Why France has so many players of African heritage, but Argentina doesn't
Colonialism shaped the movement of people across continents. Today, that legacy continues to influence who represents whom on football's biggest stage, exposing enduring questions about migration, identity, race and Europe's continuing influence over the global game
Every four years, the World Cup introduces us to unfamiliar countries, forgotten islands, and nations that many struggle to find on a map.
But it also tells another story, one that cannot be understood through geography alone.
Behind the flags and anthems lie centuries of colonialism and empire, whose demographic legacy continues to shape the identities of today's football stars.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
The 2026 World Cup is no exception.
France's 2026 squad includes 21 players of African descent or mixed heritage, while England has 15, according to the New York Amsterdam News.
France's football identity has long been shaped by its multicultural roots. It has produced stars such as Kylian Mbappé, Ousmane Dembélé and Zinedine Zidane, whose family origins stretch across Africa.
Mbappé's story, however, also reveals why many players of African heritage end up representing European nations. His father, Wilfred Mbappé, once said he had wanted Kylian to play for Cameroon, but officials at the country's football federation demanded money to facilitate his inclusion in the national team — a request he refused.
The episode underscores a broader truth: while colonialism forged the human connections, governance has often determined the destination.
Professional, better-governed football institutions in Europe have attracted generations of dual-nationality players, while corruption and administrative failures have sometimes cost African nations talented players with roots on their own soil.
Yet the prominence of players of African heritage in France's squad has also fuelled debates far beyond the football pitch.
Professional, better-governed football institutions in Europe have attracted generations of dual-nationality players, while corruption and administrative failures have sometimes cost African nations talented players with roots on their own soil.
Former Paraguay goalkeeper José Luis Chilavert described France's national team as "a squad from Africa", using the team's diversity to question its national identity.
France responded swiftly. French Football Federation President Philippe Diallo condemned the remarks, saying the national team reflects the country's diversity and values rather than diminishing its identity.
However, a closer examination reveals that this diversity reflects more than modern multiculturalism — it is the product of centuries of migration and colonial forces that continue to shape international football today.
Marginalised beyond the field
By the 1870s, European powers were expanding their control across Africa.
The 1884 Berlin Conference, attended by the United States, the Ottoman Empire and 12 politically powerful European nations, formalised the division of most of the African continent in what became known as the "Scramble for Africa".
Although a wave of independence swept across the continent after the Second World War — notably when 17 African countries gained independence in 1960 — did independence truly end colonialism, or did it simply take a new, less visible form of economic and political influence?
Many scholars argue that colonial power structures evolved rather than disappeared.
The legacy of colonialism remains evident in Africa's government institutions, education systems and languages, while its modern manifestation is often described as neocolonialism.
In football, this debate centres on Europe's dominance in recruiting African talent, with many of the continent's most promising players moving to European academies and clubs at a young age.
An article titled "Football is a Space for Exposing and Confronting European Neocolonialism", published by the London School of Economics and Political Science, argues that the sport continues to mirror broader patterns of European neocolonialism.
European clubs recruit young African players, benefit from their talents during their prime years, and then sell them on for profit, according to the article.
The cycle continues. Some of these players come through academies established directly by European clubs in Africa, while others arrive through partnerships before being moved to Europe once they are ready.
The article also notes that although African players are in high demand on European pitches, Africa's flagship tournament, the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON), is often mocked by those same European football clubs.
As highlighted in the article, Richard Giulianotti, a professor of sociology at Loughborough University, has likened this business model to the dynamics of colonialism, describing it as turning the player into a commodity "like a coffee bean or a banana".
Why Argentina's World Cup team looks different
The defending champions' squad has once again raised a familiar question among fans: Why doesn't Argentina's national team have any Black players in its 2026 World Cup squad?
The answer lies largely in the country's history.
In 2022, The Washington Post reported on why Argentina's World Cup squad included no Black players.
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Argentina's leaders focused on modernising the nation by encouraging large-scale European immigration and promoting the idea of Argentina as a predominantly European country.
Like several other Latin American nations, including Brazil, Uruguay and Cuba, Argentina also implemented policies that favoured reducing the visibility of its Black population.
While terms such as 'morocho' acknowledge the presence of non-White Argentines, the country's modern demographic profile represents a historical nation-building project that promoted a European identity.
One of the most famous 'morochos' in Argentina's football history is its legendary player, Diego Maradona.
Today's national football team largely reflects the country's modern population.
There is no rule preventing Black players from representing Argentina; rather, the squad reflects the demographic legacy of the country's history, as reported by The Washington Post.
Yet the absence of visibly Black or Indigenous players continues to prompt questions about Argentina's past.
It serves as a reminder that the country's modern identity was shaped not only by migration but also by the marginalisation and displacement of many of its African and Indigenous communities.
Beyond the game
Football's global appeal is unquestionable.
Whether the game has moved beyond political power and historical social structures remains open to debate.
The continuing patterns of who supplies talent and who reaps the greatest rewards leave one question lingering: Is football, as a global sport, still functioning under a form of neocolonialism?
