Will the World Cup Boost Trump in the Polls?

Political Betting is a weekly column by Mark Littlewood aimed at people who like gambling on politics.

The World Cup currently taking place in the USA (and some of it in Mexico and Canada) is not merely the biggest sporting tournament in human history (measured in terms of spectators attending), it is also a gambling phenomenon. Over $150 billion is likely to be staked before the final comes to an end on July 19th.

This column is supposed to be about the niche (but growing) business of betting on politics rather than the colossal industry surrounding sports wagers. But bear with me. What happens at this World Cup might, believe it or not, have a real impact on what unfolds in the political arena across the globe.

I’m firmly in the camp of those who wish to keep politics and sport as far apart as possible, but I reluctantly accept that they can’t – in practice – be wholly divorced.

Stories of football impacting politics (and vice versa) have been around for decades.

A myth has grown up that England’s victory in 1966 helped Labour win a landslide victory that year. However, the Three Lions actually lifted the trophy four months after Harold Wilson’s success at the polls. Wilson was fond of saying that England only ever win the World Cup under Labour administrations and that remains a sad fact to this day.

The 1970 tournament in Mexico might provide a more credible example of footballing performance spilling over into electoral behaviour. England were thought to have a very good chance of retaining the trophy or at least of getting to the final where the bracket would mean them playing the mighty Brazil. Cruising to victory with a comfortable 2-0 lead over West Germany at the quarter final stage, manager Alf Ramsey decided to take off two of his stars – Bobby Charlton and Geoff Hurst – apparently to rest them for the next match. England went on to lose 3-2.

Four days later a deflated nation went to the polls and Ted Heath’s Tories secured a surprise victory, removing Labour from office. Harold Wilson was suddenly keen to suggest there was no connection between England’s woes on the pitch and his own defeat, declaring: “Governance of a country has nothing to do with its football fixtures.” Others were considerably less sure, with one outgoing Labour minister, Denis Howell, suggesting that the emotional “comedown” from England’s defeat coincided with a last-minute swing against the government.

In 1978 Argentina was ruled by a military junta as it hosted (and won) its first ever World Cup. The ruling regime did all it could to manipulate the football team’s success for political advantage. In what might generously be called a quirk of scheduling, Argentina went into their last group stage match knowing the exact margin of victory (four clear goals) they needed over Peru to knock out arch-rivals Brazil, who had already completed their fixtures. Argentina beat Peru 6-0 and went on to lift the World Cup. Although never proven, a number of Peruvian players (who were already eliminated from the tournament) have since suggested that bribes may have been used to persuade them to throw the match.

Whatever your loyalties regarding the current tournament, I’m pleased to say that it looks certain that a democratic country will eventually end up as world champions.

However, fascinating polling by the Washington DC-based Democracy Institute shows that football could once again impact on politics. The Americans go to the polls in November for a crucial round of mid-term elections. There’s no point in pretending that a surprise victory for Team USA will lead to a patriotic surge that is certain to secure success for Trump’s Republicans. The impact would only be marginal. However, as the Democracy Institute’s Patrick Basham is quick to point out, US elections are typically won at the margins.

His data support the theory that a successful tournament (both on the pitch and in terms of being seen as excellent hosts) could impact voting behaviour.

One in five Americans say that the World Cup is making them feel more patriotic. Only 6% claim it is making them feel less so (and Basham suggests this small cohort of miserabilists are unlikely to be swing voters, whereas the 20% group could well be).

Fully 53% of the US public feel co-hosting a successful tournament is improving America’s global image (14% feel it’s improving the country’s global image a lot).

Asked how responsible President Trump is for the success of the World Cup, American voters give still more notable answers. 25% believe the President is very responsible for the success and a further 32% feel he is somewhat responsible.

For sure, the dominant themes of November’s elections in the USA will be about the state of the economy, the cost of living, the situation in Iran and a whole swathe of other explicitly political and economic issues.

But politics and gambling are often about finding the tiniest of edges. If you think the World Cup will continue to be lauded as a great success and that the US team will continue to flourish (their next opponents are Belgium in the round of 16) then rather than placing a football bet, you might want to consider a wager that the Republicans will do better than expected when Americans head to the polls later this year.

Mark Littlewood is a former director of the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Director of PopCon.