Michael Borrelli, AI & Partners
Turning Global AI Regulation into a Game the World can Understand
The world is entering a new era of artificial intelligence regulation. Across continents, governments are drafting laws, issuing guidance, and publishing frameworks to govern the design, development, and deployment of AI systems. Yet for all its importance, AI governance remains an abstract subject for most people. It is technical, legalistic, and often perceived as dry. The AI Governance World Cup was conceived as a response to that challenge: a way of turning global AI regulation into something understandable, comparative, and genuinely engaging.
What Is the AI Governance World Cup?
At its heart, the AI Governance World Cup is a structured comparison of national AI governance frameworks, presented in the format of a football tournament. Instead of watching two national teams compete on the pitch, audiences watch two regulatory systems compete across defined pillars: risk management, transparency, enforcement, scope, ethics, and innovation strategy. Each “match” compares the strengths and weaknesses of two countries’ approaches to governing AI. The result is not determined by referees or VAR, but by informed community participation.
Why Football?
The idea rests on a simple observation. Football unites people. The FIFA World Cup is one of the most watched events in the world, drawing hundreds of millions of viewers and creating shared cultural moments that endure for decades. People remember where they were when a famous goal was scored or when an underdog nation advanced further than expected. Regulation, by contrast, rarely inspires that kind of emotional engagement. The AI Governance World Cup seeks to borrow the structure and energy of sport and apply it to one of the defining policy debates of our time.
How it works
The format is straightforward. For each participating jurisdiction, a detailed governance report is prepared. These reports examine the architecture of a country’s AI framework: whether it is legislative or guidance-based, whether it adopts a risk classification model, how it defines high- risk systems, which actors are regulated, and what enforcement mechanisms are available. Technical thresholds, such as compute limits used to define systemic models, may also be considered. The aim is not to oversimplify, but to distil complex regulatory ecosystems into comparable components. To ensure fairness, each match is assessed against consistent criteria. These pillars might include the robustness of risk classification, clarity of obligations, transparency requirements, cybersecurity safeguards, institutional oversight, and balance between innovation and precaution. By using the same metrics across jurisdictions, the comparison becomes structured rather than rhetorical. It allows observers to see not only which country has legislated, but how it has legislated and where its priorities lie.
Once the comparative analysis is presented, the audience becomes part of the process. Voting can take place at conferences, online, or through social media platforms. In some formats, participants vote pillar by pillar, awarding points for each dimension of governance. In others, an overall winner is selected based on the aggregate strength of the framework. The essential principle remains the same: the community is invited to weigh evidence and form a view. parallel. This creates narrative symmetry and helps anchor the discussion in a broader cultural moment. Even where football scheduling does not dictate the pairing, comparisons can be designed to spark meaningful debate—European Union versus United States, for instance, or Singapore versus Canada. The structure is flexible, but the comparative discipline remains constant.
Contrasting AI Governance Philosophies
One of the most illuminating aspects of the AI Governance World Cup is the way it exposes differences in regulatory philosophy. Some jurisdictions favour principles-based approaches, offering broad guidance and empowering existing regulators to interpret and apply standards. Others adopt prescriptive legislative models, specifying detailed obligations and enforcement mechanisms. These contrasting styles can be illustrated through football metaphors: a fluid, adaptive system versus a highly structured, disciplined one. The analogy is not meant to trivialise policy, but to make visible the strategic choices embedded within it.
The timing of such an initiative is not accidental. AI governance has moved from theoretical discussion to concrete implementation. The European Union has enacted the EU AI Act, the first comprehensive AI law of its kind, built around a risk-based classification model. The United States has advanced executive actions and technical frameworks, including the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. The OECD AI Principles have influenced policymaking globally. Other jurisdictions are refining their own models, each reflecting domestic priorities and political cultures. The field is dynamic, and comparisons are inevitable. The World Cup format simply makes those comparisons accessible.
Why AI Governance World Cup Matters
Beyond entertainment value, the AI Governance World Cup serves an educational function. Compliance training within organisations often struggles to capture attention. Employees may view regulatory requirements as box-ticking exercises, disconnected from strategic objectives. By contrast, a competitive, gamified format encourages active participation. When individuals are invited to evaluate two frameworks and cast a vote, they engage with the substance. They ask questions. They weigh trade-offs. They remember outcomes. The psychology of participation reinforces learning.
For businesses operating across borders, comparative awareness is not optional. AI systems are developed in one jurisdiction, deployed in another, and accessed globally. A company subject to the EU AI Act may also face obligations under US federal guidance or Asian regulatory regimes. Understanding these differences is essential for risk management. The AI Governance World Cup highlights divergences in scope—some laws regulate providers, deployers, distributors, and importers, while others focus narrowly on developers. It also exposes differences in enforcement structures and risk thresholds. For multinational organisations, such insights are strategically valuable.
Foundational Framworks in the Competition
The initiative also creates space for public feedback. Policymaking can sometimes feel remote, conducted within expert circles. By inviting broader participation, the AI Governance World Cup encourages dialogue. It allows practitioners, technologists, lawyers, and citizens to compare approaches and express preferences. In doing so, it may surface overlooked strengths or weaknesses. A smaller jurisdiction might demonstrate clarity in enforcement that larger systems lack. A principles-based regime might prove more adaptable than anticipated. The exercise becomes not only comparative but reflective.Importantly, the World Cup does not reduce governance to a simplistic win-or-lose binary. Rather, it acknowledges that differentmodels may excel in different dimensions. One framework may be stronger on enforcement but less flexible for innovation. Another may prioritise rapid technological growth while relying on post-market oversight. The scoring system simply provides structure for discussing these trade-offs. In reality, effective governance is rarely absolute; it is contextual.
From KYC to KYAI: Know Your AI
A recurring theme in AI governance discussions is the need for organisations to “know their AI.” Borrowing from financial regulation’s “Know Your Customer” principle, the concept emphasises understanding what systems are in use, what data they process, and what risks they pose. The AI Governance World Cup reinforces this mindset. By examining how different countries classify and manage risk, participants gain clarity on their own responsibilities. Governance becomes less about abstract compliance and more about operational awareness.
There is also a geopolitical dimension. Regulatory frameworks are not merely protective mechanisms; they are instruments of influence. The so-called “Brussels Effect” demonstrated how European data protection rules shaped global practice. AI governance may follow a similar trajectory. Countries that establish credible, coherent frameworks may set de facto standards beyond their borders. The World Cup format makes this competitive dynamic explicit. It frames AI regulation as part of a broader contest over norms, trust, and technological leadership.
AI Governance Performs on a Global Stage
Critically, the initiative recognises that public memory shapes policy discourse. Iconic sporting moments endure because they combine narrative, emotion, and shared experience. Regulation rarely achieves that combination. By aligning AI governance debates with the structure of a tournament, the World Cup creates reference points. Participants may recall that one country “advanced” due to stronger risk controls, or that another fell short on enforcement clarity. These associations anchor complex policy discussions in memorable narratives.
None of this diminishes the seriousness of AI governance. On the contrary, it underscores its importance. Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in healthcare, finance, public services, and critical infrastructure. Decisions about how to regulate these systems will shape innovation trajectories, market access, and public trust for decades. The AI Governance World Cup offers a way to democratise that conversation without diluting its substance.
A Pivotal Moment for AI Governance
Ultimately, the value of the AI Governance World Cup lies in its ability to bridge two worlds: the technical realm of policy design and the cultural realm of shared experience. It recognises that engagement is not a luxury but a necessity. If regulation remains confined to specialist circles, its legitimacy may suffer. If it becomes part of a broader, participatory dialogue, it stands a better chance of being understood and respected.
As the global AI landscape continues to evolve, so too will the frameworks that govern it. Comparisons will intensify. Debates will sharpen. The AI Governance World Cup does not claim to resolve these tensions. Instead, it provides a platform for exploring them in a structured and accessible way. In doing so, it transforms AI governance from a background technicality into a visible, collective endeavour. In a world where millions gather to watch a ball cross a line, perhaps it is not unreasonable to gather, too, to consider how algorithms cross borders. The stakes, after all, are just as high.
Watch the full ‘Let’s Talk Cyber’ Podcast here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVtWcvl5ElU
Or scan the QR Code
