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.

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

SpaceX's trillion-dollar valuation is built on its three core businesses: Starlink (profitable, 60% of revenue), rockets (driving down launch costs), and AI (a major investment area). This creates a financial cycle: Starlink funds rocket development, which enables low-cost launches for AI hardware, generating future revenue. This cycle fuels annual capital expenditures of tens of billions, flowing to a vast supply chain. Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability. The first group includes irreplaceable players like NVIDIA (GPU/CUDA ecosystem), Eutelsat (critical radio spectrum), Filtronic (specialized amplifiers), Materion (strategic beryllium), and STMicroelectronics (antenna chips). The second group consists of hard-to-replace suppliers due to high switching costs, such as Honeywell (flight control), Carpenter Technology (specialty alloys), Hexcel (carbon fiber), Broadcom (data exchange), and Linde (industrial gases). The third group comprises high-volume, cost-critical suppliers for mass-produced items like Starlink terminals. Key names include Wistron NeWeb (primary manufacturer) and several A-share companies like Shenzhen Sunway (connectors), Pies New Materials (forgings), Western Superconducting (alloys), and Yingliu (castings). Other niche players include Trimble (timing), Astronics (power distribution), and CTS (thermal management). The article argues that investing in these suppliers, rather than SpaceX stock directly, offers an alternative opportunity. The rationale is threefold: procurement is just beginning to scale, SpaceX's IPO brings new transparency to its supply chain, and the situation mirrors early stages of past "super terminal" ecosystems like Apple or Tesla. While risks exist (commodity cycles, geopolitical factors, technology shifts), the core thesis is that SpaceX's massive, ongoing procurement will translate into reliable revenue for its key suppliers, regardless of its own stock price volatility.

marsbit9m ago

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

marsbit9m ago

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

**Title: The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who Benefits from Musk's Annual $100 Billion Capital Expenditure?** This article argues that investors seeking to benefit from SpaceX's growth might find greater opportunities in its supply chain rather than directly investing in the company itself, drawing parallels to historical successes with Apple, Tesla, and NVIDIA suppliers. **SpaceX's Business Model & Cash Flow:** SpaceX generates revenue from three main areas: 1. **Starlink:** Its profitable core, earning $11.3B in 2023 (60% of revenue), funding other ventures. 2. **Rockets (Falcon/Starship):** Requires $3B+ in annual R&D but achieves the world's lowest launch costs. 3. **AI:** Currently unprofitable (-$6B+ in 2023), investing heavily in ground-based supercomputers (220,000 GPUs) and future orbital data centers. The cycle is: Starlink profits → fund cheaper rockets → low-cost launches deploy AI hardware → AI compute rentals generate future revenue. This cycle drives annual procurement spending of tens of billions of dollars. **The Supply Chain Beneficiaries:** Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability: **1. Nearly Irreplaceable (High Barriers to Entry):** * **NVIDIA:** Powers the Colossus supercomputer; its CUDA ecosystem creates immense switching costs. * **Eutelsat (SATS):** Controls critical radio spectrum for satellite communications; holds a ~3% stake in SpaceX. * **Filtronic (FTC):** Supplies millimeter-wave signal amplifiers for Starlink satellites; SpaceX constitutes 83% of its revenue. * **Materion (MTRN):** Global leader in beryllium production, a strategic material used in Starship structures. * **STMicroelectronics (STM):** Supplies phased-array antenna chips for Starlink satellites. **2. Replaceable, but Switching Cost is Prohibitively High:** * **Honeywell (HON):** Provides flight control and inertial navigation systems with decades of certification. * **Carpenter Technology (CRS):** Manufactures ultra-pure specialty steel alloys for Raptor engines. * **Hexcel (HXL):** Supplies custom carbon fiber composites developed over a decade with SpaceX. * **Broadcom (AVGO):** Manages high-speed data switching. * **Linde Group:** Supplies industrial gases (liquid oxygen/nitrogen) from facilities built near SpaceX launch sites. **3. High-Volume, Cost-Critical Manufacturing:** Focuses on mass-producing components like Starlink user terminals (target: 30 million units). * **Key Players:** Wistron NeWeb (6285, primary terminal manufacturer), several Chinese A-share companies (e.g., Sunway Communication, PAX New Materials, Western Metal Materials, Yingliu Co.), and smaller US firms like Trimble (TRMB, timing systems). **Why Now?** Three factors make the supply chain opportunity timely: 1. **Volume Ramp-Up:** SpaceX plans 100 launches in 2026, aims for 30 million Starlink terminals, and will deploy AI data centers, meaning procurement will accelerate. 2. **Increased Transparency:** The IPO provides public financial data, allowing investors to track supplier order growth. 3. **Historical Precedent:** The current phase is likened to Tesla's early mass-production stage (circa 2018), suggesting a long growth runway for suppliers. **Conclusion:** The article posits that while investing in SpaceX stock is betting on Elon Musk's ambitious vision at a high valuation, investing in its established suppliers is a bet on the tangible, recurring revenue from its massive procurement budget, which is largely decoupled from day-to-day stock price volatility.

链捕手13m ago

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

链捕手13m ago

World Cup Upset! Polymarket User Loses Nearly $1 Million

A prediction market trader lost nearly $1 million after underdog Cape Verde held soccer powerhouse Spain to a 0-0 draw in their World Cup group stage match. On Polymarket, a user named "betoor619" had built a roughly $1.1 million position when Spain's implied win probability was around 92%, a low-risk, low-return strategy that backfired spectacularly. The result defied models like Goldman Sachs', which gave Spain a 25% championship probability. Cape Verde's 40-year-old goalkeeper, Vozinha, was the hero with seven key saves. The event highlights the growing scale of crypto-based prediction markets like Polymarket, where total trading volume for this single match reached $64 million.

marsbit13m ago

World Cup Upset! Polymarket User Loses Nearly $1 Million

marsbit13m ago

The U.S. Government Blocked the Anthropic Model. It Wasn't About 'Jailbreaking' at All.

Last Friday, the U.S. Commerce Department issued an enforcement letter that forced Anthropic to take its two most advanced AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, offline. The stated reason was unspecified national security concerns, initially linked to potential "jailbreaks" of the models' safeguards. However, new details suggest the action stemmed more from a deteriorating relationship between the Trump administration and Anthropic, rather than a genuine technical threat. According to reports, the government cited a little-known export control regulation, compelling Anthropic to block access for all non-U.S. persons, including its own international employees. The company complied, shutting down the models without a court order or specific technical details from the government. Cybersecurity expert Katie Moussouris revealed she was privately shown a research paper detailing a potential safeguard bypass in Fable 5. She argued the described method was minor and did not warrant an export ban, stating that attempts to "fix" it would only weaken the model's defensive capabilities. Moussouris and other experts have since called for the order to be revoked, warning it dangerously removes advanced cybersecurity tools from U.S. defenders. Analysts like Justin Hendrix suggest the move appears retaliatory and sets a dangerous precedent, signaling that the U.S. government can unilaterally shut down a tech company's products. The incident has raised concerns about the reliability of American AI and the potential for political interference in the tech industry, serving as a warning to the broader sector.

marsbit16m ago

The U.S. Government Blocked the Anthropic Model. It Wasn't About 'Jailbreaking' at All.

marsbit16m ago

Ray Dalio: AI Bull Market Continues to Soar, Should Investors Go All In or Cash Out and Leave the Field?

In his latest notes, Ray Dalio addresses a critical question for investors amid the AI-driven stock market surge: how should one allocate assets during a transformative technological revolution? Dalio emphasizes that technological advancement does not automatically make related stocks attractive. Historical tech cycles—marked by excitement, crowding, volatility, and eventual shakeouts—show that even long-term winners like Microsoft and Apple experienced severe drawdowns. Today's AI sector faces similar uncertainties: overinvestment, intensifying competition, geopolitical tensions (e.g., Taiwan's chip supply), tax policy shifts, anti-AI sentiment, and potential disruption from future technologies like quantum computing. Dalio's core argument focuses on the highly concentrated market structure, where a few tech giants dominate major indices. He warns investors against unknowingly holding concentrated, correlated exposures. Instead of chasing a handful of AI leaders, he advocates for a robust, diversified portfolio of 15 or more high-quality, uncorrelated investments, risk-balanced to match an investor's volatility tolerance. Mathematically, such diversification significantly improves the risk-return ratio—for example, holding 15 uncorrelated assets can boost the ratio by over four times compared to a single concentrated bet. Dalio cautions that future equity returns appear low, with his bubble indicator suggesting real returns could be negative over the next 5-10 years. He stresses that knowing what you don't know is as important as knowing what you do. In an environment of high uncertainty and concentration, avoiding large, concentrated bets on AI stocks is prudent. The optimal strategy is disciplined diversification—the "holy grail" of investing—to navigate this technologically driven cycle with lower risk and comparable or better returns.

marsbit20m ago