By Peter Remon

For five weeks this summer, 48 of the world’s best footballing nations will be gathering in Mexico, Canada and the USA to compete for the FIFA World Cup.

Often referred to as ‘the world’s game’, FIFA has more official member associations than the UN has recognised countries. This years’ tournament is set to be, according to FIFA, “the largest and most inclusive FIFA World Cup™ in history”.

Whether it’s the brilliance of Pele taking Brazil to victory in Sweden in 1958, the drama of France’s Zinedine Zidane headbutting Italian defender Marco Materazzi in the 2006 final, or the excitement of Argentina’s Messi battling it out with France’s Mbappé in Qatar during the 2022 final, the men’s World Cup has been responsible for providing joy and heartache and is the most viewed single-sport tournament in the history of mankind.

It’s also one of the most expensive. Whilst nearly two-thirds of fans will be watching the action unfold from their sofas, and many of the rest in pubs, bars and hospitality venues, for the die-hards, supporting their team means not only buying the team shirt but potentially spending thousands on travel and a seat in the stadium. With FIFA’s controversial dynamic pricing model, the cheapest resale price of a standard ticket for the final is now just under $11,000. It’s a significant investment.

For FIFA, such loyalty is expected to pull in an estimated $13bn in revenue.

Deciding who to back

When it comes to international sports, deciding which team to support is perhaps a no-brainer. Typically, you follow your home team. For those less invested, or for fans whose countries are knocked out of the running early, the decision of who to back comes down to family legacy, sweepstakes, and maybe admiration for a star player.

With 48 teams qualified for the competition, there are clear favourites in the mix. Spain, France, Argentina and a resurgent England are all tipped as bookmakers favourites to lift the trophy on July 19^th.

But what about making the decision on where to invest time, focus and money when it comes to international education?

We wondered what the World Cup would look like if it was based on the prestige of those countries’ universities rather than their footballers. Which country would come out on top? Whose shirt would you be wearing and where would you be placing your bets?

What if it the star player wasn’t Messi but it was Marx? Not Neymar but Newton?

What if it wasn’t Socrates but instead… the other Socrates?

Plenty of rankings exist that set out the best institutions to study at – whether by locale, subject or specialism. But by nationality, which country would come out on top?

Perhaps we’ve caught a case of football fever, but to explore the idea, we’ve created BlueSky Thinking’s World Cup of Universities!

An international measure of excellence

Assessing universities around the world is at the heart of the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings. The annual league table provides overall scores for over two thousand institution from 115 countries, based on criteria that include as teaching quality, research, industry connections and engagement, and international outlook.

Using the 2026 data, and in the sprit of a team game, we’ve created an average score for each country competing at the FIFA World Cup based on the median value of their top five ranked universities.

This score determines each country’s position in the group table. Matching the World Cup tournament structure, four countries (teams) make up a group. The top two teams from each go through to the next round, where they are joined by eight of the best scoring countries to place third.

Unfortunately, there are no currently ranked universities from Haiti, Curacao, Cote D’Ivoire, Cabo Verde, Uruguay, DR Congo and Panama. By default, they place at the bottom of their respective groups. Let’s hope they fare better in the actual tournament!

From the group stage to the knockout rounds, we’ve come up with the entire schedule of encounters, through quarter and semi-finals, until two countries meet in the final.

Let’s see how the tables look!

Group A

South Korea

Star players: Seoul National University, Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology (KAIST), Yonsai University

South Africa

Star players: University of Cape Town, Stellenbosch University, University of Witwatersrand

Czech Republic

Star players: Charles University, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (CZU), Masaryk University

Mexico

Star players: Tecnológico de Monterrey, National Autonomous University of Mexico, University of Colima

Group A could be called the ‘Group of Death’ when it comes to universities, with all countries having strong and prestigious universities to their name. For those who don’t know what this means, it describes the most hotly contested group. If spread across multiple groups, each contender would have the potential to progress in the competition, but by being included in one group, we have to lose at least one.

From the data, it’s South Korea that takes the top of the crown. High levels of university prestige and tight links to global companies like Samsung and Hyundai help to enhance the quality of learning making it easy to understand why.

South Africa takes second place, and the Czech Republic manage to sneak through to the round of 32 by coming in third. Unfortunately, Mexico are on the (metaphorical) plane home.

Group B

Canada

Star players: University of Toronto, McGill University, University of British Colombia

Switzerland

Star players: ETH Zurich, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, University of Bern

Qatar

Star players: Qatar University, University of Doha for Science and Technology (UDST)

Bosnia & Herzegovina

Star players: University of Sarajevo

Whist the data makes Group B another tight contest, it is the Canadians and the Swiss that come out on top. Canada is buoyed by scoring highly in THE’s tables for industry connections and engagement. Switzerland too boasts industry as a key strength as well as solid international reach.

Qatar came in third, but their competition isn’t over after gaining a spot in the round of 32, whilst Bosnia and Herzegovina are packing their bags.

Group C

Scotland

Star players: University of Edinburgh, University of Glasgow, University of St Andrews

Brazil

Star players: University of Sao Paulo, University of Campinas, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

Morocco

Star players: University of Mohammed VI Polytechnic, International University of Rabat, Ibn Zohr University

Haiti

Star players: Queensland University

In a less competitive group, there emerges one very clear winner, and one very clear loser.

Scotland may not have much success on the international stage when it comes to football, but in an academic competition the country finds some glory, coming out on top in Group C. It’s easy to understand why, considering Scotland is home to some of the oldest universities in the English-speaking world, including St Andrews, founded in 1413.

A force to be reckoned with on the field and the campus, Brazil takes the 2^nd spot, with Morocco sneaking through to the next round. Haiti – due to having no ranked universities – is eliminated.

Group D

USA

Star players: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University, Harvard University

Australia

Star players: University of Melbourne, University of Sydney, Monash University

Turkey

Star players: Koc University, Middle East Technical University, Sabanci University

Paraguay

Star players: Universidad Nacional de Asuncion, Autonomous University of Asuncion, Universidad Nacional de Itapua

If you thought Group C had a clear winner then this group is blindingly transparent.

The USA storms the group – its institutions’ money, scale, and a century-long head start in research funding make Group D less a competition and more a formality. A strong Australia comes in second, boasting surprisingly strong performance in international reach and a near-perfect score in industry ties.

Turkey gets through to the round of 32, while Paraguay checks out of the hotel and hails a cab to the airport.

Group E

Germany

Star players: Technical University of Munich, LMU Munich, Universitat Heidelberg

Ecuador

Star players: UEES Espiritu Santo University, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Escuela Politecnica Nacional

Curacao

Star players: N/A

Cote D’Ivoire

Star players: International University of Grand-Bassam (IUGB)

Positioned the heart of Europe, and with a well-honed reputation for precision engineered education, not to mention links to some of the world’s biggest manufacturers, Germany is the unsurprising winner of Group E.

There is a gulf in points between first and second place, but even so, Ecuador secures an all too easy pass to the next round due to the fact that neither Curacao nor Cote D’Ivoire has universities that are ranked by THE.

Group F

Netherlands

Star players: Delft University of Technology, University of Amsterdam, Wageningen University & Research

Japan

Star players: The University of Tokyo, Kyoto University, Tohoku University

Sweden

Star players: Karolinska Institute, Lund University, KTH Royal Institute of Technology

Tunisia

Star players: University of Tunis El Manar, University of Jendouba, University of Manouba

Group F presents a far more exciting competition. All four countries have strong-performing and internationally recognised universities. However, it’s the Netherlands which takes the top spot. The birthplace of Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, the Netherlands has inspired multinational academic co-operation, securing a strong international presence. Being home to a crucial international port provides a solid economic boost.

Surprising on the pitch but perhaps less so in the classroom, Japan pips Sweden to second, bringing its legendary culture of precision, long-termism and kaizen – the philosophy of continuous improvement.

Sweden feel hard done by, but in a group this strong even Spotify’s homeland can’t quite compete. Tunisia are sadly on their way home.

Group G

Belgium

Star players: KU Leuven, Ghent University, University of Antwerp

New Zealand

Star players: University of Auckland, University of Otago, Univesity of Waikato

Iran

Star players: Amirkabir University of Technology, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Sharif University of Technology

Egypt

Star players: American University in Cairo, Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology (E-JUST), Kafrelsheikh University

Group G is a strongly contested group, but Belgium comes out on top – its universities boast direct access to the European Union, NATO and many other internationally significant institutions.

New Zealand is awarded perhaps an unexpected but not unearned second place. Home to the University of Auckland, which performs highly in THE’s sub-categories of industry, research and internationalisation, helping to carry the country through.

Iran comes in third, but gains a second chance in the round of 32. Egypt becomes the strongest fourth-placed country to be eliminated.

Group H

Spain

Star players: University of Barcelona, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB), Pompeu Fabra University

Saudi Arabia

Star players: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, King Khalid University, King Saud University

Cabo Verde

Star players: N/A

Uruguay

Star players: Catholic University of Uruguay, ORT Uruguay University

Group H is another which features two countries without a THE ranking, making the competition rather straightforward.

Favourites for this year’s FIFA World Cup, Spain, go through in first place, proving their academic as well as their sporting prowess.

They are joined by Saudi Arabia – not a team that’s expected to progress much on the field but in this competition present a significant challenge at the group stage. Spain and Saudi Arabia’s scores are the closest between a top two in all of the groups.

Group I

France

Star players: Paris Sciences et Lettres – PSL Research University Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Universite Paris Saclay

Norway

Star players: University of Oslo, University of Bergen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Iraq

Star players: Tishk International University, University of Sulaimani, University of Technology, Iraq

Senegal

Star players: Universite Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar (UCAD)

Group I also have a standout winner with France topping the group by some margin. The Grandes Écoles system is unlike anything else in the world, producing an elite alumni community so capable that it practically runs the country – not to mention several of the country’s internationally admired luxury brands.

Norway comfortably sits in the second spot, whilst Iraq sneaks through into the round of 32. Senegal are left with an early flight home.

Group J

Austria

Star players: University of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Medical University of Graz

Jordan

Star players: Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Applied Science Private University, The Univeristy of Jordan

Algeria

Star players: Universite Djillali Liabes de Sidi Bel-Abbes, University of El Oued, Badji Mokhtar Univeristy – Annaba

Argentina

Star players: Austral University, National University of Cordoba, National University of Cuyo

Group J provides the biggest shock. Argentina, the current World Cup holders, three-time World Cup winners and the nation of Messi, Maradona and Di Stefano are out!

Unfortunately, its universities are not as competitive as those located in Austria and Jordan, which are Group I’s top two teams. Austria’s TU Wien and Medical University of Vienna both gain a near-perfect score form THE when it comes to industry engagement, which provides a significant advantage.

Whilst beating Argentina, and coming in a close third, Algeria just miss out on a place in the round of 32.

Group K

Portugal

Star players: University of Coimbra, University of Lisbon, University of Porto

Colombia

Star players: University of la Costa, University of the Andes, Colombia, Icesi University

Uzbekistan

Star players: Tashkent Institute of Irrigation of Agricultural Mechanisation, Tashkent State Technical University, National University of Uzbekistan

DR Congo

Star players: N/A

Group K’s competition is very straightforward. Portugal’s universities provide scores that make it easy for the country to top the group – fitting for a nation that literally mapped the world, and whose academic institutions carry that same spirit of exploration and global thinking.

Whilst DR Congo is by default bottom, due to a lack of THE ranking, Colombia secures second. 39 institutions form the country feature in THE’s tables – the highest of which ranking at 1001 place.

Uzbekistan advances to the round of 32.

Group L

England

Star players: University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, Imperial College London

Ghana

Star players: University of Cape Coast, University of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

Croatia

Star players: University of Split, University of Zagreb, University of Rijeka

Panama

Star players: Universidad del Istmo Panama, University of Panama

Just like the group before, Group L has a very clear standout winner and loser. England may perennially disappoint on the pitch but academically, this is one tournament they genuinely have a chance in. Oxford ranks first in THE’s table overall with Cambridge coming in third, and Imperial eighth. That’s not to mention institutions like UCL, LSE and Durham – all affirming the country’s strong academic performance.

Could it (finally) be coming home?

Ghana just pips Croatia to second, who unfortunately crash out at this stage just missing out on the round of 32.

And, as THE ranks no Panamanian universities, they are bottom by default and eliminated.

Round of 32

Using the World Cup simulator, the fixtures below would be the result of the group standings based on our university competition. We are now in the knockout stage. Winners takes all, even if it comes down to penalties – which we assume may be the equivalent would be a PhD defence, or a research grant?

South Africa vs Switzerland

The Swiss advance comprehensively against the South Africans – the equivalent of 3-1.

Germany vs Turkey

A win for the Germans against the Turks too – the equivalent of 3-0

Netherlands vs Brazil

The Dutch emphatically progress against the Brazilian team – the equivalent of 4-1

Scotland vs Japan

An incredibly tight, close match with the Japanese just progressing over the Scots – the equivalent of 2-1

France vs Sweden

Another closely fought match, but les Bleus just sneak through – the equivalent of 1-0

Ecuador vs Norway

Norway cruising past the Ecuadorians into the next round, an easy win – the equivalent of 2-0

South Korea vs Morocco

An easy win for the South Koreans as they cruise past the Moroccans in style – the equivalent of 4-0

England vs Uzbekistan

An easy win for the English universities here – the equivalent of 5-0

USA vs Qatar

A closer match than many think, but the States get past their Qatari opposition – the equivalent of 4-1

Belgium vs Czech Republic

A comfortable win for the Belgians here, beating the Czechs – the equivalent of 3-1

Colombia vs Ghana

A close match between two lower ranked sides, but Colombia just comes out on top – the equivalent of 4-3

Spain vs Jordan

A closer match than many would predict again, but Spain comes out on top – the equivalent of 1-0

Canada vs Iran

The Canadians romp to victory here against Iran, going through to the next round – the equivalent of 4-1

Austria vs Saudi Arabia

Another closely fought match, but Austria just comes out on top – the equivalent of 2-1

Portugal vs Iraq

A comfortable victory for the Portuguese as they progress to the next round – the equivalent of 2-0

Australia vs New Zealand

A fiercely contested match down under, but the Aussies just nick it – the equivalent of 1-0

Round of 16

You must know the score by now! On to the next round for a place in the last eight.

Germany vs France

An incredibly closely fought matchup between two intellectual heavyweights but the Germans just sneak through – the equivalent of 2-1.

Switzerland vs Netherlands

Another incredibly close match-up, but the Dutch just sneak through – the equivalent of 3-2.

Japan vs Norway

Much more of a one-sided affair in the end, with the Japanese progressing – the equivalent of 3-0

South Korea vs England

England comfortably progress to the next round in this game – the equivalent of 2-0

Colombia vs Spain

A mismatch in the end, with Spain easily progressing to the next round – the equivalent of 4-0

USA vs Belgium

Another tie that the States dominate, with the Belgians going home – the equivalent of 3-1.

Austria vs Australia

A fairly close-run match between the two nations, but the Austrians come out on top – the equivalent of 1-0.

Canada vs Portugal

Canada send Portugal home in a relatively easy affair – the equivalent of 3-1.

Quarter Finals

At this stage, the World Cup of Universities looks fairly similar to the FIFA World Cup. We still have the bookies favourite, Spain as well as the 3rd, 7th and 8th favourites – England, Germany and the Netherlands respectively.

The universities of Japan, the USA, Canada and Austria however are performing better than they are expected to on the football pitch – perhaps their PhD defences are stronger than their back four?

Germany vs Netherlands

It’s another close match between the two European nations, but Germany just edges it – the equivalent of 2-1

Spain vs USA

The USA looking strong again, and they advance to the next round – the equivalent of 3-0.

Japan vs England

Another strong result for England as they progress through to the next round – the equivalent of 2-0.

Austria vs Canada

An easy result for the Canadians here too, cruising past the Austrians 3-1.

Semi Finals

Germany vs USA

A tough match between the two nations, but the States come out on top – the equivalent of 3-1.

England vs Canada

Another closely fought match but England come out on top here – the equivalent of 1-0.

The Final

And here we are. From 48 hopefuls we’ve whittled down to just two nations vying for the chance to be recognised as the best intellectual and educational hub in the world.

It’s Shakespeare vs Dickinson. It’s Robbins vs Freeman Palmer. It’s Keynes vs Friedman.

But who will win?

USA vs England

Once again, England fans remain bitterly disappointed, as the trophy is snatched away in the final moments. In the battle of the two intellectual heavyweights, it is the USA that emerges victorious… this time.

Despite having a star team, with the University of Oxford ranked #1 in the world, with the University of Cambridge joint 3^rd and Imperial College 7^th and its overall score is slightly lower, as the US’ top five institutions; MIT, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, and Caltech ranking in 2^nd, joint 3^rd, joint 5^th and 7^th overall.

Could this be an omen for this year’s FIFA World Cup? I wouldn’t count on it. Whilst the USA’s women’s team has brought home the World Cup trophy more times than any other national side, the men’s team has never come close to a win. And although home crowd advantage is powerful, it has its limits.

As for who will win this year’s FIFA World Cup on the 19^th July, it’s still up for grabs. Luckily, we don’t have too long to wait to find out.

About BlueSky Thinking

Business school thinking rarely escapes the campus. BlueSky Thinking changes that. We explore the research, ideas and expertise of the world’s leading faculty, management thinkers and practitioners – enabling their expertise to meet real-world ambition, alongside the rankings, study options and career insight that help ambitious applicants make smarter decisions.

Interested in this topic? You might also like this…