By John Considine

This day last week there was an engaging radio discussion between Matt Cooper and Ewan MacKenna about the funding of gaelic games in Dublin.  The discussion took place on The Last Word (it is available on NewsTalk's Listen Back facility about 2 hours and 7 minutes into the podcast).  It is well worth a listen.  MacKenna provides some details on the funding and later in the discussion highlights some success enjoyed by the county.  The discussion reminded me of an article from a couple of years ago.

The article that came to mind was one proposing a rating system for gaelic football teams.  It appeared in the International Journal of Computer Science in Sport.  The primary purpose of the article was to advocate for a modified version of a system used to rate chess players.  The article also examined factors that influenced the success of teams.  The correlation between the rating values and financial figures threw up one very interesting result.

Dublin was the highest rated team at the end of 2015.  This rating was derived using 1,101 games between 2010 and 2015.  Dublin also received by far the largest amount of Games Development Income per registered player from the sport's governing body (the GAA).  According to the authors, Dublin received more than the other top 10 teams combined (MacKenna makes similar comparisons).  Dublin ranked first in both success and games development income.  These facts sit well with the conventional wisdom that Dublin's success is driven by the funding they received from the GAA.  There is a part of me that has sympathy with this view.

But the statistical results presented by S. Mangan and K. Collins bring this into question.  The correlation between "Games Development Income per registered player" and a team's rating was statistically significant and negative.  Negative.  The more GDI per registered player a team received from the governing body then the less their chances of success.

The authors of the article do not spend much time discussing the correlation.  This is probably a wise decision as there are potentially too many possibilities to be discussed and a limited amount of space to discuss them in.  What does the skewed distribution of funding imply for the correlations?  Are the results specific to the length of the time period and/or the specific time period selected?  Moreover, while many might expect a positive relationship between the two, the most important thing to remember is that "development" is not same as "success".  If nothing else then the article should make us pause for thought.

There is little doubt but that the debate will continue.

By Robbie Butler
​
The official launch of the Centre for Sports Economics and Law (CSEL) will take place on Monday 23rd of July 2018 at University College Cork. This event will be followed by the 4th sports economics workshop which is being hosted this year by the Centre for Analysis and Risk.

The theme of these year's event is sports betting and a selection of technical academic papers in the area will be presented over the two days. 

​General Information
Betting on sports is an enormously popular activity, which earns significant revenues, enhances many fans’ sense of emotional involvement with sports, and, on the downside, causes substantial welfare loss to people who gamble recklessly or addictively. For the economist interested in people’s preferences over risk, and the interaction of these preferences with their beliefs about probabilities, sports betting provides a field setting almost ideally designed for supporting rich inferences. Policy makers and regulators who have responsibilities associated with sports, leisure, and gambling can gain crucial insights into, and predictive leverage over, responses to changes in odds and incentives through observations of naturally occurring sports betting, as well as through economists’ laboratory and field experiments with punters. The CEAR workshop on Sports Betting brings together both researchers who specialize in the economics of sport, and theoretical and experimental risk specialists who use sports betting contexts as environments for establishing more general insights into risky choice.The full programme of events is as follows:

Monday July 23
​9:15 – 9:45        Launch of the UCC Centre for Sports Economics and Law
9:45 – 10:00      Workshop welcome and Background on CEAR
10:00 – 11:00    Filippos Papakonstantinou: History-dependent risk preferences: Evidence from individual choices                                  and implications for the disposition effect

11:15 – 12:15    Angie Andrikogiannopoulou: Heterogeneity in risk preferences: Evidence from a real-world betting                                  market
12:15 – 1:15      Glenn Harrison & Eberhard Feess: Welfare Evaluation of Sports Betting Conditioned on Elicited                                      Risk Preferences and Subjective Beliefs

2:30 – 3:30        Sylvan Herskowitz: Gambling, Saving, and Lumpy Liquidity Needs
3:30 – 4:30        David Forrest: Participation in, and rates of return from, betting: The role of IQ

Tuesday July 24
9:30 – 10:30      Raymond Sauer: Estimates of Player Value Through the Lens of Sports Betting Markets
10:30 – 11:30    Rob Simmons: Betting Markets, Outcome Uncertainty and Competitive Balance in Sports: What                                      Have We Learned?

11:45 – 12:45    Brad Humphreys: A Simple Test of Semi-Strong Form Market Efficiency Using US College Sports                                  Betting Data

2:00 – 3:00        Alasdair Brown: The Use of Framing Manipulations By Victorian Bookmakers
3:00 – 4:00        David Butler, Robbie Butler and Justin Doran: Turf Accountancy - A Spatial Analysis of                                                    Bookmakers
4:00 - 4:05       Close 

By David Butler - this is a final entry in a series of posts considering the World Cup.

Below, I show the cost structure for the last four tournaments. These are detailed in FIFA financial reports.  

The table gives a breakdown of the costs (in millions USD) for the last four World Cups. I’ve aggregated some categories to bring some conformity but generally speaking most of the costs typically recur. The 2002 and 2006 figures are converted to dollars from Swiss francs at July exchange rates for the given year. Note – costs are not adjusted for inflation.

Some points of interest:

1. Goal Line technology was very expensive, making up 16% of total costs for Brazil 2014. The system was introduced to avoid ghost goals in high-stakes matches and political pressure may have built after the infamous Frank Lampard ‘goal’ that was not given in South Africa 2010. In the France vs Honduras group match the technology was used to award a goal to France. The French went on to win 3-0.  Having goal line technology definitely improves the game but it comes at a very high price when these incidents are few and far between.  It will be interesting to see the total cost of VAR when the figures are released for Russia 2018. Maybe the cost of Goal Line technology has come down in the meantime but with Goal Line and VAR systems, spending on technology might be taking up a large part of the World Cup budget. Is circa 20% too much for decisions referees may get right most of the time anyway?
2. It will be interesting to see the finalised figures for the Local Organising Committee. This increased significantly for Brazil 2014, doubling from the previous three World Cups. Costs really escalated for Brazil 2014 but with a new FIFA regime overseeing this tournament this cost might be curbed somewhat. One to keep an eye on when the 2018 financial report comes out.
3. It's good news for the associations as prize money has increased over the years. Over the space of 12 years an extra $218m has been found to share among finalists. The biggest increase has been for the tournament winner. In Germany 2006 the Italians received $24.5m for winning the competition. The Germans received $35m for winning the tournament in Brazil four years ago. The winner of Russia 2018 will receive $38m.  
4. Since 2010 new categories exist for big expenditures on TV production (which I presume is worth it for FIFA given the revenues they can recoup from broadcasting) and also ‘legacy payments’. These payments seem like compensation when significant costs are imposed on poorer hosts. It will interesting to see if these legacy payments will continue. Finally, the marketing push seems to have really ramped up – much more costs are being incurred from FIFA  for the organisation of preliminary tournaments, concerts and branding. 

By Robbie Butler,

​We are now just days away from the start of the 2018 FIFA World Cup Finals. The word "finals" is important. 211 teams have participated in the 2018 World Cup with qualifying starting in Africa as early as the 12th of March 2015.

Unfortunately I am only too aware of when qualifying ended for the tournament in Europe. It was Tuesday the 14th of November 2017. I sat in the Aviva Stadium, Dublin and watched Denmark take the final UEFA spot in Russia at the expense of the Republic of Ireland.The following day Peru claimed the final spot beating New Zealand in a play-off. We will revisit Peru shortly.

As an Irish supporter it is frustrating to finish 2nd in a qualifying group, ahead of two teams ranked 10th and 15th in the FIFA World Ranking at the time of the draw, only to face the 19th best team globally in a play-off. 

I have previously shown how it is becoming harder for UEFA members of qualify for the World Cup. Even expansion in 2026 will do little to help the European cause. Some might argue UEFA have the best deal of all. There will be 14 teams at the Finals this summer from the confederation. This includes hosts Russia and is almost treble that of any other FIFA confederation. The pie chart below presents the breakdown for the 2018 Finals.

Just five of the six confederations are represented. This is because no OFC (Oceania) country managed to qualify. This confederation represents 14 countries and the failure to qualify  does beg the question of whether this truly is a "world cup".

Having watched this tournament, with clear memory since 1990 (I do recall the final in 1986), it seems natural inequalities play a role when qualifying.

Geographic location on this planet is very important. Outside of Europe countries such as South Korea, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and USA (although not this time round) seem to appear every four years. Brazil in fact are the only country to have played at all 21 World Cup finals. The CONMEBOL qualification system plays a huge role in this regard. The graphic below presents the number of teams eliminated versus those qualifying from each confederations for the 2018 Finals. South America is an obvious outlier. 

CONMEBOL members will benefit from the expanded tournament, starting in 2026, when a 6th place with be available in South America. That means more teams could play at the finals, than are eliminated in regional qualifying. Maybe it is the fear of the likes of Brazil or Argentina not qualifying (as is the case with Italy this time round) but one has to spare a thought for African, Asian and Central/North American FIFA members. 135 of these nations started out in qualifying. More than 90% (122) won't be in Russia. 

Peru, a country that lost 6 games in qualifying, will line out against Denmark on the 16th of June. The country qualified with a total of 26 points from 18 games, an average of just points per game 1.44. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland had an average return in qualifying of 1.9. Italy's was 2.3. 

Switzerland finished second in UEFA qualifying Group B with 27 points. The Swiss then had to win a two-legged playoff against Northern Ireland to qualify. Colombia finished 4th in CONMEBOL with 27 points and qualified directly for the finals. 27 points from 18 games. In fact, the Swiss got more points from 10 games then Peru did from 18!

​If only Ireland was in South America...

By David Butler - this is the second in a series of special posts on the FIFA World Cup.

In this post I consider the relationship between World Cup squad concentration, insofar as investigating the countries where squad members play club football in, and international performance at the competition.  

Do more diverse squads perform better at the finals? The argument could be that squads made up of players that hold professional contracts in different leagues, that have different playing styles, create a stronger collective. Maybe diversity creates some type of intangible effect which establishes a stronger whole?

Maybe the logic can flow the opposite direction too – more concentrated international squads, where most of the squad play in one league have a better understanding of teammate abilities and can create a more consistent style. This could form a more coherent unit?

I’ve looked at the data for the 2014 World Cup, calculating HHI’s for the 32 squads but neither argument seems to hold water. Excluding Russia who are outliers in that 100% of the squad were sourced from Russian Clubs, the more (less) diverse teams do not perform significantly better or worse.

Croatia displayed the most balanced diversity in that they sourced an evenly low number of players from a wide variety of different leagues but exited at the group stage. The next most diverse, Algeria and Uruguay both exited at the last 16.

The most concentrated teams such as England and Mexico exited at the group and last 16 stage respectively. The eventual winners Germany were the third most concentrated team – the Germans only sourced players from 4 countries. Lots of the other relatively concentrated teams still exited at the group stages of the finals such as Italy, Honduras and Iran.

When it comes to the Finals, maybe it just doesn’t matter whether international squads are primarily made up from one country or many.

By Robbie Butler,

For the next 10 days the posts on this blog will focus on the FIFA World Cup which is due to kick-off in the Luzhniki Stadium, Moscow on Thursday 14th of June. This is the first time Russia has hosted either of the big two football tournaments. Games will be played across 11 different cities, spanning a huge geographical area, from Kallingrad in the west to Yekaterinburg in the east. The distance between these two cities is almost 2,500 km (1546 miles). That is roughly the same as Cork to Sofia in Bulgaria.

Like all major events, the tournament is likely to cost more to the Russian state than is recouped in revenue. However, FIFA suggest that the benefits lie elsewhere. According to the government bodies Russian's can look forward to the following:

"Some of the benefits experienced by host countries of FIFA competitions include:

• A catalyst for new and improved facilities to support the development of the game at all levels;
• Increased number of and higher quality football development programmes for both the elite game, talent identification and grassroots;
• Increased cooperation and goodwill between the various stakeholders – the member association, the government and other bid stakeholders such as the bid host cities, commercial partners, the media and the community at large;
• Increased civic pride and community empowerment as groups of stakeholders get to contribute to and support the bid, together with new skills and training for those involved in delivering the event;
• Enhanced partnerships and greater commercial activity and investment from new sponsors, media, broadcasters and large corporations;
• Help in breaking down social barriers to participation and high performance by both women and young people;
• Using successful players as role models to encourage young and emerging players and to promote health and other social benefits”.

Two notable studies have looked at the feel-good factor associated with hosting the world’s biggest football tournament. Maenning and Sussmuth (2007) examined the 2006 World Cup in Germany and found locals were happier after hosting the tournament. In former East Germany the effects were found to be greatest, particularly among the less-well educated. Kavetos and Szymanski (2004) consider a longitudinal data set from 1978 to 1994. Using happiness data from the Eurobarometer Survey the authors found that hosting a tournament has a positive, significant effect on a country’s happiness, both during and after the Finals. As one might expect, those under 50, males, the unemployed and less educated saw the greatest jumps in happiness.

The happiness of the Russians might depend on how long the their team stay in the competition. At odds of around 40/1 to win the tournament that may not be too long...

By David Butler

The Cork City Marathon took place last Sunday.

Robbie Butler filled Seamus Coffey’s void for the second year running and organised our relay team entry. ‘Random Walk’ finished 80th out of 620 relay entries, inclusive of  mixed gender teams. We recorded a time of 3:38:38. This was a poorer performance compared to last year.

The winning relay time was 2:19:28. Our relay team included contributors to this website; Robbie Butler (UCC), John Eakins (UCC), Sean O’Connor (CSO) and Myself (UCC). Brendan McElroy (UCC) was the fifth member of our team.

The distribution of finishing times for the 2018 relay is below. The distribution for previous years can be viewed here.

By John Considine

A recent article in the Journal of Sports Sciences presents some interesting data on fouls and tackles in the top five European soccer leagues.  The authors use the data to investigate what they call aggressive play.  They conclude that their "data support that European soccer has become less aggressive and the English Premier League is the most aggressive league".  It does not seems that clear to me.

Figure 1 in the article has three parts.  Part (a) shows the number of fouls per game for each season between 2007/8 and 2015/6.  Part (b) shows the attempted tackles per game for the same seasons.  Part (c) shows the attempted tackles per foul.

Figure 1(a) is presented below and shows that there are less fouls per game in the English Premier League.  The number of fouls in the other four leagues show a clear decline.  The number of fouls seems to be used to suggest that "European soccer has become less aggressive".

The number of fouls do not suggest that the English league is the most aggressive.  The statement that the "English Premier League is the most aggressive" seems to be based on attempted tackles per foul.  This is presented in the Figure 1(c) below.  There are more attempted tackles per foul in the English Premier League.

Should we use Figure 1(a) of Figure 1(c) to examine aggressive play?  Depending on how we use the graphs we could tell a different story.  We could use Figure 1(a) to say that the English league is the least aggressive and Figure 1(c) to say that aggressive play is slightly increasing.  This is the opposite of what the authors claim.

By Brian Cronin,

The Republic of Ireland U17 European Championship squad made national headlines recently when they controversially exited the tournament on penalties at the hands of the Netherlands. The performance of the squad raises hope for the future and is no doubt down to a combination of dedication, effort and skill on the part of the players, and excellence in coaching and tactics.

Another factor at play might be a relative age effect. The concept, which is now well understood, suggests relatively older children, assembly collectively under a selection year, will outperform their younger peers.  

To have been eligible to compete in the 2018 U17 European Championships, all players had to have been born on or after 1 January 2001. Indeed, the January 1 cut-off date is also used in Irish underage schoolboy competitions. Consequently, the Relative Age Effect (RAE) manifests itself, whereby players born closest to this cut-off date would tend to be physically more mature and co-ordinated when compared with players born later in the year. They are also likely to be both cognitively and psychologically more developed. Ultimately, this results in these players then getting chosen for representative squads at an earlier age where they are exposed to better coaching, better opposition and greater opportunities to progress within the game. 

​The chart below shows that of the 21 players selected in the Republic of Ireland squad for the 2018 UEFA U17 European Championships (Kian Clarke, who was originally selected but ruled out through injury, is also included). 

9 (43%) were born in the first three months of the year (seven in 2001 and two in 2002). Conversely, not a single player selected was born in the final three months of the year, even though the distribution of the general population in Ireland is evenly spread throughout the year.

The particularly interesting feature of this Irish U17 squad is that, although there were no players born in the final three months of 2001, there were two players born in the first three months of 2002 - both of whom started all four games at the tournament (Troy Parrott and Jimmy Corcoran). This accentuates the pervasiveness of RAE - these players, being two of the more physically developed within their 2002 age group, would have been more likely to have been exposed to elite coaching growing up when compared with those born in the final months of 2001.

Perhaps some food for thought for underage schoolboy soccer coaches.

Brian Cronin is a 3rd year student at University College Cork and has just completed an Erasmus Year in France as part of his BComm International (French) Degree. Brian represented the Republic of Ireland at U16 level and is now the goalkeeping coach to four Cork Schoolboys League Kennedy Cup teams, and has coached goalkeepers at regional Emerging Talent level as well as internationally, with the Irish Amputee Football team. 

For more on Irish soccer and the relative age effect see here.

By Robbie Butler

Professor James Reade at the Centre for Institutions and Economic History at the University of Reading is hosting two  gatherings next month.

Day 1 kicks-off on Wednesday the 13th of June and examines the history of sport. Contributions will be made by Robert Simmons, Stefan Szymanski, James Reade, Rafaelle Nicholson, Dilwyn Porter and keynote Wray Vamplew.

Day 2 on Thursday the 14th of June coincides with the start of the FIFA World Cup and is aptly focused on the tournament. Academic papers will be presented by Adrian Bell, Bernd Frick, Alex Bryson, Babatunde Buraimo and Katrin Scharfenkamp. The evening keynote will be delivered by Stefan Szymanski.

These events are free but registration is required. Those interested in attending should contact James Reade at
j.j.reade@reading.ac.uk