By John Considine A previous post on this blog outlined the increase in the demand for Level 8 sports related courses at Irish educational institutions (here). Today, the 2014 points requirements have been announced (round 1). There are some relatively small changes in the points required for a number of courses. The 2014 points required and the difference from 2013 are listed below. The data is taken from the CAO website (here). The * signifies that not all applicants at this point level were offered the course and the # signifies an interview may be required.
0 Comments
By Robbie Butler I came across a lovely website recently called Historical Football Kits which provides a graphical representation of football kits, through time, for an array of world football clubs. I was naturally drawn towards Liverpool Football Club and began to reminisce about away shirts I bought as a kid (below). I recall one Christmas morning waking up and walking downstairs to be greeted by the famous ‘gold and black’ away shirt Robbie Fowler made famous during the 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 seasons. I also remember the away shirt from the 1993 – 1995 period, the first I put a name and number on. My vanity knew no bounds and “BUTLER 7” was emblazoned across the back. The home kits were more straightforward with my eyes drawn towards 1989 – 1991, Liverpool’s last strip as league champions and the first I owned as a kid. Source: Historical Football Kits Source: Historical Football Kits So should owners, players and fans alike thank Liverpool Football Club for their ground-breaking insight which has resulted in massive financial rewards for modern clubs. Well, no actually. Its Kettering Town they should acknowledge. The Northamptonshire based club were the first in Britain to put a sponsor on their jersey’s when club chief executive and manager Derek Dougan signed a deal with a local company. The Poppies played Bath City on the 24th of January 1976 with the words “Kettering Tyres” splashed across their home jersey. Dougan, a Belfast native, was quickly reprimanded by the Football Association (FA) who demanded the sponsor be removed. Dougan responded by changing the name on the jersey to “Kettering T”, allegedly insisting the “T” stood for “Town”. The FA persisted and with the threat of a £1,000 pound fine hanging over their heads, Kettering yielded and the sponsor was removed. Nearly three years passed before “Hitachi” appeared on the famous red of Liverpool Football Club. So whether you see “Chevrolet”, “Fly Emirates”, “Samsung” or any other sponsor on Premier League shirts this season remember who started it all, Kettering Town - a club who will play in the Southern League, Division One Central this season – the eighth tier of English football. by Declan Jordan The use of football statistics are becoming more and more prevalent in economic analysis. This is partly because of the rich public data sets that the sport provides. In what is quite an interesting further development, a recent paper published in Social Indicators Research asks whether football data can be used as a measure of economic and social development (subscription is required - but an earlier open access version is available here). The authors, Roberto Gasquez and Vicente Royuela, econometrically test whether FIFA rankings of national teams can be used as an indicator of national development, to complement existing measures such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita or the World Bank's Human Development Index (HDI). The paper refers to several studies that have tested for an effect of sport on development, which the authors argue have concentrated on the impact of sporting infrastructure on local or regional economies and have found equivocal results. Also, the authors review literature that indicates higher national income is a good indicator of sporting success. This paper justifies a potential relationship between sport and economic growth through sport's effects on health and educational attainment. However, these benefits may be seen where there is increased participation in sport and the authors don't satisfactorily make the case why better international performance (manifested in FIFA ranking) should affect health and education levels. The authors suggest there is a positive effect from international football success on productivity through increases in happiness and positive intangible effects, such as community spirit, self-confidence, pride, solidarity etc. The authors also suggest that greater migration of professional footballers from poorer countries to richer ones due to the globalisation of football may help development in the poorer countries, perhaps through remittances. The theoretical bases for football as an indictor of development is underwhelming. While certainly better international football performances can increase happiness and national prestige, it is unclear why these would be long-term effects and it is unclear why better African footballers in European leagues (for example) would improve economic conditions in Africa for anyone other than the footballer himself and his family. The empirical analysis in the paper however clearly finds a strong association between FIFA ranking and GDP per capita and HDI. The relationship is particularly notable for developing countries. The authors accept that determining causality is not straightforward, but that a "significant association does exist" (page 840) and that football performance may be mirroring national institutions that strongly affect development. The most important aspect of the paper, providing valuable insight for researchers of economic development, is that football performance may be a useful proxy measure of development. This is particularly where the availability of data is not as good as might be hoped ie developing countries. Just more evidence of the bounty to social science researchers from football data. By David Butler Last year I calculated the prices fans must pay to get the name of a footballer on the back of their shirt. Below is the updated list for the 2014/2015 Premier League season based on the names and squad numbers provided by the Premier League. Once again we’re working off the same cost structure: £4 per number and £1 per letter, with all dots, hyphens etc. considered as letters. Jussi Jääskeläinen keeps the top spot due to the 3 diaeresis' in his name. It would cost a West Ham fan £26 to get the Finnish goalkeeper on the back of their replica shirt. There are three new additions claiming joint 2nd owing to their double barrel name and double digit squad numbers and come in at a price of £23. Jerome 'Binnom-Williams' (15) plays with Crystal Palace, Gary 'Taylor-Fletcher' (15) lines out for Leicester and Shaun 'Wright-Phillips' (15) is with QPR. Jamie 'Sendles-White' (13), also of QPR, is 3rd highest at £21. The one addition to joint 4th spot is Mapou 'Yanga-Mbiwa' (11) of Newcastle who signed for the Geordies last January. In terms of a bargain there is no new additions this year. All of the 3 lettered names have double digit squad numbers meaning they cost £11. Emre Can, Liverpool's new signing, was given 23. Based on the 2012/13 performance statistics Patrice Evra was the 'best value' shirt. Given last years stats the best value buy would be Joe Hart with the number one, costing just £8. There may be one change to the order in the coming weeks. If Morgan Schneiderlin's (12) proposed move to Tottenham or Manchester United is completed and he is given a double digit squad number, he will become 4th most expensive. I'm sure Spurs or United fans wouldn't complain to much! Hull's Vennegoor of Hesselink (20) who played during the 2009-2010 season remains the most expensive ever in the Premier League. At the cost structure and squad number of 29, he would have been priced at £28.
As for the cheapest ever, all I can think of is players with three letter surnames (as nearly all of the Korean and Japanese players had double digit squad numbers). Newscastle's Rob Lee and Tottenham's Ruel Fox both wore the number 7 and if they were lining out today would have been priced at £7, a proper bargain! On Wednesday the 13th of August at 7pm David Butler is giving a talk on economics, statistics and football for Sport for Business and Sport & Tech Cork in Cork City Centre. The event is free to attend and those wishing to participate can register and find out more information on the event here
By Robbie Butler Last week Matt Cooper interviewed Commercial Director of the GAA, Peter McKenna on The Last Word and asked him about the upcoming Croke Park Classic which is due to be held at the Dublin venue on Saturday 30th of August 2014. For those unfamiliar with the event, the Croke Park Classic or Emerald Isle Classic, as it was originally known, was the first National Collegiate Atheletic Assocation-sanctioned American college football game to be played in Europe. This year’s installment will be the fifth time teams have competed for the Dan Rooney Trophy, with previous games held in 1988, 1989, 1996 and 2012. Fans will have the chance to see the University of Central Florida take on Penn State University. During the interview Mr McKenna estimated that 16,000 visitors would travel to the game from the US, a further 4,000 from Europe, with the remaining 35,000 spectators from Ireland. He suggested Dublin “was probably looking at a 30 million economic generator here” (one must assume he means euros). €30 million seems like an awfully large figure for one game, especially when around 65% of those attending the game will probably be Irish. Let’s see if we can figure out where this estimate has come from. The Central Statsitics Office (CSO) can help us here. The CSO’s StatBank provides data on tourist numbers and tourist expenditure in Ireland. As I discussed previously here and Paul O’Sullivan here, spending by Irish tourists in Ireland does little to generate economic activity. It’s simply a transfer of money from one to another. It does impact on local economies but has no impact at the national level. We are only interested in the 20,000 estimated international visitors.
Using CSO data from 2009 to 2013 we can estimate the average "expenditure of overseas travellers in Ireland" over a five year period. Excluding airfare, the average tourist spent roughly €470 per visit. Including airfare, this rises to €577. The CSO breaks down international arrivals into three categories: (1) Holiday/Leisure/Recreation, (2) Visit to Friends/Relatives and (3) Business. This analysis assumes that the 20,000 international visitors attending Croke Park fall into category (1). Excluding airfare, the average spend per visit by those coming for Holiday/Leisure/Recreation was €550 per person. As mentioned in the interview, the expected attendance at the game is 55,000 spectators, resulting in an economic stimulus of €30 million. Get this, €550 x 55,000 = €30,250,000. I hope this is not where the €30 million figure comes from. Firstly, it does not take into account that around 65% of those at the game will be Irish. Secondly, it fails to consider the length of stay. The average length of stay in Ireland from 2009-2013 was 6.9 days. Whether this would hold for visitors (many of whom may be university students) coming for a single match is unclear. However, assuming we follow the averages, the 20,000 international visitors to Ireland for the Croke Park Classic are likely to generate just over €11,000,000 for the Irish economy. The remaining Irish fans will boost the local (Dublin) economy if they are travelling to the game from outside the capital. Dubs in attendance will add close to nothing. They are simply substituting their spending from one activity to another. Of course, the €30 million figure may have been extrapolated by other means, and could well be accurate. I would be delighted if workings on this estimation could be provided. Regular sportseconomics.org blogger Ed Valentine had a piece called "CONIFA, United By The Game" carried by the the very popular In Bed With Maradona Journal. You can read Ed's contribution here.
By John Considine Last September both All-Ireland finals ended with questions about the amount of time played. In the hurling final, the fourth official put up the board to say there would be at least 2 added minutes. When the clock ticked over into the third minute, Cork led. The referee allowed the game to proceed. Clare scored an equaliser and went on to win the replay. In the football final, Mayo were two points down when the minimum added time allocated was up. Mayo also had a free kick. The free-taker opted for a point in the belief that the referee would add some more time and Mayo would have a chance to get an equaliser. Unfortunately for Mayo very little playing time was added after their point.
Last Sunday week, Mayo were on the other side of a similar decision when Cork were two points down with a free-kick. Cork opted for a point but the game ended when the ball was put back into play after a Cork point. Cork pointed to a consultation with the referee that took place before the free-kick was taken. Following the game there were calls for the regulation of time played to be taken from the referee. High profile incidents like these are likely to change the way the GAA regulate playing time. In a previous post David Butler explained how one such high profile incident, in a game between Aston Villa and Stoke City, resulted in the introduction of injury or added time (here). Another high profile incident that changed the rules of a sport occured in US college basketball on March 7th, 1982. The game was between North Carolina and Virginia. "... by the end of the game, the fans were booing, the players on both sides were disappointed, and both coaches were taking flack for thinking too much and playing too little. With seven minutes and thirty-three seconds left to play and his team and his team ahead by one point, North Carolina's coach, the legendary Dean Smith, told his team to play keep away. With Virginia's coach Terry Holland keeping his squad close to the basket in a zone defense, the North Carolina players were free to dribble and pass and stall and do everything but shoot. As the game clock ticked away, and a glorious game turned foul, the chorus of boos rose in crescendo beyond the rafters of the Greensboro Coliseum. ... The ACC championship wasn't the only "slowdown" game that year where fans booed; it was just the biggest." The above description is taken from the beginning of a 2013 book called Madmen, Intellectuals, and Academic Scribblers written by Wayne Leighton and Edward Lopez. Leighton & Lopez go on to explain how the profile of the North Carolina versus Virginia played a role in the NCAA introducing a shot clock. That is why it is significant that the timing incidents in the three GAA games above occurred in such high profile games. The GAA has already experimented with the used of a clock for the male game similar to the one used in the female game. In time we will discover if the recent incident will prove pivotal. Madmen, Intellectuals, and Academic Scribblers is not a sports economics book. Rather, it is a book about how economic ideas matter for political change. The sporting incident is used as an example of how, when people are unhappy by the outcomes produced within the existing rules, they set about changing the rules of the political and economic game. Leighton & Lopez use the sporting analogy because they argue that sports are controlled experiments in human behaviour. Many would agree. It is a book worth reading for the economists among those who read this blog. By David Butler This week TheTelegraph reported that the England squad had not lived up to Roy Keane's expectations in the World Cup this Summer and that Keane believed England's young players were overrated. The article is one in a long line that has considered the young English footballers that travelled to Brazil. Similiar references to England's fledging talent have been reported recently by Sky Sports here and here and by FIFA here. While the ability of England's footballers is a matter of opinion, their ages are not up for question. The current England squad may have notable young individuals that stole the media attention but, taken as a whole, the squad is not disproportionately young. England had a younger squad on average in the 2006 World Cup (Mean 25, SD 4.22) than the 2014 squad (Mean 26, SD 4.79). They were marginally older on average in 2002 (Mean 26.5, SD 5.44) and had the same average age for the 1986 World Cup (Mean 26, SD 3.14). The average age of the 181 players that have travelled to World Cups for England since 1982 has been 27. While the current crop of English talent, at an average age of 26, do come in on the lower end of the age spectrum when compared to other nations in Brazil, the age composition of Roy Hodgson's squad this Summer followed similar models to the 1998, 2002 and 2006 cohorts. In short, this involved blending youth (<24) and experience (>30). The age structure of Hodgson's squad for Brazil was not particularly rare. For instance, in 2002 nine players were under 24 (see table below) but David Seaman, Martin Keown, Nigel Martyn, Gareth Southgate, Teddy Sheringham and David James were all over 30. Is it the case that the 'youth argument' is being used as a crutch to rationalise England's worst performance in a World Cup since 1950? Perhaps it is not a question of youth but of the quality or experience of the youth relative to other countries or previous World Cups that is the bigger issue? Both sets of youth in 2002 and 2014 did however have the same levels of experience, with an average of 11 caps each for the footballers under 24. Michael Owen even brings up this average for the 2002 team as he had 35 caps travelling to Korea and Japan! By Paul O'Sullivan It was announced last month (see here and here) that Ireland, specifically the Dublin-Wicklow region, will host an Ironman 70.3 (half a full Ironman) in August 2015, with the possibility of a full Ironman taking place in 2016. With the huge increase in participation in triathlons, duathlons, cycling and adventure races in Ireland over the last few years, such an event is likely to attract many Irish and non-Irish participants and fans. As usual, various commentators have been quick to point out the huge benefits, particularly increased visitor spending and increased exposure as a tourism destination, that hosting such an event (Ironman 70.3) will have for the country. In this article, Oisin Quinn, Lord Mayor of Dublin, is quoted as saying that “.. the event will attract a flood of participants from around the world.” Quinn is also quoted as saying that "Triathletes usually come for two or three bed nights and bring two or three supporters with them, so that will have a direct boost to the local economy," he added.” According to the same article “The event is expected to attract up to 3,000 competitors and 20pc of entries will be reserved for foreign athletes.” As well as this, “Event organisers say the economic value of hosting this much sought-after event could be as much as €18.7m in direct spending into the local economy, as well as substantial benefit from worldwide TV coverage.” It is not clear how this figure has been arrived at. An attempt to elicit this information from the Ironman organisation has not been successful. As with most claims by supporters of hosting such events, there is some element of truth in their claims. There will undoubtedly be participants, with family/friends/coaches in tow, from outside of Ireland, each spending money in Ireland that would not be spent here in the absence of the triathlon taking place. As ever, though, measuring such gross effects is not the correct way to measure the contribution of such an event. What really matters is the net effect, i.e. the contribution of the event net of what would have happened if the event did not take place. Similar to a point made in a previous post by Robbie Butler in relation to the Irish Open golf (see here), the effects of the triathlon are likely to be mostly a substitution effect at national level. While the‘local’ economy of Dublin/Wicklow may benefit, this will likely be at the expense of other areas of the country. Given the time of year, it is also possible that a ‘crowding-out’ effect may occur as triathlon visitors compete with ‘normal’ tourists for flights and hotel rooms so that the‘net’ tourism effect may be lower than expected. With regard to the idea that TV coverage will act as a showcase that will increase tourism in the future, the implication of that idea is that there are many potential tourists who have never heard of, or have never had any intention of ever coming to Ireland, but will come here solely after watching TV coverage of the Dublin triathlon. I cannot imagine that that effect will be very large. |
Archives
March 2024
About
This website was founded in July 2013. Categories
All
|