By John Considine

Chapter 2 of Beautiful Game Theory is titled "Vernon Smith meets Messi".  Vernon Smith is an economist who shared the 2002 Nobel Prize with Daniel Kahneman.  Smith got it for his work in experimental economics.  Chapter 2 examines how, in an experimental laboratory setting, professional soccer players play a card game similar to a penalty kick.  The results show that the soccer players can "do the math" even if they might not be able to articulate their strategy.

To motivate the discussion in Chapter 2, the conversations around two penalty kicks are presented.  One penalty kick involved Messi.  There was a delay of one week between the award of the kick and the excution of the kick.  A few nights before the penalty kick was to be taken, a discussion took place between the goalkeeper and others.  It was of the "if he knows that I know that he knows that I know ..." variety.  The second penalty presented at the start of Chapter 2 comes from the 1994 FA Cup final.  The discussion takes place between Eric Cantona and the media after the game.  Initially, Cantona also engaged in the "if he knows that I know ..." variety of explanation before declaring "You know what?  The truth is that I just kicked it".

Beautiful Game Theory was published just over a decade ago.  If a second edition was being published today it might have another penalty added.  The penalty would illustrated a delay of just under 20 minutes.  Much shorter than the week that Messi had to wait and much longer than the time Cantona had to make up his mind.  The penalty would come from the end of the AFCON final of 2026.  The taker was Morocco's Brahim Diaz.  Diaz attempted a "Panenka" against a goalkeeper that had previously saved another "Panenka" from Sergio Aguero.  Moreover, he attempted it with his "weaker" foot.  That particular penalty is a useful one to consider when considering the differences in the economic and psychological explanations of player behavior (e.g. here or here).

If there is a penalty for Morocco in tonight's World Cup quarter-final then there is a good chance that Diaz will take the penalty.

By John Considine

A previous blog post on this site suggests that Donald Trump might be on to something when he questions the purpose of red cards.  That post is called "What's wrong with soccer?" and the question itself is from a publication in the Georgetown Law Journal.  The publication raised the issue of the time invariance of the red card.  Compare the issuing of a red card in the 1st minute versus 89th minute.

Then there is the issue of a player being banned from a future game.  Seen as a punishment, it seems logical that a player and team might suffer beyond the game in which the offence occured.  However, if one looks at who benefits, then it is a little less clear.  There is a sort of externality for a team not party to the original transgression.

By John Considine

After yesterday's third stage in the Tour De France the fear and loathing started.  If one was to look at the General Classification times then one might think that this could be a titanic contest for the next three weeks.  The two riders that have shared the last six victories are tied at 8 hours 46 minutes and 55 seconds.  But there are warning signs that the racing could become predictable.  And many fear it.

In the immediate aftermath of the stage, as part of the Breakaway show, TNT Sport broadcast an excellent interview with the stage winner Tadej Pogacar (here).  The interviewer was polite and the questions seemed innocent enough.  To start Pogacar was smiling and enjoying the moment.  Then the interviewer started the next sentence with the words "You are apparently very hungry ...".  Almost immediately, Pogacar's expression changes.  He effectively ignores the remaining words of the interviewer and replies "I'm not so hungry, I eat every 30 minutes ...".  The remaining words of the interviewer were " ... you could have left the breakaway go but you wanted to win today".  It is a familiar accusation.  Pogacar takes most of the food at the table and leaves only crumbs for his rivals.  Pogacar did provide some reply to that part of the implied question and then suggested that he needed to go warm down.

The folks in the Breakaway shows knew the significance of the interview.  They too had voiced similar concerns.  However, the ex-pro cyclists on the panel were having none of the suggestion that a competitor should not try to win as much as possible.  However, the excellent presenter, Orla Chennaoui, played the devil's advocate.  She wondered if the race would become boring.  If the outcome becomes predictable then viewership is likely to decline.

Competitive balance fears after only three stages of a 21-stage race.

The organisers might have contributed to these worries by their decisions on the structure of the 21 stages.  It is common for the early stages to faciliate the Yellow Jersey ending up on the back of a sprinter or a rider more suited to one-day classics.  The decision to put a team time trial as stage 1 and to have a particular format in that TTT could be coming back to bite the organisers.

By John Considine

The previous post suggested the impact of a regulation change in the team time trial for this year's Tour De France.  Previously all members of the team got the same time as the fourth team member to cross the line. This resulted in groups of four or five riders crossing the line in close proximity.  This year each team member got their own time.  Therefore, as time is only crucial to a few riders in a team of eight, we expected a greater spread of times.  The outcome supports what was expected.

The picture above is for the six teams that filled the top 10 fastest time.  They are ordered as presented in the legend above the tines.  The fastest rider came from Visma.  The second fastest from INEOS.

The gap between the first rider from a team to cross the line and his teammates is presented.  Most of the second riders are within 40 seconds of their team leader.  An insurance policy of sorts.  One can never tell when misfortune strikes.  For example, one of the "better" INEOS riders had a mechanical problem and that could explain their flatter line.  For the purpose of this post, the time of the fourth rider is important.  The gap to the leader can be measured in minutes.  The results are as expected.  A little bit of (economic) theory can do a lot of heavy lifting. 

By John Considine

A popular introductory economics textbook begins by identifying three principles of economics.  One of those principles is equilibrium and the textbook uses the free rider problem to illustrate the principle.  The free rider problem arises when there is not a clear link between individual effort and individual reward.  The free rider is one who seeks to gain without contributing to the production process.  Self-interest suggests that in particular circumstances individual will free ride.  When everyone attempts to free ride then the product is not delivered.

One of my favourite approximations to the economics version of the free rider problem comes from a similar situation in cycling.  The cyclist Rui Costa has a reputation for using the free rider strategy.  As a result, others tend to avoid breakawys from the peloton involving Rui Costa.  However, it sometime happens that he gets into a breakaway and successful employs the strategy for himself.  A good example being a stage of the Vuelta from three years ago (YouTube video here).  Costa was one of three riders who cooperated to break away from the peloton.  As is normal, cooperation broke down as they approached the finish line.  Cooperation turns into competition (a 2019 Journal of Economic Psychology describes it as "friends for almost a day").  The other riders knew of Costa's reputation as a free rider.  Try as they might, they failed to counteract it.

Aligning individual effort and reward can be difficult in a team setting.  In this post, I want to focus on a different example of the relationship between individual effort and reward.  Rather than looking at a regular road stage in one of the Grand Tours, I want to look at the team time trial.  Even here there are variations that have important implications for individual effort and team cohesion.  The 2026 edition of the Tour De France begins with a team time trial.  However, the organisers have changed the reward structure from that used in recent years.

Previously, all members of the team received the time of the fourth placed rider from that team to cross the line.  Therefore, the gap between the first rider to cross the line and the fourth rider to cross the line was minimal.  Beyond the fourth rider the gaps tended to increase.  Many teams decided that they did not need their fifth, sixth, seventh, and eight riders to finish anywhere need the fourth rider.  It might be inefficient to have anything left in the tank of the fifth rider.  Therefore, some riders burnt themselves out like booster rockets.  As all the members of the team got the same time then such a strategy made some sense.

Tomorrow, around the roads of Barcelona, the rewards are different.  Each cyclist will get the time at which they cross the line.  It should make a difference to the distribution of times by individual team members.  It is unlikely that we will see the first four riders from teams finish as a group.  Those teams devoted purely to getting their team leader to cross the line as quickly as possible might burn up all riders but the leader.  Only the General Classification riders and those seeking the young riders jerseys are primarily focused on time.  Those teams with riders targetting stage wins or those riders playing the role of domestiques might continue to sacrifice themselves for a team leader.  It is hard to see any team with four riders who are attempting to minimise their time over the 21 day stages and 3,333kms.

Therefore, we can expect a wider dististribution of times for riders than previously.  Those distributions will reveal the preferences of the individual teams.  There will be a wider dispersion for teams focused purely on General Classification.  ​It will be interesting to see how this experiment with the team time trial works (it has been used in other races).  From Sunday it will be back to the more regular road race stages (with the exception of the individual time trial on Stage 16).

By John Considine

The picture opposite show a scoreboard problem and solution.  The game was an international soccer game between Ireland and France.  The game was played in a venue primarily designed for Gaelic games.  This included the scoreboard.  The soccer game needed only the first digit in the 0:00 for each team so as to count the number of goals.  The ":00" was not needed and only served to confuse.  The solution was a make shift cover on this part of the scoreboard.

While the scoreboard in the picture is less than 10 years old, the presentation of the score is a relic from the past.  There are a number of arguments for changing the layout of the scoreboard.  About the only reason for keeping the current layout is that it might remind people that there was a time when the game was determined by the first digit.  The team with the most goals won.  In the event of the goals scored being the same for both teams then the remaining digits (points) determined the outcome.  Nobody alive remembers those days.

For a couple of years, Gaelic football has three different score values.  One score is worth three points, one worth two points, and another worth one point.  Only the first and last are represented on the scoreboard.  The scoreboard does not present the number of two-pointers.  The two-pointer is folded into the points element.  One of the most significant changes in the sport is not presented for the patrons.  But does it need to be?  The outcome of the game is determined by the points total from all types of scores.  Why not treat goals as three-pointers and only present the points total on the scoreboard?

American football has even more score types than Gaelic football.  A touchdown earns a team six points.  Only the points total is presented in the NFL.  It is easy for somebody without any knowledge of the game to see who is leading.  They don't need to know if the scores came from extra point conversions, 2-point attempts, safeties, or touchdowns.  A person unfamiliar with Gaelic games might wonder about a 2-14 to 4-09 scoreboard display.

It is less than two decades since the GAA lifted it's ban on the use of GAA grounds by some other sports.  In those two decades a different shade of green has become more important.  The need to fund the development of the games has superceded the need to promote a nationalistic mindset.  As a result, some of the bigger venues are used for soccer and rugby union games.  Rugby union also has multiple score types but the total points are the only ones displayed in rugby union scoreboards.

The scoreboard at GAA venues is unlikely to change anytime soon.  Like the qwerty keyboard on most devices it is likely to persist.  Designed for one function, it does a passable job for a changed world.

By Daragh O'Leary

Few issues matter more in sport or economics than competitive balance. It shapes spectator interest, broadcasting value, and ultimately the legitimacy of competitions. Unsurprisingly, it has become a major talking point in hurling over recent weeks following Offaly and Dublin’s heavy defeats to Cork and Clare respectively.

Naturally, conversations of concern have sprouted among pundits, mostly Leinster and Ulster-based ones, on national media platforms like Off the Ball and the Irish Independent about the gulf in quality between provincial championships in hurling. Thankfully, these pundits were quick to point out that all hurling needs to do is take a look at Gaelic football to see how radical changes can help hurling fix itself. This does however beg the question of what exactly hurling need to take from the competitive structure of Gaelic football?

I have written previously on the topic of geographic variations relating to the level of interest which exists within Ireland for hurling and football – see here. Broadly speaking, hurling is more popular in the South with the exception of Kerry, whereas football is more popular in the North with the exception of Antrim. This is demonstrated in the below maps which show the outright betting odds for this year’s All-Ireland Hurling (left) and Football (right) Championships. 

While there is clearly better representation from counties within Munster in hurling and better representation from counties from outside of Munster in football, there appears to be no major difference in the competitive balance between the favourites and the chasing teams in the two sports. Meaning the “issue” hurling has is one of geographical concentration rather than competitive imbalance. These are completely different topics.

Of hurling’s semi-finalists, Limerick are the favourites at a price of 8/13, ensuring a return of roughly €0.62 for every €1 bet. The Cork hurlers follow behind in second at 15/8 and then you have Galway and Clare at 8/1 and 10/1 respectively.

Football on the other hand has a far clearer favourite with Kerry being priced at just 4/7 ensuring only a €0.57 return for every €1 bet. Meanwhile the second favourite, Dublin, are priced at 7/2 ensuring a €3.50 return on every €1 bet, a whole +€1.62 more than the second favourite in hurling. Mayo and Louth make up the remaining teams priced at 4/1 and 12/1 respectively. What benefit is this greater geographical spread of football when it has lower competitive balance between first and second?

Overall, the mean betting odds for each of the last four remaining teams in hurling is 5.12, whereas the football is 5.02. The mean difference in betting odds for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th favourite in hurling compared to the favourite is 6.01 compared to football’s 5.93. In short, talk of football achieving some kind of superior balanced competitive structure which hurling needs to learn from doesn’t seem to stack up to the evidence despite football’s final four being more spread out geographically.

Maybe then it is the competition within the provincial championships which matters. But again, it seems slightly disingenuous to suggest football triumphs in this regard. Kerry have won 24 of the last 30 Munster Football Championships, Dublin have won 20 of the last 30 Leinster Championships, and Galway & Mayo have won 23 of the last 30 Connaught Football Championships. Yet we hear no calls for the Ulster Football Championship to be broken up to ‘fix’ football.

In comparison, Kilkenny have won 22 of the last 30 Leinster Hurling Championships, which is comparable to Dublin’s dominance in Leinster’s Football Championship (20/30), while Limerick have won just 8 of the previous 30 Munster Hurling Championships.

It will be interesting to see how evenly contested the finals of hurling and football are this year and what kind of discussion we get afterwards about overall competitive balance. Kerry being, by far, the clear favourites to win this year’s All-Ireland in football after their recent dismantling of Tyrone and Armagh doesn’t seem to generate quite the same level of concern as Munster team’s performances against Leinster counties in hurling.

The recommendation to solve this imbalance in football seems to be that we should simply sit back and marvel at David Clifford rather than contemplate structural overhauls to the All-Ireland Football Championship. Meanwhile the much closer contest between hurling’s top two teams seems to be a cause for concern for Leinster-based pundits unhappy with their own province’s level of quality. I can’t help but wonder whether we would be having this conversation at all if Kilkenny had not had such a poor year.

I will finish with what I believe to be a fitting line from Cork hurler, Darragh Fitzgibbon; ‘Don't break Munster while fixing hurling’. 

By Robbie Butler

44 years ago Algeria arrived at their first ever World Cup as rank outsiders. Nobody gave them a chance gainst a West Germany side that had won all eight of their qualifiers, conceding just three goals. Instead, Algeria won 2-1. Algeria on their World Cup debut, beating the 1974 world champions. It was, according to reports at the time, the biggest World Cup upset since North Korea beat Italy in 1966.

The African nation then lost 2-0 to Austria, before beating Chile in their final group game. Four points from three games in a competitive group, with two wins including one of the great upsets in the tournament's history. They sat back and waited.

There was just one problem. Their game against Chile had finished a day before West Germany played Austria. And now both European sides knew exactly what they needed.

West Germany scored after ten minutes. And then, in one of the most notorious passages of play in World Cup history, the game simply... stopped. Not literally. The players kept moving. But with that 1-0 scoreline putting both sides through at Algeria's expense, neither team showed the slightest inclination to alter it. In the second half, West Germany made just eight tackles. There were three shots; none on target. The Disgrace of Gijon was born.

Austrian TV told his viewers to turn their televisions off and fell silent. German broadcasters said that what had happened was a disgrace and nothing to do with football.

Algeria lodged an official complaint with FIFA. It went nowhere. West Germany went on to reach the final. Austria were eliminated in the next round. Algeria went home. And the match became known forever as the Disgrace of Gijón.

FIFA, to their credit, acted. From the 1986 World Cup onwards, the final games in each group stage have always kicked off simultaneously. The whole point is that teams cannot know what result they need before they play, removing the incentive for the kind of cynical calculation that unfolded in Gijón.

It is a rule that remains in place today. Every World Cup since 1986 has had simultaneous final group-stage finales. The Disgrace of Gijón literally changed how the sport is administered. Which makes what is happening tonight all the more extraordinary.

Austria and Algeria are in Group J, alongside Argentina and Jordan. Argentina have already won the group. Jordan are eliminated. Which leaves Austria in second and Algeria in third, both on three points, separated only by goal difference.
For the first time since 1994, the 2026 World Cup has reintroduced qualification for third-place teams; the eight best third-placed sides across all groups advance to the knockout round. Algeria, in third, are almost certainly safe if they get a draw. So a draw tonight puts Austria through as runners-up and Algeria through as a third-place qualifier. Both go home happy.

Let’s see if the moral outrage of 1982 is enough to change behaviour 44 years later…Austria and Alergia again but this time they are on the same side.

By Robbie Butler

Much has been made about FIFA President Gianni Infantino's appearance at both Ecuador vs Germany and Ivory Coast vs Curacao at the World Cup. The President has attended many games but the reason these games are different is because they kicked-off at exactly the same time on Thursday 25th of June.

Infantino uses private transport to move between games. The short distance between Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia and the MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey - less than 100 miles - made this possible. Whether such an approach is good for the environment - a message FIFA and others have championed since the Green Goal campaign back at the World Cup in 2006, is questionable.

So too is the expansion of the tournament. And the travel distances involved for competing teams. But this was both knowable and known. The implications of the tournament were obvious to anyone that cared to look. In 2021, we started to consider this for every World Cup and UEFA European Championship since 1990. The paper explores the distances travelled by teams and CO2 emissions from their travel. The abstract and a link to the paper are below.

ABSTRACT

Research Question: This paper explores the environmental impact of air travel during two international football tournaments – the Mens FIFA World Cup and UEFA European Championships – by estimating CO2 emissions from the movements of competing teams. Specifically, we consider how travel associated with major international football tournaments has evolved over time.

Research Methods: We access data for 895 international football matches (June 1990–July 2024). Our data focuses on the travel associated with players and management travelling to, and within, host countries and includes the movement of more than 16,000 people. Estimates of CO2 emissions per passenger (per kilometre) are used to examine the environmental impact of travelling to host countries, and competing, during the tournament.

Results and Findings: Our findings are the first attempt to demonstrate the CO2 emissions from team travel to and within major football tournaments. Despite improvements in aeroplane fuel efficiency, the carbon footprint from team travel has generally not been reduced. The decision to expand these tournaments, locate matches across large geographic areas, and use co-host countries has exacerbated this issue.

Implications: Our findings can support sustainability initiatives and could be adopted by both federations to curb CO2 emissions which appear to undermine genuine attempts to become more environmentally friendly.

Full paper at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/16184742.2024.2416891. 

By Daragh O'Leary

Mayo Gaelic footballer, Kobe MacDonald, is about to change sport to Aussie rules when he starts his professional career with St Kilda Football Club in the Australian Football League. The eighteen-year-old will of course no longer be able to play for his local GAA club (Crossmolina Deel Rovers) or Mayo given that he will be moving to Melbourne, Australia. Naturally, many pundits within the Gaelic football space have begun speaking about the need for some kind of compensation to be given to his local club.

The motivation for this call for compensation is straightforward enough. Kobe MacDonald was developed as a footballer by his local GAA club and intercounty team, but now St Kilda is the club which will benefit from his development. Where the matter of compensation becomes less straightforward is the justification for it.

One of the amazing features about the GAA is that it is an amateur association driven by local community engagement. It is unfortunate then that when the GAA helps develop a player which will generate value for a separate professional club it won’t benefit from any of this value.

However, the amateur nature of the GAA means that its’ players are not paid by nor contracted to their clubs. Although some players may receive expenses and there are rules around switching club, GAA players are not employees of their club or county. Accordingly, it’s very hard to see a reason why an AFL team would have to compensate Crossmolina Deel Rovers for the services of Kobe MacDonald.

Robbie has previously written on the topic of transfers and contracts with reference to Alexander Isak’s transfer saga between Newcastle United and Liverpool F.C. In this post he argues that clubs could calculate compensation as the value of the remaining wages on a player’s contract which should be in line with the club’s valuation of the player’s services. For example, if a player was earning €1,000,000 a year and had three years left on their contract then a compensation fee of €3,000,000 could be paid to the club.

This is where the case for compensation becomes more difficult to justify in the case of GAA players.

They are not contracted to or compensated by their clubs so there are no obvious grounds for contractual compensation if the player decides to leave because there is no breach of contract occurring. Clubs may argue that they invest time into their players through coaching and facilities, but GAA players can point out that they, or more likely their parents, pay membership fees, contribute towards fundraising events, and in some cases volunteer their own time to help the club provide such services.

If Kobe MacDonald moved to Melbourne to work as an accountant, engineer, or teacher, there would be no expectation that his new employer should compensate Crossmolina Deel Rovers. The argument for compensation therefore appears to hinge not on the player's departure from the club, but on the fact that another sporting organisation stands to benefit from his footballing ability.

​The non-professional nature of the GAA is something which facilitates this continued lack of compensation which its’ clubs receive for their high-quality players when they transition to the AFL. The lack of any contractual agreement between players and their GAA club makes it unclear as to why these clubs should be compensated when their players decide to leave and play for a professional team who can afford to pay them for