By Robbie Butler
Last night’s Europa League final was not much of a contest. Aston Villa comfortably beat German side Freiburg 3-0 in Istanbul to become the sixth English side to win the competition. In the closing minutes, I remarked to friends that it is rare to win a major final so easily. As the clock ran into the 89th minute, I predicted two minutes of additional time. I was close – it was just one.
One minute of added time in a second half that had a goal, a caution, and ten substitutions. The substitutions alone stopped play for at least two minutes, and probably more. Why so little additional time? The scoreline, I suspect.
The same could be asked of the 2025 Champions League final. Zero minutes added at the end of the second half. The score: 5-0 to PSG.Referees are clearly influenced by the scoreline. Our recent paper in the Journal of Sports Economics validates this position. Had Aston Villa led 1-0 last night, my bet is that, under an identical second half (assuming no first-half goals), the fourth official would have added five or more minutes.
Why should a team winning 1-0 have to play more additional time than if they are winning 3-0? If referees are displaying compensation tendencies here, where else does this extend? Cautions, serious foul play, penalty decisions?
It is human nature to feel empathy towards losing teams. Adding just one minute when a team is losing by three goals in a major European final may feel like kindness or sympathy. It shouldn’t. It is not the job of the timekeeper to be empathetic towards the loser. Their job is to apply the rules and laws of the game.
Last night’s Europa League final was not much of a contest. Aston Villa comfortably beat German side Freiburg 3-0 in Istanbul to become the sixth English side to win the competition. In the closing minutes, I remarked to friends that it is rare to win a major final so easily. As the clock ran into the 89th minute, I predicted two minutes of additional time. I was close – it was just one.
One minute of added time in a second half that had a goal, a caution, and ten substitutions. The substitutions alone stopped play for at least two minutes, and probably more. Why so little additional time? The scoreline, I suspect.
The same could be asked of the 2025 Champions League final. Zero minutes added at the end of the second half. The score: 5-0 to PSG.Referees are clearly influenced by the scoreline. Our recent paper in the Journal of Sports Economics validates this position. Had Aston Villa led 1-0 last night, my bet is that, under an identical second half (assuming no first-half goals), the fourth official would have added five or more minutes.
Why should a team winning 1-0 have to play more additional time than if they are winning 3-0? If referees are displaying compensation tendencies here, where else does this extend? Cautions, serious foul play, penalty decisions?
It is human nature to feel empathy towards losing teams. Adding just one minute when a team is losing by three goals in a major European final may feel like kindness or sympathy. It shouldn’t. It is not the job of the timekeeper to be empathetic towards the loser. Their job is to apply the rules and laws of the game.
RSS Feed
