Is There Really a "World Cup Curse" in the Market?

marsbitPubblicato 2026-06-15Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-06-15

Introduzione

Is there really a "World Cup Curse" affecting markets? Historical data shows global equity markets often underperform during the tournament. The S&P 500 has averaged negative returns of -1.5% to -2.11% across 19 World Cups since 1950, with declines in 58% of events. China's Shanghai Composite fell in 71% of tournaments since 1994. Studies confirm reduced trading activity during matches, with volumes dropping significantly, especially when a home nation plays. A team's loss can also lead to negative sentiment and selling pressure in its domestic market the next day. However, the "curse" may be partly attributed to seasonal weakness. Many tournaments are held in June-July, a historically weaker period for stocks ("Sell in May and go away"). The 2022 Qatar World Cup, held in November-December, saw a smaller drop in trading volume compared to summer events, suggesting timing plays a role. The cryptocurrency market's performance during World Cups has been mixed and largely driven by its own major catalysts (e.g., Mt. Gox hack, FTX collapse, halving cycles) rather than the tournament. Investment opportunities have shifted over time. Traditional beneficiaries like TV manufacturers have seen fading returns as streaming platforms become the core viewing channel. Classic consumer plays like beer and sportswear face challenges from changing consumption trends. Newer digital assets, like fractionalized collectible player cards on blockchain, have seen explosive growth. While gambling i...

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is set to kick off on June 11th. For a long time, a theory known as the "World Cup Curse" has circulated in the market, suggesting that during World Cup tournaments, major global stock markets often perform weakly, with trading volume significantly shrinking.

Whether you're ready with beer and peanuts to enjoy the matches or plan to trade in the market while watching, we can examine whether the "World Cup Curse" is a real phenomenon. What lies behind the data, and what are the reasons for this observed phenomenon?

Examining the "World Cup Curse" Through Data

Looking at historical data, the performance of major global stock markets during World Cup periods has generally been poor. Taking the US S&P 500 Index as an example, during the 19 World Cup tournaments from 1950 to 2022, the S&P 500's average expected return during the events was approximately -1.5% to -2.11%.

As shown in the chart above, the S&P 500 recorded negative returns in 11 out of the past 19 World Cups (a 58% rate). Notably, in recent years, US stocks declined during the 2010 South Africa World Cup (-4.1%), the 2018 Russia World Cup (-0.8%), and the 2022 Qatar World Cup (-3.5%).

The A-share market has not been spared either. Statistics show that in the 7 World Cup periods since 1994, the Shanghai Composite Index fell 5 times, a decline probability as high as 71%. Among them, the index plunged 30.15% during the 1994 US World Cup and fell 7.17% during the 2018 Russia World Cup. It only posted gains during the 2002 World Cup (stimulated by favorable policies) and the 2006 World Cup (during a super bull market).

Now let's look at the cryptocurrency market:

- 2010 South Africa World Cup period: rose about 15%

- 2014 Brazil World Cup period: fell about 7.1%

- 2018 Russia World Cup period: fell about 16.5%

- 2022 Qatar World Cup period: rose about 4.3%

With the data presented, let's analyze the reasons.

Causes of the "World Cup Curse"

Does the World Cup really have a significant impact on market performance? It has an impact, but not a major one.

First, looking at the impactful part. A paper from the European Central Bank (ECB) analyzed minute-level trading data from 15 international stock exchanges during the 2010 World Cup. The study found that stock market trading activity indeed decreased during World Cup matches:

- Overall trading volume dropped by about 33% compared to normal levels.

- When the home country's national team was playing, trading volume plummeted by 55%, and the number of trades fell by 45%.

- Key events in matches (like goals) led to a further 5% drop in trading volume.

Match results also affect the mood of fans in various countries. Research found that when a country's national team lost a World Cup match, that country's stock market often showed significant negative abnormal returns on the next trading day (up to 49 basis points). This negative sentiment from a match loss does spill over into investment decisions, leading to market sell-offs.

But why is the impact considered not major? Wall Street has an old adage, "Sell in May and go away." The stock market itself exhibits seasonal patterns, with May through October typically being the weakest performance period of the year (especially June-August). Traditional summer World Cups (June-July) happen to fall within this seasonal lull window.

As shown in the chart above, among the average monthly returns throughout the year, June (+0.44%) and August-September are often the most lackluster or even negative months. This means traditional summer World Cups (typically held from mid-June to mid-July) coincide with the window in the year when the stock market has the least upward momentum.

The 2022 Qatar World Cup was the first World Cup historically held in the Northern Hemisphere winter (November-December). This unique timing provides a "controlled experiment" to test the above theory.

Although the S&P 500 still fell 3.5% during the Qatar World Cup (mainly driven by the Fed's aggressive rate hikes), looking at trading activity, the decline in trading volume during the winter World Cup (about -18%) was significantly smaller than during traditional summer World Cups (-33%). This suggests that when the World Cup is detached from the summer lull, its liquidity-draining effect on the market weakens. This also indicates that a significant portion of the "World Cup Curse" should be attributed to the seasonal low of June-July itself.

Compared to the stock market, the cryptocurrency market better proves that the World Cup's influence on markets isn't significant. From Bitcoin's inception to now, during the 4 World Cups, its price movements can actually be traced to more direct catalysts:

- 2010 South Africa World Cup: On May 22, 2010, a story we're all familiar with happened—programmer Laszlo Hanyecz used 10,000 bitcoins to buy two pizzas, completing Bitcoin's first real-world goods transaction, giving it initial real-world value consensus. Three days after the World Cup closing ceremony (July 17, 2010), the famous Mt.Gox exchange officially launched, marking Bitcoin's entry into the era of organized trading.

- 2014 Brazil World Cup period: Bitcoin was in a bear market following the burst of the 2013 bull market (which peaked above $1,100). In February 2014, Mt.Gox, then the world's largest Bitcoin exchange, declared bankruptcy after losing hundreds of thousands of bitcoins to a hack, dealing a devastating blow to the entire industry. During the World Cup, market sentiment remained fragile. Additionally, on June 27, the US Department of Justice auctioned nearly 30,000 bitcoins seized from the "Silk Road," further increasing selling pressure and uncertainty in the market.

- 2018 Russia World Cup period: A bear market adjustment following the end of the 2017 bull run. The ICO bubble had burst, and global regulation was tightening comprehensively. During the World Cup, the crypto market faced continuous negative news. On June 22, the major Korean exchange Bithumb was hacked, losing $30 million. In early July, the US SEC again delayed/rejected multiple Bitcoin ETF applications.

- 2022 Qatar World Cup period: In early November 2022 (the week before the World Cup opening), FTX collapsed. Meanwhile, the Fed announced a 50-basis-point rate hike on December 13, with continued tightening of macro liquidity, adding insult to injury.

It's also important to consider that Bitcoin, as an asset traded 24/7 globally, is less affected by traditional seasonal holiday patterns. Its own 4-year "halving cycle" is very pronounced. In the face of macro liquidity and its own cyclicality, the World Cup effect is essentially negligible.

Investment Opportunities During the World Cup

With technological advancement and changes in consumption habits, the landscape of World Cup beneficiary industries has changed over the past two decades (2006-2026).

In the past, we all watched the World Cup on TV. During the 2006 and 2010 World Cups, traditional TV and set-top box manufacturers often achieved significant excess returns.

But by the 2018 Russia World Cup, although traditional TV broadcasting rights revenue still accounted for a large portion, the excess returns for TV manufacturers had dropped to 0. By 2022, domestic TV sales during the World Cup decreased rather than increased, with the industry seeing both volume and price declines. Related listed companies' stock prices also underperformed the broader market.

Streaming has officially replaced traditional TV as the core channel for watching the World Cup. The 2022 Qatar World Cup set a new record for streaming viewership. If you're bullish on World Cup viewership, perhaps more attention should be paid to streaming companies with exclusive broadcasting rights that can convert viewership into revenue.

Beer and sporting goods (like Nike, Adidas) are classic World Cup consumer categories, and their sector performance has been stable across past World Cups, but they also face slowing growth challenges in recent years.

Data from investment bank Jefferies shows that global beer sales grew by 3.6% during both the 2006 and 2010 World Cups. However, data from IWSR indicates that from 2014 to 2024, global overall beer consumption actually fell by 3%, with younger generations leaning more towards low-alcohol or alcohol-free beverages.

This means stocks like Budweiser and Tsingtao aren't hopeless, but new beverage stocks, new-style bars popular with young people, etc., might also perform well.

And compared to buying jerseys and shoes, young people might prefer trading cards, which can highlight advantages on-chain. For example, on the Base chain's fractionalized card platform Grail, the token price for Cristiano Ronaldo cards has surged nearly a hundredfold since May 5, and the token price for Kylian Mbappé cards has risen nearly 300-fold since May 5.

Sports betting is also a classic World Cup beneficiary sector, but the growth of prediction markets has been very rapid as well, though there aren't very good investment vehicles for prediction markets yet.

Conclusion

For a good World Cup viewing experience, stepping away from the market to relax is actually a good choice.

Israeli economists Guy Kaplanski and Haim Levy published a paper in the *Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis* in 2010 (cited over 261 times), which stated:

"The average return of the US stock market during World Cup periods is -2.58%, while the average return for all trading days in the same periods is +1.21%. The most natural investment strategy is to short stocks before the World Cup kicks off, which would further reinforce the stock price decline effect."

Although there's no famous instance of directly liquidating positions due to the World Cup, the World Cup window is indeed a period of poor liquidity. Regardless of the specific reasons for market movements being directly related to the World Cup, enjoying the World Cup itself might be the best defensive posture for facing a period of weaker market liquidity.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the 'World Cup Curse' in financial markets, and what does historical data show about its effect on major stock indices?

AThe 'World Cup Curse' refers to the observed phenomenon where global major stock markets tend to underperform and experience a significant drop in trading volume during the FIFA World Cup tournament. Historical data shows that during the 19 World Cups from 1950 to 2022, the S&P 500 index had an average expected return of approximately -1.5% to -2.11%, with negative returns recorded in 11 out of 19 instances (58%).

QAccording to the article, what are the two main reasons discussed for the existence of the 'World Cup Curse'?

AThe article discusses two main reasons: 1) Direct impact: Reduced market activity as investor attention shifts to matches. Studies show trading volume drops significantly, especially during games involving the home country. Also, negative investor sentiment following a national team's loss can lead to selling pressure. 2) Seasonal factors: Traditional summer World Cups (June-July) coincide with a historically weak seasonal period for stock markets, such as the 'Sell in May and go away' pattern, which naturally depresses performance.

QHow did the 2022 Qatar Winter World Cup serve as a 'controlled variable experiment' regarding the curse?

AThe 2022 Qatar World Cup, held in November-December, served as a 'controlled variable experiment' because it was the first World Cup not held in the traditional summer period. While the S&P 500 still fell 3.5% (primarily due to aggressive Fed rate hikes), the decline in trading volume (about -18%) was significantly smaller than the average drop seen during summer World Cups (-33%). This suggests the seasonal market weakness in summer is a major contributing factor to the curse.

QWhat shift in beneficiary industries for the World Cup has occurred over the past two decades, as mentioned in the article?

AOver the past two decades (2006-2026), the beneficiary industry landscape has shifted from traditional TV and television set manufacturers to streaming media platforms. While traditional TV sponsorships were key in 2006-2010, by 2022, streaming platforms with exclusive broadcasting rights became the core channel for viewership. Traditional sectors like beer and sportswear remain stable but face growth challenges, while new trends like tokenized digital collectibles (e.g., crypto-based player cards) have emerged.

QWhat investment strategy is suggested by the research from Guy Kaplanski and Haim Levy, and what is the article's concluding advice for investors during the World Cup?

AThe research by Kaplanski and Levy suggests a natural investment strategy of shorting stocks before the World Cup begins, based on the historically negative average returns during the tournament. The article's concluding advice is that, regardless of the direct causal link to the World Cup, the period is characterized by lower liquidity. Therefore, disengaging from the market to enjoy the World Cup itself might be the best defensive stance for investors.

Letture associate

The Most Advanced Large Models Are Now Subject to Export Controls Like Enriched Uranium

In an unprecedented move mirroring the control of enriched uranium, the US Commerce Department has imposed an export control ban on Anthropic's advanced AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, forcing their global shutdown. This marks the first time a purely digital entity—a set of neural network weights—has been subjected to such hardware-like strategic export restrictions, based not on physical scarcity but on its concentrated "capability density." The article draws a direct parallel to the historical control of nuclear technology, arguing that just as uranium ore becomes a controlled substance only when enriched to a critical threshold, AI capabilities become subject to regulation when compressed into a single, potent, and easily accessible interface. This "enriched AI" is seen as crossing a threshold where its aggregated power poses a potential threat. The author predicts three major consequences over the next decade. First, capability auditing will become institutionalized, with governments setting compliance checklists and thresholds for model power, triggering automatic export controls. Second, jurisdictional boundaries will blur as US export controls extend their reach globally, governing any user of American AI services regardless of location, forcing non-US entities to reconsider their AI supply chain dependencies. Third, a technological bifurcation will occur, splitting the AI landscape into a restricted, high-risk track of advanced US proprietary models and a more reliable track of open-source or locally developed alternatives, where guaranteed access may outweigh raw performance. The core crisis exposed is the lack of a legal property rights framework for AI "intelligence." While companies invest heavily in integrating these models into their production systems, legally they only purchase a service that can be revoked at any time, leaving them with no recourse for their sunk investments. The conclusion warns of a permanently fractured digital world where the most capable models may not be the most usable, and clear, unassailable ownership of technology will become paramount.

marsbit6 min fa

The Most Advanced Large Models Are Now Subject to Export Controls Like Enriched Uranium

marsbit6 min fa

Bitcoin ETF Sees First Inflow in Three Weeks After Record $4.4 Billion Outflow Streak

US Bitcoin spot ETFs experienced a record-breaking outflow streak, with a net withdrawal of $4.4 billion over 13 consecutive trading days from May 15 to June 3, more than doubling the previous record set in February 2025. This sell-off, led predominantly by BlackRock's IBIT, coincided with a Bitcoin price drop from above $80,000 to around $63,000, reducing total ETF assets under management from $104.3 billion to $82.8 billion. A potential turning point emerged on June 12, when the funds collectively recorded zero net outflows and a net inflow of $85.84 million. Geoff Kendrick of Standard Chartered cited this as one of three signals indicating Bitcoin may have reached a cycle bottom. While the single day's inflow is small relative to the preceding outflows, it marks a crucial shift in momentum. Analysts view the halt in sustained selling pressure as a key indicator, suggesting the recent downturn was a significant correction rather than a structural collapse for the ETF market.

marsbit20 min fa

Bitcoin ETF Sees First Inflow in Three Weeks After Record $4.4 Billion Outflow Streak

marsbit20 min fa

Microsoft CEO's Lengthy Post: Two Types of Capital in the Future, Human Capital + Token Capital

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella published a long essay titled "A frontier without an ecosystem is not stable," expressing deep concerns about the future of enterprises in the AI-driven economy. He argues that AI is fundamentally changing competition by enabling models to absorb and commodify human expertise, potentially allowing a few dominant AI systems to capture disproportionate economic value. To counter this, Nadella introduces the concepts of "Human Capital" (employee knowledge, judgment, creativity) and "Token Capital" (proprietary AI capabilities). He emphasizes that these two forms of capital must create a compounding "learning loop" within organizations, where human guidance drives AI improvement and accumulated institutional knowledge becomes a key competitive advantage. Nadella warns against a future where industries are hollowed out by a few AI models, similar to past outsourcing waves. Instead, he calls for building a diverse AI ecosystem where every company can innovate, retain control over its intellectual property, and ensure value flows broadly across the economy.

marsbit34 min fa

Microsoft CEO's Lengthy Post: Two Types of Capital in the Future, Human Capital + Token Capital

marsbit34 min fa

From a $300 Million Valuation to a 'Fire Sale' at Tens of Millions: What Happened to Messari?

On June 12, leading crypto data and capital markets platform Blockworks announced its acquisition of competitor Messari for over $10 million. This price represents a significant discount from Messari's 2022 valuation peak of approximately $300 million, highlighting the survival pressures faced by high-valuation startups during the bear market and a consolidation wave in data infrastructure. Blockworks, founded in 2018, began as a media and events company but has pivoted to focus on institutional-grade data, investor relations, and compliance tools. Its recent Series A extension round, valuing the company at $192 million, aimed to fund this shift and strategic acquisitions like this one. Messari, also founded in 2018, grew as a go-to platform for professional crypto research and data, raising a $35 million Series B at its $300 million valuation in late 2022. However, the prolonged bear market and subsequent internal changes, including founder Ryan Selkis's departure in 2024, increased operational pressures. The acquisition integrates Messari's extensive data platform and API capabilities with Blockworks's strengths in issuer-side disclosure, investor relations, and compliance workflows. The combined entity aims to build a unified "system of record" for the on-chain market. This reflects a broader industry trend where high-quality, structured data is becoming critical for institutional adoption, AI agents, and creating data moats akin to traditional financial platforms like Bloomberg. The deal exemplifies how market consolidation is reshaping the fragmented crypto data landscape.

marsbit34 min fa

From a $300 Million Valuation to a 'Fire Sale' at Tens of Millions: What Happened to Messari?

marsbit34 min fa

If the AI Bubble Is Already Bursting, Who Will Truly Survive?

If the AI Bubble is Bursting, Who Will Remain? The debate over an AI bubble is intensifying, with figures like Ray Dalio warning of high levels and Jensen Huang seeing immense, early-stage opportunity. Both views hold truth: a speculative bubble in capital markets likely exists, mirroring the dot-com era, but the underlying technological shift is real and transformative. History shows that while bubbles burst—wiping out overvalued companies and speculative capital—they often leave behind critical physical and digital infrastructure. The dot-com bust, for instance, eliminated many firms but left the global fiber optic networks and data centers that enabled the rise of Amazon, Netflix, and cloud computing. Today's massive AI infrastructure investments (projected at trillions by 2030) in data centers, power, cooling, and GPUs may follow a similar path, creating the foundation for future applications. A key divergence from past bubbles is the "Jevons Paradox" effect in AI. As the cost of AI inference has plummeted by over 99.7% since 2023, enterprise spending on AI has skyrocketed. Cheap "tokens" have unlocked vast, previously uneconomical use cases, moving AI from simple chatbots into core business workflows—code generation, legal document review, scientific simulation, and financial analysis. The market is now in a phase of self-correction, weeding out superficial "API-wrapper" startups, but this cleansing process strengthens the ecosystem. The long-term trajectory is clear. The value is gradually shifting from capital expenditure (CapEx) on hardware to operational expenditure (OpEx) on transformative applications. As AI becomes a utility, the winners will be firms that deeply integrate it to solve vertical industry problems in law, healthcare, finance, and manufacturing. The泡沫 will recede, but the foundational shift towards an AI-powered era across all sectors is irreversible. The underlying productive force of AI contains no bubble.

marsbit1 h fa

If the AI Bubble Is Already Bursting, Who Will Truly Survive?

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot

Futures