Thanks to Kath for prompting this.

There is a correlation between national football team success and countries with imperial/colonial pasts, especially those involved in the transatlantic slave trade and exploitation of West Africa.

Recent research directly quantifies this. A University of Zurich AI study in 2026 simulated the 2026 FIFA World Cup, 1,500 times and found that colonial history continues to shape outcomes on the pitch. Former European colonial powers benefit significantly from players with family roots in former colonies, especially in Africa and in the Caribbean.

• If players with “colonial backgrounds” (e.g., Kylian Mbappé for France, or similar for England, Portugal, Spain) represented their ancestral countries instead, formerly colonized nations would win the World Cup nearly twice as often.
• France’s simulated win probability would drop sharply to roughly half.
• Brazil’s chances would nearly double.
• Effects appear across all tournament stages, boosting goal differentials for colonial powers when retaining diaspora talent and for origin countries when gaining it.

Source: https://www.news.uzh.ch/en/articles/media/2026/colonial-legacies-soccer.html

Top FIFA-ranked teams as of June 2026, often align with this pattern: Argentina, Spain, France, England, Portugal, Brazil, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and others are former imperial powers or their former colonies.

• France: Frequently fields squads with substantial West/North African ancestry (e.g., roots in Senegal, Mali, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, DR Congo, Algeria). Historical examples include the 1998 World Cup winners and recent teams. Postcolonial migration from former French colonies in West Africa has expanded their talent pool.
• England: Players with Caribbean or African roots (via Windrush-era and later migration from former British colonies).
• Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands reveal similar patterns from colonial ties to Africa and beyond.
• Brazil and Argentina: Former Iberian colonies with histories of transatlantic slavery and exploitation; they built strong football cultures partly in that context and succeed independently as major overperformers.

Why does Scotland , often described as a partner in the British Empire, not seem to benefit in this way?

Unlike England which received large-scale Windrush-era and later migration from Caribbean and African colonies (2.4 million), Scotland has a very small Black/African/Caribbean population at around only 30 000 people. https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/population-of-england-and-wales/latest/

Why? That’s complex. Some other time.