The Think Tank World Cup: who gets out of the group stage?

In the first article in this series, I asked a simple question: what if think tanks had a World Cup? 

Using data from the Open Think Tank Directory, I imagined which countries would qualify for a “Think Tank World Cup” if places were awarded according to the number of think tanks and policy research organisations listed in the Directory. The point was not to rank countries or identify the “best” think tank ecosystems. It was to use a playful metaphor to ask a serious question: what does visibility tell us about the global distribution of policy research capacity?

But there is another way to play the game. 

Instead of asking which countries would qualify if the World Cup were based on think tank numbers, we can take the actual 2026 FIFA World Cup groups and ask: who would get out of the group stage if the results were decided by the number of think tanks listed in the Open Think Tank Directory?

Again, this is not a measure of quality, influence or trust. It is only a measure of visible institutional density in the Directory. The Directory is not complete. It is a living database, shaped by public information, submissions, updates, language, visibility and the uneven ability of any global platform to identify policy research organisations in very different contexts. 

Still, the exercise is revealing.

The rules 

The 2026 World Cup has 12 groups of four teams. In football, the top two in each group qualify for the next round, along with the eight best third-placed teams. 

For this thought experiment, I ranked the teams in each group by the number of think tanks and policy research organisations listed in the Open Think Tank Directory. 

There is one caveat. The Directory mostly records organisations under “United Kingdom”, while FIFA treats England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as separate football teams. So, in Group L, I use the United Kingdom count as a proxy for England. Scotland is treated separately in Group C, where the Directory allows it. This is not perfect, but it is a useful reminder that categories are never neutral — in football or in databases.

The group stage, according to the Directory 

If think tank visibility decided the group stage, the group winners and runners-up would be: 

The automatically qualified teams would therefore include several predictable heavyweights: the United States, Germany, Brazil, France, Spain, Argentina, Japan and the United Kingdom/England proxy. These are countries with large or highly visible think tank communities in the Directory. 

But the group stage also produces some more interesting results. 

South Africa finishes ahead of South Korea in Group A. Canada wins Group B. Morocco advances from a group that includes Brazil, Scotland, and Haiti. Ecuador finishes Group E behind Germany. New Zealand qualifies from Group G. Saudi Arabia advances from Group H. Ghana advances from Group L, ahead of Panama and Croatia. 

In a football tournament, these outcomes would be debated as upsets, surprises or missed opportunities. In a think tank tournament, they point to something else: the uneven geography of visible policy research institutions. 

The best third-placed teams 

Under the 2026 World Cup format, eight third-placed teams also qualify. If we ranked the third-placed teams by Directory count, the countries progressing would be: 

The third-placed teams that would miss out are Senegal, Uzbekistan, Scotland and Ivory Coast. 

This gives us a Round of 32 made up of: 

Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, Canada, Switzerland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Morocco, United States, Australia, Turkey, Germany, Ecuador, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, New Zealand, Egypt, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay, France, Norway, Argentina, Austria, Jordan, Colombia, Portugal, England/UK proxy, Ghana and Panama. 

The fun fact 

Here is the fun fact: football power and think tank visibility produce a very different tournament. 

The United States, Germany, England/UK, France, Brazil, Japan, Argentina and Canada become major “seeds” in the Think Tank World Cup. Countries such as New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, Norway, Ghana and Jordan survive the group stage. Meanwhile, several strong football nations — Croatia, Senegal, Iran, Paraguay and Tunisia — go out early if we use the Directory count as the deciding factor. 

This is not because they lack ideas, researchers or policy debates. It is because, in the Directory, they have fewer visible organisations than their group rivals. 

That distinction matters. 

What this tells us 

The exercise offers four useful reflections. 

First, think tank visibility does not follow football status. Some countries central to global football do not appear as prominently in the Directory. Others that are not usually treated as global football powers have more visible policy research ecosystems. 

Second, the group draw matters. In football, a difficult group can change a country’s chances. The same is true here. A country with a reasonable number of think tanks may still be eliminated if it is drawn with a country whose ecosystem is much larger or more visible. In this fictional tournament, Directory density becomes the equivalent of goal difference. 

Third, the third-place rule is revealing. It gives a second route to visibility. Countries such as South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, Uruguay, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Panama, Egypt and Jordan would remain in the tournament even if they did not finish in the top two of their groups. In real life, this is a useful reminder that policy research ecosystems do not need to be dominant to be interesting. They may still deserve attention. 

Fourth, and most importantly, this is a mirror held up to the data. The Open Think Tank Directory is not a finished map. It is a public, collaborative effort to make think tanks and policy research organisations more visible. Some countries are almost certainly undercounted. Some organisations may be missing because they do not call themselves think tanks. Others may be embedded in universities, NGOs, foundations, advocacy organisations, parties or research centres. Some may be hard to find because of language barriers, a weak online presence, or political risk. 

So, if a country “loses” in this exercise, the right response is not to ask whether its think tanks are weak. The better question is: do we know enough about them? 

The final whistle, again 

If the 2026 World Cup group stage were decided by the number of think tanks in the Open Think Tank Directory, the tournament would look very different from the one football fans expect. 

Some global football powers would struggle. Some policy research ecosystems would surprise us. Some small countries would go further than expected. Some absences would raise questions. 

And that is precisely the value of the exercise. 

It reminds us that the global think tank community is not the same as the global football map. It has its own centres, gaps, underdogs and overlooked stories. 

The Open Think Tank Directory helps us see that map. But it can only improve if the community helps us complete it. 

So, before the next round begins, is your organisation in the Directory? Is your country properly represented? And who are we still missing?