Which non-European non-South American country will win the FIFA World Cup first?

[buritobr]

There were 20 soccer world cups since 1930. Only Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Germany, Italy, England, France and Spain won.

Do you think one day a non-European non South American country will win? Which one?

[seb_pard]

Ivory Coast or Ghana

[JGibson]

Mexico.

[Fight for Trump]

All of the above are mediocre at best, so basically, it comes down to seeding. USA is more likely to host a World Cup than all of the above, which increases the likelihood of a cushy draw because of the #1 host seed. Mexico is always a reliable choke artist team, and the sub-Saharan African teams are filled with 40-year old men pretending to be 30.

So USA.

[NewYorkExpress]

In theory China should be competitive, since they largest pool of players to choose from... but the USA and Mexico will generally qualify more frequently (though the USA might not in 2018). I'm going with Mexico because of the rich soccer tradition, the generally weak competition in CONCACAF (The USA is their only serious opponent), and the fact they may well be co-hosting in the not too distant future with the USA and Canada (2024, I believe... I'll be rooting for a U.S/Mexico final).

[Leinad]

Several of them might grow to that level, including the US, but it'll be a while from now I think. Only twice has a team from another continent even made the semifinals, the US in the inaugural edition (with only 13 teams, and a vastly different global soccer/sports environment) and South Korea when they co-hosted in 2002. Neither of them made the final.

Most of those countries either don't have the infrastructure to develop a team of world-class players like Western Europe, and those that do generally have other sports that are more popular.

[Gustaf]

I don't see it happening anytime soon, but I'd guess Mexico as the most likely from this list. The African teams tend to underperform and I feel like they missed their best chance already (Ivory Coast used to be really strong for example).

[pikachu]

I don't understand why Mexico hasn't done better than it has. Superficially, you'd think with the combination of popularity + population + money, it would've at least made the semis once.

[seb_pard]

I don't understand why Mexico hasn't done better than it has. Superficially, you'd think with the combination of popularity + population + money, it would've at least made the semis once.

Because that combination doesn't explain (well, popularity does) good performance on football (see Uruguay and some african countries). I think one thing important is that your confederation should have some strong teams to be a challenge, and Concacaf is too weak to be a good training for the world cup.

[parochial boy]

Fundamentally, none of those countries have a generation of players which is going to win a world cup (bar a fluke of Greece in Euro 2004 style excellent management), so the questions should really be about which country is going to come up with a generation of players that will win.

I think, in that respect looking at population + economy + popularity of football is a pretty fair metric, and would add in "proximity to footballing innovation" as a fourth factor, as that, for example, explains why the Netherlands have historically overperformed by so much.

I don't think "choking" is a good excuse really - for instance, if you look at Rugby union, New Zealand were notorious chokers, until they won the World Cup twice in a row.

On that basis, I plumped for Nigeria over Mexico - both have the population and popularity - but Nigeria has more potential for economic growth, and is much more connected to Europe, which is undoubtedly the capital of football at the moment.

[buritobr]

Brazil won 5, Germany and Italy won 4, Argentina and Uruguay won 2, France, England and Spain won 1.

Which are usually the requisites?
1) High population
2) High GDP per capita
3) Soccer as a very popular sport
1 and 2 can be merged in only one: high GDP

Brazil has only a medium GDP per capita, but has a huge population, so, it has a high GDP. Argentina has a medium high GDP per capita, not a very high population, but 40M is still not negligible. Uruguay is the only one to not fit into this description, but it won in a distant past, when soccer was not very popular in the world, when only 13 countries played.
Germany, Italy, France, England and Spain fit very well in the three items. Netherlands was the second three times, it outperformed because its population is not high, but the GDP per capita is very high and soccer is popular there.

USA, Japan and China have very high GDP, but soccer is not a very popular sport in those countries.
Mexico is the one who better fit into the description. It has a medium high GDP per capita, but the population is very high, and soccer is a popular sport there.

[dead0man]

USA

Less kids playing (american) football means more kids playing soccer.  More kids playing soccer means a few of the top tier genetic freaks (our athletic betters) will choose to focus on it.  Sure, basketball is still the big draw for the top athletes, but some athletes don't "take" to basketball as well as others.....baseball is even worse in that aspect.  You can either hit a curve ball or you can't, it doesn't matter if you're in the top 100 athletes in the world or not.  Soccer, at least it seems to me, is an easier game to pick up...it's rather obvious what needs to be done.  A lot of skills that would make a good prehistoric hunter (good eyesight, quick and agile feet and brains, playing well with others, strength, size, intestinal fortitude, etc) also make some one a good soccer player.  The same is true for hockey, american football, rugby, most teams sports really....odd that.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

An African team like Nigeria, probably.

Won't happen for a while, though.

[Lechasseur]

Probably the USA but that won't be anytime soon

[Fight for Trump]

A lot of skills that would make a good prehistoric hunter (good eyesight, quick and agile feet and brains, playing well with others, strength, size, intestinal fortitude, etc) also make some one a good soccer player.

No, that makes it a primitive activity suitable for people with prehistoric cultural development.

True sport tests every aspect of a competitor - their physical ability, their tactical knowledge, their mental fortitude, and ultimately, their character - under a codified set of rules, like Test cricket, snooker, doubles tennis, match play golf, and boxing.