FIFA World Cup 2026

[HereToLearn]

but you would agree that there are plenty of people with second/third generation or no migration background who do not feel any pride for their home countries?

I do.

To me, however, it is not only about national pride. In international tournaments, one of the keys to going all the way is often the unity and cohesion within the squad, the sense that everyone is fully committed to the same cause and willing to sacrifice for one another.

When that cohesion is missing, the dressing room can easily split into separate cliques, often along cultural or ethnic lines. Players may naturally gravitate towards those with whom they share a similar background, and the squad risks becoming a collection of different groups rather than a single team.

 

[Maciamo]

but you would agree that there are plenty of people with second/third generation or no migration background who do not feel any pride for their home countries? if we can agree on that then it is a stretch to say that no first generation migrant, can have more pride than any other second/third generation migrant or native person living in the country.
it also depends on what you think people should be proud of i guess. if you only think about pride of descent then yes first generation can't have that but then it is not a question of nationality anymore.

It’s true that some modern players may feel less emotionally tied to a single nation, especially if they’ve had multinational careers or complex personal backgrounds. But the key question is not how every individual player feels; it’s how supporters in general experience the World Cup. On that point, there is a lot of evidence that fans treat it as a deeply national, almost tribal “us versus them” event.

Survey research on the 2014 World Cup, for example, found that fan identification with the national team was tightly linked to national pride and nationalist attitudes, and that these moved with the team’s results (American Attitudes in the Sporting Mega-Event Spectacle: Nationalism and Self-Identity in the 2014 FIFA World Cup). Another study of the same tournament documented how people “bask in reflected glory” when their national team wins and distance themselves when it loses, again tying fandom directly to national self‑image rather than neutral entertainment (BIRGing with the Best; CORFing for the Country: Fan Identification and Nationalism during the 2014 FIFA World Cup).

More generally, work in social psychology and sport studies shows that international tournaments sharply intensify social identity along national lines. Fans spontaneously think in terms of “we” versus “they,” and shared symbols like flags and anthems become emotionally charged focal points (Collective emotions and the World Cup 2014: The relevance of theories and research on collective pride and shame). Other research explicitly describes sport fandom as a form of “tribalism,” emphasizing group membership, shared rituals, rivalry and a strong distinction between in‑group and out‑group (Those Who Rarely Attend Alone: Tribal Sport Fans).

There is also evidence that this kind of sports nationalism can spill over into the political sphere. One cross-national study on international sports found that spikes in World Cup‑related nationalism can increase state-level aggression and conflictual behavior, particularly in countries where football is the dominant sport (Nationalism and Conflict: Lessons from International Sports). That’s hard to reconcile with the idea that World Cups are mostly detached from national pride.

So even if some players are more pragmatic about national teams, the broader pattern is clear: for many supporters, backing “their” country at the World Cup is not just about liking football. It’s about belonging to a national “we,” drawing a line between “us” and “them,” and experiencing a very real form of nationalism.

 

[HereToLearn]

So even if some players are more pragmatic about national teams, the broader pattern is clear: for many supporters, backing “their” country at the World Cup is not just about liking football. It’s about belonging to a national “we,” drawing a line between “us” and “them,” and experiencing a very real form of nationalism.

It is also revealing - and rather fascinating - to see how these tournaments reignite women’s enthusiasm for football, which often seems to lie dormant between one World Cup or European Championship and the next.

To me, this sits somewhat uneasily with the fact that women tend, on average, to hold more progressive political views. It suggests that, at a deeper and perhaps largely unconscious level, the same (if not stronger) mechanisms of group identification are at work: the instinct to rally around one’s own side and to frame the competition in terms of “us versus them”.

 

[Maciamo]

It is also revealing - and rather fascinating - to see how these tournaments reignite women’s enthusiasm for football, which often seems to lie dormant between one World Cup or European Championship and the next.

It's not just women who are occasional football viewers who watch mainly major events like the World Cup.

An Adlook study across six markets found that 64% of World Cup viewers are casual fans who stop watching once their national team is eliminated, while only 36% are year-round "core" football followers who stay engaged regardless of results. In the UK specifically, Adlook's data showed 56% of viewers for the 2026 World Cup are casual, versus just 29% classified as core fans. Similarly, Epsilon's "Match Ready" report found that only half of the UK's 34 million-strong World Cup audience are regular football league fans, with many others tuning in only for major events due to excitement or social value rather than year-round interest.

These percentages are for people who actually watch football at least occasionally. In the UK, multiple surveys suggest that somewhere around half of adults never or almost never watch football, including 17% who never watch any sport. So all the percentages given above have to be divided into to get the actual percentage of the population. Therefore we could divide the British population as follows.

- 50% who never watch football.
- 32% who watch occasionally during major events like the World Cup.
- 18% who watch football year round.

And the United Kingdom is one of the countries that attracts the most fans in Europe. In many other countries the percentage of core football fans is even lower. It's only higher than countries like Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and possibly also Spain and Italy.

 

[gourd2]

I do.

To me, however, it is not only about national pride. In international tournaments, one of the keys to going all the way is often the unity and cohesion within the squad, the sense that everyone is fully committed to the same cause and willing to sacrifice for one another.

When that cohesion is missing, the dressing room can easily split into separate cliques, often along cultural or ethnic lines. Players may naturally gravitate towards those with whom they share a similar background, and the squad risks becoming a collection of different groups rather than a single team.

but it is also known that a team with people of migrant background can still create a feeling of a national "we" among the fans, even helping to remove divisions. if a national football teams or even FIFA would start to implement rules about migrant backgrounds such that people with migrant backgrounds are excluded, it would create a "we" that is not based on the concept of nationality anymore.
divisions can also happen without cultural or ethnic differences. and it shouldn't happen. shouldn't in that case the football team make an example that it doesn't matter?
if it is the case that football increases tribalism among the fans even among people that normally have no interest in sports, then this should imo best be based on modern definitions of nationalility and not on deeper outdated concepts. else you may remove possible division in the team, which shouldn't exist in the first place, but you create division in the general population. the signal would be that in order to prevent ethnic or cultural division, just keep everyone seperated. this would not be compatible with modern societies.

 

[HereToLearn]

but it is also known that a team with people of migrant background can still create a feeling of a national "we" among the fans, even helping to remove divisions. if a national football teams or even FIFA would start to implement rules about migrant backgrounds such that people with migrant backgrounds are excluded, it would create a "we" that is not based on the concept of nationality anymore.
divisions can also happen without cultural or ethnic differences. and it shouldn't happen. shouldn't in that case the football team make an example that it doesn't matter?
if it is the case that football increases tribalism among the fans even among people that normally have no interest in sports, then this should imo best be based on modern definitions of nationalility and not on deeper outdated concepts. else you may remove possible division in the team, which shouldn't exist in the first place, but you create division in the general population. the signal would be that in order to prevent ethnic or cultural division, just keep everyone seperated. this would not be compatible with modern societies.

I agree that, in 2026, excluding players because of their ethnic or migrant background would be unrealistic and perhaps unacceptable. However, in my opinion, a national team can foster unity, yet it can also intensify pre-existing divisions (ask Lucas Digne, racially abused by his supposed countrymen for causing the penalty against France); sporting representation does not automatically dissolve cultural conflict.