01July 2010: Wall St Journal
We all know how the soccer has turned out, but here's a macabre and slightly irresponsible question: What would happen if the nations in the World Cup went to war instead?
For the 32 qualifying countries, we compared the size of their armed forces in 2010, the most recent data on their military expenditures and the percentage of their gross domestic product devoted to military spending—all to determine which nations with the most soccer talent also have the most potent armed forces.
The U.S. team bowed out in the round of 16, but not surprisingly, the U.S. military would easily win the Warfare Cup. In fact, the U.S. contest against Slovenia would have been the biggest mismatch of the tournament, according to data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Even Koman Coulibaly, the disgraced referee of that early match, could see that Slovenia's 7,000 troops would surrender quickly to the U.S.'s 1.5 million.
But there were several stunners in group play. The Greeks would advance instead of Argentina, and Australia would have eliminated Ghana before it had a chance to beat the U.S. An English win over Germany highlighted the fierce battles in the knockout rounds, which also led to the emergence of North Korea, which is the biggest wild card of the tournament because it doesn't reveal its expenditures but has the second-most troops. In the end, we gave Italy the nod over the North Koreans, putting the Azzurri in the final four with the U.S., Brazil and South Korea.
Fortunately for the remaining eight teams—in the actual World Cup, that is—the U.S. was knocked out by Ghana, despite its military disadvantage. So if the remaining countries took to combat, we'd have Uruguay, Brazil, Germany and Spain in the semifinal, with Brazil and its 328,000 troops topping Germany's $47 billion military budget. Actually, when it comes to the real thing, that result doesn't sound all that preposterous.
—Ben Cohen
The Warfare Cup
Based on three sets of criteria—military expenditure, percentage of GDP spent on military and number of overall troops—here's how the final eight teams size up in terms of military power, as well as the rankings for all 32 World Cup teams.
| |
FINAL EIGHT TEAMS |
MILITARY EXPENDITURE*/RANK |
% OF GDP/RANK |
2010 ARMED FORCES/RANK |
|
1 |
Brazil |
$ 26. 3 B (7th) |
1.7% (10th) |
328,000 (5th) |
|
2 |
Germany |
$ 47.0 B (4th) |
1.3% (17th) |
251,000 (8th) |
|
3 |
Spain |
$ 19.3 B (10th) |
1.2% (21st) |
128,000 (13th) |
|
4 |
Netherlands |
$ 12.3 B (11th) |
1.4% (15th) |
47,000 (19th) |
|
5 |
Argentina |
$ 2.0 B (20th) |
0.6% (30th) |
73,000 (15th) |
|
6 |
Uruguay |
$ 0.2 B (28th) |
0.8% (25th) |
25,000 (23rd) |
|
7 |
Ghana |
$ 0.1 B (30th) |
0.7% (28th) |
16,000 (27th) |
|
8 |
Paraguay |
$ 0.1 B (29th) |
0.8% (26th) |
11,000 (30th) |
|
TOTAL RANKINGS - ALL 32 TEAMS |
|
1 |
United States |
17 |
Serbia |
|
2 |
France |
18 |
Denmark |
|
3 |
South Korea |
19 |
South Africa |
|
4 |
England** |
20 |
Slovakia |
|
5 |
Brazil |
21 |
Nigeria |
|
6 |
Greece |
22 |
Argentina |
|
7 |
Germany |
23 |
Switzerland |
|
8 |
Algeria |
24 |
Ivory Coast |
|
9 |
Italy |
25 |
New Zealand |
|
10 |
Chile |
26 |
Slovenia |
|
11 |
Australia |
27 |
Cameroon |
|
12 |
Japan |
28 |
Uruguay |
|
13 |
Spain |
29 |
Ghana |
|
14 |
Netherlands |
30 |
Paraguay |
|
15 |
Portugal |
31 |
Honduras |
|
16 |
Mexico |
N/A |
North Korea |
*based on the latest data available (2008) **U.K. statistics;
Source: International Institute for Strategic Studies