By Robbie Butler

Just under one year ago I spoke about “The Difficult Job of Management”. The piece was motivated by the sacking of Roberto Martinez from his job with Everton. At the time of the post, League Managers Association chief Richard Beven had described the last nine months (with reference to the 54 of manager sackings during the 2015-16 season) as "embarrassing season for the sport".

Surely, the sport’s embarrassment reached another level last week when Leicester City sacked league winning coach and FIFA Best Men’s Coach 2016 Claudio Ranieri. The football world has been largely stunned by the decision but should we be surprised? The answer is no.

In last year’s post I presented the illustration below which plots the length of stay of all permanent managers hired during the Premier League era. An updated version is now presented.

Only two managers have been in charge for more than 4,000 days (Arsene Wenger and David Moyes (Everton)). This is very unlikely to happen again given the current trend in management, with tenures becoming shorter on average. Claudio Ranieri is somewhere in the crowd of blue dots at the bottom right of the graph. Just another casualty of football it seems.
 
A closer look at five-year intervals since 1992 (start of the EPL) also makes for interesting reading.

During the first five years of the Premier League the average length of stay for a manager was 1,106 days. That’s more than three full seasons. This has declined in each interval, and today is just over one season. The median value of managerial tenure over the past five years is less than one season! 

​Last week I spoke of Arsene Wenger’s time at Arsenal. Enjoy him while he lasts. He truly is the end of an era. 

By John Eakins

Last weekend’s games (18th/19th February) in the National Hurling League saw a number of penalties given as a result of ‘infringements in the square’ (i.e. fouls in the penalty area to non-GAA people). What is interesting about this is the fact that a number of these penalties didn’t result in a goal. Both the42.ie (here) and the Irish Independent (here) give statistics on the recent success rate of penalties in hurling. The42.ie state that out of 6 penalties given over the last weekend games, only 2 resulted in a goal while the Irish independent state that just three goals from eight penalties have been scored in the 12 hurling matches.

Some context is required to this story. In April 2015 a new rule was brought in where penalties could only be struck on or outside the 20 metre line. Prior to this, the ball was placed on the 20 metre line but it could be struck at any point between the 20 metre line and goal. This allowed players to lift the ball toward goal and strike at a much shorter distance making the possibility of scoring a goal almost certain (a practise best exemplified by the Cork goalkeeper Anthony Nash). The rule changers recognised the potential imbalance against the attacking team with the new rule change so they also decided to reduce the number of defenders in the goal for a penalty from three to one. However based on the statistics given above it doesn’t appear as if this has done the necessary trick.

There are a couple of points worth making. The rule change has (to me) changed the way one takes a penalty. Before it was more about power than placement. Now it’s more about placement than power. I think it will take time for players to adjust to this. Colm Keys in the Irish Independent also makes an interesting observation that goalkeepers may be more confident dealing with the penalty on their own than having to rely on two other defenders. It should also be noted that the defenders were not necessarily specialist shot stoppers so aiming (with power) toward these players (and away from the goalkeeper) was usually an optimal strategy prior to the rule change. Now that option has been taken away from penalty takers.

Is there a way to address the imbalance? I think it is still unclear whether the rule change has had a detrimental effect from a statistical point of view. A proper analysis of the before and after would have to be carried out. Plus, as I said above, I think as players adjust their style of penalty taking, the number of successes should increase. In short, I wouldn’t change the penalty rule - it is possibly to early for that yet. What could be examined however is the foul which leads to the penalty. Again it’s perceived (and not proven), but there does appear to more cynical fouling taking place especially when a player is almost certain of getting a goal in open play. Perhaps the introduction of a stiffer punishment for the defender (i.e. a red card or the black card used in Gaelic football) could rebalance the odds in favour of the attacking team.

By David Butler

The 2017 Indian Premier League Player Auction took place in Bengaluru this week. A total of 66 cricketers were sold to eight teams. The auction was interesting as it witnessed the sale of the most expensive overseas player to ever feature in the IPL – Ben Stokes. Stokes is an English all-rounder and was sold for a winning bid of ₹14,50,00,000 (approximately £1.7m or €2m).

The recently founded Rising Pune Supergiants, based in Maharashtra, finished at the foot of the IPL last season but secured the services of Stokes. They are now set to make Stokes the highest paid England cricketer of all time – he’s due to get a £1.7m contract.

For sellers, auctions such as these are good mechanisms to elicit high offers. The final price of a scarce good (like Stokes) is essentially set via competitive bidding and ultimately his labour is allocated to the franchise that values him most.  

The problem however is that buyers can overpay. This seems to be the case with Stokes. A bidding war began between five of the eight franchises. Perhaps the most interesting part of the auction for Stokes is the reaction of Stephen Fleming, coach of the Rising Pune Supergiants. He can’t hide his (almost instantaneous) feeling of buyer’s remorse!  

While Stokes will probably be a valuable resource to the Rising Pune Supergiants, justifying the price tag will be challenging. 

The auction for Stokes can be viewed here. Watch for Fleming's reaction to winning.

By Stephan Brosnan

In Soccernomics, Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski find spending on players’ wages is a better predictor of football clubs league position than net spending on transfers. Previously, I have discussed the wage efficiency of Premier League clubs (here). In this post, I explore the relationship between Premier League clubs spend on wages and points won for the current Premier League season.

Source: http://www.totalsportek.com/money/english-premier-league-wage-bills-club-by-club/

For the second successive season, Manchester United have the highest annual spend on players’ wages in the Premier League with £220.8 million being paid out in 2016. United have accrued 48 points so far this season thus paying out over £4.6 million per point. This makes Manchester United the most inefficient club in the league measured by points per £ spent on players wages. Manchester United’s wage bill has increased by £5.8 million since last season driven by the purchases of Paul Pogba and Zlatan Ibrahimovic. Both are on massive wage deals.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Burnley are the most efficient club in the Premier League in terms of points earned per £ spent on wages. Following promotion to the league, the Clarets have a wage bill of £33 million. This is the second lowest spend on wages after Hull City (£25 million). Burnley have accumulated 33 points so far this season which equates to £1.1 million per point. As mentioned, Hull City have spent the least amount of money on players’ salaries and have the second most efficient points per £ spent on wages, spending £1.25 million per point won.

It should be pointed out that while wage efficiency is a good indicator of performance relative to level of investment, it is not a measure of overall performance. As such, while Hull are the second most efficient team in the league they are languishing in the relegation zone while the fourth most inefficient team in terms of points per £ spent, Chelsea, sit eight points clear at the top of the Premier League.

By Robbie Butler

Earlier in the week John Considine looked at a recent Journal of Sports Economics article that ranks Jurgen Klopp as the number one football manager today.  A number of other managers such as Thomas Tuchel, Pep Guardiola and Peter Pacult are also mentioned. There is no reference of England’s longest serving manager (20 years, 138 days and counting) Arséne Wenger.

Wenger has been in the media a lot this week, particularly since Arsenal’s 5-1 defeat to Bayern Munich in the first leg of the last 16 of the Champions League. Barring a miracle, the Gunners will exit again at this stage. To many Arsenal fans this is not good enough hence the demands for Wenger to leave his post.

The Frenchman announced today that he will decide on his future before May but will manage (somewhere) next season. Arsenal fans, indeed all football supporters, should be careful what they wish for.

Wenger’s management has seen his side qualify for the Champions League every season since 1998-99. The Gunners have appeared in the competition five more times than Chelsea, ten more times than Liverpool and seventeen more times more than local rivals Tottenham. They continue to appear in the Deloitte Football Money League Top 20, sell-out The Emirates for every home game and report very positive financial figures each year.

However, Wenger’s profit maximisation appears now at odds with the supporters win maximisation philosophy. It economic terms he is effectively reporting an annual growth rate of 1% to 2% per year. No boom and bust cycle, just nice and steady. The voters are unhappy. They demand a leader than will increase spending (and ultimately debt) in order to see the good times return. The future will take care of itself.

Call me biased but I’d prefer Arsenal’s “steady growth” rather than the boom and bust cycles Tottenham, Liverpool, and more recently Manchester United are facing. And what of Leicester? It could be the ultimate boom and bust.

I wonder would Arsenal fans accept a league title next season to know the season after would be a fight against relegation? I doubt it.

By David Butler

On Monday the Irish Greyhound Board (IGB) announced the closure of Harold’s Cross Greyhound Stadium in Dublin. As a group, the IGB is currently in debt. This liability (estimated at approx. €20m) is attributed to the construction of Limericks greyhound Stadium in 2011. After 89 years of greyhound racing the venue will close its doors, with various activities switching to Shelbourne Park.  

Most news bulletins nationwide also covered the story of increasing rents along with the closure of the track. The average cost of renting a home is at the highest level on record according to Daft.ie, increasing to an average of €1,111 for the whole country – that was a 13.5% twelve month increase. Rental increases in Dublin ran at 14.5%. The time may have been right for the IGB to maximise the assets value.

Harold’s cross will fetch a far higher price in contrast to, for instance, IGB tracks in Tralee, Waterford or Youghal. Located on the South Side of Dublin City, the value of property is unsurprisingly increasing in the Harold’s cross area. Data on house sales from the property price register shows that the average value of a property in the Harold’s cross area was €419,182.84 in 2016. This is an increase from €342,892.13 in 2014 and €330,659.24 in 2015.

Whilst the decision to close is obviously taken with regret, the time may have been right to cash in.

By John Considine

How good is Jurgen Klopp?  Very good, according to a recent Journal of Sports Economics article.  The article uses data from 21 seasons of Bundesliga games (1993-4 to 2013-4).  This is a total of 6,426 matches.  When the authors rank the managers who have managed more than one club, Klopp is ranked number 1.

Klopp's number 1 ranking is a statistical one (manager "fixed effects").  The second half of the same table of results places Klopp in sixth position in terms of points won per game.  Klopp averages 1.712 points per game whereas Ottmar Hitzfeld tops the list with 2.008 points per game.  The statistical measure attempts to adjust for the differences in the teams managed by the different managers.  The difference between the two measures can be sizable.  For example, in second place on the points per match list is Giovanni Trapattoni whereas the Italian is ranked 36th behind Klopp on the statistical measure.

Adjusting for team budgets makes little difference.  Klopp continues to rank number 1 amongst the managers with more than one club - also known as mover managers.

Interestingly, the ranking for the combined group of mover and non-mover managers is relegated to Appendix 1.  Here Klopp is ranked number 4 on the fixed effects measure (behind Thomas Tuchel, Pep Guardiola and Peter Pacult) and 13th in terms of points won per match.

The fact that Tuchel tops the list of all managers is interesting.  For the data period covered in the study he managed one club - Mainz.  He is now manager of Dortmund.  Klopp had a similar career path (a comparison of the two is provided here).  It made me wonder if there is something in these two clubs that is not picked up in the study.  It could be that Mainz and Dortmund just happened to get two good managers.

The article is titled "The Contribution of Managers to Organizational Success: Evidence from German Soccer" and it is written by Gerd Muehlheusser, Sandra Schneemann, Dirk Sliwka, and Niklas Wallmeier (here).

The 3rd sportseconomics.org Workshop on sport and economics, funded by Cork University Business School, will be held on Friday 21st of July 2017 at University College Cork.

The purpose of this workshop is to discuss and stimulate interdisciplinary research ideas from those working in the areas of economics, sport, coaching, public health, management, and related fields from Ireland and abroad.

We welcome submissions from researchers wishing to present at the event. Abstracts (200-500 words) should be submitted before 30th April 2017 to sportseconomics2013@gmail.com.

The researchers name and institute or affiliation should be included in the email. A prompt response will be afforded to all submissions.

The workshop will include contributions from the Professor Bernd Frick from the University of Paderborn, Professor Rob Simmons from the Lancaster University and Professor Joel Maxey, President of the International Sports Economics Association

The event is free to attend and open to the public. Those interested in attending the workshop should complete the registration form below.

If you have any questions about the event or require further details please direct them to sportseconomics2013@gmail.com. Further details on the workshop will be made available closer to the date.
​
Organising Committee: David Butler, Robbie Butler and John Eakins.

By David Butler

Former Liverpool and France striker Djibril Cisse retired from football yesterday in order to focus on a career as a DJ and producer. He also aims to develop his clothing brand. Cisse seems upbeat about finishing his career as a professional footballer. That may be in contrast to many others who struggle to deal with the conclusion of their short but highly lucrative careers as footballers. Pro careers usually conclude by a players mid-thirties. The end of a period of significant remuneration or celebrity status may have negative mental health effects when finishing up. 

The pie chart below displays the post-football career paths of 142 players contracted to Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur for the 2000-2001 Premier League Season. While this is somewhat of a biased sample (as these are elite clubs), information was accessible on many of the players. Importantly, the bulk of the sample have since retired. The data is solely reliant on Wikipedia entries that provide qualitative information on life after football. 

A significant proportion managed to stay within the game as coaches (the most common career path), assistant managers or managers. Some hold ambassadorial roles with clubs or administrative/director positions. Naturally, there is a variation in the stature of the clubs these roles are held with. 15% of the sample went into TV and broadcasting, primarily in the role of pundit. Lots of players hang on in there too, refusing to leave age stop them from playing – several of those still playing late in their thirties are registered back with their boyhood clubs. Many elite players truly go full circle. Perhaps they just love football. Maybe they smoothed their consumption when on highly paid contracts, not requiring a new income stream now? 

While I’m sure plenty of these ex-footballer have private business interests, very few players attempted to retrain. Some interesting stories do exist for the sample of players. Sol Campbell and Michael Stewart have sought careers in politics. John Halls entered the male fashion business. Frank Leboeuf has tried his hand at acting and Fabien Barthez began a career in motorsport in 2008. Michael Owen's story is more well known; he has become a successful racehorse owner and breeder. Perhaps the most interesting one of all is about ex-Liverpool full back Vegard Heggem who returned to Norway to work in the Salmon Fishing Business. Bad outcomes are seen too. Ronnie Wallwork was sentenced to 15 months in prison in 2011 and, in the same year, Celestine Babayaro was declared bankrupt.  
​
It will be interesting to see how this trend moves given the substantial salary increases seen in the sport, even since the 2000-2001 season. Thinking about these ideas reminds me of the story of Neil Webb, the England international and former Manchester United and Nottingham Forrest player. Webb became a postman after retirement. Many other top Premier League players of that era are also known for sourcing income from after dinner speaking. That generation were not part of the 'crazy money'. Such events may become a thing of the past.

By Robbie Butler,

Discrimination in sport is sadly something we are all too familiar with. This can take many guises and is based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc. One of the most high-profile campaigns to rid soccer of one such form of discrimination is FIFA's "No to Racism". Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Gareth Bale and others ask football supporters to say "no" to this form of discrimination.

Another prominent aspect of discrimination in sport is based on gender and comes in the form of pay differentials. Scraton and Flintoff (2002) provide an excellent overview of the theory of gender in sport, and its evolution from Victorian Britain to the millennium. Today this battle is being fought by the United States women's soccer team. The national side have filed a complaint with the US Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on the basis that their pay is far below their less successful male counterparts. The story is covered in more detail here, here and here. 

While the issues cited above are primarily thought of as 'negative' discrimination, the issue of affirmative action or positive discrimination in sport arose last week. This is much less prevalent but can be seen by the decision of France Galop to introduce a 2kg (4.4lbs) weight allowance to all female riders in the vast majority of French horse races. Jean-Pierre Colombu, vice president of France Galop, has described the move as "a real opportunity" for female jockeys.

Such allowances are not unheard of in racing. For example, apprentice jockeys receive weight allowances based on the number of winners they have had. Gender is not the criteria however. Success is. Gender discrimination does exist in the sport, but for the horses, with mares receiving a weight allowance. Superb mare Annie Power exploited this to maximum effect last March when she became the first mare since Flakey Dove in 1994 to win the Cheltenham Champion Hurdle. 

While some have welcomed the move, the majority of those that have voiced opinions are not impressed. Champion Apprentice jockey Josephine Gordon has said "I think an allowance would give a lot more females more opportunities to get rides at lower weights, but personally, I find it a bit offensive". Leading jockey Adam Kirby has described the move as ridiculous and suggests such a move would be "too much" of an advantage, as race riding is "not about strength [but] positioning, [and] rhythm." Others have suggested, female jockeys should accept the allowance and use it to their advantage.

One need only watch the likes of Hayley Turner (previously), Josophine Gordon, Nina Carberry, Katie Walsh, Rachael Blackmore, Lizze Kelly (the list goes one), to realise they need no such advantage. More importantly, they want no such advantage. If sport is to be rid of discrimination, positive or negative,  everyone must be treated the same, regardless of gender, nationality, ethnicity, etc.