By Robbie Butler

The Department of Economics at Cork University Business School (UCC) Ireland, are pleased to invite applications for a specialist postgraduate research masters in sports economics.

PROGRAMME PARTICIPANTS
Participants in this programme will be enrolled in the full-time MSc (Commerce) - Economics (Full-Time) for one year, with a start date of October 2018. They will be paired with a supervisor(s) from the Department of Economics who is currently undertaking research in sports economics. 

Programme participants will conduct original research in sports economics. Specific topics and appropriate research methods will be co-developed by the supervisor and advisors, considering the participant’s application, interests and background.

Students will leverage their research, with their supervisors, with the aim of producing research articles for conference presentations and other academic outlets such as peer-reviewed journals.  By the end of semester 3, participants will complete a full research paper, between 12,000 and 15,000 words in length.

SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS
Applicants must have obtained a standard of at least Second Class Honours (Grade One) in an approved primary degree or present other such evidence under the University’s Policy for the Recognition of Prior Learning for Admission to Research Degrees.

They must demonstrate an aptitude for creative problem solving, analytical and critical thinking, effective written communication, and capacity for self-directed and independent learning.

Applicants must also submit a research proposal (maximum 1,500 words) outlining an empirical question.  In this proposal applicants should explain how their research question relates to theory and the current literature. They should detail the relevant data sources, and suggest potential methods of analysis. A timeline for the research should also be provided.

An interview with the Programme Directors must also be successfully completed as part of the application process

WHY CHOOSE THE MSC (COMMERCE) - ECONOMICS)?
Key advantages of the programme include:

• Researching within a vibrant group of academics studying and publishing at the nexus of sport and economics.
• Having the opportunity to attend seminars, workshops and conferences where visiting scholars in the field present cutting-edge research.
• Initiating a research platform to potentially grow further collaborative projects.

TO APPLY
Applications should be made via the Postgraduate Application Centre (PAC) using the course code CKM07. 
Informal enquiries can be directed to either r.butler@ucc.ie or david.butler@ucc.ie

By John Eakins

Snooker is a sport which does not feature that heavily on our blog. Given that the most prestigious global snooker tournament, the World Snooker Championships, is starting this Saturday (21st April), it is a good opportunity to take a look at the game.

One interesting feature is that it is an example of a sport where there is a possibility of achieving a measure of perfection. What I refer to here is the 147 maximum break. This is when the player pots all of the balls on the table in the right order without missing a pot or making a foul shot. That is, 15 reds and 15 blacks (giving 120 points) and all of the remaining 6 colours (giving 27 points), consecutively.

It is perfection in the sense that it is the maximum number of points that a player can achieve in a break in one frame (although there is a caveat to this, if the opposition player makes a foul initially and you use one of the colours as a free ball before potting the remaining balls – but this happens on even rarer occasions). While it is only 36 pots in a row, those who know the game of snooker, appreciate that it represents the ultimate display of skill. Its possible equivalents include a 9 dart finish in darts, a sub 60 round in golf and a perfect 10 in gymnastics.   

The first official maximum break in professional competition was made by Steve Davis in 1982. Since then a total of 138 maximum breaks have been achieved in professional competitions. Fig. 1 below present the number of 147’s achieved over time (on a per season basis – with thanks to cuetracker.net for the data). As can be seen there is a significant trend upwards in the data. Taking simple averages, from 1981-1982 to 2000-2001, 2.1 maximum breaks were recorded on average each season. Between 2001-2002 and 2017-2018, 5.7 maximum breaks were recorded on average each season.

Even when adjusting for the number of frames played, the trend is still very similar. Again, taking simple averages, from 1981-1982 to 2000-2001, about 1 in every 10,000 frames had a maximum break, while between 2001-2002 and 2017-2018, the rate increased to 3 in every 10,000 frames.

So what explains this increase in perfection? The increase in the use of coaches, and in recent years the use of mind coaches, is undoubtedly an important factor. The expansion of the game, particularly into the Asian market, is also probably a factor in terms of increasing the degree of quality and competition. Technological improvements, such as the increased quality of the tables and cue tips would also have an effect but I suspect they play a more minor role in contrast to technological improvements in other sports.

Or maybe it’s simply down to increased levels of practice among pro-players. While it is very difficult to verify this, given the absence of data, snooker appears to me to be one of the games where practice plays a very significant role. Furthermore, in the debate between natural talent versus 10,000 hours of deliberate practice, I would suspect that snooker falls more in the latter category as a determinant to achieving success and/or perfection on a regular basis.

For those of you with a passing interest in the sport, Fig. 3 displays the number of centuries per 100 frames played, a more standard measure of talent and skill that is used in the game. Again, as you can see, the trend is upwards over time. In the seasons from 1981-1982 to 2000-2001, there were 2 centuries for every 100 frames, while in the seasons from 2001-2002 and 2017-2018, the rate increased to 5.5 centuries for every 100 frames.

By Robbie Butler

FIFA is the body that has run world football since 1904 but it does not hold responsibility over the rules of the game. Instead the International Football Association Board (IFAB) retains this honour, and has done so since 1886. FIFA is represented on IFAB and, given the voting arrangements on the Board, any rule changes require FIFA support. Those that follow football closely will recognise that this authority is quite conservative. 

The 2017/18 Laws of the Game are very different in this regard as they saw the inclusion of new laws, for the purposes of testing, the most significant being the introduction of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR). VAR is mentioned twice in this document and it says:
​
“For a Law to be changed, The IFAB must be convinced that the change will benefit the game. This sometimes means that the proposal will be tested, e.g. the current video assistance for referees (VAR) and 4th substitute in extra time experiments”.

“The IFAB will continue the video assistant referee (VAR) experiment with around 20 competitions, including FIFA, undertaking ‘live’ experiments of the protocols established in 2016”.

I have watched a large number of games where VAR has been used. In my opinion, it has not benefited the game. It’s becoming clear that there are certain instances in football, and indeed sport, where video technology can help and other scenarios where it is no better than the referee. The dividing point comes down to whether a rule or law is objective or subjective.

Objective rules are based on fact. They don’t require opinion, feelings or emotions. Something is or isn't. Subjective rules are open to interpretation and can be influenced by emotion or opinion. 

Tennis and rugby are two excellent examples where video technology are used superbly to ensure fairness in the application of the rules of each game. Hawk-Eye has become an exciting element of tennis and is effectively flawless as the rule is objective. Did any part of the ball touch any part of the line? If yes, the ball is in. If no, it is out. We don't read about instances where Hawk-Eye 'may have got it wrong'.

Ireland’s third try against England at Twickenham in the recent Six Nations is another great example. Jacob Stockdale’s solo run had a number of questions posed of it. Did Stockdale knock the ball forward with his hand? Yes, or no? Did the ball cross the end-line before Stockdale put downward pressure on it? Yes, or no? Did Stockdale apply downward pressure on the ball? Yes, or no. These questions don’t require interpretation. They are not open to opinion or judgement calls.

Football has had similar success with goal-line technology. The question is objective. Did all of the ball, cross all of the goal line? This change has been a welcome addition. I bet Frank Lampard wishes it was in place during the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. I have yet to see this technology fail. I doubt it ever will. 

If the VAR experiment is to work like these examples, it needs to be altered. Using VAR to “help” with subjective rules is a recipe for disaster. Everyone views the game differently. A good tackle to one person might be a foul to another. A pull on a jersey, where a player goes down, could be a penalty to one viewer and a dive to another. That is what the referee is there for. If VAR is to be used for these, why the need for the referee? 

To use VAR, there must be a 'clear and obvious' need - this seems objective but in reality it is still fuzzy. How do we justify that the foul on player X was clear and obvious but the foul on player Y was not? The controversy is just pushed back a step.   

VAR could be used in some circumstances but only where rules are objective. For example, goals where offside may be an issue could offer some hope but the parameters for use need to be made very clear.

At the moment a player is offside if "any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent”.

There are two instances here where VAR could work, for the benefit of the game. Scenario one occurred in the recent Champions League semi-final between Manchester City and Liverpool. Leroy Sane was incorrectly judged to be offside, having put the ball in the net, just before half-time. In this instance, VAR could have confirmed an incorrect decision and awarded the goals. The second scenario is when a goal is scored and awarded, where offside might be an issue. These occurrences are rare but do occur, and in this case, the referee could rule out the goal and award the defending team an indirect free-kick as is the norm with offside decisions. ​Crucially, in both cases, the game can only restart in one of two ways; a kick-off at the centre circle or an indirect free-kick. At the moment VAR could result in a kick-off, penalty, an indirect-free kick, a thrown-in, a corner, a goal-kick, etc. 

A word of caution. The parameters on this would need to made very clear so that everyone is aware how far back in play offside decisions could be viewed. VAR may require a complete overhaul of the Rules of the Game if it is to work like technology in other sports. This begs the questions whether it is worth the cost. 
​
Most recently, German referee Guido Winkmann had to ask players from Mainz and Freiburg to return to the pitch during half time as VAR had awarded a penalty. Anyone that thinks this will “benefit the game” is mistaken. 

By John Considine

While watching part of the Newcastle v Arsenal game yesterday I was slightly taken aback by a table of numbers detailing the goals from corner kicks.  Arsenal were amongst a number of teams with eight goals from corner kicks this season.  At least that is what I thought I saw.  It has been nagging at my brain ever since.  To further bother my brain, I seem to remember Southampton were listed as scoring 7 or 8 from corners.  Arsenal have scored a total of 62 goals and Southampton a total of 33.  Corners seem to be a good source of goals.  Or are they?

Chris Anderson and David Sally question the value of a corner kick in their book The Number Game: Why Everything You Know About Football is Wrong.  Their analysis of 1,434 corners from 134 Premier League games in 2010-11 suggests a corner is worth 0.022 goals.  In May 2015 Michael Caley had a cracking article in the Washington Post where he used two seasons of games from English, German and Spanish leagues.  That was 20,000 corners and a value of 0.035 goals per corner.  Caley also examined how the corner kick could be costly in terms of dragging defenders into the opposition penalty area and making the team vulnerable to a counter attack.

Anderson & Sally framed their numbers with the Jose Mourinho line about the English cheering the award of a corner kick almost as loudly as a goal.  The suggestion is that fans are fooled by the award of a corner kick.  And, it is not just fans.  Managers like Nigel Adkins believe there is value to a corner kick.  In fact, Adkins has blogged on the importance of corner kicks (here and here).  If you are a fan of Southampton is it not understandable that you get excited when they are awarded a corner kick.  A large proportion of your goals come from that source.

Looking at the Arsenal number for this season shows that they have 203 corners.  Eight goals implies that a goal comes along every 25 corners.  A corner is worth 0.039 goals.  Seems small.  But remember 13% of Arsenal goals come from corners.  That is over 1 in 8.

The Arsenal fans have seen 100 times more passes than corners.  Arsenal's 20,799 passes is surpassed only by Manchester City.  Not a great goal value to each Arsenal pass - 62 goals for 20,799 passes.  Is it any wonder Arsenal fans, like many others, might welcome a corner kick?

By Robbie Butler

Last week Sky Sports published an interest article about the record revenues recently announced by Tottenham Hotspur. The piece explains the growth in Spurs' revenues and presents a table of data labelled "Tottenham financial highlights". Below I reproduce an abridged version of this and circle an interesting dimension - gate receipts.

What has become apparent in recent years is the diminishing importance of gate receipts, to Premier League clubs, in the overall context of club revenue. For the vast majority of the history of football, getting fans through the turnstiles was the primary way to fund club expenditure. This is still the case for most lower league clubs but no longer the reality in the Premier League. 

In the last number of weeks, various clubs have made announcements about ticket prices for the 2018/19 season. Manchester United will freeze prices for a 7th consecutive season, and introduce further third degree price discrimination, by charging a lower price to 18-25 year age bracket, in an attempt to improve the atmosphere at home games. This is on the back of a general reduction across all clubs, of about 33%, during the 2016-17 Premier League season.

In an era of record club revenues this might come as a surprise. The graphic above should help explain the apparent contradiction (ironically this is not the case for Tottenham).

Ticket revenues are dwarfed by broadcasting deals today. Reducing ticket prices, or at a minimum freezing prices, has high impact in terms on public perception. In fact, the television spectacle is greatly enhanced by full stadiums. The fans are a major reasons why the Premier League has become so exportable globally.

​If broadcasting revenues continue to climb, local supporters should see further reductions in ticket prices, where television viewers effectively subside the club's core fan base. 

By David Butler

Mark Hughes recently returned to employment to take up the Southampton job. Some weeks earlier Garry Monk was appointed manager of Birmingham City. Both were sacked earlier on in the season.

There's always lots in the press about the managerial merry-go-round from the demand-side (a club seeking out a Sam Allardyce, Tony Pulis, Alan Pardew, Roy Hodgson etc. to save the day). Hughes and Monk's appointments made me think about the supply-side a little more. Namely, the pressure manager's face to resume a career when laid off. Over the course off their managerial careers Hughes has spent 3 months off on average between jobs while Monk has only had 2 months off between jobs.

The hunch is that a managers duration of unemployment will affect their prospect of re-entering the labour market. Perhaps the probability of gaining a new job will decrease after some critical threshold? In economic parlance, the duration of unemployment may be a signal to clubs looking to appoint a new boss. Simply put, a chairperson may ask…”if you haven’t been good enough for anyone else over X number of months, why are you good enough for me?”.

Perhaps managers may even withdraw from the labour market completely after failing to find a new club after a critical number of days.

Alan Curbishley comes to mind. He has been pretty much exiled since leaving West Ham United. In his own words in a 2016 interview with the Independent he recalls how  “I was getting [offers from] clubs that were in trouble in the Premier League but I was waiting for the club that I thought was going to be right for me. One did come along and I thought I had it; I met the club three times. I never got it. Someone came in at the end and got the job. I basically lost my enthusiasm for it.”

He goes on to say “You do have to get back in as soon as you can, a bit like Alan [Pardew] when he went to Southampton, he suddenly ended up at Newcastle. I did think after the problems I had at West Ham, I wanted to make sure my next job was right for me and it never happened. And now I don’t think there’s any way back really but we’ll have to wait and see.”

It might be worth remembering that both demand and supply keep the merry-go-round going. The incentives for managers to remain relevant are strong.

Bill Gerrard, Professor of Business and Sports Analytics, Leeds University Business School will be in UCC this Wednesday (11th of April) to present a paper called “Analysing Defensive Effectiveness in the Invasion-Territorial Team Sports: Some Perspectives from Football and Rugby Union”. The presentation will start at 12 noon in Aras na Laoi 2.15.

Bill has worked as the data analyst in the Aviva Premiership for Saracens (2010 – 2015) and currently London Irish (2017 - ). In addition, he has worked as a data analyst for AZ Alkmaar in Dutch football since 2014.

All are welcome.

By Sean O'Connor

With the pause in Premier League fixtures this weekend it is worthwhile to take stock of team performance so far this season. While examining the table it is clear that Manchester City have been the standout team, in terms of point’s accumulation. Their exciting brand of football has generally been lauded by the media and fans alike. In contrast, their nearest rivals, both geographically and within the league, Manchester United have been branded as playing a more conservative style of play under Jose Mourinho.

However, what does the data say, and what about the other 18 teams who make up the Premier League. What do their style of play look like? For this blog, we gather data for all Premier League results up to the 16/03/18. We create frequency plots of teams goals scored and conceded per game in order to examine team performance. Firstly we plot the number of goals scored by Premier League teams during a game and the frequency of the occurrence. The X-axis is the number of goals scored per game, while the Y-axis is the frequency of the occurrence.

Take Arsenal for example, they’ve failed to score in 6 Premier League games this season. In contrast Manchester City has only failed to find the net once. From examining the Figure below teams such as Brighton, Huddersfield and Swansea tend to have a high proportion of games were they don’t find the net. In contrast Liverpool and Arsenal, relative to other Premier League clubs, feature in games where they’ve scored 5 goals.

Plotting Goals conceded we see the formidable defences of the likes of Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool and Chelsea. Visualising the distribution of goals scored and conceded, along with the frequency of occurrence is a good way to understand the style teams adopt and the likelihood of a result when two teams play.

From examining both Figures presented below, we could summarise from the available data the general style Premier League teams have adopted this season. For example, if you’re hoping for a goal-fest between West Brom in their next fixture against Burnley chances are this is not going to happen, with them having failed to score over 2 goals all season. Moreover, generally teams only find the net once when they play Burnley.

A future blog will chart these types of distributions for other Leagues to attempt to shed some light how other teams styles of play compares. 

By John Considine

Looking at the Premier League table in early March 2018 I was a little surprised by the neat goal difference column.  The top six teams had a positive goal difference and the remaining fourteen had a negative goal difference.  When I pointed out this to some of the other contributors to this blog, there was little surprise.  They expected a skewed distribution of teams based on goal difference.  Further investigation revealed that their expectations were in line with the data.

I started by comparing the distribution of goal differences in other top European leagues.  On the morning of March 17th, the Spanish, French, German and Dutch leagues all had more teams with negative goal difference than positive goal difference.  The Italian league had an equal number of teams with a positive and negative goal difference.  (I treated zero as neither positive nor negative.)

Next I looked at the lower tiers of English football.  The second, third, and fourth tiers of English football all had more teams with negative goal difference than positive goal difference (as of the morning of March 17th).

Both of these comparisons were at a point in time.  The next comparison involved looking at the distribution of teams (by goal difference) over time.  The picture below shows the difference in the percentage of teams with positive and negative goal difference in the top tier of English football since the 1969-70 season.  I used the percentage because the number of teams in the top tier has varied from 20 to 22.

In only five of the seasons were there more teams with a positive goal difference than a negative goal difference.  Four of these occurred between 1987 and 1992.  This was a period where the league went from 22 teams to 21 teams and to 20 teams (before going back to 22 in 1992-93).  It was within a decade of the introduction of three points for a win (compared to two points previously).  There were other unusual features around this time period.  For example, the 1992-93 season was the inaugural Premier League season and in that season Norwich City finished 3rd with a negative goal difference.

Regardless of whether we look across (i) top flight of European football in 2018, (ii) the top four tiers of English football in 2018, or (iii) the top tier of English football since 1969-70, there are more teams with a negative goal difference than a positive goal difference.  This leaves me with the question: Why?

By Robbie Butler

As is normal for this week of the year, we turn our attention to Cheltenham. Over the past four years of this blog, I and others on this blog, have attempted to beat the market, with varying levels of success.

Since 2009 my record stands 3-6. I really need 2018 to be a good year as the bookies are getting away. 

In the past I have attempted to beat the market by selecting my own picks (and here), following the favourite, and backing Willie Mullins and Ruby Walsh ridden horses.

The only year of the four that was successful was when we followed Ruby. And we will do just that this year with a €2 stake on all Ruby Walsh ridden horses. The stake will be placed each way if the horse 5/1 or more. 

Daily updates to follow. 

**************************************************************************************************************************************
DAY 1

A very good start to the week. Ruby Walsh had 5 mounts on the opening day, resulting in a stake of €10. Two winners (Footpad (5/6) and Benie Des Dieux (9/2)) were registered. 

Stake Day 1: €10
Return: €14.67
Profit/Loss on Day 1: €4.67
Overall Profit/Loss: €4.67
Overall % Return on Investment: 46.7%
​
**************************************************************************************************************************************
DAY 2 

A disaster on day two as Ruby fractures his leg in the 2nd race, ruling him out for the week. Having finished 3rd in the first race yesterday, the official return on the day is;

Stake Day 2: €4
Return: €0
Profit/Loss on Day 1: -€4
Overall Profit/Loss: €0.67
Overall % Return on Investment: 4.79%

However, for the purposes on this exercise we can continue by assuming Ruby would have ridden the horses he was booked to ride and and include the two races he was present for (Races 1 and 2). 

Stake: €10
Return: €2.50
Profit/Loss on Day 2: -€7.50
Overall Profit/Loss: -€2.83
Overall % Return on Investment: -14.15%

For the final two days, will follow Paul Townend, the second string jockey of trainer Willie Mullins. Paul will ride the ride the horses Ruby Walsh would probably have ridden, and whilst not perfect, it will allow us to continue this study.

​**************************************************************************************************************************************
DAY 3

The third day proved to be an excellent one for Paul Townend. Four mounts returned two winner. Current state of play as follows:

Stake Day 3: €8
Return: €19.54
Profit/Loss on Day 3: €11.54
Overall Profit/Loss: €8.71
Overall % Return on Investment: 31.1%

**************************************************************************************************************************************
DAY 4

Five mounts on the final day did not herald a victory, and we had to make do with a second in the opening race at odds of 8/1. Final day and overall return as follows:

Stake Day 3: €10
Return: €2.60
Profit/Loss on Day 4: -€7.40
Overall Profit/Loss: €1.31
Overall % Return on Investment: 3.45%

The market is beaten for the 4th time in a decade. The score going into 2019 reads 4-6.