by Daniel Kaplan, NYU graduate student in economics and supporter of Bafana Bafana
Last season, when the British soccer team Liverpool FC played Real Madrid, the number of Spanish players in Liverpool’s team outnumbered those playing for Madrid. This is one illustration of an emerging trend: while soccer is already the most globalized of sports, it is also fast becoming one of the most globalized professions.
As labor mobility among soccer players has increased, there has been a decline in team inequality at the country level (documented by Branko Milanovic in this 2001 paper). Although traditionally dominant teams like Brazil, Italy, France and Germany continue to win, international tournaments are becoming far more competitive.
Cases in point: at the recent Confederations Cup in South Africa, Egypt beat Italy. And while Brazil eventually won the tournament, they had to fight back from two goals down against the USA (which had never before been in a major tournament final). What is behind the leveling of the international soccer landscape, and how could these lessons be applied to developing countries struggling to benefit from globalization?
Some “soccer economists” argue that nations that are worse at soccer have benefited from exporting their players to world-class foreign clubs, where they gain valuable skills and experience before returning to play for their home country This is similar to recent literature that questions the traditional Brain Drain fear, with the Brain Circulation alternative – skilled emigrants bring home skills and connections that could be as valuable to their home country as the skills brought back by exported soccer players.
But there is also a homegrown story. As Dani Rodrik points out, the Egyptian team that beat Italy had a majority of players with experience playing in domestic, rather than foreign clubs. The USA team that similarly surpassed expectations has key players from both domestic and foreign clubs. So taking advantage of globalization perhaps requires BOTH strong domestic capabilities and international links.
One nation’s strategy for developing a strong domestic soccer league will be very different from the next. American kids who play under the supervision of soccer moms are different from the street kids in a Brazilian favela. Perhaps the venerable theory of comparative advantage needs to become more complex as each country learns to play to its strengths and use more of whatever are its most abundant resources to compete globally. And just like in soccer, it’s hard to predict who will win the game at any particular time in any particular industry. Except the nice thing about trade, unlike soccer, is that both teams win in the end.
11 Comments
You wouldn’t consider the number of New Yorkers playing for a San Francisco baseball team or vice-versa, so why mention the different EU states people playing football in the EU come from?
Soccer doesn’t require tremendous verbal skills, a few choice phrases about the ref’s mother will do fine, so it is quite normal that it should draw it’s players from the other-language-speaking regions of the EU labour market.
Interesting, but you are not always comparing like with like. National teams and international tournaments are structured completely differently from domestic clubs and competitions. More interesting would be to see if there is a benefit to clubs in home countries of overseas players.
Studying in NYU and supporting Bafana Bafana? Only an American or South African would refer to the confederations cup as “a major tournament”!
An interesting point missing in this post is the tendency that foreigners play for national teams from another country. In the last European Championship at least four Brasilians participated for countries such as Turkey, Portugal and Poland.
However much I like this kind of “theories”, as a hardcore soccer fan I have to say that much of this is nonsense. Soccer is a highly complex sport, and performance in international country tournaments depends on a good number of variables that this post omitted, like physical condition of players after the club season, availability of time to build a coherent team … Please don’t forget that one subtle effect of professional globalization in soccer is to gradually diminish the relative importance of international country tournaments for star players (in terms of professional and economic incentives) vs. national and international club leagues.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. Unfancied nations have been making their mark since the 1990 World Cup when Cameroon (playing their first World Cup) beat Argentina (World Cup holders) in the opening match. Senegal managed the same feat in 2002 when they beat France.
(And by the way the Confederations Cup is a bad example. It was a big tournament for the small teams, a small tournament for the big teams.)
The issue about leagues isn’t whether footballers play domestically or abroad, it’s about the standard. Egypt has one of the most professional leagues in Africa with well-run fairly affluent clubs. Nigeria has a corrupt and poorly organised league with badly managed clubs that sometimes fail to pay the wages. So Egypt’s top players are more likely to stay at home, while Nigeria’s all head to Europe.
Re: IS THE BRAIN DRAIN GOOD FOR
AFRICA?
Interesting paper. For three case studies from Asia with some evidence leading to similar conclusions, see Wescott, C. and Brinkerhoff, J. (eds), 2006. Converting Migration Drains into Gains Harnessing the Resources of Overseas Professionals. Manila: Asian Development Bank. http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Converting-Migration-Drains-Gains/
Great article! but…
You gotta give some love to the favela soccer mums, they have neither the nice suburbia homes nor the SUVs and still produce so many incredible *inhos.
Why oh why isn’t there such a thing as competitive disease-curing or bridge-building, so that dvlpng countries could get the praise they deserve for their expatriate-intelligencia.. and the opportunities for at-home-stayers to learn from their temporarily returning emmigrated compatriots, as in soccer.
p.s.: thanks for including Germany in the list of dominant soccer teams, Georg and I appreciate it… And how come you didn’t mention ZA’s team for homegrown excellence? oh, and props to Peter for
“Only an American or South African would refer to the confederations cup as “a major tournament”!” – I was gonna say well, maybe for some…
Good illustration of diversity in labor, especially in an interesting field like football.
^Steve – Cameroon wasn’t good because of player imports, they were good because they have fast runners, skilled footsmen, and got their act together to make a good team.
An interesting tidbit on soccer globalization in NYC – the Copa de NYC:
http://www.copanyc.us/
A few short points in response to the above comments:
1. If you look at the strength of the squads that the big teams fielded in the confed. cup, or if you remember Brazil’s captain Lucio, crying after winning the tournament, it’s clear that the tournament meant a lot for all teams involved – hardly a trivial affair in the international soccer calendar.
2. Manuel: I don’t think that globalization has diminished the importance of international competition. Fans care about club and country, and so do players (see point one).
3. Steve: I agree, the standard of domestic competition is important – this is the issue of developing domestic capabilities. As you rightly point out, player movement in and out of a country is one indication of the quality of that country’s domestic league. Still, it’s a balancing act between developing domestic capabilities and international links. The best players may need to push themselves at the highest level (which might be a foreign league) in order for benefits to trickle down through their country’s soccer economy.
4. Tobacher: I’m saving up praise for South Africa for after 2010.
5. Adrian: nice link, thanks.
Somebody should look at managers from ‘traditionally dominant’ countries trying their luck in developing countries. Winnie Schaefer in Cameroon or Berti Vogts in Nigeria & Azerbaijan for the lack of a better example, but I’m sure there are some who actually know what they are doing.
There are also some on the club level. Does the knowledge transfer work that way as well?
“We’ve got a developing Thomas Friedman on our hands.” — Sean