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

marsbitPublished on 2026-06-15Last updated on 2026-06-15

Abstract

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.

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

**Summary: If the AI Bubble is Bursting, What Will Remain?** The debate around an AI bubble is intensifying, with figures like Ray Dalio warning of high valuations while Jensen Huang sees immense opportunity. This echoes the dot-com bubble, which saw massive wealth destruction but ultimately left behind critical infrastructure like undersea cables and broadband, enabling future giants like Amazon and Netflix. Similarly, today's AI boom involves trillions invested in data centers, power, cooling, and GPUs, while application-layer revenue remains comparatively modest. This investment-disparity signals a bubble. However, the core technological progress is real and accelerating. AI inference costs have plummeted by over 99.7% since 2023, making intelligence increasingly cheap and accessible. This cost collapse is unlocking vast new demand. Instead of reducing spending, enterprises are tripling their AI cloud expenditure. Cheap "tokens" enable AI to move beyond simple chatbots into complex workflows—automating code writing, legal document review, financial analysis, and scientific research. This follows "Jevons's paradox": improved efficiency leads to greater total consumption. The market is now undergoing a necessary purification, weeding out "API-wrapper" startups with no real moat. The deeper evolution involves a shift from capital expenditure (CapEx) on infrastructure to operational expenditure (OpEx) on value-creation in applications. While hardware vendors currently profit most, long-term value will migrate to AI-native firms solving vertical industry problems. Ultimately, a market correction will cleanse speculative excess but will not reverse the AI+ trend. The massive physical and algorithmic infrastructure being built will endure, becoming a cheap, utility-like foundation. Just as the internet became indispensable to all industries post-2000, AI is poised to empower and redefine every sector, moving society irreversibly toward an intelligence-augmented era. The bubble may burst, but the underlying productive momentum is solid.

链捕手6m ago

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

链捕手6m ago

Microsoft CEO: In the AI Era, How Do You Define a Company's Moat?

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella argues that in the AI era, a company's true competitive edge, or "moat," is not determined by choosing the single most powerful model, but by its ability to build a continuous "learning loop." This system integrates and evolves by connecting human workflows, domain expertise, organizational judgment, and employee experience. He posits that future companies will accumulate two types of capital: Human Capital (employee knowledge, judgment, creativity) and "Token Capital" (a firm's own built and owned AI capabilities). Importantly, AI amplifies rather than devalues human capital. Human direction is essential to guide progress, as computational power alone is aimless. The core opportunity lies in creating a closed-loop system where human and token capital reinforce each other in a compound, self-improving cycle. A company must be able to preserve its unique institutional knowledge—its "company veteran" expertise—even if it switches underlying general-purpose AI models. This requires private evaluation benchmarks, reinforcement learning environments based on internal data, and queryable knowledge bases. Nadella warns against a future where economic value is concentrated by a few dominant models that commoditize entire industries' knowledge. Instead, the priority should be building a broad "frontier ecosystem" where every company, industry, and nation can own its learning loop. This allows organizations to retain control of their intellectual property, amplify employee capabilities, and ensure the economic value created by AI is captured within their own businesses and communities. True corporate sovereignty in the AI age comes from turning organizational knowledge into a compounding system that creates enduring, defensible value.

marsbit41m ago

Microsoft CEO: In the AI Era, How Do You Define a Company's Moat?

marsbit41m ago

ETFs Are Just the Ticket: The True Institutionalization of Bitcoin Is Happening Where You Can't See It

Beyond the Bitcoin ETF spotlight, a deeper institutionalization is underway, leveraging Bitcoin as a foundational financial primitive. Institutions are using Bitcoin for purposes long reserved for assets like U.S. Treasuries and gold: as collateral for loans, insurance reserves, and the backbone of rated bonds. Examples include a Barbados-based insurer capitalizing with $40M in Bitcoin reserves and Ledn's $188M securitization of Bitcoin-backed loans, which received the first-ever investment-grade rating (BBB-) from S&P for a digital asset-backed security. This structure was stress-tested during a 27% price drop in early 2026, triggering automatic liquidations that functioned as designed but revealed the systemic risk of synchronized selling across leveraged positions. Infrastructure is evolving to support this, with platforms like Anchorage Digital's Atlas network enabling secure, institutional-grade settlement and collateral management. Strategies like basis trades and corporate treasuries (exemplified by companies like MicroStrategy issuing billions in equity and debt to fund Bitcoin acquisitions) further integrate Bitcoin into financial mechanics. While ETFs solved "how to own" Bitcoin, these developments answer "what to do with it," embedding the asset into the working machinery of finance—as collateral upon which loans, derivatives, and structured products are built. The real, enduring institutional shift is happening in these largely invisible plumbing and financing systems.

marsbit47m ago

ETFs Are Just the Ticket: The True Institutionalization of Bitcoin Is Happening Where You Can't See It

marsbit47m ago

ZEC Co-Founder Responds to Orchard Vulnerability: No Signs of Theft, Orchard Pool to Be Sealed

ZEC Co-Founder Addresses Orchard Vulnerability: No Signs of Theft, Plans to Sunset Orchard Pool A security vulnerability was recently discovered in Zcash's Orchard shielded pool, raising key concerns. The primary questions are whether the flaw was exploited, if user funds are safe, whether users can verify the total ZEC supply, and if other similar vulnerabilities exist. Analysis suggests the vulnerability was likely not exploited prior to its discovery. It was found proactively by a researcher using specialized tools, not due to an active breach. The development team and mining pools acted quickly to contain the issue. Typical financially-motivated attacks would likely have left visible on-chain evidence, which has not been observed. User funds in Orchard are considered safe and should be recoverable, assuming no prior exploitation. If the flaw was never used, all legitimate funds can be withdrawn. The article outlines risks associated with moving funds to transparent addresses or other pools, but concludes that leaving assets in place is a reasonable option. Currently, users cannot independently verify that the total ZEC supply hasn't been inflated due to this bug. However, the planned Ironwood network upgrade is designed to resolve this. It will permanently close the Orchard pool to new deposits and internal transfers, allowing only withdrawals. This mechanism will cap total withdrawals at the amount of legitimately deposited funds, enabling anyone to cryptographically verify the supply post-upgrade. Multiple teams, including Shielded Labs, have conducted extensive audits focused on counterfeiting vulnerabilities, assisted by advanced AI tools. No additional flaws of this type have been found so far, increasing confidence that no other similar undisclosed vulnerabilities exist. In summary, evidence indicates the Orchard bug was probably not used, user funds are secure, and no other counterfeiting flaws are currently known. The upcoming Ironwood upgrade will restore users' ability to independently verify the total ZEC supply, closing this chapter.

Foresight News52m ago

ZEC Co-Founder Responds to Orchard Vulnerability: No Signs of Theft, Orchard Pool to Be Sealed

Foresight News52m ago

Japan's Central Bank on the Verge of Raising Rates, Can the AI Bull Market Still Hold?

TL;DR: The impending Bank of Japan (BOJ) interest rate hike is shifting global market focus this week, raising questions about its potential impact on the AI-driven bull market and cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. For years, the yen has served as a cheap global "funding currency," enabling carry trades where investors borrowed yen at low rates to buy higher-yielding assets. This dynamic amplified liquidity and risk appetite in global markets, benefiting high-beta assets like AI tech stocks and crypto. The BOJ's expected move to raise rates from 0.75% to 1.0% signals a shift away from this era of ultra-low-cost funding. The core concern isn't the 1% rate itself, but the direction of change and its potential to reduce global leverage and risk tolerance. An unwinding of yen carry trades could force investors to sell global assets to buy back yen for repayment, potentially triggering synchronized volatility in overvalued sectors. While AI fundamentals and crypto-specific drivers remain intact, the market impact will depend on whether the BOJ signals a faster-than-expected pace of normalization. Post-decision, watch for correlations between a strengthening yen, rising Japanese bond yields, and simultaneous pressure on tech stocks and cryptocurrencies to gauge if the market is pricing in a broader tightening of cheap global liquidity.

marsbit1h ago

Japan's Central Bank on the Verge of Raising Rates, Can the AI Bull Market Still Hold?

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot

Futures