By John Considine

The FIFA eWorld Cup took place in London earlier this month.  Half a million dollars was distributed between the 32 competitors.  A week earlier, the Fortnite World Cup distributed $30m amongst its competitors with the winner taking home $3m.  Some will question the “sports” classification of these games as ESports (aka eSports or E-Sports).  Few would argue that these activities are not becoming more economically important.  It is, therefore, not surprising to find a recent article on the phenomenon in the Journal of Sports Economics.
 
Michael Ward and Alexander Harmon use ESports “as a laboratory for understanding economic phenomenon”.  In particular, they examine the distribution of prize money.  They argue that the extreme skewness in earnings suggests that ESports exhibits characteristics of superstar markets.  Using data to 2017 they list the most popular ESports games.  Counter-Strike (and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive) top their list with 1,866 tournaments in the 21st Century and 11,686 professional players.  Examining the distribution of prize money by country, Ward & Harmon show that China leads the way with over $64m.  South Korea is second with almost $53m and the United States third with over $27m.
 
Using the economics of superstars, Ward & Harmon blend the discussion of ESports with that of other sports, artistic, and entertainment markets.  They test three hypothesis.  (1) Increases in the top prize money available to tournament winners will draw more amateurs into professional Esports.  (2) Player success in Esports in highly uncertain even after accounting for observable factors affecting player ability.  (3) Player with greater success will continue their professional career for longer.  The results and discussion provides a useful lens of the phenomenon.  I expect the Ward & Woodland paper to be a forerunner of many more on the topic.  A glance at the references in the Ward & Harmon paper shows that papers are also starting to appear in other disciplines.

I also expect to read more papers with similar discussions of the data collection methods.  Ward & Harmon say "Collecting relevant data from this website is a relatively straightforward process. ... the entire process can be automated using a programming language".

To put Esports prize money in context it is worth comparing the Fortnite prize money with that of the US Open golf tournament.  The winner of Fortnite pocketed $3m whereas the US Open winner pocketed $2.25m.  Second place in the Fortnite tournament earned as much as the winner of the US Open.  Those ranked between 25th and 100th took home $50,000.  It will be interesting to see if this gap increases.

By Robbie Butler

Recently, former Premier League manager Ian Holloway made some bizarre comments on Sky Sports show The Debate regarding Brexit:

"I hope we get out, Brexit, because that's what we all voted for. And sort that out because you cannot have someone telling us how to do our own game. FIFA and UEFA have brought these rules in, they told us we've got to use VAR that I’ve got no problem with, but that handball rule that they’ve made up, I don’t want to listen to them. That’s nonsensical," 

He later went onto say, "Brexit is nothing to do with the football rules, is it? I’m not that stupid, so I suggest people wash their ears out and listen. As an English person, I’m sick and fed up of being told what we’ve got to do. Our country is fantastic. If you let us make our own rules up, do what we want to do, we’ll be in control of it a lot better. I don’t like UEFA and I don’t like FIFA telling us what we should do in our English football game. We should take control of our own game, then that wouldn’t have happened. Let’s get out and stop the EU dictating to us what we can do. I feel exactly the same with UEFA and FIFA over our football."

Let's take a closer look at how inaccurate these comments are. 

The body with responsibility for developing and preserving the rules of the game are the International Football Association Board (IFAB), founded by the four British football associations. These originally consisted of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. However, following the formaiton of the Irish Free State  in 1921, IFAB  became the football associations' of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Each of these has one vote on the IFBA Board today. FIFA is now also a member and holds 4 votes, or 50% of the voting power. However, the rule changes that Holloway is opposed to needed 6 votes to pass, so at least 2 UK members were required to tell 'England what to do with their football game'. 

So instead of what Holloway is suggesting that "...you cannot have someone telling us how to do our own game. FIFA and UEFA have brought these rules in", they have not. 

He continues "If you let us make our own rules up, do what we want to do, we’ll be in control of it a lot better". But that is pretty much what you have. There are 211 FIFA affiliated associations. Only 4 are members of IFAB. The same 4 countries that voted in the Brexit Referendum. 

Finally, his comments "Let’s get out and stop the EU dictating to us what we can do. I feel exactly the same with UEFA and FIFA over our football", are inaccuarte becasue neither can dictate. In fact, IFAB could never pass another rule change again if just Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) decided to vote against every change. So 3 countries could block 208 others and FIFA. Where is the loss of control?

Holloway is not the only manager to comment on Brexit. Last year Cardiff City's Neil Warnock said:

"I don't know why politicians don't do what the country wanted, if I'm honest. They had a referendum and now we see different politicians and everyone else trying to put their foot in it. Why did we have a referendum in the first place? I can't wait to get out of it, if I'm honest. I think we'll be far better out of the thing - in every aspect, football-wise as well, absolutely. To hell with the rest of the world." The club were quick to point out that "These comments do not reflect the political position of Cardiff City Football Club, nor its board of directors."

While Warnock and Holloway appear to be stanuch Brexiters, Liverpool's Jurgen Klopp takes a very different view. Earlier this year the German said:

"What do you want? A not perfect situation alone or a not perfect situation as a strong partner in a very strong unit. That's only common sense. That's only common sense because history taught us that if you are alone you are weaker than the unit. I'm 51 years old so I have never experienced a war. We are really blessed in our generation, but the past showed us that as long as strong partners are together, Europe is a much safer place...Yes, we have problems but let's solve them...Just calm down and stick together and stop listening to people with no knowledge, from the right side because that's never the solution...I still hope that somebody will use common sense at the end and doesn't use the situation to try and improve only their own position".

While just 51, Klopp must surely have been only too aware of the devastating consequences of World War II and the partition of Germany. As the past 3 years have demonstrated, the UK appears to looks upon the years 1939 to 1945 as to how 'going it alone' in Europe is the key to success. 

I also wonder to what extent the presence of non-British managers in top English clubs, for about the past 20 years, is influencing the views of the likes of Warnock and Holloway. This generation of British managers were the first ever not to be given the chance to manage many of the top English clubs. That must be the EU's fault too. 

By Robbie Butler
​
Home advantage in sport has received considerable attention in both the economics and psychology literature. Playing at home is advantageous for teams as it is a familiar environment for players, requires shorter travel and often contains a partisan groups of supporters.

Previously, Nevill, Balmer & Williams (2002) have found that crowd noise effects refereeing decisions, with home teams awarded significantly more free-kick than away teams. Garicano, Palacios-Huerta and Prendergast (2005) report referees often favour home teams, in order to satisfy the crowds in the stadium, by shortening close games where the home team is ahead, and lengthening close games where the home team is behind. In fact, stadiums where supporters are located further from the field of play, for example due to the presence of a running track, are more likely to witness more impartial refereeing decisions. Spectators simply can't influence referees in the same way.

The English Premier League (EPL) is a nice place to consider this. One of the many great things about the EPL is the substantial presence of away fans at games. If one watches other European leagues, particularly La Liga, away fans are barely noticeable. For example, when Barcelona travel to Madrid to play great rivals Real, a scattering of fans can be seen in the upper tier of the Bernabeu when they score. The same is true of Real fans at the Camp Nou.

Away fans in the EPL normally get access to 3,000 tickets per game, or 10% of stadium capacity if greater than 30,000 seats. In 2017/18 the EPL introduced rule changes to further encourage away fan attendance. This was on a back of a three-year cap on away fan ticket prices at £30. According to the EPL, the 2017 changes included a commitment that would see "away supporters...seated together at all stadiums and at least one block of away fan seats...made available pitch side". This is important as it moved away fans closer to the field on play.

Four clubs at the time were earmarked for change: Sunderland, Newcastle, Manchester United and Tottenham. I often thought it a masterstroke from Manchester United to place fans in the upper tier of the stadium by the corner flag. The Old Trafford club have subsequently had to change, as have Sunderland. Tottenham moved stadium but have since now allocated away fans lower tier seats in the new Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. Newcastle remain the only club to place fans in the 'gods'. The Tyneside clubs are permitted to do so on health and safety grounds, meaning away fans are a long way from their heroes at St. James Park.

By Robbie Butler

I have previously spoken about broadcasting and the Premier League on this blog on numerous occasion (see here and here) and have a more detailed analysis of supply in the market published in the Journal of Sports Economics (see here). Things have developed further for customers in the Republic of Ireland since the return of the Premier League last week. Let's take a closer look.

To summaries what I have previously said, it seems that customers of subscription television were best off when the service was provided by a monopoly. The best of all scenarios was the free-to-air model that existed until 1992 for top tier English football. However, following BSkyB's purchasing of the rights from the 1992/93 season, consumer surplus started to be reduced. The European ruling to ban monopoly selling of broadcasting rights from 2006/07 resulted two providers selling the product. This will move to 3 this year in the UK, with the arrival of Amazon, and 4 in the Republic of Ireland. 

The Republic of Ireland is not subject to the 3pm Saturday blackout rule in the UK. As such live games can be screened on television. Premier Sports has the right to screen these games. During 2017/18, these games came as part of the Sky Sports subscription. 

Sky now sells both BT Sport and Premier Sports as part of an "extra" sports package, with the pricing varying initially from between €10 and about €17 depending on circumstances. An extra payment of somewhere between €20 and €40 is required for Sky Sports. While customers are receiving a reduced rate in many cases buy the BT Sport and Premier Sports subscription, the irony of course is that people are now paying for something (3pm Saturday game) that they were getting for free last year! 

if you are paying the extra charge, you are getting BT Sports. The rest is hardly extra. And if Premier Sports is to be considered extra, Sky Sports customers are then arguably getting less during 2019/20 then they were in 2018/19, aside from 2 additional games. 

By John Considine

Our under-12 coach would always tell us that we were playing into the scoring goal in the second half of games.  It was both funny and comforting.  He knew that we knew he was going to say it.  It was one of his stock sayings.  We enjoyed his sayings and having him as our coach.  The messages were basic and clear (regardless of the logic involved) – my favourite was “catch it [the ball] and squeeze the water out of it”.

At half-time next Sunday, one of the coaches will be able to say with some justification that, “we are playing into the scoring goal in the second half”.  That said, the scoring goal is not likely to be the crucial factor for the captain that wins the coin toss.  In gaelic games, winning the coin toss means getting to decide what direction to play.  It has no bearing on possession as there is a battle for possession at the start of each half.  There is no option to follow a New England Patriots strategy of receiving the ball at the start of the second half.  Nor is there a decision to be made about getting the kick-off versus deciding what direction to play.  Winning the coin toss gives the winner a choice about what direction to play in the first half (knowing that you will be playing the other direction in the second half).
 
So, where is the scoring goal in Croke Park?  Is it at the Davin Stand end of the ground or at the Hill-16 end of the ground?  In an attempt to answer these questions, I have used the GAA Archives of All-Ireland Senior Hurling finals (available here).  These short highlights allow me to determine the direction teams played and the score at both half-time and full-time.  I have used the hurling finals since 1976.
 
The All-Ireland hurling finals have been of 70-minute duration (plus added time for unnatural stoppages) during the period.  This 70 minutes is made up of two 35-minute halves.  There have been 43 finals and three replays during this period.  The 1984 final was played in Thurles and the remainder were played in Croke Park.
 
There was 1,873 points scored in the 45 All-Ireland Senior Hurling finals held in Croke Park between 1976 and 2018.  This comprised 149 3-pointers (goals) and 1,426 1-pointers.  The scores are split almost exactly between the Hill-16 end and the Canal end.  There is only one score (goal) between the scores into either end.  No evidence of a scoring goal for the full period.
 
However, there is a marked difference between the start of the period and end of the period.  In the early years, a greater proportion of the scoring occurred at the Hill-16 end of the ground.  In the latter years, the scoring goal has been at the Davin Stand end.  Between 1976 and 1997, 53.19% of the scores were into the Hill-16 end.  Between 2003 and 2018, only 45.88% of the score have been into the Hill-16 end.  A sizable enough difference.

The choice of years is based on my hunch as to what happened.  My guess is that the redevelopment of Croke Park helps explain much of the difference.  In early years, there was a stand at both sides of the ground and there was terracing at both ends (Hill-16 end and the Canal end).  Nowadays, there is a stand (called the Davin Stand) at the Canal end of the ground.  It helps provide shelter from the prevailing winds that blow in the direction of Hill-16.
 
On Sunday, the team playing into the Davin Stand end for the second half will probably be playing into the scoring goal.

By Conor O'Shea

“Do you have a ticket for the game?”, “Tickets are fierce hard to come by this year.”, “Go out to the Sevens, you will come across a few spare tickets out there.” These are all phrases you will hear from people around kitchen tables, at the water coolers in work and in dimly lit club function rooms across the country as we approach this weekend’s final.

Here we will look at the changes in ticket prices since the beginning of the millennium, and how the GAA currently operates its pricing model for All-Ireland Final day.
 
In terms of the effect of price on sporting tickets, many academic studies find demand to be price inelastic - that is, a proportionate increase in the price of the product leads to a less than proportionate decrease in the quantity demanded for the product. In simple terms, attendance demand does not respond greatly to an increase in price.
 
Since the beginning of the millennium, the GAA have undergone five pricing reviews and ticket prices for the All-Ireland Hurling Final have risen by 125% since 2000. Despite this increase, a sold-out stadium is still guaranteed, highlighting the price inelasticity. The All-Ireland Semi-Final and Quarter-Finals have also increased in three of the five price reviews. Semi-Final tickets have doubled in price since 2000, with a 75% increase to be seen with the quarter-final tickets.
 
The accompanying graphic below shows the change in the price of a stand ticket for the All-Ireland Series from 2000 onwards.

The GAA currently operates a pricing model which sees all seats, regardless of position or viewpoint in the stadium, being priced at the same value. Is this pricing model maximising consumer surplus, or is there a better method of doing so?
 
If we take a couple and two children who want to attend this year’s All-Ireland, it will cost them €360 to purchase tickets to attend the All-Ireland Final. If we compare this to the All-Ireland Quarter and Semi-Finals respectively, the difference is significant. With U-16 discounts, it would cost the same family €80 in total (less than one ticket to the final!) to attend the Quarter Final and €110 for the Semi-Final. Given that the prices of tickets rise, a family will come under pressure to purchase at this price.
 
Is it right that a seat in the back row of the Cusack Stand Upper, or an obstructed view behind the net in the Davin End costs the same as a seat on the 65 in the Lower Hogan? Tickets to attend the Champions League Final, or a Six Nations Rugby game are priced at various levels, depending on how much you are willing to spend on a seat. Rather than a single price model, should the GAA start looking into a price discrimination model that offers lower quality seats to supporters, and families in particular, at different prices and increase the price of the best seats in the house as a way of maximising consumer surplus?

By John Considine

In advance of next Sunday's All-Ireland hurling finals it is worth looking at the changes in the price of the match-day programme (or Clar Oifigiuil). The picture below presents 50 years of data.  The prices are presented in terms of our present currency regime.  Looking back it is interesting to note the number of monetary changes during the period.

The booklet has cost €5 (or 500 cents) for the last fifteen years.  Prior to the move to the Euro, the purchaser handed over pounds and pence.  This was the case for all of the 20th century years in the picture.  In the majority of those years there were 100 pennies in a pound.  However, this was not the case at the start of the period.  Those two red triangles are from a period where there was 240 pennies in a pound.  For those two years, the programme cost 1 shilling (or 12 pence).

The move to decimalisation, and the move to the Euro, made an explicit difference to the way the price (or Luach) was presented on the cover of the booklet.  Another important monetary change did not have the same explicit impact.  Because of the close relationship between Ireland and the UK, the majority of the citizens were aware of the break with sterling in 1979.  Prior to 1979 one Irish pound could be exchanged for one pound sterling.  Even as a teenager, I remember discussions of how the Irish pound had lost value against Sterling after this happened.  I don't remember whether it was given as a reason for an increase in the programme price at the time.

During the 1970s and early 1980s Ireland experienced high rates of inflation.  Programme price changes were no exception.  In the period to 1984 there were three 100% increases, one 60% increase, and two 25% increases in programme prices.  In later years the price has changes by 50% on two occasions.

It would be fair to say that income changes also influenced the amount of money handed over for the programme.  It is no surprise that there was no change in the price during the decade since 2007.

Rather than annual change in prices there are a series of step changes.  The size of the price changes make sense in terms of the way the transaction takes place.  The majority of vendors stand close to the points where people enter the ground.  To facilitate the transaction, it is useful if the price is readily made up of easily handled units of currency.  Exchanging a €5 note for the programme is a neat transaction.  The next increase will probably take the price to €6 or €7.

By Robbie Butler

Followers of horse racing in Ireland will no doubt have enjoyed last week's Galway Festival. The Ballybrit course was celebrating 150 years in action and was as popular as ever with owners, trainers and punters.

The magic of Galway, which continues to be the most popular festival in Ireland, can be found in the general ordinariness of it's races. Over the course of the 7 days there is a very limited number of high-end races, with a Grade 3 hurdle race, a number of listed races, and the ever-popular Class A handicaps of the Plate and Hurdle. However, many of the races are for lower grade horses, in handicap company.

Making money is very tricky as a result. Unless of course you just follow Champion Trainer Willie Mullins. An even stake of a €2 win if a horse was priced below 5/1, and a €1 each way stake on all horse priced 5/1 and greater, would have again made positive returns, building on similar success in 2017 and 2018.

​The plot below shows the return for each of the Mullins' runners over the 7-day festival.

12 of the 40 starters going to post returned at least the €2 stake. Great White Shark on Day 1 scooped more than €35. Dandy Mag saw a return of €11, while Mr Adjudicator an Minella Beau both returned nearly €10 on Friday.

In total, an €80 stake returned €108.66 or 35.83%. There are few that could report such a return over the 7-day period from following a strategy of reading the form and trying to select the winner. Sometimes accepting you can't pick the winner is the surest way to win.

As is customary at this time of year, we will take our summer break and return on Tuesday 6th of August 2019.

​We hope all our readers have a very enjoyable summer.

By David Butler

Some of the last entries below concern the future of Irish soccer talent development. In short, I argue that focus should be placed on developing our U13 to U19 divisions with the aim of continually exporting our best to a variety of leagues (not just those in England). The league of Ireland senior level should play a secondary role. This type of structure would be in the tradition of European counterparts that are ranked similarly to us.

Below are some stats that give an insight to the ability of other European countries to retain talent in their national league structure and subsequently draw only a few domestic players at a senior level.

I sampled a selection of countries relatively similar to Ireland (population and coefficients), many of which were cited in the original entry below. The table shows estimates for the percentage of players in an underage national squad that are attached to a domestic club. Again, it’s pretty clear to see a trend for all nations except Ireland. Players from other countries generally fly the nest later. Most Irish players have left these shores by the time they are eligible to play U17 (assuming they are trained here to begin with). At present, the temptation to move to the UK at a young age is as strong as ever.

​The aim should be to retain this talent domestically for a longer developmental period prior to exporting. Of course, this would require investment and the appropriate structures. Achieving this retention should be a primary goal for the national league. Albeit difficult to emulate the facilities, standards and the potential monetary rewards offered by UK clubs, policy should focus on providing a strong developmental process domestically that would at least give players a difficult choice regarding whether to move now or wait.