INDIA AND CHINA’S ABSENCE AT THE FIFA WORLD CUP: A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR SOFT POWER?

By Sisaru Diyunuge

Forty-eight countries played in the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which was sixteen more than the previous tournament in Qatar. This expansion opened the door for nations which were unheard of by spectators of football, notable examples are Cape Verde with a population of 500,000, and Curacao with a population of just 150,000 (Fortune, 2026). The presence of these two tiny nations at what is arguably the world’s biggest sporting event made two absences impossible to ignore – India and China, the world’s most populous nations.

Naturally, one might enquire how the world's most populous nations failed to find 11 persons to represent their sides at the world stage. Throughout the history of this tournament, China has had one appearance, whilst India has had none (NPR, 2026) - which is fewer times than Haiti, or even North Korea (ABC 2026; Al Jazeera 2026).

Often, one might argue that China and India do not prioritize football and that they excel at the Olympics, and at cricket, respectively. However, it is reported that China may boast a football fan base of approximately 200 million with a growing domestic league (Reuters 2026), whilst India is not far along. This article explores the question of why China and India are consistently unable to turn this huge amount of interest in the sport into talent and why this might be costing them soft power on the global stage.

It is understood that if any country wants to make the world cup, let alone play well in it, it has to turn its youth into elite players. These countries often build institutions with a strict hierarchy – at the foundation is the most basic necessity, a space to play, i.e. hard infrastructure such as pitches and stadiums. This is because more pitches allow as many members as possible of the youth to showcase their talents early on.

Next, there are multiple developmental organizations such as clubs and academies which oversee the talent of these youngsters. Further up the hierarchy, one will find the football leagues. And finally, the last stage is making it for the national team – there is no better example of this hierarchy working that in the French national team and star player Kylian Mbappe (The Guardian, 2022). Nonetheless, India and China’s problem is not that they do not have this hierarchy, instead, their hierarchy is chaotic.

INDIA

Bobby Ghosh writes (2026) that India was in fact a world-power in the sport of football in the 1960s and even made it to the semi-finals in the Olympics and was invited to play the FIFA world cup. Ghosh (2026) goes to mention that a key ailment India’s football culture faces is a lack of self-confidence – in 1971 India beat England, its former colonizer in cricket, a decade later India became world champions of cricket and by the 21st century cricket was practically a religion in India.

By the mid 2000s, India invested heavily in building a solid cricket hierarchy – stadiums, academies, leagues such IPL which turn out to be multibillion dollar success stories. Cricket’s rise came at the demise of India’s football culture. In its 2023 report, India’s football federation cites many obvious hurdles such as low participation, lack of urban facilities, lack of trained personnel. Even members of the youth who start playing would soon run out of places to play (Khel Now, 2023), and the Indian football federation stated that there were less than 100 developmental clubs and for the very few players who end up making it to the Indian super league have to deal with constant chaos.

When the Indian football federation put the league up for sale, they could not attract commercial sponsors due to a lack of demand in viewer interests (The Guardian, 2026). To add to the already existing concerns, the federation’s officials are constantly accused of mass corruption and football’s governing body FIFA even banned India’s football federation temporarily for malpractices and bad governance (The Times of India 2024; The Times of India, 2022). Ghosh (2026) argues that because the wider Indian population does not show an interest towards football, there will be no interest shown by politicians thus the necessary institutional reform might never come through.

CHINA

Unlike in India, China’s approach is top-down. In fact, China’s President Xi Jinping has mentioned a three-step plan: 1) qualify for the world cup, 2) host the world cup, and 3) win the world cup (Reuters, 2026; The Guardian, 2015). China is no stranger to making the top-down approach work – China's extraordinary performance at the Olympics was the result of carefully crafted state policy in lifting the image of the country. However, experts say it is in fact the opposite approach needed to make football work – the bottom-up approach.

In 2015, the Chinese state took the first steps to building a strong football governing body in the country from the bottom – China pledged to build 70,000 pitches, 20,000 training centers and eventually get 30 million children playing football while strengthening the academies and leagues and finally to turn the Chinese Super League into one of the world’s best (British Council, 2016). While everything China did looked just right on paper, there was one social aspect which the system could not break; the Gaokao exams left millions of teenagers with no choice but to leave their sporting careers behind.

Eventually, due to a lack of players in the system, financial woes from the Evergreen crash and the COVID-19 pandemic, all collectively resulted in many of the super league clubs folding. Worse still, the Chinese system placed individuals from non-football, non-sports related government institutions to head and manage the hierarchy.

THE QUESTION OF DUAL NATIONALITY

Cape Verde and Curacao, along with countries like Qatar have allowed foreign-born players with the relevant countries’ ancestry along with others with dual passports to play for their national teams (Forbes, 2026). However, India and China, although possessing a large diaspora spread across the globe, have not done so because these two countries have no option for their citizens to hold dual citizenship.

HOW IS IT RELEVANT TO SOFT-POWER?

While governments do not negotiate trade agreements or security partnerships based on football, the influence it has in contemporary times is not an aspect that one could ignore. Both China and India are making inroads in Africa for influence in trade and security. Africa by and large is a footballing continent, and this can be a great tool for both countries to use.

Often India and China must deal with Europe, West Asia and Central Asia for the same reasons of trade and security – all footballing continents. Football can be used as a tool of influence, and in tougher conversations a deal-breaker. Thus, their absence is highlighted amongst football fans and noticed by its global partners.

References

ABC News (2026) 'The first Asian team to win a game at the World Cup finals', ABC News, https://www.abc.net.au/asia/the-first-asian-team-to-win-a-game-at-the-world-cup-finals/106779976

Al Jazeera (2026) 'For Haitians in the US, the pride and joy of the World Cup comes with fear', Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2026/6/25/for-haitians-in-the-us-the-pride-and-joy-of-the-world-cup-comes-with-fear

All India Football Federation (2023) Vision 2047: The Indian Football Strategic Roadmap. https://www.the-aiff.com/media/uploads/2023/01/Vision-2047-The-Indian-Football-Strategic-Roadmap-2023-2047.pdf

British Council (2016) 'Medium and long-term plan for Chinese football development points to increased demand for education in sports-related fields', British Council Opportunities Insight, https://opportunities-insight.britishcouncil.org/short-articles/news/medium-and-long-term-plan-chinese-football-development-points-increased-demand

Forbes (2026) 'How diaspora recruitment has reshaped World Cup rosters', Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/clementelisi/2026/06/15/how-diaspora-recruitment-has-reshaped-world-cup-rosters/

Fortune (2026) 'The legend of Cape Verde: how an island of half a million built the best team at the World Cup', Fortune, https://fortune.com/2026/07/16/roberto-lopes-linkedin-spam-cape-verde/

Ghosh, B. (2026) 'The 156,000 and the 1.4 billion', Foreign Policy, 15 May. Republished by Almendron. https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/the-156000-and-the-1-4-billion/

Khel Now (2023) 'Indian football: AIFF roadmap simplified – youth leagues planned, structure, objectives, development', Khel Now, https://khelnow.com/football/2023-01-indian-football-aiff-roadmap-simplified-youth-leagues-planned-structure-objectives-development

NPR (2026) 'Why India and China, two of the largest countries, didn't have World Cup teams', NPR, https://www.npr.org/2026/07/10/nx-s1-5876069/why-india-and-china-two-of-the-largest-countries-didnt-have-world-cup-teams

Reuters (2026) 'FIFA faces World Cup broadcast crisis as India's Reliance offers $20mln in China deal', Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/fifa-faces-world-cup-broadcast-crisis-indias-reliance-offers-20-mln-china-deal-2026-05-04/

The Guardian (2015) ‘China sets goal of hosting World Cup with master plan for football’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/17/china-sets-goal-of-hosting-world-cup-with-master-plan-for-football

The Guardian (2022) 'Project Mbappé: the making of France's football superstar', The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/09/project-mbappe-the-making-of-frances-football-superstar

The Guardian (2026) 'No games, no league: City Football Group and Indian football's "global embarrassment"', The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jan/07/no-games-no-league-city-football-group-indian-football-global-embarrassment-mumbai-city-manchester

Times of India (2024) 'AIFF terminates service of its legal head after he accused President Kalyan Chaubey of corruption', The Times of India, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/football/top-stories/aiff-terminates-service-of-its-legal-head-after-he-accused-president-kalyan-chaubey-of-corruption/articleshow/108184049.cms

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

 Strengthening US Foreign Policy through Hollywood 

 

Guest Commentary by Trivan Annakkarage

 

Motion pictures are a magical feat that explains a story which captures our hearts and minds and remains deep within our subconscious. Hence movies are a very powerful form of entertainment and its ability to attract masses were envisioned even by those early inventors of film making such as Eadweard Mayubridge of Britain, the American inventor Thomas Edison followed by the French Lumiere Brothers.

According to Silver (2007), film studios were immediately established in major cities around the world such as in New York, Los Angeles, Shanghai, Tokyo, London, Paris, Mumbai, Sydney and Rome in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries to cater to this rising demand fora novel form of entertainment. However, the American film industry; Hollywood (named after a municipality located within the city of Los Angeles), was soon to overtake international competition by becoming a colossal industry and gaining the attention of American policy makers in Washington D.C. who identified its potential Guzelipek, 2018).

 

Soft Power in foreign policy is a term introduced by the American Scholar; Joseph Nye, a proponent of Neoliberalism. In his article, Public Diplomacy and Soft Power published in 2008, Nye describes the concept of Soft Power as “the ability to affect others to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction rather than coercion or payment. A country's soft power rests on its resources of culture, values, and policies.”

 

In his book published in 2002 titled, The Paradox of American Power, Nye explains that the projection of Soft Power by a powerful nation-state (i.e. USA, China or Japan etc.) creates a sense of admiration and obedience towards that country by other less powerful or developing  countries in the international system. Such Soft Power tools include, the establishment of low cost but high quality educational institutions which promote the values of the donor nation-stateand provide scholarship programmes, founding of welfare organizations in countries where the majority of its people are below the poverty line, donations towards medium scale infrastructure projects such as schools, universities, conference halls, theatres, sporting venues etc. and entertainment (i.e. movies, TV series and commercials).

Of all these forms the latter is what successfully captures the desired respect powerful nation-states vie from less powerful counties. Therefore, the entertainment industry is used as a foreign policy tool by powerful nation-states today such as USA, China, Japan, UK, India, Brazil, South Korea and Turkey to name a few. However, the American government exploit their entertainment industry to maintain their global hegemony in ways unparalleled to any other nation-state. Ian Buruma states in his article titled The Road to Babel (2001) that in today’s world Hollywood has become the common reference for entertainment to those people interacting from different cultural backgrounds.  

 

According to Rugh (2009), Hollywood movies reach every corner of the world and mesmerize people due to the quality and superior technology applied on its visuals. It is no secret that Hollywood directors and produces cooperate professionally with the White House, United States Department of State, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Pentagon followed by other relevant public institutions to shape the idea of America in the hearts and minds of its local and international viewers. Therefore, entertainment from Hollywood tends to have a subtle political backdrop besides the artistic content (Guzlipek, 2018).

 

This political maneuvering involves the installation of American exceptionalism in the subconscious of the viewer. Koh (2003) in his study On American Exceptionalism has cited the historian Margaret Macmillan on her analysis of this term. She states that, “Faith in their own exceptionalism has sometimes led to a certain obtuseness on the part of Americans, a tendency to preach the other nations rather than listen to them, a tendency as well to assume that American motives are pure where those of others are not..”

 

Such examples of American exceptionalism were portrayed by the film Argo (2012) which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2013. The story revolves around the CIA covert operation to rescue six U.S. diplomats from Tehran, Iran under the guise of filming a science fiction film during the 1979–1981 Iranian hostage crisis. The nominees and announcement for Best Picture was read out by First Lady Michelle Obama live from the Diplomatic Room of the White House. This is evidence to the fact how important Hollywood films are to portray the image of USA to Americans and the world at large.   

 

Moreover, Hollywood movies tend to portray the United States as the country where everyone is treated equally, women being empowered, liberal values upheld, people being valued for who they are and not for what they are, no obstacles for becoming successful, valuing secularism followed by brave, kind-hearted, sensible men and women residing in this land of the free. These messages run deep into the subconscious of the viewers thus associating USA with all the above virtues (Halbert, 2004). This has influenced people around the world to react against their totalitarian regimes such as those in China, Iran and Russia. This has led such governments to censor or limit the flood of Hollywood movies into their countries.

 

The Cold War era in particular saw the influence of Washington in Hollywood movies. This was the time when the idea of ‘us versus them’ became synonymous with films produced in America. ‘Us’ represented the heroic virtues of USA and its allies while ‘them’ represented all the other nation-states that were aligned to the Soviets. Despite being international in its outlook, Hollywood rarely considered representation of nation-states in the non-aligned movement in their movies. Nevertheless, those ‘us versus them’ movies were targeted largely to the audience in countries which had not selected a side during the Cold War era.

 

A prime example of Cold War era subtle Hollywood propaganda according to Guzelipek (2018) is the initial Star Wars trilogy (1977, 1980 and 1983). The series can be identified as a result of the space race that existed during that era. This is because the movie projects the possibility of American extraterrestrial hegemony (Guzelipek, 2018). Furthermore through the Star Wars series this scholar has identified two other key messages which Washington wishes to propagate about USA. The first is the dark side and light side of the force. Here the dark side represents Soviet style despotism/authoritarianism, rigid hierarchical relationships, lack of humour and brutal acts among its own people (the villains) while the light side represents the free spirited, friendly, sincere and approachable United States (the heroes).

 

The second is the idea of the chosen one. This idea perfectly resonates with American exceptionalism, the idea Washington wishes to propagate. According to Judis (2005) American Presidents describe the United States as the nation “being called”, “given the mission”, “maker of heaven”, “authority of liberty” and so on. To back this claim Kissinger (2004) too states that the American Presidency is the “searchlight” for humanity.

 

Hollywood’s influence on its viewers was so strong that in 1981 a former Hollywood actor, Ronald Regan was elected to White House as the 40^th President of the United States of America. Under his presidency American exceptionalism, the light side of the force and the chosen one were in full swing that American foreign policy was so obviously communicated through Hollywood movies. It is observed that the current Chairman of The Walt Disney Company, Robert Iger would become a future American President due to Disney’s influence on international media.

 

Nevertheless, Washington took advantage of Hollywood’s obsession with the ‘us versus them’ concept even after the fall of USSR, by introducing American post-Cold War international villains to continuously promote American exceptionalism. These villains included governments of North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Africa and East Europe followed by non-state actors such as terrorists and Latin American drug cartels. Aydemir (2017) in his study states that Hollywood movies such as The Patriot (2000), Saving Private Ryann (1998), Operation Rogue (2014), True Lies (1994), Body of Lies (2008), Green Zone (2010), Tears of the Sun (2003) make the viewer believe that USA is the only country that can save the world from tyranny, who can defeat the bad no matter how strong the bad guys are, the only nation who can counter terrorism, a force that break the chains of authoritarian rule, and a safe haven for political and other refugees. 

 

However there are visible changes in the recent genre of Hollywood movies. This is due to the influx of directors and producers of international background penetrating into the American film industry. They include directors and produces from African (Spike Lee, Tyler Perry, Matthew Cherry), Far East Asian (Ang Lee, Justin Lin, Alice Wu) South Asian (Tarem Singh, Deepa Mehta, Mira Nair) and Latin American (Alfonso Cuarón, Fernando Meirelles and Guillermo del Toro) decent.

 

Films directed and produced by them give a holistic picture and the true nature of American society, its government and its foreign policies. They include movies such as Monsoon Wedding (2001), City of Gold (2002), Brokeback Mountain (2005), Water (2005), The Fall (2007), Help (2011), 12 Years a Slave (2013), Gravity (2013) Hidden Figures (2016), The Shape of Water (2018), films in the Fast and Furious series (2006, 2009, 2011, 2013), Black Panther (2018) and Us (2019).

 

The unexpected occurred in 2016 when the Chinese company Wanda Group acquired the American media giant Legendary Pictures Productions LLC. The Communist Party of China has long envied and admired how Hollywood propagates American exceptionalism and this move was a carefully crafted strategy. This move has benefitted China in two ways. The first is to have its share of Hollywood movie sales in China and the second to polish China’s image in the world through Hollywood movies. China, once considered a villain in Hollywood movies are now portrayed as wise, endowed with ancient knowledge, spontaneous, honest and equal partners for their starring American actors.  

 

Furthermore, the rise of female produces too has emphasized on feminist culture into Hollywood thus embracing, appreciating and amalgamating cultures outside the United States. The director of Wonder Woman (2017), Patty Jenkins can be considered a perfect example for a feminist director. These female and other international directors in Hollywood have removed the American nationalist elements from their movies to show the naked truth of what USA is all about and that is to say that American exceptionalism was all about white exceptionalism in America and around the world.

 

The writer can be contacted at trivan90@gmail.com

 

References

http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v6(11)/Version-2/N0611027983.pdf

https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/606864

https://theasiadialogue.com/2017/07/05/film-as-soft-power-and-hard-currency-the-sino-hollywood-courtship/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1356977022000025678?journalCode=ccpo20

https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/the-real-source-of-chinas-soft-power/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25097996