The early tournament record was more politically mixed. Italy won in 1934 and 1938 under an authoritarian regime, while Uruguay and Brazil lifted the trophy during periods classified as anocratic. The report counts six authoritarian finalists, four anocratic finalists and four democratic finalists across the first 32 years of the competition.
England’s 1966 victory over West Germany marked the first final between two democracies. From that point, democratic nations became increasingly dominant in the decisive rounds.
The political shift worldwide forms part of the explanation. The report says democracies accounted for 21.7% of countries in 1930, compared with almost 60% by 2018, while authoritarian states fell from 44.6% to 12%. The World Cup changed as the international system changed.
The expanded 48-team 2026 World Cup will widen football’s diplomatic reach. A report assessing the field says 43.1% of represented countries are classified as free, while 26.7% are not free. It also notes that the leading nations in the rankings are overwhelmingly free states.
That backdrop matters because the World Cup is more than a sporting contest. Governments use hosting, investment and football partnerships to project influence and soften scrutiny. Sportswashing concerns remain central to debates over host selection, labour rights and ’s handling of political controversy.
Yet the trophy record offers a counterpoint. Autocratic governments may use football for legitimacy, but modern champions have overwhelmingly emerged from democratic systems with deep player development, competitive leagues and established sporting institutions.
The next test arrives in 2026. The storyline will be whether the expanded field disrupts the modern political pattern-and whether football’s governing bodies face renewed pressure to match the tournament’s global reach with stronger human-rights standards.