字幕表 動画を再生する 英語字幕をプリント There are a lot of things that money can buy, but one thing it can't is success at the World Cup. Chinese soccer fans know that only too well. The football team of the world's second largest economy was beaten in a World Cup qualifier by war-torn Syria, which has no training facilities or home ground to host games. The loss, which came in spite of China spending $600 million on football in 2016, enraged Chinese fans so much that they took to the streets to protest. I hope I can see China someday win the World Cup. Before I die, I mean. Maybe in about 100 years? But there are plenty of other examples in the world of football where high-income countries and developing countries are neck-and-neck in football prowess. For instance, in FIFA rankings Peru is ranked just ahead of Denmark, but the South American country's gross national income per person is roughly 1/10th of Denmark's. Of this year's 32 countries qualifying for the World Cup, half are from high-income countries and the other half are not. Denmark's gross national income is a whopping 50 times more than the poorest in the 32, Senegal at less than $1,000 per person. This World Cup, underdogs have also surprised teams perceived to be superior to them in football, and much much richer. Football seems to be an exception in sports. In the Olympics, economists have generally found that the richer a country gets, the more medals it wins. That's why economic superpowers like the United States and China dominate Olympic medal tallies. You may think a bigger country increases its chances of winning medals. But population size doesn't explain why China, Indonesia and India, which make up 40% of the global population have won only about 8% of the Olympic medals up for grabs. That's where a country's wealth matters. GDP per capita has been proven to have a positive effect on medal counts, which makes sense as a richer population will have more time for sports and be able to enjoy better facilities. The strong relationship between Olympic medals and economic indicators meant that economists at Dartmouth University were able to predict total medal counts for the 2012 London Olympics with 98 percent accuracy. Football fans already know that the World Cup is full of surprises. So they'll be relieved to hear that even economists can barely predict the World Cup. At any given World Cup, I think the probability is as well determined by the Octopus than any economist or a market analyst. But DBS economist Taimur Baig, who has studied the relationship between World Cup success and a country's economy said that countries which can invest in good football infrastructure and football talent do better. But money isn't the only solution. I think China is a very good cautionary tale. It's not the quantity but the quality of investment. You just can't throw a lot of money and bring in superstars from outside to change the culture of football. You have to focus on the kids. You have to focus on the coaches of the kids. That economic variation is not stopping economists from trying to predict a country's World Cup prospects. PwC used historic data on 56 countries which played at least six World Cup finals matches. As you might expect, there's no correlation between population and World Cup success, which is why the most populous countries like China and India have not made the World Cup finals. However, having more registered players in the country does mean better football. Germany, for instance, benefits from a six million strong pool of registered football players which is one of the largest in the world. In comparison, the United States has just about four million registered players, although its population is about four times the size of Germany's. It's hard to quantify love for football. But public love for the sport translates into better football. PwC used attendance at football matches as a proxy for love for the game, and it found that high public interest can explain the success of countries like Germany, England and Spain which have the highest football match attendances. Clubs in these three countries are leaders in global spending on football. But China is fast becoming the new and richest kid on the block. While spending in England rose by 128 percent between 2012 and 2016, spending in China went up by 785 percent. That's helped it to rise from 88th place in 2012 to 75th this year, just behind Syria and South Africa. At the Olympics, countries can invest in foreign athletes to boost their medal counts. Qatar spent $1 million for the entire weightlifting team of Bulgaria and got a bronze medal for it while Bahrain's Olympic track and field team is primarily made up of runners from Kenya and Ethiopia. But for footballers choosing your national team isn't really about dollars and cents. That's partly because FIFA requires the player to have lived in that country for at least five years. But also because players make most of their salary playing professional football in clubs. In fact, many of the foreign-born players at this World Cup were born in Europe, a region with relatively high income per capita, but many of them played for Africa, which is comparatively less developed. Of the 82 footballers playing for countries they weren't born in, nearly half were born in European countries like France and the Netherlands. But now play for countries like Morocco, Tunisia and Senegal. And the barrier to entry in football isn't expensive, unlike sports like horse riding or sailing. So, what do you call something you can't buy? The beautiful game. Hey everyone, it's Xin En. Thanks for watching! If you want to check out more CNBC videos click on the videos next to me. As always feel free to leave any suggestions in the comment section below. Thanks for watching, don't forget to subscribe and see you next time!