In 2010, I stumbled across a post via a long-defunct message board that has probably informed more of what I do than I'd care to admit.
theunlikelyfan
I came back to it nearly every day of the 2010 World Cup. As but a youth, the ripe age of 16, I knew nothing about the teams that weren't the United States or Spain. I also didn't watch much soccer. But that post, at that time, got me hooked in a way I didn't see coming. The summer of 2010 was nice for several reasons, but the biggest was soccer being on all day, every day. I lived on Central Time. I'd wake up at 6:30 AM to catch most of the first game, then watch through until 3:30 PM or so to finish out the games from South Africa. A nice nine-hour workday, good prep for what I sometimes do now.
As the years have passed, I came to realize a couple of things.
- The guy who wrote that went on to co-create Ted Lasso.
- This style of thing-as-other-thing is alarmingly impactful on what I write about during the season or talk about on the STATS podcast.
Brendan Hunt last wrote an update to this series in 2014, which is very funny, and college basketball Internet king Ryan Hammer put out a graphic with his own spin on it recently that I highly recommend taking a look at. But, hell, I don't know. Something's missing. Something like a needlessly long breakdown of all 48 teams in the largest World Cup ever. Something that compares them to their college basketball counterparts. Something that I am not sure the world wanted or needed.
I am afraid you know what time it is.
NOTES: I tried hard to make good comparisons with style of play, history, and occasionally Vibes. A great resource for the style of play was BJ Cunningham's outstanding site Unexpected Goals, which I demand you visit. Onward.
Group A
Mexico
For essentially the entire history of the sport, or at least its modern history, these guys have been good. They've made the World Cup 18 times, the fifth-most ever, including nine in a row. You can set your watch to them making the World Cup, and you can typically set it to them being among the final 16 teams remaining. The problem: they've made the World Cup 18 times and have never made the semifinals. Every other country with 15+ appearances has made at least one, including countries with worse domestic leagues (Uruguay) and less fan investment (Belgium). An older coach thought to be washed up came in and has them playing as well as they have in ages.
These guys also have a neighborly rivalry that is either somewhat friendly or extremely unfriendly depending on the circumstances. Both are in the exact same boat, having never made the 'real' semifinals (fine, the US did make it in 1930...as part of a 13-team field) despite a pretty long run of good performance, and both sides consider themselves to be above fighting with the other (whether politically, financially, educationally, or overall). Either side would commit numerous crimes to ensure they make the semifinals before their rival, but at this point, everyone else watching has to actually see them Do It to believe it can happen. Minus Switzerland, Mexico and their rival lead every list of Best Team to Never Make a Final Four.
Mexico's college basketball comparison: Tennessee. I thought hard about flipping the Vols for Vanderbilt here, but Mexico didn't have the total and complete crash-landing that Vandy had in the late 2010s/early 2020s. It would surprise some to learn that since 1999, Tennessee's longest stretch without a Sweet Sixteen appearance is just seven years. Their longest stretch without a Final Four appearance is infinity.
South Africa
Charming! Unlikely to last long. South Africa has made more World Cups than you'd think, though one of them they hosted, but things didn't get rolling for them until the 1990s, when...you know...they...yeah. Anyway, they play an extremely physical style of ball and their shooting accuracy is highly concerning. In terms of a drought, they just ended a 24-year one in making a World Cup that they weren't hosting, and this current era of theirs is probably their 'best' real era since the '90s. They've also had the same coach for multiple World Cup cycles, which is like having the same coach for 15+ years in any other sport.
South Africa's college basketball comparison: Towson.
South Korea
You know them for their shock run to the semifinals all those years ago, but this is quietly their 11th World Cup in a row, the fifth-longest streak going and in league with teams like Spain and Argentina you think of as actual powerhouses. They haven't gone that far before or since, but they're a mainstay in the dance no matter who is on the team or who happens to be the manager for a given cycle. This is despite not having much in the way of next-level talent or even many names you've heard of. They simply show up, overachieve, and keep showing up every single time out. Also, through those 11 consecutive World Cups, this is their 11th different manager.
South Korea's college basketball comparison: VCU. Utah State would also be a good pick here, but I went VCU because, like South Korea, their run to the semifinals was genuinely shocking and unforeseen and I'm not sure they could hope to replicate it, especially now.
Czech Republic
This country feels like its own world, complete with a language I could not even begin to describe. These guys have been awesome in spurts, notably the late 1990s and mid-2000s, but generally they operate out of the spotlight of the sport. They're a fun comparison to South Korea within this group in that, at least generally speaking, they are more well-known and have more high-end talent. Yet South Korea always Does Stuff and the Czechs seem more invested in other sports despite having the capacity to be pretty good at this one. It's very mountainous and I have no idea what their residents are talking about.
Czech Republic's college basketball comparison: Utah. This makes Keith Van Horn their Jan Koller. I guess Andrew Bogut is Petr Cech.
Group B
Canada
Long the punching bag of their conference, Canada had a breakthrough in the last decade where they finally began to take the sport seriously after 40+ years of pretending it didn't exist. This is their Golden Generation, complete with a coach who exists exclusively to annoy non-fans. After a long stretch of their Southern neighbors dominating them at a sport neither cared the most about, the Canadians have made it much more even in the last decade, which only adds to the superiority complex they feel over the Southerners by way of being Canadian. The last few years have made this rivalry deeply humorous, with both sides believing they are morally, spiritually, and physically superior to the other.
Canada's college basketball comparison: Northwestern. Universal healthcare is Canada's version of graduating from Medill and living in Chicago as a young person. Yes yes, I'm very jealous, shut up, go away.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Existing under a different name and conglomerate up to the 1990s, Bosnia started to get good in the mid-2010s and serves as a sort of intriguing underdog story that's well off your standard underdog radar. They beat powerhouse Italy just to make it, and beating Wales in qualifying was no small feat to pair with it. Their underlying numbers are not very good, and they do not do anything complicated on the court. But man, are they athletic. And tall.
Bosnia's college basketball comparison: UCF. I hope to find out Bosnia believes they invented space travel.
Qatar
The most astroturfed thing in existence, Qatari football exists as a for-profit institution with fans that may or may not be paid to attend games. This does not mean they are bad. In the 1990s, they were pretty good at a lower level, and in the 2010s, they received a surge of money that made them competent and somewhat fearsome. They finally broke through to the international scale in the early 2020s, and I figure in the expanded era they're going to be something resembling a mainstay. The problem: they aren't actually enjoyable to watch, and generally speaking, they get stomped every time they play an actual good opponent.
Qatar's college basketball comparison: Grand Canyon. A similarly fake enterprise, I was unaware of the existence of either of these things prior to 15 years ago, and life was better then.
Switzerland
Switzerland, they're so hot right now. The Swiss are as good as you'll find defensively and seem to do everything competently, with more versatility than one might think. After years of operating in semi-anonymity, the Swiss have started to find out-and-out stars over the last decade or so. They were incredible in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, then far less incredible in the modern era. Starting in the late 2000s, they became a serious operation again, first thanks to a beloved son who came home to save his team, now thanks to a son everyone's learned to love more despite having a less-than-stellar resume prior to his hire. This is the most talent they've ever had, possibly the best pure team they've ever had, and maybe the best draw they've ever had. They're tactically sound, experienced, and have all played together for multiple years now. What could go wrong?
Switzerland's college basketball comparison: Iowa State. Like Switzerland, Iowa State has made the semifinals...over 80 years ago. They're more than good enough to do it now. Will they finally get over the invisible hump? Honestly, the only things that gave me pause here were that the Swiss aren't corn fanatics and that the Swiss coach is alarmingly beautiful.
That guy being a soccer manager and not Adrien Brody is a UMBC-level stunner.
Group C
Brazil
Good forever, and boy, do they have the titles and history to prove it. Anything short of a title in any competition is not a true failure, but it does not satisfy the Brazilians who have grown up believing they are the best and that no one is in the same stratosphere. Many of the greats in soccer history have come from this country, but it's been a while since their last title. A pretty long while, actually. At no point are these guys ever bad. When your bad years still result in you being amongst the last eight teams standing, you're obviously in a great spot. But the Brazilians have suffered some horrific embarrassments in previous years, and their largest embarrassment is debatable (though their worst-ever loss isn't). Their biggest rivals have arguably had a more impactful last decade, own a more recent title, and are more well-liked by the general public. Their greatest-ever scorer has a complicated legacy because he's never won a big one.
Also, there is this.
Brazil's college basketball comparison: Duke. No Coach K to be found here, but Carlo Ancelotti as Scheyer kinda works. An objectively great manager whose main identity is being identity-free, which could be read as elite adaptiveness...or, alternately, perhaps being too hands-off.
Morocco
Morocco's a harder one. Outside of a couple of great runs in the 1980s and in the most recent tournament, they've suffered from a lot of international irrelevancy without a ton of remarkable exports the average fan has heard of. Yet in said recent tournament, they shocked the world with a Cinderella run behind low-event games and a lot of possession of the ball. I have my doubts they can do it twice, but it's possible their young coach is a secret tactical genius, with almost all of his managerial experience coming at one stop at a lower level.
Morocco's college basketball comparison: Iowa. Ben McCollum is almost certainly far better as a 'manager' than Mohamed Ouahbi at their respective sports, but Iowa's two periods of being truly good at basketball were the 1980s and right now.
Haiti
There are several Just Happy to Be Here! teams in every World Cup, but Haiti might top the list. They have an unusually long gap between their two World Cup appearances, and their previous appearance saw them get smashed almost non-stop, posting some of the most lopsided results in tournament history. However, despite a lot of institutional things going against them, they are here, and they should be celebrated. They play with joy, and in this case, joy does not need to equal a win. Or even a moderately close loss.
Haiti's college basketball comparison: Prairie View A&M. If Haiti's manager turns to the camera at halftime and says "we need some help from the Lord" while the Haitians trail Scotland 3-0, we'll know.
Scotland
Sure, this is the year these guys are going to break through. Scotland has a history of being a hipster fave, and several times now, they've gotten to the Big Dance with a rush of hope and prayer that This Is The Year. Every time, they have failed to actually break through, whether that's the World Cup or the Euros. How much of that is drawing bad matchups or enduring bad luck is up to interpretation, but what cannot be argued is this: despite several great opportunities, they simply do not win games that count, and they are exceptionally well-versed in heartbreak. Now, does that mean I am picking them to not advance? Of course not. I'm falling for it again, just like I have every time before.
Also, they're much less religious than they used to be. And Scotland is probably partially responsible for country music.
Scotland's college basketball comparison: Belmont. I know, I know: we all believe they're really gonna do it this time. Surely, this is the time the soccer hipsters will be rewarded. This time. This one.
Group D
United States
I wrestled with this one for a long time. There's not a super-neat 1:1 comparison for the USMNT, who offers up a really weird combination of the following:
- Fine-to-good play that's never good enough for the fans;
- A golden generation that's probably highly overrated by US media;
- A constant desire to be better;
- Memorializing the 2000s as the 'peak' era;
- Constant requests to invest more money, time, life, etc. into America's third-favorite sport;
- And an ability to somehow make everyone on both sides of the political divide annoyed or outright mad.
The right answer probably lies in a different sport. It actually might be Iowa football.
But for our purposes, I do think I've found a good one we can live with. The United States likely had less true talent in the 2000s and 2010s but achieved better/same results compared to the better-funded and more talented teams of the 2020s. The average fan does not have soccer as their favorite sport, and even your average USMNT lover is probably a football fan first, not futbol. The most beloved players in the team's history last touched the field for the US in the mid-2010s, and they were all guys who were decidedly not international superstars. But we loved them, and we loved watching them grow.
Whenever a major tournament comes and goes and the United States does not dramatically beat fan expectations (which is generally R16 for the World Cup and at least a title appearance in the Gold Cup), the coach must be fired. Now. The most recent victim was a coach that was probably underrated in the grand scheme of things, but in every single picture, he looked irredeemably stupid. His background made people think he was handed the job via conspiracy, not that it was a job he earned.
Now, they push forward with a new coach and the same results despite this coach having the resume every US fan has asked for for 20+ years. Will it make a difference? We'll have to wait and see. God help 'em if they get the World Cup equivalent of a 5 seed.
The United States' college basketball comparison: Wisconsin. Dear God almighty, if you're listening, let Poch be the Bo Ryan of this situation. Not the Luke Fickell.
Paraguay
For about 15 years there, these guys were some of the coolest dudes on the planet. They kept pumping out overlooked talent that seemed above playing for them in the first place, but great scouting is great scouting. This peaked with a run of arguably being one of the 8 or 9 best teams in the entire sport, and in a historical rarity they seemed to have a leg up on far better funded teams from their conference. Then the 2010s began, they started spamming different managers to solve the problem, and they're only here because the tournament expanded.
Paraguay's college basketball comparison: Wake Forest. Like Steve Forbes, Paraguay's manager has been at a million different places in the most far-flung spots of the world. Also like Steve Forbes, I am not sure what accomplishment he's had at the highest level you can point to just yet.
Australia
Hailing from a true cultural oddity compared to much of the rest of the world, these guys routinely dominate their league only to get smashed like a fly when they enter the Big Dance. This doesn't make them unsuccessful, but it does mean they operate outside of the mainstream and at weird hours of the day/night. Again: NOT BAD. Just not great, which is fine, because this is at best a secondary sport for their fans behind football. Also, their best win in team history was probably in 2006?
Australia's college basketball comparison: Montana. Australia did make the round of 16 in the most recent World Cup, but that's about it in terms of historic achievements post-2006. If I have to make Nevada be Japan, fine.
Turkey
Just over decades ago, these guys made a shocking run to the semifinals after barely making the World Cup in the first place. When I say nobody saw it coming, I mean nobody. It's stood the test of time as an all-time great Cinderella run, even if objectively more surprising semifinalists have made it since. The coach and the players responsible are all gods locally, and I presume none of them have ever bought a drink or a cigarette since.
Since then, they've operated almost entirely in the sport's wilderness. A couple of nice pop-ups in the public consciousness since have helped, including a very good team in 2008, but the entirety of their results since about 2012 have been either underwhelming or outright bad. That legendary run is legendary for a reason, but it's been way too long since they've been to the Big Dance and there's not a great explanation for why it's been so long. Clearly talented and with an exceptional manager (on one side of the ball, at least), this should be their best shot in a while to be good. It may not ever be the 2000s again, but at least a whiff would be nice.
Turkey's college basketball comparison: George Mason. Though the 2002 World Cup would be like if George Mason and VCU made the same Final Four. I cannot emphasize how bizarre it was.
Group E
Germany
For some people, these guys are soccer. There's never been a period of time where they threatened anything other than real relevancy. They've always, always been good. They are unkillable, their fans are way too online, and they care way more than you. They are responsible for some of the greatest talent ever produced in the sport's history. They have more titles than you, in all likelihood. In an average season, at least for a long time, they almost never had the sport's best player. Instead, they had the best team, and for a long time, they had a coach who was one of the greatest motivators and tinkerers we'll ever see.
But.
Recently, this institution has fallen on hard times. That coach was forced to leave after multiple embarrassing flops in a row, and in his stead, the team has wobbled. Results that would be fine for a lot of people are not enough for these fans, and the pressure is on. They can and will pump as much money as humanly possible into getting the best team they can. They're loaded with talent. There are so many names you know on their rosters as of late. Yet the same questions continue to come up: can these guys adapt to the new era? Do all of these highly talented pieces actually fit with one another? And is the man trusted with saving the entire operation, a younger man widely regarded as a rising star, mature enough to handle possibly the most demanding job in the sport?
Germany's college basketball comparison: Kentucky. Julian Nagelsmann, probably, is better at coaching soccer than Mark Pope is at basketball. But we don't know that, and all we do know is that both fanbases badly want it to work out with this specific guy in charge, more out of sentimentalism than anything else.
Curacao
A newcomer with no real history to go off of, this is their first appearance in this tournament and their main goal will be to have a lot of fun. They're very religious, no one is entirely sure where they are on a map, they wear blue, and they've had several different names throughout their history. I think their presence is best summed up by this fan quote: "whatever happens, we're here to party."
Curacao's college basketball comparison: Queens (NC).
Ivory Coast
In the 2000s, they had one player who was so good, so clearly better than everyone else the country had ever produced, it was almost laughable. He would drag them single-handedly to heights they haven't experienced before or since. At the next level, aka clubs, he redefined the sport and bent it to his will for years on end. The talent surrounding him wasn't good enough to get them over the top to a truly astonishing achievement, but simply getting there was great enough. Since then, they've had some really good runs, but they'll never be as relevant or as beautiful as they were in the 2000s, all thanks to One Guy.
Ivory Coast's college basketball comparison: Davidson. Yes, Didier Drogba is Ivory Coast Curry.
Ecuador
A team that cannot score, doesn't allow you to score either, and whose main strategy is to toss it up to the big man? Oh, and they wear yellow and blue? Well, I've got my answer.
Ecuador's college basketball comparison: UC Irvine. This is both a "if Germany can't make it out of this group" note and an "if Ecuador can't make it out of this group" note.
Group F
Netherlands
Decades ago, these guys changed the sport. They were flashy, played a beautiful brand of ball, had some of the most iconic players ever, and...kept being second-best. Over and over and over. Inarguably, they are currently The Best to Never Do It. This is despite multiple golden generations and a recent resurgence driven by a hard-nosed coach who does it His Way, which can be off-putting for younger players but highly attractive to veterans who stick it out. Possibly their best shot ever was derailed last time out. They fought the team who won it all to the death and had an opportunity to steal the whole thing late...but couldn't. Yet again, drawing ever nearer to the greatest title imaginable, but just not making it over the hump.
This year's team is just as talented as that one was, but something feels...off. Lesser. It's possible they could still get it done, because they've received a favorable draw and have explosive offensive talent that can tilt the game their way very quickly. But like the teams of old, the question will always come up: I know these guys are really, really good. But are they as great as the numbers say they are?
Holland's college basketball comparison: Houston.
Japan
Prior to the 2000s, these guys were largely an afterthought in the sport. It wasn't that they were truly bad, just not very impactful. Really, I wouldn't say anyone thought about these guys very much until the last decade, when they've begun to emerge as a new power thanks to some combination of overlooked talent, elite management, and exceptional tactical minds. Also, they are investing so much money. Like, an insane amount of money. I don't think you can understand how much money.
Their stated goal is to win the World Cup by 2050, and honestly, they are starting to build enough quality homegrown talent that it's not as absurd as it looks. They are well-versed in overachieving. What happens when everyone has high expectations for your most talented team ever?
Japan's college basketball comparison: Texas Tech.
Sweden
Formerly hipster catnip, some combination of social democracy and/or consistent overachievement in their World Cup appearances made these guys beloved. They wore bright, flashy uniforms that would pop off of any page.
They've had multiple deep runs, never winning it all, but it seems like these guys could barely sneak into a World Cup and still be seriously threatening. Their best player ever was a 1-of-1 narcissist whose narcissism was so overwhelming that it horseshoed into being a charming feature. He deserved to be a narcissist, too. He's the country's greatest player ever, and he truly believes he is better than you at literally every aspect of your life. He's long gone, and since then, Sweden has been trying to figure out who leads them next. Talent is far from the concern, because they have multiple stars and Names You Would Know. The concern is fit.
Sweden's college basketball comparison: Oregon.
Tunisia
Tunisia has been in a surprising number of World Cups. This is their seventh appearance, all since 1978, which means the Tunisians have more World Cup outings than countries like Denmark, Peru, Senegal, and Turkey. (Also, amazingly, they have the same number of appearances as Croatia and Colombia.) Do they do anything at all once they get there? Well, no, but no one expects them to in the first place. In the NCAA Tournament, they would be given a 4 PM ET tip-off on TruTV, lose by 24 points, and head home.
Tunisia's college basketball comparison: Iona.
Group G
Belgium
These guys have had a couple of Golden Generations, or gold-type substances. Despite the feeling that they only arrived in the international sense maybe 15 years ago, the Belgians have a rich history of consistently being pretty good, making multiple semifinals and consistently being a fairly important piece to the sport. The fan culture is better than you'd expect, too. Yet this latest Golden Generation was supposed to deliver trophies, and 10+ years on: no trophies. The manager is also just...well, how do I say it, there, and I am not exactly sure what on his resume or recent history qualifies him for this role. For this World Cup, they have one guy they want to run everything through. He's clearly their best player, and he may become their best player of this new generation. Is he ready to bear all of that responsibility? Can his supporting cast keep up?
Belgium's college basketball comparison: Ohio State.
Egypt
The greatest player these guys will ever have couldn't get them over the hump, so I'm not sure what will. The whole team feels past their prime, in a region with teams that are emerging to do the same thing they did for 10-20 years but a little better. Maybe they'll get back to their old winning ways, but they're slipping down the board from "actual threat" to "interesting for 15 minutes."
Egypt's college basketball comparison: South Dakota State.
Iran
These guys are really in the news, I'd say. Also, they're better than you'd think. It's similar to other countries in that, if they can just get to the big show, they're actually pretty intriguing from a matchup perspective. They're quite stout defensively and can slow a game down to a crawl to steal an upset here or there. The question isn't really if they can hang, but rather if they can capitalize on what should be their best shot at a deep(er) run in team history. Also, very mountainous, highly religious, and embroiled in a legal battle far beyond what I am able to cover with my baby brain.
Iran's college basketball comparison: Utah Valley.
New Zealand
Honestly, this is a place I frequently forget exists. It's no offense to them, and they're not even bad. It's just...not a place I'm gonna go to often, if ever. It would really help if these guys would simply win their damn conference tournament and actually get to the biggest stage more frequently instead of losing every single time.
New Zealand's college basketball comparison: Eastern Washington.
Group H
Spain
True story: these guys really haven't been around all that long. They only made four of the first 10 World Cups, and up to 2010, they hadn't progressed past the quarterfinals stage since 1950. Actually, from 1954 to 1990, they made it about half the time and never got past the quarterfinals. It would be like if, 35 years from now, Mexico or Denmark were perennial favorites to win the World Cup and no one was really surprised by it anymore.
Anyway, they had a reputation as chokers for ages. Every four years, we'd meet back up, Spain would promise this was the year they'd finally get over the hump as a favorite or darkhorse favorite, and World Cup after World Cup, they'd blow it. It wasn't always that they were necessarily better than the teams they kept losing to, and it wasn't that they would always lose early (save for an embarrassing group stage exit in 1998). They just...never got it done. It seemed like they might never do it, no matter how many great players came through.
Then, in 2010, it all connected for seven beautiful matches. Actually, just six of them were beautiful. In their tournament debut, Spain ate it against Switzerland, and yet again, everyone assumed this was Spain Doing Spain Things when it mattered most. Then they ripped off six in a row, toppling multiple longtime foes along the way, until it culminated in their first and only title in the country's history.
The comparison I'm about to give you has not actually won a title yet, but like Spain, they have changed the sport, haven't actually been great for more than the last 30-40 years, and in their last couple of tries, actually have eaten it a bit against teams they simply should be able to beat. Is this the year? You always believe it will be, and really, these guys should own more titles by now. They have the best resources, the best situation, maybe the best coach, and certainly the best player. Is their reputation about to shift permanently?
Spain's college basketball comparison: Gonzaga, minus the title, obviously. But hey, they have more championship appearances (two) than Spain does (one).
Cape Verde Islands
Couldn't tell you where this is, sorry. "Well, Will, it's the Cape Verde Islands. It's in the name!" Okay, sure. But if you gave me an unmarked map and said "Cape Verde Islands", I think I'd put up a bad score. This is their first-ever World Cup entry and it will almost certainly not last long. There's a real chance that they are the least-funded, least-talented, least-experienced, and least-resourced team in the entire field. It would be insane if they won a single game, much less advanced out of the group stage.
...but it would be pretty cool. Anyway, I sure hope they don't play the single best team in the sport in the first round.
Cape Verde's college basketball comparison: SIU Edwardsville.
Saudi Arabia
Objectively speaking, I am horrified by what this organization does and believe they have made a massive negative impact on our world. They are perhaps the best example of sportswashing on an international scale. I frequently wish they were really bad, not necessarily because it would make me feel better but because I wouldn't have to think about them as much or be confronted with their existence. Even if they were bad, it's not as if they're exactly big fans of dissent or disagreement.
Here is the problem: Saudi Arabia is fun to watch. They are very small, very compact, and have basically zero players any normal person has ever heard of. Yet this does not stop them from putting together some steady, impressive results in a fashion I can get down with. If they did everything the exact same way but for a far less upsetting country - Peru, Ecuador, Denmark - I would feel no conflict about enjoying their style. They've never gone very far, but they did pull off an absurd upset in the last World Cup and don't seem to be going away. I guess I'll have to learn to live with the conflict.
Saudi Arabia's college basketball comparison: Liberty.
Uruguay
For such a small and relatively unassuming institution, they have an extraordinary outsized impact on their sport of choice. Uruguay are two-time World Cup champions, though the last was so long ago that almost nobody reading this would have been conscious for it and many of you were not alive. They have rivalries with fellow in-conference countries Argentina and Brazil, who have way more funding and resources but achieve results only slightly superior to the Uruguayans. Their existence is a historical outlier, and while they disappeared from the national stage in the '80s and '90s they roared back to prominence in the 2000s (let me have this by a year, please) with their first semifinal run in 40 years. In the next decade, they got back to the quarterfinals, and while the recent years have produced good teams with meh tournament showings, they're clearly still a force in the sport.
Over the last 50 years, Uruguay has brought forth two iconic players that led them forward in very different ways. One was more of a midfield orchestrator who was described as "the definition of elegance on the pitch" and has gone on to have a lovely post-playing career of being a general good person. His stats weren't always amazing, but his teams always won. A lot. That is Enzo Francescoli, El Principe. The other is Luis Suarez, a generational maniac who plays the sport like he will be shot in the locker room if he does not win. At every turn of his career, he has been brilliant and controversial, and his greatest strength (pure rage and competitiveness) is also a huge flaw (he bit a guy).
Man, if only that exact dynamic exi--
Uruguay's college basketball comparison: Marquette. I mean, obviously. Obviously. Luis Suarez is Jimmy Butler, and Jimmy Butler is Luis Suarez. (Dwyane Wade would be Francescoli.) Two extremely Catholic institutions, too.
Group I
France
Somewhat similar to Spain, France was not a threat on the World Cup stage until the 1980s and not a consistent threat until the late 1990s. Under a brilliant old guy in the late stages of his career, France touched new heights. Then that guy went away, they had a new guy who won big early and then stopped winning when it was found out he wasn't very good at coaching. Now the new new guy, who's been there for a very long time, may be their single best coach yet. He is brilliant, already owns a World Cup and a UEFA Nations League title, and is somehow younger than you might believe. (57, fine. But when a guy manages a national team for 15 years, I would believe he's like 70+.)
Automatically, by entry into the field, they're one of the favorites. There will never be a World Cup France enters ever again, at least in my lifetime, where they aren't among the seven or so most likely teams to take the title home. They have bent soccer to their will, with exceptional individual creativity and a coach who maximizes brilliance over looking like a genius...though he is kind of a genius. Led by the true Golden Generation, even in an expanded tournament, they are almost certainly who your coworker is picking to win it all.
France's college basketball comparison: UConn. This would make a potential France/Uruguay semifinal a functional Big East championship.
Senegal
Frequently very bad until the 2000s, when they made a surprise run in the World Cup, and they've parlayed that into a strong resurgence in the 2010s and 2020s under totally different tactics and a new identity. They play very slowly (which doesn't mean they're unathletic), own a ton of time of possession, and are defense-focused as a means of squeezing as much juice out of the lemon as possible. Unfortunately, their long-time manager left recently, but the new guy (essentially an assistant) seems to be a good replacement. Count them out at your own peril, but as always, remember that getting too attached to an underdog usually ends in pain.
Senegal's college basketball comparison: Saint Mary's.
Iraq
I mean...they're here! They had to go through an extremely convoluted process to make it - five rounds of qualifying and then an inter-confederation play-off with Bolivia - but they are indeed here. They are horrendous offensively and may not score a single goal, but boy, can they defend. They'll defend all the way to a maximum of one point in the group stage and a scare into one of the three far superior opponents on the slate. If they weren't in a true Group of Death, I'd be more inclined to like their odds...but, well, look at the competition.
Iraq's college basketball comparison: Seattle.
Norway
Totally dormant program with a fanbase of insane people that care a lot is resurgent, playing the best they've possibly ever played, with the best player(s) they may ever have, and their first time on the main stage since the '90s. All they have to do - ALL THEY HAVE TO DO - is just get the first win out of the way. All you gotta do. Just the one. All you gotta do.
Norway's college basketball comparison: Nebraska. Because if they can just get the one - which in this situation means making it out of the group stage - they most likely draw Ecuador or the Ivory Coast, two eminently beatable sides that are good but not great. (They then probably get Brazil or Germany in the round of 16.) They can absolutely be one of the last 16 teams standing...if they just get the one.
Group J
Argentina
It took forever, but for the first time since the 1980s, these guys got a new shiny trophy to take home. It would've felt really wrong for the Argentinians to not get one, because they've been so close for so long. This recent edition was like Argentina's superteam: peak roster-building, peak form, and peak brilliance from the best of the best. The star of the show? The oldest guy on the entire team, who continues to rise in stature every year.
Honestly, finding a great comp for Argentina is pretty rough. You have to think of a team that's been to the championship game a billion times but really doesn't have as many titles as you'd hope from these deep runs, one who has had multiple eras of greatness across different decades. Perhaps one that came really, really close to a title in the first half of the 2010s...maybe one who did win a title in the late 1980s...maybe one who, perhaps, was a runner-up early in the 1990s almost entirely due to a brutal brain fart by an Argentinian player. They wear blue, they are always very hateful towards their regional rival, and yes, they believe they are smarter and prettier than you. They might even be right.
Argentina's college basketball comparison: Michigan.
Algeria
Generally speaking, these guys are good every 15-20 years. They go on little runs to get here, and the last time they got this far it was their best run to date. But it's been a while, and I would wager they're more known for their losses than their wins. Not that these were bad losses...just that, with one thing here or there, they could've had a bigger impact than they've had to date. Plus, their rival just went on the run of a lifetime and it really pisses them off. Are they being left behind?
Algeria's college basketball comparison: Ohio.
Austria
I don't understand how these guys aren't better. Austria currently has a bevy of talent, particularly in the midfield, where there are names an average person (Christoph Baumgartner, Konrad Laimer, Carney Chukwuemeka) will know soon enough. You think about David Alaba being on the team and you're kind of confused they don't have a rogue deep run in them or a Denmark-like run to the Euro semifinals. Instead, they generally do less with more in the shadow of better countries nearby. Fun style of play, though, and I like their colors.
Austria's college basketball comparison: Washington.
Jordan
This is a World Cup first-timer, and the mere existence of them in the field is stunning. Like...look at it. Jordan, World Cup participant. Jordan is in the World Cup and Italy is not. Jordan! You thought you would never see Jordan in the World Cup, and now, they are here. All these guys do is counter-attack, which almost certainly means three blowouts but could mean an awesome upset if they hit enough deep balls.
Jordan's college basketball comparison: William & Mary.
Group K
Portugal
Not really a thing until recently, the Portuguese had one World Cup bid from 1970 through 1998, where they immediately got grouped in Mexico. Until the 2000s, Portugal had roughly the same resume as Turkey or Peru do now. Then: they found The One, the greatest player the country has ever produced by several miles.
They took off, making their first World Cup semifinal in 2006, winning their first European championship in 2016, and winning the Nations League twice. They now produce real talent and have made seven straight World Cups.
It should be a success story, but a lot of people don't like Portugal and certainly don't like the guy who effectively runs Portugal. Save for the politically combative, there are very few teams the world enjoys seeing lose more than Portugal. This coastal country can only be loved or hated, and there are few neutral attitudes towards their whole thing.
Portugal's college basketball comparison: Florida.
Congo
Extremely fun, willing to fling themselves at the wall, playing possibly the most purely thrilling style there is in this tournament. Unfortunately, it's probably gonna result in a beatdown, but I'm glad they're here.
Congo's college basketball comparison: Cal Poly.
Uzbekistan
An upstart that no one knows much about, Uzbekistan has barely been a country for 30 years. Unless you are really into Geoguessr it's unlikely you can find it on a map. They are best known either for formerly being part of the Soviet Union or for being in Borat, and they weren't in Borat. That was Kazakhstan. We have basically zero data on how they've played against actual good competition as Asia's soccer depths are quite thin, but we know they are extremely aggressive and physical on defense, running a unique scheme that forces a lot of turnovers. Don't expect them to actually score off of them.
Uzbekistan's college basketball comparison: Merrimack.
Colombia
There were better teams in the '90s, but no one defined the decade or were purely cooler than the Colombians. They had the greatest swag. They looked the coolest. They played a style so attractive it turned complete neutrals into superfans.
Did they capitalize on this at all with, say, any sort of deep run? Not really at the World Cup, but in Copa America, they began to score semifinal appearance after semifinal appearance. For pretty much all of 1990 through 2019 or so, they were a frequent threat to win Copa and a real annoyance to play. Since then, they've been dysfunctional at best, missed the 2022 World Cup, and are only really good on one side of the ball. Their new coach, tasked with fixing the team, appears like a great hire...but we won't know until the end of this WC.
Colombia's college basketball comparison: Cincinnati.
Group L
England
The English are the most annoying, obnoxious presence in any international tournament. Honestly, they have good reason to be. They invented what we know as modern soccer, with modern rules, were on the forefront of nearly every tactical innovation for 100+ years, and run the single best professional league in the game. The Three Lions are an icon of the game. They have never, ever changed their colors. In a sport built on tradition even as it seems more interested in killing off key traditions, the English are a nice outlier. They look the same as they have for decades.
This would all be nice if the guys would simply win a big one. England have the one World Cup (1966), no European championships (back-to-back runners-up in 2021 and 2024), and have never been the best at the sport. They are routinely somewhere among the 3-8 best teams, but I cannot remember a time when they were #1 or #2. With as much money as they invest, they probably should be.
There is no neat, perfect English comparison. Save for Indiana, of course. But England has been better than Indiana has at their preferred sport for a while now. England has won, and won a lot, for several years now. The problem is that they don't win The Right Way.
Their games are brutally boring. Attacking talent that should be attacking and scoring lots of goals is typically asked to sit deep and suck it up the second the English go up 1-0. They have not played a single exciting 90-minute game that required them to open up and ACTUALLY PLAY THE SPORT in ten years. In a cruel twist of fate, this is the most successful they've been over any 8-year period since the 1970s. And yet: nobody's happy, nobody is looking forward to whatever they've got in store, and everyone seems to agree the best days of this generation are behind them.
England's college basketball comparison: A Frankenstein mix of UCLA, North Carolina, and Indiana. You can apply the percentages as you must, but elements of all three are here. I couldn't decide. Maybe you can, but all I know is that these are not teams I currently enjoy watching or can think much about watching. The same will go for England.
Croatia
I mean.
Croatia's college basketball comparison: Illinois. It does go deeper than the above. Two great picks to get behind on pure entertainment value, lots of fun players in the 2000s, recently resurgent, but they've never won the big one. Still, even when Croatia was Yugoslavia they were always highly competitive in international competitions. They've been good at the sport for forever. They're so, so close to actually getting it done. Maybe it happens now! Probably what'll happen is more pain and annoyance when they lose to a team that everyone is tired of.
Ghana
I promise you: as silly as it sounds, I thought these guys were the future once upon a time. They made the round of 16 in 2006, won the U-20 World Cup in 2009, they went to the quarterfinals in 2010, and they kept coming back a little stronger every time out. It was not inconceivable that they would make a semifinal (and really should've in 2010) or even a final. And then...it just stopped. For much of the last decade, they've gotten worse and worse, and all of the optimism I once had surrounding them is gone. Now, it feels like a husk. I hope I'm wrong.
Ghana's college basketball comparison: Wichita State.
Panama
This is long enough, and if you've made it this far, I applaud your commitment to the sunk cost fallacy. So: here's a team who ended a very long drought recently, plays a fun style of ball, and has a manager deserving of a bigger and better job.
Panama's college basketball comparison: Furman.