Looking at the FIFA World Cup soccer/football results, it is striking to me how well host countries have performed - in a tournament with 13-32 entrants:
The host country has made it to the top four 12 out of 19 times
The host country has made it to the finals 8 out of 19 times
The host country has won outright 6 out of 19 times
Sweden has never finished in the top 4, except for the year they hosted
Chile has never finished in the top 4, except for the year they hosted
S. Korea has never finished in the top 4, except for the year they (co)hosted
Has anyone ever done any statistical analysis on these results, confirming (or denying) if they are as “unusual” as they seem to me?
While I understand the “home team advantage” is a real effect, surely it can’t be so strong, or can it? - or am I being naive, and everyone just understands the fix is (more or less) in for the host team?
There weren’t always 32 teams. That only started in 1998. Up until 1978 there were 16 teams or fewer each year. Additionally, the host always has an easier road to the final round. The qualifying teams are typically split into “pots” which determine their grouping. The top ranked teams plus the host(s) are put into separate groups. This means the host will never have to play the top seeds until the knockout stage. Take, for example the 2002 World Cup where there was the particularly surprising 4th place finish by SK. Pot A was as follows:
Pot A
Argentina
Brazil
France (1998 World Cup winner)
Germany
Italy
Japan (co-hosts)
South Korea (co-hosts)
Spain
So both SK and Japan never had to play the best teams in the world until much later on. SK has the US (ranked #21), Portugal (ranked #4), and Poland (ranked #33) in their group. Portugal has a bad cup that year (IIRC, they had some injuries and bad luck), so the path for SK to make it to the finals was pretty clear. They also had a bit of luck beating Spain in PKs after two of their goals were disallowed in normal time.
When you couple that advantage with the fact that there were fewer teams in the past, and that the cups were held in places with good soccer teams to begin with, the odds go up tremendously. It’s not just home field advantage, it’s a number of beneficial circumstances.
No idea about the veracity of the rest of your post, but Sweden did finish third in 1994. If not for having to play Brazil in the Semis, maybe they’d have gotten to the Finals?
In order to make it to the final of the World Cup in 1978, hosts Argentina had to win big against Peru. They did, beating them 6-0, overtaking the Brazilians (who had already played) on goal differential. The Peruvians no longer had anything to win, they had lost both of their previous games. It’s been widely suggested (but never proven) that there was some foul play there. During the final, the Dutch complained that the Argentinians abused their position by making issues and delaying the game (which they ended up winning by 3-1). Again, nothing really substantial but strong suspicions exist that the Argentinians abused the position they had as hosts to help them win the 1978 World Cup.
Remember as well that this is knock-out football, a very different beast to a full league and home advantage can have a big effect on a single game, certainly enough to push a minor team further than would normally be expected.
The mini-leagues that sort out the first 32 are not that big and the seeding of the host countries ensures at least one potential big-hitter is removed from that group.
So all things considered I don’t see that all of the host country performances are due to shennanigans (though some potentially exist) and when you look at the winners of the World Cup from the last 50 years it is hard to argue that any of the eventual winners didn’t deserve it.
I think from the results, even all the finalists have been top rated teams. Luck, sudden good form can only it seems take you to the Semis. Every team which had played a final has been to another Semi. Several teams have appeared in one Semi and thats it.
Well, for one thing, most countries that have hosted the World Cup are pretty good at it.
In the cases where the host country WASN’T all that great at it, they didn’t finish very high. South Africa did not make it far last time out. The USA didn’t make the semis in 1994. Mexico, which surprisingly is never ranked very high, didn’t make it to the semis either time they hosted it. Most other World Cup hosts have had legitimately excellent squads.