By David Butler

A reported 42,438 showed up last Friday night in the Aviva Stadium, Dublin to see Ireland in their penultimate friendly before Euro 2016. For a friendly match that’s a decent attendance figure (maybe it’s even better given that the match coincided with Bruce Springsteen attracting an estimated 80,000 to Croke Park).  

Since the Aviva opened in 2010 the average attendance at friendlies has been 31,006*. The average capacity is 60%. For qualification matches, the average attendance is 42,309 with an 82% capacity. There is a standard deviation of about ten and half thousand for both competitive and non-competitive matches. Those stats discount the Nations Cup. The crowd that showed up last Friday night for the friendly match was about the same amount as your average qualification game. Albeit the Dutch would have been an added attraction, about an extra 11,500 arrived to support the Boys in Green. 5,338 more people turned up to support the team when compared to the attendance at our last game in the Aviva before Euro 2012 when we defeated Bosnia 1-0.

The graph below shows the capacity attendance for senior international matches since the Aviva opened its doors in 2010. The green bars measure attendance at competitive matches. The orange bars represent friendlies. The white bars are for the Nations Cup. The opening match against Argentina sold out. Important qualification matches such as the Estonian and Bosnian play-off and our big recent matches against Germany, Scotland and Poland also all had a capacity attendance.

Tomorrow night Ireland will play their final friendly before the Euro’s at Turner’s Cross, Cork. With a reported capacity of 7,385 I suspect a sell-out!  

By Robbie Butler

It's hard to read the Irish media without seeing stories of our economic recovery. Many indicators such as GDP, exports and employment are now higher than they were prior to the economic crash in August 2008.

Another recovery that people are probably just as excited about is that of the Irish national football team. This recovery can be measured by the FIFA World Rankings. In March this year, the national team re-entered the top 30 teams and were ranked 29th in the world. This might not seem overly spectacular but it's not so long ago that the team reached an all-time low. The night in July 2014 when Germany lifted the World Cup in the Maracanã, Rio coincided with Ireland sitting 70th in the world.

Since then, a slow recovery under Martin O'Neill has turned into a rapid improvement. Ireland now sit 31st in the world. ​

Some people question the value of friendly matches like the game against Netherlands tonight, and Belarus on Tuesday. This is less so when a major tournament, such as Euro 2016, is on the horizon. Most see these friendlies as a chance to give fringe players a chance to make the final squad, practice formations and bond as a group. These are all very important reasons - so too are the ranking points on offer.

The Dutch side that Ireland will face later tonight, were ranked 17th in the world on the 5th of May 2016. This matters because the value of the rankling points that can be won are based on the strength of the opposition. The better the ranking, the more points on offer (full explanation here).

While a loss will result in zero ranking points, a draw is worth 183 points. A win would see Ireland gain 549 points. This is nowhere near the 1,470 points earned from beating Germany last October but would be more than the 445.5 points received for the 1-1 UEFA Euro 2016 Play-off draw in Bosnia in November.

The reason these points matter is because they will dictate the seeding pots that countries are placed in for future UEFA Euro and World Cup qualifying draws. A decent performance tonight could result in some 'easy' points.

​COYBIG!

By Robbie Butler

The vote on whether the UK should remain in the European Union will take place on Thursday 23rd of June 2016. The "In" side appears in control as they currently trade at odds of 1/7 with bookmaker Paddy Power to win the vote. These odds are obviously subject to change. One external shock could be England's performance at Euro 2016. England play their final group game in Saint-Étienne three days earlier. Commentators have suggested that a positive performance by the team during the group stages is more likely to see people vote to remain in the EU.

While I doubt the impact of England's Euro 2016 will be in any way sizeable, the possibility of Brexit would have consequences for the English Premier League. Last week David Butler discussed the origins of players within the "Big 5" leagues in Europe and presented the graphic below.

The stats make for very interesting reading. 

During the 2015-2016 season the Premier League had almost double the number of EU nationals (excluding English players) than the other four leagues listed. In fact, the number of EU born players (35.84%) almost matches that of English born (39.77%). Many of these come from the Home Nations. England, it seems, is far better at importing from its neighbours than Spain, Italy, France or Germany. There are a plethora of reasons why this might be the case. It is not the objective of this post to explain why, simply to state the facts.

Should the UK decide to leave the EU the implications for 35.84% of players could be big. The free movement of labour with EU borders would no longer apply to these players and they may not be eligible to earn a living in the UK due to visa restrictions. 

Additionally, in theory, the Bosman ruling will no longer apply. This ruling was passed by the European Court of Justice in November 1995. Under EC Treaty Article 45 (1) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, all EU football players are permitted to move freely at the end of their contracts, with the provision that they are transferring from a club within one EU Association to a club within another EU Association. The UK will no longer be covered by this provision. While players refused a move following the expiry of their contract will probably challenge this in the High Court, it will lead to legal battles and uncertainty. 

The wider implications for UK/EU trade will require the establishment of bilateral agreements between the EU and UK, much in the same as Switzerland and Norway. The Football Association and the Home Office will need to do something similar and create new work permit rules to allow for EU imports.  

We may also head back to the days of the "Three Foreigners Rule". For those of us old enough to remember, the 1994-1995 season was the last when only three non-national players could represent a team at club level. For example, Alex Ferguson had to juggle Peter Schmeichel, Denis Irwin, Andrei Kanchelskis, Eric Cantona and Roy Keane, with two players often missing out in European football games simply because they weren't English. There is nothing to suggest this would return but it would be possible under Brexit. 

Added together, these changes could have a sizeable impact on the Premier League. That said, those advocating a "Leave" vote might hark for a return to the days of English players predominately appearing in their national league.

Back in 1995 Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association said "I think this (end of the Three Foreigners Rule) will lead to a flood of foreign players coming here, which I believe will be to the detriment of our game. The only way to control the number of imports will be to ban non-European footballers from competing here." Taylor was somewhat correct, but the the foreigner arrivals have been largely from the EU not outside of it. Brexit, should it happen, will no doubt have the desired effect.   

By John Considine

Earlier this year, Applied Economics published a paper on the impact of fighting on attendances in the National Hockey League (NHL).  Written by Duane Rockerbie, the paper found that fighting in the NHL had two opposing effects.  The direct effect, labelled the "blood-lust" effect, had a positive impact on attendances.  The indirect effect on attendances is negative because fighting can reduce winning percentages due to teams being at a numerical disadvantage.

In the paper, the costs of fighting are shown to be larger than the benefits.  The title of the paper is "Fighting as a profit maximising strategy in the National Hockey League: more evidence".  Based on this evidence, one would imagine a rational owner would not be encouraging fighting.

The positive blood-lust effect is what many fans would expect.  NHL is a physical contest.  However, as Rockerbie explains, fighting is not the primary reason fans come to see the game.  Unlike the situation in boxing or mixed martial arts, fighting in hockey is a bonus feature.  Fans are more concerned about winning.  If the fighting damages the chances of winning then it seems fans would prefer less fighting.

The players and coaches, as decision makers, do not feature prominently in Rockerbie 's paper.  There is a mention of intimidation but it is bound up with the negative impact of numerical disadvantage.  One wonders about the extent to which individuals or teams seek to use fighting and/or intimidation up to the point before getting dismissed.  In those sports that I'm more familiar, fighting and other forms of aggression tends to have other triggers, e.g. early in a game to "put down a marker" or later in a game when players lose discipline when the game slips from their grasp.

A previous post on this blog examined the cost of a red card in the English Premier League (here).  It suggests that the cost of red cards might be overstated.  The analysis in that post is fairly basic compared to that in Rockerbie's paper.  However, it would be nice to know the extent to which violence, or the threat of violence, is used as a rational strategy by players and teams in various sports.

By David Butler

The graph below describes the composition of the major European football leagues by nationality groupings for the 2015-2016 season.  

A clear picture emerges again. The Premier League has the lowest percentage of domestic (national) footballers and also the (joint) lowest percentage of footballers from outside of the EU (Non EU). As you can see from the graph, the Premier League attracts talent from other EU countries like no other major European league. In particular, the Premier League attracts talent from the surrounding region - the Irish, Scots and Welsh flock to the Premier League and are rarely seen elsewhere. The other major European leagues attract far fewer regional players.

La Liga has the highest percentage of domestic (national) players out of the big 5 this season. Lique 1 attracts the highest percentage of non-EU talent, the majority of which is sourced from Western Africa and South America.

By Robbie Butler

When Everton capitulated last week against Sunderland, not only did it send Newcastle United and Norwich into the Championship, it also cost Roberto Martinez his job. Very few football fans, and hardly any of those supporting Everton, will have much sympathy for the Spaniard. Sadly for him, he now joins the more than 1.7 million people in the UK seeking work.

While Everton's performances of late have been poor, Sky Sports News rightly point out that Martinez "secured the club its highest ever Premier League points total, a place in the last 16 of the Europa League and appearances in both domestic cup semi-finals".

The League Managers Association chief Richard Beven recently described the last nine months as an "embarrassing season for the sport". This comment was in reference to the 54 managerial sackings during the 2015-2016 season in the top four tiers of English football. Surviving as a manager in the Premier League is becoming much harder it seems. The scatter plot below provides evidence of this. 

By Sean O'Connor - Sean is a research assistance in the Department of Economics at University College Cork

Over the years the distribution of sports capital expenditure has been keenly monitored and commented on, with many entries on this site discussing the topic. (here, here and here). In 2014, former Minister of State for Sport and Tourism, Michael Ring noted the initial and final criteria which applicants were judged on, when applying for a grant.

Initial criteria
Likelihood of increasing participation/improving performance.
Sharing of facilities.
Level of socio-economic disadvantage.
Technical Merits of project.
Level of own funding available.
Sports Capital Programme Funding received in the past.

Final criteria
Ensuring geographic spread within county
Urban/Rural spread of projects
Spread of projects among different sports

This entry examines one of the final criteria noted by the Minister, the spread of funding amongst different sports. The table below provides a breakdown of funding by sport on a county basis over the period 2002-2014.

As can be seen from Table 1 two sports tend to dominate the allocation of grants, throughout the period, these being Gaelic Games and Multisport. Multisport can be a catch all term which can include, a joint initiative by two clubs, of different sporting codes, the building of a community hall or a grant awarded to a town council. Out of the 26 counties which the SCP covers, Multisport received the greatest share over the period in just four. These were Dublin, Sligo, Tipperary and Waterford. Gaelic Games dominates the share of within county grants, with 20 out of 26 regions seeing it as their largest funded sport.

Outside the two mentioned categories, only Rugby ranked as the largest funded sport in Limerick. However, much of this was for the redevelopment of Thomand Park. For instance 14 of 26 regions have Multisport as their second most funded activity. Gaelic Games and Soccer account for 4 and 8 respectively. For the entire period in question, on average the top two funded sports received 69% of total funding, with many counties seeing greater skews than others. In areas such as Cavan, Leitrim, Monaghan funding for the top two categories account for nearly 80% or greater, with the figure being highest in Leitrim with circa 82% of total funding designated to either Multisport or Gaelic Games. Cork and Dublin, regions which house the two largest urban areas also had the lowest shares of funding designated to their top two categories. This is interesting in the sense that these larger, more urban populations might see more diverse kinds of sport, rather than small rural populations. It should be noted even though Multisport ranks highly in regards to share of funding in both periods, these grants can also benefit further those who play Gaelic Games, as well as Soccer. For instance in 2012 under Fingal County Council, O’Dwyers GAA club and Balbriggan F.C received €120,000 for the construction of an all-weather facility.

Although, the Minister earmarked a spread of funding across different sports, analysing the breakdown of grants at a county level, it appears, both Gaelic Games and Soccer dominate the share of funding. Of course one of the initial criteria which applicants are judged on is their ability to co-fund. Delaney and Fahey (2005) note that Gaelic Games’ organisational strength is much greater than the relative number who engage in the sport. Its structure is based on a strong voluntarist community model of sports organisation. It may be thus that Gaelic Games excellent funding structures, through a large voluntarist section allow them to more successfully raise their own funding, thus better placing them to receive grants than other sporting codes.

However, given the funding which Gaelic Games, along with other sports have received over the period, has there been an increase in participation? A future blog will try to address this.

By John Considine

Many sports people will be familiar with the book Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice.  The author of that book, Matthew Syed, has effectively written a follow-up book called Black Box Thinking: Marginal Gains and the Secrets of High Performance.  While the basic take-home message in Bounce related to "putting in the hours", it was a little more subtle.  Purposeful practice was never far from the surface of that book.  In Black Box Thinking, Syed takes a wider perspective on learning and improvement.  And, it is not just about sport.

It is not surprising that there are a number of sporting example in the book (and there is also a discussion of the non-scientific attitude of economists).  Team Sky, a professional cycling team, feature prominently.  No prizes for guessing the soccer player that the "Beckham Effect" is named after.  There is also a discussion of how F1 racing teams collect data - including measuring the angle the wheel-gun operator touches the wheel-nut during a pit-stop.

Then there is the discussion of the less than scientific approach taken by pundits to Fabio Capello's time as manager of the English soccer team.  While things were going well, Capello's disciplinary approach was taken as the reason for the success.  After a 4-1 loss to Germany in the World Cup finals, Capello was seen as being too tough.  Syed is critical of those who are unwilling to take the English defeat as evidence that maybe the toughness of the manager is not the explanatory factor.

Syed is not the first to notice the inconsistent approach to explanations of success or failure.  My favourite soccer pundit, John Giles, is particularly good on the issue.  Giles is the undisputed godfather of pundits in Ireland.  A former outstanding midfielder with Leeds United and Ireland, he also managed as club and international level.  In my opinion he is at his best in his Off-the-Ball radio slot (usually with Ger Gilroy).  Regular listeners to the slot will recall his various recollections of another England manager.  Don Revie managed Giles when Giles played with Leeds.  Revie then went on to manage England.  Giles frequently tells the story of how the success Leeds enjoyed under Revie was put down to the pre-game routines like carpet bowls and bingo while England's failures were attributed to the same routines.

Unlike Syed, Giles never makes references to the research literature.  Nor does his provide much in the way of statistics or quantitative evidence.  However, he thinks and talks about the game in a way that Syed would approve.

By David Butler

West Ham United have attracted significant media attention this week as they say goodbye to the Boleyn Ground. Next season the Hammers will play their home matches at the Olympic Stadium. This move will significantly increase match day revenues. But will it alter performances on the field? While every stadium move is of course different, resources are usually directed away from investment in the team in light of the move. There may also be a 'settling in' effect as a team and its supporters acclimatise to their new environs (pitches size, etc.)

The chart below shows the finishing position in the English football league for eight clubs that have moved stadium since 2000. The graph plots the finishing position of each club five seasons prior to their move and five seasons after their move. A scale of 1-92 is adopted as many of the clubs have been relegated or promoted. MK Dons and Rotherham United were left out as these were more complex than most other stadium switches. There are limits to representing the data like this; most importantly is the fact that is only possible for teams to finish within a range of positions depending on their division.

Hull City, Brighton and Swansea all reaped the rewards of a stadium move in the short run. They show a steady increase in performance after the move, achieving promotions in the 5 five years after switching to a new stadium. Southampton and Leicester City performances declined after moving stadium - both were relegated in the five year period after moving from The Dell and Filbert Street respectively. As we all know, both of these clubs have bounced back in the longer run. Southampton moved in 2001 and Leicester City moved in 2002.

Arsenal were not outside the top 4 prior to or after their stadium move. Naturally Arsenal  can't finish any higher than first and they have other motivations outside of the English Premier League such as improved performance in European competitions. 

By Robbie Butler

It's hard not to notice the increasing frequency of boxing on pay-per-view channels. What's more noticeable is the amount of times this has included one or more British fighters. In the two and a half years alone Carl Froch, George Groves, Anthony Joshua, Karl Frampton, Scott Quigg and Amir Khan have all appeared on pay-per-view television on one or more occasion.

Much of increased coverage is surely down the Eddie Hearn's Matchroom Boxing. The promoter has a stable of more than forty fighters and more than half of Britain's current eleven world champions, across eight different weight classes. 

Despite less than one in ten subscribers to sports channels classifying boxing as the reason they subscribe, its survival on pay-per-view television is fascinating and demonstrates boxing's power in attracting paying customers. Other sports, including football, previously attempted the pay-per-view route unsuccessfully. Outside of boxing only WWE and UFC have reported any success in charging customers per event.   

The trend for boxing looks good. The first pay-per-view screened in the Unites States by HBO/Showtime was the 1988 heavyweight clash of Mike Tyson and Michael Spinks. Roughly 700,000 customers are thought to have subscribed to the fight. Since then pay-per-view boxing has been screened nearly 100 times. That's an average of almost five fights per year. Last year, more than four and a half million US customers paid to watch Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao. 

The increased incidence of pay-per-view boxing by British fighters probably demonstrate the improving standard of fighters in the UK and increasing demand to watch the sport, despite the additional cost of viewing. The hugely impressive performances of Anthony Joshua mean we are likely to see much more ​pay-per-view boxing on British television in the months and years ahead.