Few would have predicted Morocco’s success at the 2022 Fifa World Cup. Heading into the tournament, they were ranked 22nd in the world and had never progressed beyond the round of 16. 

Yet they beat Belgium, Spain and Portugal – countries that both then and now rank inside the world’s top ten – on their way to becoming the first African nation ever to reach the semi-final. 

Morocco’s run was not only remarkable (and thoroughly deserved). It also sparked debate beyond football because 14 of the players in their 26-man squad were foreign-born, more than any other nation in the tournament. 

The 2026 World Cup will feature more foreign-born players than any previous edition. Nearly a quarter of the 1,248 players selected for national teams were born in a different country from the one they will represent. 

In some squads, the proportions are far higher than this – 96% of Curaçao’s players were born abroad, as were 85% of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s and 73% of Morocco’s. Overall, foreign-born players make up the majority of footballers in eight of the tournament’s 48 squads.

Advertisement

Migration has been part of the World Cup story since its inception. At the tournament’s third edition in 1938, for example, 12% of players represented a country other than the one in which they were born.

This was in part because Fifa didn’t introduce regulationsgoverning football players’ eligibility for national teams until 1962, meaning it was not uncommon for players to represent multiple countries throughout their careers.

Some players represent countries other than those in which they were born because they are eligible through a parent or grandparent. These players often emerge from diaspora communities created by earlier waves of migration. 

One example is 2018 World Cup finalist Ivan Rakitić, who was born and raised in Switzerland but chose to represent Croatia. In a 2025 interview, Rakitić explained that when he had to choose between the two countries, his heart told him he should play for Croatia. 

Other players qualify through residency requirements. Pepe, for example, was born in Brazil but played in four World Cups for Portugal between 2010 and 2022 after becoming a Portuguese citizen at the age of 24.

Yet foreign-born players are only part of the story. World Cup squads also contain many second-generation migrants. France’s 2018 World Cup-winning squad is perhaps the best-known example: 12 of their 23 players had African parents. 

Such patterns are not random. France’s squad reflected the country’s colonial and postcolonial links with north and west Africa. Similarly, since the mid-2000s, Switzerland’s national team has increasingly been shaped by migration from the former Yugoslavia following the conflicts and displacement that accompanied its breakup in the 1990s.

England’s 2026 squad also tells a story about the country’s migration history. Alongside Marc Guéhi, who was born in Ivory Coast, at least nine players had a parent born overseas. Most have family roots in former British colonies in Africa and the Caribbean, reflecting patterns of post-second world war migration to the UK.

At the same time, 24 players born in England have been selected by other World Cup teams. This includes five representing Scotland and 19 playing for countries beyond the British Isles (including the US, New Zealand and Ghana).

Does this matter on the pitch?

Relatively little research has examined whether national teams with more migrant players perform better on the pitch. But the available evidence suggests they do.

One study from 2022 analysed every World Cup between 1970 and 2018 and found that teams with more foreign-born players generally progressed further in the tournament. On average, each additional foreign-born player was associated with roughly 0.15 additional matches played. 

The relationship remained even after accounting for broader differences between countries, suggesting that migration may provide advantages beyond those associated with wealth or footballing tradition alone.

Another study from 2023 examined European national teams competing in World Cups and European Championships between 1970 and 2018. Using players’ surnames to estimate their ancestral origins, it measured the diversity of backgrounds within each squad and found that more diverse teams tended to perform better on average. 

Specifically, the research found that a one standard deviation increase in diversity led to an increase in goal difference (the number of goals a team scores minus the number of goals they concede) of around 1.3 per match on average.

There are at least two factors that might explain these results. First, migration can expand the pool of players available to a national team. Ghana’s squad for the 2026 tournament draws heavily on diaspora communities in western Europe. This allows it to recruit players developed in some of the world’s strongest football systems.

Second, migration may increase the diversity of skills available within a squad. Football players need specific physical traits and technical skills to succeed on the pitch. Central defenders, for example, are usually tall and physically strong. More attacking players, on the other hand, often require speed. 

A more diverse population will probably provide a larger pool of potential players for each position, resulting in better complementarity at the team level.

This does not mean that migration wins World Cups. Argentina won the 2022 World Cup without a single foreign-born player in their squad. Success also depends on population size, economic wealth and coaching. Lionel Messi playing for your team helps, too. 

Nonetheless, the limited evidence available indicates that migration may influence international football beyond simply changing the make-up of the teams competing. 

If Morocco’s 2022 squad had been limited to players born and raised in Morocco, would they still have reached the semi-finals? We’ll never know for sure. But if Curaçao do so this time around, the role of migration in footballing success may become harder to ignore.

(This was first published in The Conversation. The writer is Ben Brindle Researcher, Migration Observatory, University of Oxford.)