The study, led by Ahmed at Nanyang Technological University, surveyed 10,661 people across 26 countries. Its central finding is cautious but striking: respondents who identified as relatively more conservative tended to rate Ronaldo higher, while those with more liberal views tended to favour Messi.
Ahmed says the rivalry is especially revealing because the pair are “so comparably accomplished”. With performance alone unable to settle the argument, supporters may project their own values onto two radically different public images.
Messi’s reserved style, team-first reputation and understated manner can represent excellence without self-promotion. Ronaldo, by contrast, has built his identity around visible ambition, relentless self-belief and individual responsibility.
The pattern is not a simple map of football geography or national allegiance. Ronaldo leads in India, while England and Spain show modest preferences for Messi. France leans towards Ronaldo, despite its liberal-democratic profile, and Brazil is described as effectively split.
That uneven picture matters. Ahmed says the country-level relationship between liberal democracy and Messi preference is modest and falls just outside conventional significance thresholds. In other words, political culture may shape the debate, but it does not dictate every answer.
The study also examines psychological and media-related factors rather than merely counting votes. Ahmed warns that reducing the findings to raw totals would miss the main point: the choice is influenced by how people interpret leadership and success.
The findings do not make every Messi supporter liberal or every Ronaldo fan conservative. They offer a framework for understanding why the debate remains so emotional long after both players have established extraordinary careers.
The next major tournament or viral football debate will likely reopen the argument. When it does, the most revealing question may not be who played better, but what each player represents to the person making the choice.