Adam Island
06-06-2006, 03:25
http://themetropolistimes.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/06/05/2006-politics-world-cup.html
Only a few more days are left until the 2006 FIFA World Cup, so I got geared up by simulating my own tournament. Only instead of measuring soccer skills, I tried to measure overall political, personal, press and economic freedom. The result is the 2006 Freedom World Cup, a competition to see which nation can boast being the "land of the free."
Methodology: The 2006 Freedom World Cup used the same format as the 2006 FIFA World Cup. The 64 teams were divided into 8 groups of 4 teams each. Each team played each other once, with 3 points for a win and 1 point for a tie. The top 2 from each group advanced.
I used 5 different rankings to determine the results. In order, they are the Freedom House's Political Rights rating, Freedom House's Civil Liberties rating, Reporters Without Borders's press freedom index, the Wall Street Journal's and Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, and the Fraser Institutes's Economic Freedom of the World Index. They are represented in this order in the parentheses next to each team's group standings.
A country was awarded 1 goal for each time it had a lower number than its opponent for the first 3 rankings. A country took away 1 of its opponent's goals for each time it had a lower number than its opponent for the last 2 rankings. There were no negative goals. This meant, for example, that when the United States played the Czech Republic, it ended in a 0-0 draw, although the United States has lower numbers than the Czechs in more ratings.
In the knockout stages, a penalty shootout was often necessary to settle the score. Each country was awarded 1 penalty goal for each number it had lower in all 5 categories. In the rare situation that the penalty shootout ended in a tie, I awarded 1 bonus goal for the country I personally felt was more free.
The arbitrary way I convert rankings to goals and the highly debatable rankings themselves mean that the final results don't mean a ton. Its just for fun.
GROUP STAGE
GROUP A
Germany 9 3-0-0 5 0 (1, 1, #18, #19, #19)
Costa Rica 4 1-1-1 3 1 (1, 1, #41, #46, #20)
Poland 4 1-1-1 3 1 (1, 1, #53, #41, #78)
Ecuador 0 0-3-0 0 9 (3, 3, #87, #107, #88)
GROUP B
England 7 2-0-1 5 0 (1, 1, #24, #5, #6)
Sweden 7 2-0-1 5 0 (1, 1, #12, #19, #24)
Trinidad and Tobago 3 1-2-0 2 4 (3, 2, #12, #42, #44)
Paraguay 0 0-3-0 0 8 (3, 3, #69, #109, #66)
GROUP C
Netherlands 9 3-0-0 9 0 (1, 1, #1, #16, #13)
Argentina 6 2-1-0 5 3 (2, 2, #59, #107, #94)
Serbia & Montenegro 3 1-2-0 1 5 (3, 2, #65, X, X)
Ivory Coast 0 0-3-0 0 7 (6, 6, #144, #88, #103)
GROUP D
Portugal 9 3-0-0 9 0 (1, 1, #23, #30, #34)
Mexico 6 2-1-0 5 3 (2, 2, #135, #60, #59)
Angola 3 1-2-0 1 5 (6, 5, #76, #139, X)
Iran 0 0-3-0 0 7 (6, 6, #164, #156, #78)
GROUP E
Czech Republic 7 2-0-1 3 0 (1, 1, #9, #29, #44)
United States 5 1-0-2 2 0 (1, 1, #44, #9, #3)
Italy 4 1-1-1 2 1 (1, 1, #42, #42, #54)
Ghana 0 0-3-0 0 6 (1, 2, #66, #105, #76)
GROUP F
Australia 9 3-0-0 8 0 (1, 1, #31, #9, #9)
Japan 6 2-1-0 4 2 (1, 2, #37, #27, #30)
Croatia 3 1-2-0 1 5 (2, 2, #56, #55, #86)
Brazil 0 0-3-0 0 6 (2, 2, #63, #81, #88)
GROUP G
Switzerland 9 3-0-0 8 0 (1, 1, #1, #15, #3)
France 6 2-1-0 4 1 (1, 1, #30, #44, #38)
South Korea 3 1-2-0 3 3 (1, 2, #34, #45, #35)
Togo 0 0-3-0 0 6 (6, 5, #95, #134, #115)
GROUP H
Spain 9 3-0-0 9 0 (1, 1, #40, #33, #30)
Ukraine 6 2-1-0 4 3 (3, 2, #112, #99, #103)
Tunisia 3 1-2-0 2 5 (6, 5, #147, #99, #70)
Saudi Arabia 0 0-3-0 2 5 (7, 6, #154, #62, X)
Round of 16
Germany 0, Sweden 0 (pen. 2-1)
Netherlands 3, Mexico 0
Japan 0, Czech Republic 0 (pen. 2-1)
Switzerland 3, Ukraine 0
England 1, Costa Rica 0
Portugal 3, Argentina 0
United States 0, Australia 0 (pen. 2-1)
Spain 0, France 0 (pen. 2-1)
Quarter Finals
Netherlands 1, Germany 0
Switzerland 2, Japan 0
England 0, Portugal 0 (pen. 2-1)
United States 0, Spain 0 (pen. 2-1)
Semi Finals
Switzerland 0, Netherlands 0 (pen. 2-0)
England 0, United States 0 (pen. 2-1)
Final
Switzerland 0, England 0 (pen. 2-1)
During the group stages, the Freedom Cup results followed probable FIFA Cup results with surprising accuracy, especially in Groups B, C and E. The exception was F, where the probable result has been flipped on its head.
In the knockout rounds, the teams were all so close together in the rankings that the results are practically meaningless. Switzerland benefitted from its #1 RWB ranking, and its high economic freedom scores.
Before I began, I expected the United States to win handily. Instead they barely made it out of their tough group and struggled just to reach the semifinals. The Heritage Foundation put the United Kingdom's economic freedom ranking slightly ahead of the United States's, disagreeing with the Fraser Institute. The US suffered greatest from its #44 RWB ranking, which is still far better than what it had last year.
If I ignored the numbers, I'd probably have the US beating Netherlands or England in the final, but beating New Zealand if they qualified. Who would you pick?
Only a few more days are left until the 2006 FIFA World Cup, so I got geared up by simulating my own tournament. Only instead of measuring soccer skills, I tried to measure overall political, personal, press and economic freedom. The result is the 2006 Freedom World Cup, a competition to see which nation can boast being the "land of the free."
Methodology: The 2006 Freedom World Cup used the same format as the 2006 FIFA World Cup. The 64 teams were divided into 8 groups of 4 teams each. Each team played each other once, with 3 points for a win and 1 point for a tie. The top 2 from each group advanced.
I used 5 different rankings to determine the results. In order, they are the Freedom House's Political Rights rating, Freedom House's Civil Liberties rating, Reporters Without Borders's press freedom index, the Wall Street Journal's and Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, and the Fraser Institutes's Economic Freedom of the World Index. They are represented in this order in the parentheses next to each team's group standings.
A country was awarded 1 goal for each time it had a lower number than its opponent for the first 3 rankings. A country took away 1 of its opponent's goals for each time it had a lower number than its opponent for the last 2 rankings. There were no negative goals. This meant, for example, that when the United States played the Czech Republic, it ended in a 0-0 draw, although the United States has lower numbers than the Czechs in more ratings.
In the knockout stages, a penalty shootout was often necessary to settle the score. Each country was awarded 1 penalty goal for each number it had lower in all 5 categories. In the rare situation that the penalty shootout ended in a tie, I awarded 1 bonus goal for the country I personally felt was more free.
The arbitrary way I convert rankings to goals and the highly debatable rankings themselves mean that the final results don't mean a ton. Its just for fun.
GROUP STAGE
GROUP A
Germany 9 3-0-0 5 0 (1, 1, #18, #19, #19)
Costa Rica 4 1-1-1 3 1 (1, 1, #41, #46, #20)
Poland 4 1-1-1 3 1 (1, 1, #53, #41, #78)
Ecuador 0 0-3-0 0 9 (3, 3, #87, #107, #88)
GROUP B
England 7 2-0-1 5 0 (1, 1, #24, #5, #6)
Sweden 7 2-0-1 5 0 (1, 1, #12, #19, #24)
Trinidad and Tobago 3 1-2-0 2 4 (3, 2, #12, #42, #44)
Paraguay 0 0-3-0 0 8 (3, 3, #69, #109, #66)
GROUP C
Netherlands 9 3-0-0 9 0 (1, 1, #1, #16, #13)
Argentina 6 2-1-0 5 3 (2, 2, #59, #107, #94)
Serbia & Montenegro 3 1-2-0 1 5 (3, 2, #65, X, X)
Ivory Coast 0 0-3-0 0 7 (6, 6, #144, #88, #103)
GROUP D
Portugal 9 3-0-0 9 0 (1, 1, #23, #30, #34)
Mexico 6 2-1-0 5 3 (2, 2, #135, #60, #59)
Angola 3 1-2-0 1 5 (6, 5, #76, #139, X)
Iran 0 0-3-0 0 7 (6, 6, #164, #156, #78)
GROUP E
Czech Republic 7 2-0-1 3 0 (1, 1, #9, #29, #44)
United States 5 1-0-2 2 0 (1, 1, #44, #9, #3)
Italy 4 1-1-1 2 1 (1, 1, #42, #42, #54)
Ghana 0 0-3-0 0 6 (1, 2, #66, #105, #76)
GROUP F
Australia 9 3-0-0 8 0 (1, 1, #31, #9, #9)
Japan 6 2-1-0 4 2 (1, 2, #37, #27, #30)
Croatia 3 1-2-0 1 5 (2, 2, #56, #55, #86)
Brazil 0 0-3-0 0 6 (2, 2, #63, #81, #88)
GROUP G
Switzerland 9 3-0-0 8 0 (1, 1, #1, #15, #3)
France 6 2-1-0 4 1 (1, 1, #30, #44, #38)
South Korea 3 1-2-0 3 3 (1, 2, #34, #45, #35)
Togo 0 0-3-0 0 6 (6, 5, #95, #134, #115)
GROUP H
Spain 9 3-0-0 9 0 (1, 1, #40, #33, #30)
Ukraine 6 2-1-0 4 3 (3, 2, #112, #99, #103)
Tunisia 3 1-2-0 2 5 (6, 5, #147, #99, #70)
Saudi Arabia 0 0-3-0 2 5 (7, 6, #154, #62, X)
Round of 16
Germany 0, Sweden 0 (pen. 2-1)
Netherlands 3, Mexico 0
Japan 0, Czech Republic 0 (pen. 2-1)
Switzerland 3, Ukraine 0
England 1, Costa Rica 0
Portugal 3, Argentina 0
United States 0, Australia 0 (pen. 2-1)
Spain 0, France 0 (pen. 2-1)
Quarter Finals
Netherlands 1, Germany 0
Switzerland 2, Japan 0
England 0, Portugal 0 (pen. 2-1)
United States 0, Spain 0 (pen. 2-1)
Semi Finals
Switzerland 0, Netherlands 0 (pen. 2-0)
England 0, United States 0 (pen. 2-1)
Final
Switzerland 0, England 0 (pen. 2-1)
During the group stages, the Freedom Cup results followed probable FIFA Cup results with surprising accuracy, especially in Groups B, C and E. The exception was F, where the probable result has been flipped on its head.
In the knockout rounds, the teams were all so close together in the rankings that the results are practically meaningless. Switzerland benefitted from its #1 RWB ranking, and its high economic freedom scores.
Before I began, I expected the United States to win handily. Instead they barely made it out of their tough group and struggled just to reach the semifinals. The Heritage Foundation put the United Kingdom's economic freedom ranking slightly ahead of the United States's, disagreeing with the Fraser Institute. The US suffered greatest from its #44 RWB ranking, which is still far better than what it had last year.
If I ignored the numbers, I'd probably have the US beating Netherlands or England in the final, but beating New Zealand if they qualified. Who would you pick?