Spain’s scoreless draw with Cape Verde in its World Cup opener triggered immediate disappointment, criticism, and blame-shifting, especially because the team had entered the match as a heavy favorite. Spain, which won Euro 2024 two years ago, was expected to dominate a side making its first-ever World Cup appearance, but instead controlled the game without scoring and left the field with a frustrating 0-0 result.
The article argues that one bad first match does not necessarily predict a bad tournament. Economist Alex Cromer reviewed the opening games of every eventual finalist at every World Cup since 1982, when the tournament expanded to 24 teams. In 22 such matches, finalists won 14 times, drew three times, and lost five times. On average, future finalists scored 2.05 goals and conceded 0.68 in their first game, suggesting that even successful teams often begin with narrow, unspectacular wins rather than emphatic statements.
Germany is cited as the major exception, because in tournaments where it reached the final it opened strongly, including its famous 8-0 win over Saudi Arabia in Korea and Japan, and a 4-0 win over Portugal in Brazil. The broader explanation offered is psychological, strong teams arrive under intense expectations, and that pressure can produce performance anxiety on the field. The article points to past examples such as Brazil in 1998, Argentina under Maradona, and Argentina with Messi losing to Saudi Arabia at the start of the last World Cup.
Spain itself is the clearest reminder not to overreact. In 2010, it began its title-winning run with a 1-0 loss to Switzerland in Durban on June 16, when Gelson Fernandes scored in the 52nd minute. Spain then won six straight matches, beating Honduras, Chile, Portugal, Paraguay, Germany, and the Netherlands, while conceding only one goal. The article’s conclusion is that the road is still long, and a poor opener should be read cautiously, not as a verdict on the whole tournament.
