- July 7, 2026
- 11:04 pm
- World News
On June 28 in Dhaka, thousands of people watched the 2026 World Cup match between Argentina and Jordan not as neutral spectators.
They shouted, argued, rejoiced, and worried about every sprint and every kick.
Many were wearing the white and blue jerseys of the Argentine national team. But they were not Argentinians. They were fans from Bangladesh — a country where football is loved massively, loudly, and genuinely, but still has no team in the World Cup.
When Lionel Messi scored his first goal of the tournament, sending the ball past Algeria’s goalkeeper, almost national joy erupted in Dhaka’s fan zones. Only Bangladesh did not have a national team to cheer for like that at the World Cup.
A similar picture is seen in India and Indonesia. People gather around screens, support Argentina, Brazil, France, Morocco, or other teams, but they do so because their own national teams have remained outside the main football tournament of the planet for years.
And here arises a question that is important not only for sports – writes BBC on July 5, 2026.
Why are eight out of the ten most populous countries in the world not represented at the 2026 World Cup?
A large population does not guarantee great football.
At first glance, it seems that a country with a huge population should automatically have a strong national team.
More people — more children in the yards, more potential talents, more competition, a wider choice for coaches. In theory, this sounds logical. In practice, football is arranged much more complexly.
Of the ten most populous countries in the world, only two — the USA and Brazil — are playing in the current championship. Russia and Nigeria have repeatedly participated in past World Cups, but they are not in this tournament. China and Indonesia have appeared at the World Cup only once.
India, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Pakistan remain countries of great football interest but without real presence on the main stage.
India had a special history: formally, the country qualified for the 1950 World Cup in Brazil but withdrew less than a month before the start. Since then, the most populous country in the world has not returned to this opportunity.
Bangladeshi actress, writer, and football fan Odite Karim formulates the problem harshly: for a country where millions of people love football, such a lag seems unacceptable.
And she is right.
Football exists in such countries. Fans exist. Passion exists. But between the love for the game and a national team capable of qualifying for the World Cup lies a huge distance.
Money, infrastructure, and system
British economist Stefan Szymanski, co-author of the book Soccernomics, explains football through the logic of national economy.
For an economy to grow, people are needed. But people alone are not enough. Capital, infrastructure, institutions, management, and the ability to turn potential into results are needed.
In football, this means quality fields, children’s academies, coaches, a selection system, medical support, regular competitions, transparent management of federations, and a clear path from children’s football to a professional club.
If this is not there, millions of boys and girls can love football, but the country will still not get a strong national team.
Szymanski also points out the importance of wealth. In his analysis, successful football countries most often have a sufficiently high average income, which allows them to invest in sports systematically, not with random spurts.
But there are exceptions.
Brazil and Argentina are not the richest countries in the world, yet together they have won eight World Cup titles. This shows that money is important but does not decide everything.
There is another factor — football memory.
Why old football powers are still ahead
All the countries that have ever won the World Cup were strong in football a long time ago.
Argentina, Brazil, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Uruguay did not appear in world football yesterday. Their national teams, clubs, schools, and fan culture have been forming for decades, sometimes more than a century.
Uruguay is a particularly illustrative example.
The country has about 3.5 million people, but it has become world champion twice — in 1930 and 1950. The secret is not in the size of the population but in the early start, football culture, and dense international competition. The Uruguay national team played its first match back in 1902 against Argentina.
For many countries in Africa and South Asia, the history was different. They gained independence later, started building their own sports institutions later, and more often faced problems that are not directly related to the game: political instability, weak funding, lack of stadiums, ineffective federations.
And yet catching up is possible.
Morocco at the 2022 World Cup became the first African team to reach the semifinals. South Korea, which hosted the tournament with Japan in 2002, remains the only Asian team to have reached the top four.
These examples are important for the Israeli reader as well.
Israel also knows well that football is not just talent on the field. It is a long question of management, children’s schools, club environment, infrastructure, coaches, federations, and proper competition. Therefore, when NAnews —Israel News | Nikk.Agency writes about world football through an international agenda, it is not just about sports, but about how states turn human potential into real strength.
Ethiopia: a country with history but without stadiums of the required level
Ethiopia has never played in the World Cup.
Its main football success remains in the distant past — winning the African Cup of Nations in 1962. The closest the national team came to the World Cup was in the 2014 World Cup qualification when it reached the decisive round but lost to Nigeria.
Today, the problems of Ethiopian football do not look abstract but very concrete.
Local media write about the lack of investment and stadiums. The executive director of the Ethiopian Premier League, Kifle Seife, stated that in the current season, more than 380 matches were held on only three certified stadiums.
For the national team, this also became a blow. It had to hold its home qualifying matches in Morocco.
It is difficult to build a strong football country when even the home field becomes a luxury.
South Asia: football against cricket or against a weak system?
In India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, it is often said that cricket hinders the development of football.
The argument is understandable. India is one of the strongest cricket powers in the world, and the Indian Premier League is considered the richest cricket league on the planet. Money, media, parental attention, and the sports ambitions of the middle class go there.
Former Indian national team player Shyam Thapa says that the success of cricket influences family choices. Parents more often take their children to cricket because they see a career, status, and earnings there.
But Odite Karim does not consider this the main explanation.
She reminds of Australia and New Zealand. Both countries are strong in cricket, but this does not prevent them from regularly reaching the World Cup in football.
So, it is not only about the competition of sports.
The problem is deeper: there is no training system, no sustainable structure, no sufficient quality of management. When football exists as a mass love but not as a professional ladder, the country gets millions of fans — and very few international-level players.
China, Indonesia, Pakistan: different reasons for one failure
China is the most mysterious case.
The country has demonstrated outstanding results at the Olympic Games for decades, knows how to build a sports vertical and concentrate resources. But in men’s football, China has not become a world power.
The Chinese national team played in the World Cup only once — in 2002. Then the team lost all group stage matches and did not score a single goal.
Chinese football expert Mark Dreyer believes that theoretically, China is capable of nurturing world-class players. But, according to him, the main problem is excessive state control and decisions that are imposed from top to bottom.
Football should be managed by football specialists. When political interference comes to the fore, the system begins to work not for the development of the game but for fulfilling administrative expectations.
In the 2010s, China actively invested in football. Super League clubs invited famous players from Europe and South America, hoping to raise the level of the championship. But loud purchases did not replace long-term work with children, coaches, and club culture.
Indonesia also participated in the World Cup only once — in 1938, when it performed under the name Dutch East Indies, still in the colonial period.
In the qualification for the 2026 World Cup, Indonesia made progress and reached the final round of selection. But this success is largely due not to the mass development of local players but to the attraction of players of European origin with Indonesian roots.
Sometimes eight or nine players born in Europe appeared in the starting lineup of the national team.
This can give a quick result, but it does not always answer the main question: is the country’s own football system growing?
Pakistan and Bangladesh ended their fight already in the group stage of the Asian qualifiers, not winning any of the six matches.
Pakistan had another problem. From 2017 to 2025, FIFA suspended the country from international competitions three times due to internal political conflicts in the national football federation.
For the national team, this is almost a sentence.
When the federation is unstable, the calendar breaks, players lose international practice, coaches cannot build a long-term project, and fans again receive only foreign flags at major tournaments.
Why fans still choose the celebration
For millions of people in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Ethiopia, the World Cup remains a celebration, even if their national teams are not there.
They find themselves teams, choose idols, argue about Messi, Ronaldo, Brazil, Argentina, Morocco, France, or Spain. Sometimes a foreign national team becomes almost their own because emotions require an outlet.
There is sadness in this, but there is also the strength of football.
The World Cup has long ceased to be a tournament only for participating countries. It is watched and experienced even where the national team has not yet managed to make it to the field.
Odite Karim speaks about this honestly: she does not see real chances that Bangladesh will play in the World Cup in her lifetime. But fans still want to feel every minute of joy that the tournament gives.
This is precisely the paradox of modern football.
The most populous countries in the world may not have a national team at the World Cup, but their streets, fan zones, and screens still become part of the World Cup.
Because football is won not only by those who have a larger population.
It is won by those who know how to build a system, patiently develop players, protect sports institutions from chaos, and turn the love of millions into results on the field.
If it is important for you to see the Israeli-Ukrainian agenda without the Russian optics — add NAnews to Google.
https://www.google.com/preferences/source?q=news.nikk.co.il