Why are China and India so bad at football?

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The world’s most populous nations are bad at the world’s most popular sport. China has played in only one men’s Fifa World Cup in 2002, while India remains a notable absentee. Neither came close to qualifying for this summer’s expanded edition.

In theory, a large population should translate into a broad talent pool. But few Chinese or Indian footballers have emerged on the global stage. Nor have the vast diasporas from either country featured prominently in elite European leagues. Both also underperform relative to their economic strength, which can serve as a proxy for a nation’s ability to invest in sports. Indeed, China and India are the world’s first- and third-largest economies, respectively, by GDP on a purchasing power parity basis.

Looking at the roster of footballing nations, strong labour and capital pools are important but not sufficient conditions for success. Croatia finished second and third in the last two World Cups, and Cape Verde — an island of approximately half a million — proved in this edition that size is no barrier to taking on the strongest teams. Indeed, in football, institutions, access and culture matter just as much as population and economic might.

Beijing has tried to manufacture success, launching a 50-point plan in 2015 to become a football superpower by 2050. Though the strategy is meant to expand investment in pitches, training centres and school-level participation, it may not be enough, notes Mark Dreyer, founder and editor of China Sports Insider.

“China has used a state-led approach to develop its infrastructure and tech sectors. But footballing talent tends to emerge organically from the grassroots,” he says. “You need participation across a wide base, with players competing at all ages and rising through a pyramid of leagues.”

Dreyer adds that China’s top-down planning has worked in individual sports, such as gymnastics and diving, where it has accumulated Olympic medals through centralised training systems. But this approach is harder to emulate in football, a team sport that demands collaboration, spontaneity and creativity, which is often nurtured locally in community clubs and kickabouts.

A thriving domestic league can help develop experience among players, coaches and scouts. But the Chinese Super League, established in 2004, has faltered too. Many clubs that had obtained funding from real estate conglomerates suffered when the country’s property bubble burst. Match-fixing and corruption scandals have weakened fans’ trust. Strict state regulations, including on salaries and foreign transfers, haven’t helped either.

India’s challenges are slightly different. Until recently, expenditure on physical recreation was not a priority for government. This meant training facilities and coaching networks did not develop outside of a few states such as West Bengal and Goa, where colonial influences had embedded grassroots participation in football.

Paul Masefield, a former professional player and now an Indian TV pundit, reckons cricket has crowded out interest and investment in football. “There is footballing talent in the country. But India is obsessed with cricket, and the national team’s 1983 [Cricket] World Cup victory pushed the sport firmly to the top of the pedestal.”

The All India Football Federation, the body that governs the game in the country, has also faced criticism for poor decision making. The Indian Super League was launched in 2013, but has suffered from low attendance and financial mismanagement. The last season had to be delayed and shortened after the AIFF struggled to secure an administrative and commercial partner.

Another challenge is access. In Europe, budding footballers benefit from top facilities and rigorous competition at all ages, thereby providing a rich talent pool for nearby nations without such resources. At this World Cup, more than 72 per cent of players appear for a club outside the country of their national team, and almost one in four are foreign born. (More than half of Cape Verde’s squad was born outside the nation and ply their trade in various European leagues.) But India and China are more disconnected from international football networks.

“Indian players tend not to go abroad, and therefore don’t learn to play against different nationalities. Overseas citizens of India cannot yet play for the national team anyway,” says Masefield.

Attitudes towards sports are also key. The Chinese and Indian education systems both require students to pass intensely competitive, high-stakes exams to access top degree courses and government jobs. This displaces leisure time and contributes to poor grassroots participation in football.

There is also a self-reinforcing dynamic. With few successful footballers emerging, the risk-reward ratio of pursuing the game appears unattractive. Indeed, Indian and Chinese parents tend to guide their children towards more financially stable and prestigious careers, which helps explain why even the diasporas of both countries have struggled to make an impact abroad.

China and India have the raw ingredients: vast talent pools, growing wealth and global diasporas. But footballing success also requires a grassroots pipeline, strong professional pathways and deep international links that compound over time. A footballing culture cannot be bought or built overnight.

Send your thoughts in the comments, to [email protected] or via X @tejparikh90.

Food for thought

People often make important choices in pursuit of money, but do they place too much weight on it when making decisions? This paper explores.

Free Lunch on Sunday is edited by Harvey Nriapia