I was surfing the web late the other night and stumbled on an interesting article in the New York Times. Entitled No Babies?, it is a lengthy and fascinating look at demographic trends in Europe. There was no mention of football or any other sport. Instead, the article’s author examined the reasons for low European birth rates and offered a rather unsettling suggestion of what the continent might be like in coming decades. (Think of a depopulated place that resembles a theme park, like Venice). Yesterday morning, after the first critical sips of coffee had worked their magic, a serious question popped into my head: Does this mean that European football will be irrelevant by mid-century?
It’s fairly well-known that Europe’s birth rate has declined drastically in the past fifteen years or so. But compared to the replacement birth rate of 2.1 children per woman, the current Italian and Spanish rates of 1.3 are especially low. In some parts of Italy, it hovers around 1.0, a rate that is deemed “pathological.” And it’s not just Italy and Spain. Birth rates throughout eastern and southern Europe are equally low. Dutch and Scandanavian birth rates are somewhat higher, though at 1.7-1.8 they remain below replacement level. In Germany, well over a quarter of women born in 1960 have remained childless, far more than in any other European country. In fact, Germany’s population actually declines by around 100,000 per year and a very high percentage of German women believe that the optimal number of children is zero.
There are lots more statistics to mull over. In Spain only 22% of the population will be 24 or younger by 2025, compared to 42% in India. And Europe’s share of world population has been steadily declining: it was 12.5% in 1960, 7.2% today, and is projected to fall to 5% by 2050. A quick visit to Wikipedia (where else?), provides a basis for comparison. Argentina’s fertility rate is a healthy 2.4 children per woman, even though most Argentinians are of Italian and Spanish ancestry and its GDP is currently comparable to Poland’s. (Note, however, that the Argentinian rate is expected to decline to 2.09 for 2008). Other projected 2008 fertility rates: 2.10 for the US, 1.86 for Brazil, and 1.85 for both the UK and Ireland.
Let’s have some fun with idle speculation. The demographers remind us that the first place the population bust will be noticed is–obviously–on the playground. But what about the football pitch? Soccer skills can’t be learned, let alone perfected, in isolation. There may be some value in juggling a soccer ball, or practicing spot-kicks into an empty net. But it’s much better to practice with other kids. Isn’t that why the Europeans and South Americans and Africans–pretty much the rest of the world–are so much better at soccer than Americans? There are plenty of kids to play pick-up games with all day long, while our young players spend hours in the back of mom’s mini-van getting shuttled from one highly-structured practice to another. Will the disappearance of Europe’s children from streets and playgrounds mean that European player development will begin to resemble the American pattern?
The interaction of economic factors and cultural attitudes lies behind the collapsing European birth rate. Those families who take the plunge and produce a child tend to be wealthier. Do these families view football as a priority? I ask this because it has often been noted that in America the socioeconomic profile of the sport is very different from what it has historically been in the rest of the world. Here it’s a pastime of middle and upper-middle-class suburban children, whereas players in Europe and elsewhere are usually from less privileged backgrounds. If child-rearing in Europe ultimately becomes the sole province of the upper classes, will soccer practice be just another activity for busy kids, along with piano practice, swimming, tennis, and golf? Worse yet, might this demographic simply abandon football? A football career does seem to be incompatible with a European university education.
Football’s European roots and traditions are so deep that there will always be Spanish and Italian and German children who live for the sport. But will there be enough of them? Today, Europe’s presence in world football–both international competition and the prestige of its domestic leagues–is a commanding one. Its teams have won exactly half of the eighteen World Cup finals, with South American sides victorious in the other nine. Italy and (West) Germany lead the way among European teams with four and three World Cup titles, respectively. Three of the five most recent World Cups have been won by European teams.
But demographic changes work their way through society very slowly. The drastic decline in birth rates began in the 1990s, so for now we can only guess about the eventual effects of European depopulation on the world balance of power in football. Questions, questions…
Tags: birth rates, demographics, Europe, football, soccer, World Cup
July 2, 2008 at 8:02 pm |
[...] Original post here [...]
July 3, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
Interestingly, Ireland has been exceptional in western Europe in that despite the declining birth rate, the population has increased in the last decade or so. After a century and a half of almost continous decline, our increasing propserity has stemmed the haemorrhage of emigration (and many emigrants have returned), and for the first time in living memory, foreigners actually want to come to live here. How long will last I don’t know; you figure that many of the immigrants will return home, particularly the eastern Europeans as their native countries’ economies grow in the wake of accession to the EU. Hopefully the Brazilians will at least stay on and procreate so that we might hang onto the coat-tails of the rest of the football world.
Do you reckon you could use this situation as a chat-up line? But darling, we must – our country is becoming dangerously under-populated!
July 3, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
Your research into demography here shows some telling differences in population growth rates. If current birth rates continue, Europe really will have a dearth of young people in the decades to come.
Approaching your analysis like a statistician (as I’m often apt to do), it seems like the consequences are at least somewhat predictable. If national teams are comprised of players who should be 3 or 4 standard deviations above the mean in terms of talent, that means something like 2 out of every 10,000 players would be good enough to qualify. Now for a country like Spain, with a population of 40 million, half of which are male, with roughly 15% being of playing age (20 to 32 years old, maybe?), and possibly 10% considering themselves footballers, that would mean 300,000 eligible candidates. If 2 out of 10,000 are the rare talents good enough to be real considerations, that leaves a pool of 60 players for a guy like Aragones to sort through. If instead, the population fell to 35 million, and the age-eligible number fell to 10% rather than 15, then the pool would shrink to 35 players. Maybe this isn’t a problem — Portugal has just over 10 million inhabitants and manages just fine — but it wouldn’t be all that surprising to start hearing about talent pools that aren’t as deep as they once were.
A few years ago you may recall a regression I did where FIFA points were explained by population and GDP per capita. The purpose was not to get the best model possible to explain FIFA rankings, but rather to separate out the less tangible, unexplained factors leading to a nation’s soccer success from the ones conferred upon it through its money and people. The two variables in the analysis, income and population, did not account for much more than half the variation in FIFA points if I recall, but they were certainly statistically important determinants. If I have a spare hour or two sometime this weekend, maybe I’ll revisit the data to see what the impact of population is predicted to be. I can probably refine the analysis to look only at the prime-aged population. No matter what I find, though, I think we will all agree that models are not destiny.
Thanks, Susan, for opening our eyes to this issue. My own speculation is that something will help compensate for the dwindling European population. There will be a Euro 2048 and that people will care. Even more than that, I hope we’re still around to do our share of the caring.
July 3, 2008 at 7:43 pm |
Fredorraci, I’m glad to see that I have a few readers left since I’ve been MIA.
Well, I think your chat-up line (you Isles people have such a charming way of speaking), would be much more effective if it were aimed at specifically producing a top-notch football player and not just an ordinary citizen. Weird coincidence, I’m watching the Williams sisters in the semi’s. I believe that their crazy dad did actually want to have a couple of more kids just to produce tennis champions. So it can be done!
I think I just read that a number of Poles have returned home from Ireland, as prospects are looking up there and Ireland has become so much more costly. This is a reminder that nothing remains static, so all the hand-wringing over low population growth may be excessive.
July 4, 2008 at 6:06 pm |
Great piece.
I read somewhere that my province of Quebec has one of the lowest birth rates of any region in the world that rivaled Italy and Spain.
Hm. Looks like Italy and Spain will have to either open citizenship to all peoples that trace back their roots to those countries or “pluck” players from places where the Italo-Spano populations are high.
And I hope Blatter is not around in 2048
July 8, 2008 at 12:06 am |
Thanks, Alex. Interesting that you mention Quebec’s very low birth rate. I remember an article in the Journal of Economic History that described its birth rate in the early 1800’s as one of the highest on record. I think that les Quebecoises have better things to do these days than giving birth to six or seven children! As do most women, thus the declining birth rates throughout the world.
Mauro Camoranesi on the Italian squad is actually Argentinian, but his grandparents (just paternal, I think), were Italian and that’s what qualifies him to play for the Azurris. And I believe that there’s an American kid, born in NY, who elected to play for one of the Italian youth sides. I’m not sure of the particulars of his story, his heritage, etc. (or even his name)!
July 8, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
I believe that’s Giuseppe Rossi, ex of United, now of Villarreal. According to his Wikipedia page, he was born in New Jersey to Italian parents, and was offered the chance to play for the US but declined in favour of Italy.
July 8, 2008 at 6:31 pm |
Oh, thank you Fredorrarci. I have to resist every time just typing “Fredo” out of convenience. I suspect that you know your Godfather as well as anyone and wouldn’t appreciate it very much.
Gee, I simply cannot imagine why Signor Rossi elected to play for Italy instead of the US…though actually it would be far (infinitely?) easier to actually make the team here. He must be even better than I’d heard and he’ll be Jozy Altidore’s teammate at Villarreal. The Italian side was a bit old in the recent tournament, so maybe we’ll see Rossi take the field in a couple of years.
With healthy rates of immigration, birth rates don’t even matter that much. Well, I guess they matter to some people. But I don’t care if Freddy Adu was born in Ghana and I think we have several other players who were born outside the US (oh, that defender who was red-carded against Italy in 06…I can see him…Mastroeni! Born in Argentina, I think).
I wonder if the English care very much that Owen Hargreaves is really a Canadian? I wouldn’t think so. And Ibrahimovic wasn’t born in Sweden, was he? What matters is where you’ve chosen to live, not where you were born. Unless you want to be President, that is!