of good players and managers will lead to success in the long term.
Maybe you should consider countries with a higher younger population since they are the ones that are playing ball here.
We also need to notice a lot of East European nations source players raised in western Europe. Croatia 🇭🇷 have had Lovren and Rakitic come through in Switzerland 🇨🇭 and Germany 🇩🇪. Then the British home nations such as Scotland, Wales and Ireland have many players born and produced in England, but they're often there because they're not enough for England. Not national pride.
You are right about Rakitic, but Lovren became a player in Croatia. Croatia have a strong immigration, and most of them want to play for Croatia. Now we have Josip Stanisic from Bayern Munich, and Luka Sucic from Salzburg.
I don't understand
when a national team relies upon many of their players Born outside of their country, it's an indicator that their squad lacks depth and their native Born players are not good enough. This is often the case for some East European and African teams
@@encorefootball Of course nation of 4 million can't have depth as a nation of 30 and more million people. In case of Croatia they are genetically and culturally Croatians and no Germans or Austrians. They have more common with Croatia than those african players have with France, Germany or England. But still, 95% of cro players are produced in Croatia.
This Football Development Conditions Index is great, but Africa and AFCON has an odd situation: most teams source at least 50% of their players born and homegrown in Europe. So-called underdogs Cape Verde 🇨🇻 and Equatorial Guinea 🇬🇶 are actually diaspora squads instead of being national teams. Even DR Congo, who have a huge 100+ million population, have a huge overseas born squad. My choice to be the first African World Cup champions are: 1) Morocco 🇲🇦 2) Egypt 🇪🇬 3) Senegal 🇸🇳. All of them except Egypt source their players heavily born and homegrown in Europe. So wealth, population and GDP means far less in African teams except Egypt, South Africa 🇿🇦 and Namibia 🇳🇦
I've always noticed Uruguay 🇺🇾 is the only side with less than 40 million people to become world champions. Every other winner has a population between 40-80 million, with Brazil 🇧🇷 being the only one with over 200 million.
Large diasporas close the gap on richer nations. Having a good FA does matter but quality of players will always matter. This is why teams like Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden consistently underperform despite smashing these areas. That's why Ireland is in decline currently while you have teams like Morocco and Senegal on thr ascendancy.
Also the name of the African confederation is CAF (Confederation of African Football)
Something important to consider is that, since the best teams and leagues in the world are in Europe, nations whose players have easier access to those leagues will be better. Not only do Portugal and Croatia have historic clubs with excellent academies (SL Benfica, Sporting CP, FC Porto, Dinamo Zagreb, Hajduk Split), but they are also EU members. This means that Portuguese and Croatian youth have the option to leave for better academies and teams earlier than players most American, Japanese, and South Korean youth. Having an EU passport also gives you an edge over players without EU passports because you aren't subject to the squad registration rules some leagues have surrounding foreign players.
No Nigeria?
What da!?
I'm sure that it will be a complete unexpectet "Golden Generation" or Miracle Team. Nobody would expect Denmark or Greece to win the Euros back then or Germany the Worldcup in 1954. And all ratings and statistics are just possibillities that have THEORETICAL impact but will not matter if a few amazing players do the one run to win it. For example Colombia is right now unbeaten for 20 Games and beat Germany, Brazil and Spain. So I think it will be a Team on nobodys List that will rise with a few exeptional Players.
Great video, but I will clean a mic a little, because its a little to loudy to listen
I would have also put into account fifa rank. I know it’s not perfect but I’m sure it would help factor out nations like Norway from making it so high currently
As for your picks, I agree with most of your top 12 except Sweden, Denmark & Switzerland. They have small populations and rather questionable leagues. Norway shouldn't be any way near the top 17 and Ireland source half of their players born in England & Scotland. So they are reliant upon other nations to develop their players, which is not a reliable foundation for success.
As for the African nations, 2 reasons: most of their best players are born and developed in Europe and they lack strong domestic leagues. This is a regular criticism "Where is Africa?" made towards you Seb, which is unfair
Where did Costa Rica finish?
Do one for the Euros!
There are no miracles in a FIFA World Cup. You need hard work, tradition, MYSTIC, and a bit of luck.
My top 3:
Netherlands (tradition)
Austria (I've seen how hard they work)
Japan (mystic -population support-)
I personally think you should've included football viewership rates instead of population and also federation spending and national team spending if those statistics are public. Viewership rates should show how much of the population is interested in football rather than just how many people are in a country.
Players sold to better leagues should also be included in my opinion. Countries like Brazil would have a high amount of players sold to better leagues because Brazilian players are often scouted by teams in big leagues while a country like Mexico which has problems with corruption, long contracts and a gentleman's agreement to not to buy or sell abroad causing young players to not get chances to play as much would result in less players being sold to better leagues and in tern having a worse team. To rank if a league is better or worse you could use the UEFA League Coefficients but I don't know if there is a version of that for leagues outside of UEFA so I dunno if that really applies. Just finding out how many players leave the league would already improve the rankings though since it'd show how much the league is scouted.
I also think poverty rates and average education levels should be included with higher poverty rates and lower average education levels resulting in more points. When you look at some of the best players in the world of modern football like Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar, Maradona, Ronaldinho etc they all came from poorer backgrounds.
Indonesia has huge attendance and viewing figures, but they have achieved nothing. Not even a SouthEast Asian cup win.
I hope Croatia 🇭🇷 will be the next new world champion
It's not appropriate
I think Australia has a good chance to win World Cup in the future.
What happened too brain4breakfest?
He died in 2019. ua-cam.com/video/LWfur-7GJbU/v-deo.html
Both Japan and SK have aging populations , their populations are getting Old Faster than predicted
With more much Old people than Young they Will eventually start to suck at football Much more in favour of countries with more Young populations,say Iran for example
No complaints from me
I agree
maybe you should also consider what is the main sport in th country. For example: the USA is horrible at football as they dont focus on it, but football has been growing in America, so we will see.
Bro Netherands is never gonna win, we have played so much finals but always lost, we wont win bro
You guys should join and make a new country with Belgium and/or Denmark that would be cool 😎
Egypt 🇪🇬🇪🇬🇪🇬🇪🇬
A lot of thieves over there no?
With USA I am not sure they have been building football global powerhouse since 90s and built nothing special but CONCACAF in nutshell is nothing special.
There's one thing sure here rankings mean nothing in football, so who knows Ivory Coast as world champion ranked 49th in curent senseless ranking could happen.
Poland 16th for me as polish citizen is very kind but once again it doesn't make any sense even if we talk about potential. The perfect this type of table probably won't be existing.
USA🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
🇵🇭🇺🇾🇬🇷🇩🇪🇦🇷🇯🇵🇮🇹🇲🇽 better
'Promo SM'
The big flaw in the system is the lack of African countries. Brazil was poor and not innovative before becoming the most successful national team of all times.
I think culture is a big deal and it's totally missing from the equation. India will likely never win because of a lack of footballing culture.
Most African teams rely upon players Born abroad. So he's spot on with his assessment- in addition most African domestic club leagues are very poor
Having a strong domestic league is key to success, hence Brazil's 5 World Cups despite poverty
I think that the U.S.A. and Japan have more chances to win their first World Cup than the Netherlands LOL