“The World Cup Trophy is the worst trophy in sports”: A Counter Argument

The USA Today, produced an article on Tuesday titled “The World Cup Trophy is the worst in sports” written by Chris Chase. Now I’m sure that many people will disagree with that title, and that’s even before reading his strange, and often contradictory points. Here at Challenge Trophies we’ve looked into each of his points for believing that the World Cup is the worst trophy in sports, giving our reasons for why we whole-heartedly disagree. In fact, we believe that it is one, if not the, best trophies in sport worldwide.


  1. It’s Ugly
  2. It’s Small
  3. The Name is boring
  4. It has no tradition
  5. Past Achievements aren’t recognised
  6. The Winners replicas are inferior
  7. It’s not even a cup.

Our Responses:

  1. The statement that the World Cup is ugly is a matter of opinion, and one that very few people will agree with. The World Cup trophy is one of the most attractive trophies in the world and is instantly recognisable. He states that it looks like ‘A burrito from a food truck covered in gold foil’ – that’s like suggesting the Stanley Cup is a wedding cake with an ash tray on top covered in silver foil.
  1. The World Cup trophy is fairly small, but where is the proof that this makes a trophy inferior in any way? The Ashes is a tiny trophy but it is significantly more iconic than any of the larger cricket trophies out there. If anything, bigger trophies tend to be uglier than smaller delicate trophies such as the World Cup.
  1. First and foremost, the FIFA World Cup is named after what it is, which ensures people instantly know what you are talking about; which is not always the case with many American trophies that have no relation to their title. The Champions League, The FA Cup and The Premier League trophies are all named simply after the competition; does he feel the same about these trophies? The idea of sponsors paying for naming rights of a trophy is ridiculous, much as has been the case with many footballing stadiums in England, of which people will still refer to them as their original name.
  1. The World Cup is an iconic trophy that stands as the pinnacle achievement in the one of the oldest, most popular and widely played sports around the world, yet it has no tradition. Really? It represents two figures united, holding up the earth and encapsulates the tradition of football as a sport.
  1. With his 5th point, Chris Chase manages to contradict himself immediately. The first line states that “Past Achievements aren’t recognised”. The sentence immediately after this states that the winner’s names are indeed engraved upon the base of the trophy. This is a much more sensible idea, giving more space for names to be engraved, and therefore ensuring the original trophy can be used for longer, whilst also avoiding any hampering of the design. Perhaps the fact that the USA aren’t engraved on the bottom of the trophy is the real reason for this being part of the argument.
  1. Point number 6 brings yet another contradiction in the article’s argument as to why the World Cup is sport’s worst trophy. The replica’s given to the winning nations aren’t identical to the original World Cup trophy, but if there were multiple World Cup’s around the world then the original would not be so valuable and desirable! And if each team were allowed to keep the original trophy, resulting in a new one being produced for each tournament, this would mean there would be no “tradition” to the trophy (as the writer called for in earlier points) whilst also meaning that nobody would be winning the “true” trophy. A replica should be exactly that – similar to the original, but just not it.
  1. The final argument states that the World Cup is not indeed a cup. Whilst this is true, there are other trophies that this is also the case for. The article even mentions the fact that the Super Bowl trophy is not a bowl – does this mean that this is also the world’s worst trophy? The World Cup is a knockout cup competition, where the winner wins a trophy, and if you are to research into the history of a “trophy cup” – there is no true definition that states that it must be a cup.