By David Butler

No doubt somebody is doing a European wide analysis (or will do when more data comes on stream), but I wonder what effect the removal of the away-goals rule will have on balance in UEFA competitions. For Irish clubs my initial thought is 'not good'. It might diminish our qualification chances. My intuition is that the removal of away goals will reduce the likelihood of surprise outcomes over two-legged European matches in the preliminary rounds. Irish teams are almost always the underdog. 

That said, when thinking back on European performances of Irish teams over the years, it is not that often that away goals settle a fixture.  In 05/06 Cork City got the better of Djurgarden (1-1) on away goals and in 9/10 St. Patricks Athletic got past Krylia Sovetov on away goals (3-3). In 16/17 Dundalk beat FH on the away goals rule too (3-3). There could be a few more incidences of this, but they seem few and far between.  My intuition may well be wrong, there's probably a study worth doing on the rule change. 

By Ed Valentine

Recap of Week 3
 
Slam Dunk! 5 out of 5 correct bets last weekend sees the pot sit in a reasonable overall profit. It was a strange weekend in some ways with Man City only managing a draw away to Newcastle and Major Leeds Soccer’s demolition of Chelsea 3-0 to see the Yorkshire side in the EPL top 3. There were ruthless performances from Bayern and PSG too where both the German and French champions scored 7 each.
 
The pot is €26 in profit after 3 game weeks.
Total outlay €150
Total returns €176.00
Net Result €26 | +17.3%
 
Week 4 sees the introduction of a double bet and an either or to win. The selections are:
 
Brentford vs Everton Both Teams to Score €10 @1.90 Potential Returns €19
 
BAYERN MUNICH to win vs Monchengladbach @1.22 and PSG to win vs Monaco @1.2
Bayern and PSG will be placed as a €30 double at odds @1.47 Potential Returns €44.10
 
Southampton or Man Utd To win €10 @1.30 Potential Returns €13
 
 
Potential returns € 76.10
Potential net returns €26.10

By John Considine

As the last of the 21 stages of La Vuelta 2022 finishes, in just over two weeks, a new cohort of university students will be undertaking degrees with some element of economics.  Many introductory economics textbooks start by outlining some principles of economics and then provide a range of illustrative examples.  Economics by Daron Acemoglu, David Laibson, and John List is an example of one such textbook.  It is worth considering how La Vuelta 2022 could provide the raw material for illustrating the principles articulated in Economics.
 
Daron Acemoglu and his co-authors say that the first principle of economics is optimisation.  Individual cyclists in La Vuelta are presented with a basic optimisation problem on Stage 10.  This stage is an individual time trial.  The objective is clear.  The cyclist has to cover 31km as quickly as possible.  The individual cyclist has to decide how best to use his resources to achieve that aim.  He is alone for those 31km.  He is the modern Robinson Crusoe.  Generations of students were introduced to the principle of optimisation with stories of Robinson Crusoe on a desert island.  Crusoe had to allocate his resources in the most efficient manner.  He had to optimise.
 
A crucial extension in the Crusoe story arises when Man Friday arrives on the island.  Roughly speaking, Crusoe treats Friday as a slave rather than an autonomous individual (the author, Daniel Defoe, had links to the slave trade).  In this scenario, Friday was effectively one of Crusoe’s resources.  The “common good” was decided by Crusoe.  Alternatively, a kinder interpretation might view them as a team.  Cycling teams have their leaders (Crusoes) and “domestics” (Fridays).  This is evident in most stages, e.g. in sprint finishes a team's sprinter will have his lead-out man.  But it is in the team trial that teamwork is most clearly illustrated.  Again, La Vuelta 2022 provides an illustration of team optimisation.  Stage 1 was a team time trial.  Here the team had to get the majority of its members to cover 23km as quickly as possible.  The optimisation problem in the team time trial was one of pure coordination.  How best to combine the physical resources of the individual members to achieve an objective?
 
The variety of optimisation problems in a three-week Grand Tour makes it ideal for illustration purposes.  The time trials account for 2 of the 21 stages in La Vuelta 2022.  The other 19 stages involve strategic consideration because they introduce competitors.  This brings us to the second principle of economics laid down by Acemoglu, Laibson, and List.  The second principle is equilibrium and the authors illustrate it by discussing the free rider problem.  “Free riding” is the essence of road cycling.  For 19 stages of La Vuelta 2022, individual cyclists will seek to “free ride” on the efforts of others.  Considerable effort can be saved by drafting behind other riders as they cut through the air.  But, if everyone follows this strategy we will effectively get a slow bicycle race.  In equilibrium, a less than optimal amount of the public good will be provided.  It will look as if there is collusion amongst the peloton for most of the race.  This does not happen for a variety of reasons but for the moment let us focus on the way financial incentives are used to encourage competition.
 
The race organisers provide financial incentives to encourage competition (economists love incentives).  The race organisers sprinkle small prizes along the route.  The riders who get first to various intermediate points each day are awarded points in various (jersey) classifications and financial rewards.  There are also rewards for riders who get away in smaller groups from the main peloton.  Changing the payoffs for players is a standard solution to such problems as most first year students will soon discover in their textbooks.

This brings us to the third principle of economics articulated by Acemoglu, Laibson, and List.  Empiricism.  Show us the data.  Cycling, like other sports, is ideally suited to providing data to test economic theories.  In some way cycling is becoming the goal standard.  Manufacturers of performance trackers are partnering with race organisers and individual cyclists to provide phenomenal amounts of data.  It is now possible to track the power output of some cyclists.  For example, it is possible to get data on the optimisation process during individual stages (see picture above).
 
Or consider the incentives offered by race organisers to encourage cyclists to break away from the peloton.  What does the logic of collective action say (to borrow Mancur Olson’s book title) will happen?  It says that the group size will be small because of the free rider problem.  What does the data say?  A 2019 Journal of Economic Psychology article examined the issue by examining 783 early/first breakaways from the peloton (see previous post).  It found that the optimum size is 10 (with another 190 left in the peloton).  Theory and data align.

Optimisation, free-riding, and empiricism.  Economics and/or cycling.

By David Butler

The online world went into frenzy last week as Chelsea fans vented their frustrations about the failures of Anthony Taylor and Mike Dean following the Tottenham match. The Chelsea manager too had choice comments to make about the referring decisions and suggested that Taylor should not be allowed to officiate Chelsea matches. An online petition calling for Anthony Taylor to not be placed on Chelsea fixtures was started online shortly after the Tottenham match and quickly received over 50,000 signatures. 

Now that the dust has settled, do Chelsea have a legitimate qualm?

The table below show the data and averages for referees who took charge of more than one Chelsea EPL match over the previous three seasons.  The table is ranked by the average number of yellow cards handed out to Chelsea. The first observation of note is that Taylor is placed on a lot of Chelsea matches relative to others, only Stuart Attwell has taken charge of as many. Both Taylor and Dean are high up on this list of awarding yellows to Chelsea. Although Anthony Taylor does to tend to hand out more cards on average relative to other referee's, he  doesn't seem to penalize Chelsea as much as others through calling fouls against (average fouls). 

Maybe this combination of Taylor and Dean for on-field and VAR official was a stroke of luck for Tottenham? Chelsea fans may have a fair gripe. Of course, this will depend on the decisions of these referees for other clubs - perhaps Taylor and Dean are just card happy refs! I'll look at this in a follow-up post. 

By Robbie Butler

I have never been a fan of VAR. This is evident from previous posts I have written here, here, here, here, here and here. I actually enjoy watching games and leagues that do not use VAR technology. While mistakes happen (they always did) I believe the benefits of not using VAR massively outweigh the costs. 

Last weekend VAR was at it again. Chelsea versus Spurs will be remembered for lots of things, with a hair pull by Cristian Romero's on Marc Cucurella being one. When I saw the replay of this, my initial reaction was " red card". However, VAR official Mike Dean decided this was not a "violent act" and play resumed with no action taken by the referee Anthony Taylor.

This week Dean then backtracked and said "In the few seconds I had to study Romero pulling Cucurella's hair, I didn't deem it a violent act. I've since studied the footage, spoken to other referees and, upon reflection, I should have asked Taylor to visit his pitch-side monitor to take a look for himself."

The interesting part of this statement is the part that says "I've since studied the footage". Is this not what the VAR is supposed to do? Study the footage. The referee cannot. But the VAR can. It's the whole point of VAR. To study the footage, deliberate, and act. He uses the word "study" in the first sentence. So how can he study to being with and then claim he would have made the completely opposite decision if he had "studied the footage". Dean sounds like he was the referee and not the VAR. 

By Ed Valentine
 
Recap of Week 2
 
The first week of net profits sees the overall net loss reduced to just €1.50.
 
The strategy last weekend was a similar approach to previous attempts with the cash placed across the heavyweights of Bayern, Liverpool, Real Madrid and Roma. The continental clubs all secured victories bringing the pot €56. With Liverpool yet to win in the opening 2 games bets on their matches so far have cost the pot €30. Could they have a Chelsea 2015/16 season? Surely not. Klopp’s men now face Man United in what the press are jokingly dubbing a relegation 6 pointer. The supercomputer is giving Liverpool a 58% chance of victory with the latest odds suggesting the implied probability is 62.5%. However this is not enough to warrant entry on the bet slip. 8 match bets have been placed so far with 5 bringing in profit. The 3 losing bets all involved Liverpool however they’ll recover and over the course of the season give the pot some opportunity to make profit.
 
Week 2 selections:
Real to win 1.45 vs Almeria €20 Returns €29 – Net €9
Liverpool to win 1.30 vs Crystal Palace €10 Potential returns €13 – Lost bet
Roma to win 1.55 vs Salernitana €10 Potential returns €15.50 – Net 5.50
Bayern to win 1.15 vs Wolfsburg €10 Potential returns €11.5 – Net €1.50
 
Week 2 returns €56
Net returns €6
 
The pot is €1.50 in arrears after 2 game weeks.
Total outlay €100
Total returns €98.50
Net Result -€1.50 | -1.5%
 
Week 3 Selections
 
Spurs to win vs Wolves €10 @ 1.45 Potential returns €14.50
Real Sociedad vs Barcelona to win  €10 @ 2.15 Potential returns €21.50
Napoli to win vs Monza €10 @1.45 Potential returns €14.50
Lyon to win vs Troyes €10 @1.35 Potential returns €13.50
Bournemouth vs Arsenal Over 1.5 goals in this game €10 @ 1.35 Potential returns €13.50
 
Potential returns €77.50
Potential net returns €27.50

By Robbie Butler

Every week, the (Weekly) Sports Piece podcast discuss a recently published paper with a focus on sports. The podcast is run by Carlos Gómez González, Cornel Nesseler and Thadeu Gasparetto. Carlos works at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, Cornel at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and Thadeu at the Higher School of Economics in St. Petersburg.

In this week's episode Carlos  speaks with me about his recent research paper with David Butler and Joel Maxcy "New insights on the Louis-Schmeling paradox: determinants of demand for subscription and payper- view boxing" published this year in European Sports Management Quarterly (ESQM).

A link to the paper can be found here, while a link to the podcast is available here.

By John Considine

On Saturday, just before halftime in their rugby championship game, South Africa were awarded a penalty against New Zealand.  It presented the South Africans with a decision to make.  To take a kick at goal or to select some other option such as a kick to touch where South Africa would have the throw in to the lineout.  As viewers we did not know for certain the options that were being considered.  We did observe the outcome of the decision.  It was decided that Handre Pollard would have a kick at goal.
 
It would be fair to imagine that the decision makers weighted up the probability of the successful kick for three points against the probability of a successful alternative with the reward for that alternative.  Knowing the outcome of the decision, it is also fair to assume that they decision makers decided that the kick at goal gave the better expected value.
 
What evidence might the decision makers have considered?  It is fair to assume that everyone knew the hot streak the Pollard was on in 2022.  Or maybe they knew of Jared Wright’s analysis of Pollard’s 2021 attempts (see accompanying picture) or his career attempts to that point (74.6% = 191/256).  But the calculation of the expected value of the best alternative option (the opportunity cost) would have been much more complicated and less precise.
 
The rugby union situation is not too dissimilar to situation facing a free taker in hurling.  The expected return from having a free shot at the posts can be estimated.  In what follows a “free shot” refers to the situation where one team is penalised for foul-play and a player from the opposing team is allowed to lift and strike the ball without interference.  It does not include free-shots awarded because a player has put the ball out of the field of play (i.e. puckouts, sidelines, or 65s).
 
In last month’s All-Ireland hurling final, only 1 of the 17 free shots that crossed the endline plane was wide of the target.  The remainder went between the uprights and above the crossbar.  An astonishing 94% success rate.  Success rates from bigger samples, from different weather conditions, from different venues, and different free takers tends to be lower.  (A future post will consider the impact of distance and angles.)

Across all of their 2022 games in the Provincial and All-Ireland series, Kilkenny players had an 85% success rate when going for it whereas Limerick players had an 83% success rate.  These “Going for it” rates overestimate the chances of success because it does not include shots that were intended to cross the endline but fell short.  I have no way of knowing exactly what was in the players’ minds.

Virtually all of the Kilkenny frees were taken by one player when he was on the field of play.  By contrast, Limerick have a long-range and shorter-range free takers.  Not surprisingly, the short-range free taker has the highest success rate.

If we examine all 7 games in All-Ireland series then the success rate of free takers as a whole drops to just below 70%.  At this success rate the expected value is 0.7 points.  It is hard to see the value of any alternative exceeding this expected value.  The advice to most of these free takers is probably "Go for it".

By Ed Valentine,

A tough opening weekend for the account with Liverpool, who were heavily tipped to cruise to victory against newly promoted Fulham, costing the book €20 in losses. The net position is -€7.50 going into match day 2. The return of La Liga and Serie A on Saturday will bring opportunity across the dominant top clubs and indeed Roma and Real Madrid are included below. 
 
Gambler’s fallacy may be at play with Liverpool being selected for the second week in a row. The reds must win this weekend, surely? It harkens back to a previous iteration of this project where Chelsea had a poor first half of the season and cost the pot €100s. That shouldn’t happen again should it?
 
Recap of Week 1
Clermont vs PSG  - PSG to win @1.40
€20 potential returns €28 WON NET €8
 
Fulham vs LIVERPOOL - LIVERPOOL to win @1.36
€10 potential returns €13.60 LOST €10
 
Fulham 0 goals exact goals @2.10
€10 potential returns €21 LOST €10
 
Everton vs CHELSEA - Both teams to receive a card @1.45
€10 potential returns €14.50 WON NET £4.50
 
Week 1 overall outcome 
Total outlay €50
Total income €42.50
Net position - £7.50 -15%
 
Week 2 selections are as follows:
 
Real to win 1.45 vs Almeria €20 Potential returns €29
Liverpool to win 1.30 vs Crystal Palace €10 Potential returns €13
Roma to win 1.55 vs Salernitana €10 Potential returns €15.50
Bayern to win 1.15 vs Wolfsburg €10 Potential returns €11.5
 
Week 2 potential returns €69

By Robbie Butler

Last November I wrote about a special issue in the Journal of Sports Economics that mapped that first twenty years of the journal. During the course of this summer I was again researching the history of the subject and some of the most prominent papers in the field. It got me thinking more about the most widely cited and best known papers to date, and is the inspiration for what is below. (A warning - there may be omissions that I did not consider).

From my searching, there are a very limited number of papers in the field that have now broken the magical 1,000 citation count on Google Scholar, as of August 2022. The names of the authors will be familiar to all those working in the area.

The (top) five that I found are:

• Rottenberg, S. (1956). The Baseball Players' Labor Market. Journal of Political Economy, 64(3), 242-258.
• Neale, W. C. (1964). The Peculiar Economics of Professional Sports. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78(1), 1-14.
• Scully, G. W. (1974). Pay and Performance in Major League Baseball. The American Economic Review, 64(6), 915-930.
• Fort, R., & Quirk, J. (1995). Cross-subsidization, Incentives, and Outcomes in Professional Team Sports leagues. Journal of Economic Literature, 33(3), 1265-1299.
• Szymanski, S. (2003). The Economic Design of Sporting Contests. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), 1137-1187.

In ascending order, both Scully (1974) and Fort and Quirk (1995) have been cited just under 1,100 to date. The second paper ever in sports economics - Neale (1964) - is then third on the list with a total of 1,353. In second place, quite an achievement for a paper written as late as 2003 is "The Economic Design of Sporting Contests" by Stefan Szymanski. First, as one would probably expect, is Simon Rottenberg's "The Economic Design of Sporting Contests". As the original paper in the field, it is often cited across the literature and is just shy of 2,000 citations to date - presently on 1,984. 

It should be noted a number of very recent papers on Covid-19 are rapidly gaining citations across economics, other social science and health fields, and might in the not too distant future, join this elite group.