Underdogs 'r' us

Not sure who to support in this year's World Cup? Not sure that you care? Ignore the talk about tactics, substitutions and metatarsals, escape the confining borders of shallow nationalism and support by different standards. In every sport there is a natural inclination to root for the underdog and you can now work out exactly who stands where on the world stage.

The functionally-named "Who should I cheer for?" from the World Development Movement ranks teams by development statistics, including life expectancy, aid spending and carbon emissions.

Despite excellent physio cover (Health spending at 6/6% of national income), high wages (£19,000 average income) and an experienced squad (life expectancy at 77) the US comes in last, let down by an over reliance on a lone striker (40.8 on the income inequality scale) and aggressive defensive play (military spending at 3.8% of national income).

There are always a couple of dark horses in every competition and due to a lack of data, "no value can be given for how supportable" Serbia and Montenegro or Togo are. Who knows what will happen if they meet later in the competition?

Ghana's average ranking across the ten criteria make it the "most supportable" with a huge external debt (89% of national income) and a faltering economy. They already had my vote due to the strong Ghanaian community around my home in east London. However, the World Development Movement is clearly hoping to point beyond the competition to the terraces of the World Bank and the international community. This is where cheering for the underdog could really make a difference.

Click here for the "Who should I cheer for?" site