4 ways being a soccer fan messes with your body 44%

By Clarissa Brincat36%

7/14/2026, 5:56:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Availability Heuristic, and Confirmation Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 27.3% saturation with 341 hits. Analysis detected 2,111 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,247 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47% and a BS Rank of 44% (12,347 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.40% of the article peer group.

During the 2014 FIFA World Cup, a missed penalty kick likely triggered a fatal heart attack in a 58-year-old Chilean fan. 
Shortly after, his wife developed severe chest pain and was hospitalized with stress-induced cardiomyopathy , also known as “broken heart syndrome.” 
The intense emotional stress of the match and her husband’s sudden collapse had caused part of her heart to stop working. 
The odds of such events are small in healthy people. 
But that doesn’t mean healthy spectators are immune to any physical effects. 
In fact, research shows that watching soccer is associated with a broad range of physical effects—not always noticeable or dramatic, but still relevant to health . 
“Being a football [soccer] fan is far from just passive activity: The brain and body respond in similar ways to direct, physical competition,” says Dr. 
Matt Butler , a neuropsychiatry research fellow at King’s College London who recently published a scientific paper on the behavioural neuroscience of soccer fandom . 
“Whilst watching our players sweat on the pitch, we respond as if we, too, are playing.” 
And the more you care, the worse it is. 
“A process called identity fusion happens in diehard fans, who experience what happens to the club almost literally as if it were happening to themselves,” explains Butler. 
In 2012, scientists studied Spanish soccer fans while they watched their team play in the 2010 World Cup final. 
Compared to a normal day, fans had way more of the “stress hormone” cortisol in their bodies while watching the game. 
The spike was even bigger in men, younger fans, and the fans who were most passionate about their team. 
Scientists think this is due to something called “social self-preservation.” 
Basically, humans have a deep need to feel good about themselves and to feel like other people see them in a good light. 
When something threatens that—like getting rejected by a friend group, or watching your team lose—your brain treats it like a physical threat. 
That sets off a stress response in your body, and cortisol comes rushing in. 
Lionel Messi celebrates his goal during the FIFA World Cup 2026 Round of 16 match between Argentina and Egypt at Atlanta Stadium on July 07, 2026. 
When we watch our players score and sweat on the pitch, our bodies respond as if we’re also playing. 
Image: Getty Images / Contributor / WU ZHIZHAO 
This surge in stress isn’t limited to match time. 
When researchers tracked the health data of fans supporting a German soccer team over 12 weeks, using their smartwatches, they found that stress levels began to rise as early as 14 hours before kickoff . 
Hearts feel the pressure 
Besides cortisol, your body’s “fight or flight” response floods your bloodstream with adrenaline and similar chemicals when you’re stressed. 
Together, these chemicals speed up your heart rate and raise your blood pressure , which means your heart needs more oxygen to keep up. 
But at the same time, these same stress chemicals can make the blood vessels feeding the heart squeeze tighter—cutting down the oxygen actually getting through. 
That mismatch—needing more oxygen but getting less—can be dangerous, and in some cases, it can even trigger a heart attack. 
Plenty of real-world data backs this up. 
Throughout the 2006 World Cup in Germany, doctors found that watching a stressful match more than doubled a fan’s chances of having a heart problem that day. 
During the 1998 World Cup, hospital visits for heart attacks jumped 25 percent on the day England lost to Argentina in a penalty shootout as well as for two days afterward. 
That spike didn’t happen for other health problems, only heart attacks. 
And in Spain, a study of local league games found a 30 percent rise in heart-related hospital visits among men who already had heart problems, on the days their team lost. 
Even so, Butler wants people to keep this in perspective: watching soccer does raise the chance of a heart problem, but for most people, that chance is small to begin with, so the actual danger stays low. 
Testosterone and sexual activity rise 
During the 2010 World Cup final between Spain and the Netherlands, testosterone levels rose in fans while they watched the match . 
Unlike cortisol, this increase wasn’t linked to a fan’s sex, age, or how much they cared about their team. 
“Testosterone is a hormone which is increased in response to competitive situations and so it is perhaps no surprise that release may be higher when fans watch soccer, regardless of gender,” says Butler. 
There also seems to be some evidence behind the urban legend that high-stakes tournaments lead to a baby boom nine months later . 
While the 2024 UEFA European Football Championship tournament was underway, researchers tracked the daily sexual behaviors, thoughts, and fantasies of almost 1,000 participants from five European countries and found that fans experienced roughly 27 percent more sexual activity in the days following their national team’s wins, compared to losses. 
“Collective rituals and celebrations since time immemorial have been associated with increased intimacy and social bonding,” says Butler. 
“It’s perhaps not a huge leap to surmise that people might be more likely to engage in sexual activity in such times of collective social euphoria.” 
From real nails to kangaroo leather: Soccer cleats went on a wild journey 
5 ways cheering for your favorite World Cup team improves your health 
5 cool innovations in sports and outdoors in 2025 
Got World Cup Fever? 
Send scientists your smartwatch data. 
What’s the safest swimsuit color? 
Skip blue and black. 
The first playgrounds were for adults, not kids 
Sleep loss and car accidents 
When a tournament takes place in a distant time zone, fans will stay up late to cheer on their team, and this can have far-reaching effects. 
For example, the 2002 World Cup, which was held in Asia, aired in the middle of the night or early morning for U.S. fans. 
Scientists found that in American towns with lots of German ancestry, car crash deaths jumped 35 percent on days Germany played . 
And in towns with the highest concentration of German heritage, crashes jumped by 122 percent! 
When scientists analyzed car crash stats during a later World Cup, where games aired at normal times, the crash spike disappeared. 
This suggests that sleep loss, caused by fans staying up late to watch, was behind the 2002 fatalities. 
“This just emphasises the fact that even a single night of sleep deprivation can impair cognitive abilities, particularly concentration,” Butler says, “and drivers may wish to consider this when they’ve stayed up late to cheer on their team!” 
Soccer vs other sports 
Soccer isn’t the only sport that causes physical changes in fans’ bodies— similar impacts on heart health show up in fans of American football rugby, hockey, and baseball too . 
What might make these effects more prominent in soccer is the fact that “it is such a low-scoring game, which means goals can be enormously significant and particularly euphoric when they occur,” Butler speculates. 
“Also, because goals are relatively rare, chance plays a larger role than in many higher-scoring sports. 
Better teams can lose, and underdogs have a chance of pulling off upsets. 
This makes it extremely exciting, stressful, and rewarding to watch.” 
So next time you’re cheering on your team, remember that it’s only a game. 
The post 4 ways being a soccer fan messes with your body appeared first on Popular Science . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.0%Clarissa Brincat: 1.9%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias11.0%This article: 1.7%Clarissa Brincat: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias1.7%This article: 11.7%Clarissa Brincat: 5.0%Popular Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic11.7%This article: 6.1%Clarissa Brincat: 1.3%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Clarissa Brincat: 1.6%Popular Science: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias1.0%This article: 2.7%Clarissa Brincat: 4.0%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.4%Clarissa Brincat: 0.8%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.0%Clarissa Brincat: 4.8%Popular Science: 4.6%Optimism Bias7.0%This article: 2.3%Clarissa Brincat: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias2.3%This article: 2.3%Clarissa Brincat: 2.7%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias2.3%This article: 1.8%Clarissa Brincat: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Clarissa Brincat: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Clarissa Brincat: 0.7%Popular Science: 2.1%Halo Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Clarissa Brincat: 0.8%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.1%Clarissa Brincat: 4.5%Popular Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority10.1%This article: 2.8%Clarissa Brincat: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma2.8%This article: 3.7%Clarissa Brincat: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope3.7%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.7%Clarissa Brincat: 3.6%Popular Science: 4.1%Hasty Generalization7.7%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.3%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.6%Bandwagon0.3%This article: 5.9%Clarissa Brincat: 2.0%Popular Science: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion5.9%This article: 2.1%Clarissa Brincat: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question2.1%This article: 17.3%Clarissa Brincat: 4.5%Popular Science: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.3%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.9%Clarissa Brincat: 1.1%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof6.9%This article: 4.1%Clarissa Brincat: 0.8%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature4.1%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.1%Clarissa Brincat: 2.5%Popular Science: 2.2%Anecdotal8.1%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 27.3%Clarissa Brincat: 4.0%Popular Science: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)27.3%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.3%Popular Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote2.0%This article: 2.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 2.2%Clarissa Brincat: 1.3%Popular Science: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice2.2%This article: 4.5%Clarissa Brincat: 2.7%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination4.5%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Clarissa Brincat: 0.7%Popular Science: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.9%

1247 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker23%attributed speech954writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Butler • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Butler • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Butler • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Butler • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Butler • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Butler • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Butler • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Butler • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Butler • 34 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Butler • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Butler • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Butler • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Matt Butler

96%flagged-word coverage
293 attributed words100% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Indoctrination+11.1 ptsWriter: 1.9%Matt Butler: 13.0%13.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%Matt Butler: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Matt Butler: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Matt Butler: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Matt Butler: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.