By Robbie Butler & Ed Valentine

"It's an absolute disgrace. An absolute joke." These were the words of Sky Sports pundit Jamie Carragher following the awarding of a penalty to Newcastle United against Tottenham on Sunday when Eric Dier had the ball headed off his arm, while looking the other way. 

It is hard to disagree with Carragher. The new interpretation of handball by Premier League referees and VAR is a joke. In fact, it is quite incredible (to us at least) how often the ball seems to strike the arm of a player in the lead up to a goal or penalty. Before the introduction of VAR almost everyone had a fair idea of what was handball and what was not.

​Prior to the introduction of VAR it was assumed that the technology could deal with the likes of Diego Maradona and Thierry Henry - instances where the hand is deliberately used to control ball. I also assumed we might see VAR used 5-6 times per season. "Oh did you hear VAR was used in the game between...",  just like Goal Line Technology. Instead VAR is eating the game. In the search for consistency with handballs, the unintended consequence has been the awarding of almost anything when the ball hits the arm - deliberate or not. 

Some handballs are clear cut - like the two mentioned above - others are not. This is why there is a referee. To make those calls. People will disagree. So be it. Football had survived (and thrived) for 150 years this way.

​If the rules continues as they currently are, another unintended consequence will be countless penalties in each game. The data below (supplied by Opta) can illustrate this. 

The bar chart to the right shows the number of penalties awarded and scored in the first three game weeks of the Premier League, for the past three seasons.

2018-19 is pre-VAR and actually reports a higher number than 2019-20 when VAR was first used in the league. 

This season has witnessed a huge jump in the number of penalties awarded, half of which have been for handball. The 2020-21 figures, for the first 30 games, are already more than the two seasons previous combined. 

It is projected that the overall number of penalties could reach nearly 300 this season if this continues. That is not far off one per game. Penalties will become the norm - rather than the exception they once were - if this continues and handball will probably be the source of many of these.

By Robbie Butler

In May 2019 Irish national radio station Today FM broadcast its final episode of Premier League Live. The radio station had provided live coverage of a Saturday 3pm kick-off to radio listeners, and no doubt countless others online, for 21 consecutive seasons. I must admit, despite often listening to the show on the radio, I did not become aware of the decision to end the broadcast until the start of the 2019-20 season. 

I was both disappointed and surprised that the show had come to an end. For me, it was something that I habitually listened to on Saturday's and acted as a reference point in both my week and calendar year. As I reflected on the ending of the show in the weeks ahead, my surprise at the decision declined, but my disappointment remained. However, the game has changed over the past 21 years and the decision to end Premier League Live probably reflected this - and all of this before Covid-19. 

When I think of my consumption of the show it primarily occurred while I was in a car. I wonder how many others were in the same position? If I didn't happen to drive on Saturday afternoon, I probably didn't listen. 

A second issue must have been the television schedule that has become more and more important in recent seasons. The 3pm Saturday kick-off is now the home of many of the lesser games during the season. The 'big' fixtures generally take place at lunchtimes on Saturdays, on Sunday afternoons or Monday evenings. I wonder how much demand for listening was impacted by the games taking place.

The arrival of a 3pm game on television - the blackout does not apply in Ireland - was no doubt another blow to the radio show. Sometimes the game on TV was the same as that broadcast on radio. Of course, the televised game was behind the paywall, but could be viewed in most pubs.

And one has to wonder if the show would have survived this season, had it not been cancelled. The continuation of football behind closed doors means almost every game has a different kick-off time. Every game is broadcast on television, making the radio an inferior good. Well for most anyway.

With television today effectively having a match on numerous times a day, every day of the week, radio broadcasts may soon be a thing of the past entirely. 

By John Considine

A recent article in the Journal of Economic Psychology examines the statistical characteristics of successful breakaways in professional cycling.  In addition to a statistical analysis, "Friends for (almost) a day" also provides a strategic framework for explaining successful breakaways.  Before turning to the results from the paper, it is worth examining last Friday's stage in the Tour de France.  It will give an idea of the size of the task undertaken by the authors.

Last Friday was the remaining realistic chance that Peter Sagan had to take back the Green Jersey from Sam Bennett.  I say "take back" because Sagan virtually owns the jersey.  Since 2012 he has won the jersey every year except for 2017 when he was disqualified for causing a crash.  The race organisers also had a hand in the 2020 outcome.  While the evidence in this year's race suggests Sagan's speed is not what it was, it is worth remembering that the gap coming into Stage 19 on Friday was almost fully made up of Sagan's relegation from the points in Stage 11 (for bumping).

A thumbnail sketch of some of the key points from Friday's stage illustrate the complexity.  Almost from the start, one of Bennett's teammates, Remi Cavanga, went on a breakaway.  The commentators speculated that he hoped to get others to follow so as to minimise the points available to Bennett's rivals in the peloton.  Nobody went with Cavanga.  The commentators expressed surprise at his decision to press on alone for three reasons.  First, he was unlikely to make it all the way to the finish alone.  Second, he was depriving Bennett of help in the peloton.  Third, Cavanga was a potential winner of the following day's time trial (although some thought he might be practicing for it).

After a couple of hours, three other riders set off to bridge the gap to Cavanga.  They did not catch him until he had secured the maximum points on the intermediate sprint.  However, they did collect the points available for second, third and fourth.  Bennett got fifth and Sagan sixth as the sprinters broke from the peloton to contest the remaining points.  Then things started to get messy as small groups attempted breakaways.  Soon the four leaders were caught and the attacks continued.  Then, a group containing Bennett and Sagan broke away with 25km to go.  At this stage, Bennett was contributing to the breakaway as much as Sagan.  The commentators explained that while Bennett knows that the remainder of the breakaway group will try to dump him before the end, the commentators also suggested that he will be attacked more relentlessly if he does not contribute.  Initially it seems that the peloton gives chase.  But then they stop.  The winner will now come from the breakaway.  The unity of the effort to breakaway is now diminished.  The coalition starts to fragment.

At this stage Bennett decides to track Sagan.  He knows he can beat him in a sprint finish.  So he sits on Sagan's rear wheel.  Sagan's body language towards Bennett suggests he is not impressed with this tactic.  Another rider takes advantage of the breakup of the coalition to launch a successful counterattack.  He escapes.  Others follow suit but are now only battling for the minor places.  Bennett stays with Sagan.  Bennett finishes 8th and Sagan 9th.  The green jersey is almost secured by Bennett.  He proved himself a worth successor to Sagan.

"Friends for (almost) a day" attempts to put some structure on our thinking about such complex and dynamic situations.  It is not easy.  For example, it needs to define what constituted a breakaway.  It decided that a breakaway would need to be away from the peloton for 30km.  On Friday, Cavanga was away for more than 30km but the break that happened with 25km to go would not be classified as a breakaway.  The authors acknowldge the somewhat abitrary nature of their definition.  There is also a problem with the authors' attempt to explain the failure in terms of the public good free-rider.  Cavanga's breakaway failed but as he was alone it would be difficult to explain the failure in terms of free-riding.  Despite these limitation, the paper does provide statistical support for the economic theory on group sizes.  Initially, as the group size increases then the chances of success increases.  The effort to breakaway can be reduced by being shared.  However, as group size increases then this impact declines and turns negative.

The paper also shows that breakaways are likely to stay away on hilly or mountain stages compared to flat stages.  Maybe the authors will examine the potential reasons for this in the future research they promise.

When it comes to empirically evaluating strategic decisions using sports data, it would be fair to say that economists have zoned in on the penalty kick in soccer.  It is neater than most strategic situations.  Even here researchers simplify  by giving the kicker and keeper only two options.  By contrast, the authors of "Friends for (almost) a day" have attempted to quantity and explain a richer strategic setting.  And, despite the difficulties, they've done a pretty good job of it.

By Robbie Butler,

Following on from recent publication successes in the Scottish Journal of Political Economy and European Journal of Operational Research, we were delighted to be accepted recently in European Sports Management Quarterly (ESMQ).  

The paper "New Insights on the Louis-Schmeling Paradox: Determinants of Demand for Subscription and Pay-Per-View Boxing" is co-authored with blog contributor David Butler and Head of Department, and Professor of Economics at Drexel University, Joel Maxcy. 

Despite its longevity and historical importance, boxing is a sport almost devoid of attention in the sports economics literature. To remedy this we created two new datasets and asked what are the determinants of main event broadcasting viewership and pay-per-views buys? In addressing this question we offer new insights on the uncertainty of outcome hypothesis [UOH] and extend research on direct demand for an individual sport.

For main events, we find conflicting evidence to the UOH. Fans show a preference for rematches, domestic boxers and heavier divisions. NFL broadcasts and earlier scheduling negatively impact viewership. For pay-per-views, we find a positive price effect - largely thanks to Floyd Mayweather Jr. Both types of broadcasts exhibit a negative trend with viewership and PPV buys declining over the period of time we examine.

The paper is currently in press and will be available shortly from ESMQ.

By David Butler

The end of game-week one in the 20/21 Premier League brought with it the 100th match behind closed doors (BCD). The change is stimulating a cottage industry of research papers analyzing the effects of fans not being present in stadia.

No doubt aggression is one area being explored. There was no sending’s off last weekend, albeit it was only an 8-match game-week – I say sending off as Kyle Walker-Peters was issued a red card but Jon Moss overturned his call, following consultation with VAR, and the Southampton player was reprieved. The challenge was downgraded to a yellow card. For the 15 EPL matches with fans present at Selhurst Park last season, Crystal Palace averaged a home attendance of 25,060 – would Moss have been influenced by them if they were present?

For the 100 matches BCD there has been 9 red cards issued. For the 100 EPL matches before this there was 13 red cards – not much of a difference. If we take all EPL matches for last season, prior to the restrictions, the average red card award ratio was 0.12.

There seems to be a small reduction in the number of red cards (I’m guessing not statistically significant).  The change in yellow cards is another issue. 

This minor decrease in reds might be related to the absence of fan pressure on referees. It may also be due to players not having a crowd to respond to. Maybe players are less aggressive towards opposition players when there is nobody present to rile them. There is another possible interaction; fans venting that motivates players to pressurize officials. If there are any aggression effects when more data becomes available, disentangling these direct and intermediary causes will be tricky.

By John Considine

Fulham will be playing in the Premier League after they defeated Brentford in the English League playoffs.  At the time of the playoff final, I had just finished reading The Expected Goals Philosophy by James Tippett.  If Brentford had won then I might have written this post earlier because the club features prominently in this short book.  Instead, Brentford were defeated and the pattern of them selling their better players continued.  This week Ollie Watkins left Brentford for Aston Villa.  Another player to add to the 15 that Tippett lists with their purchase price and selling price (earning £96.7m profit for Brentford).

On the surface, The Expected Goals Philosophy is the type of publication that I warn others against.  I could not identify the publisher and the author was not a person I had encountered elsewhere.  After a few chapters, it is easy to get the impression that the author is the type of person that the publishers might be inclined to avoid and the type of person that might not be too impressed with any publisher.  As I started reading I got the impression that this was a man angry with the mentality of the average football fan.  The main source of his anger seemed to be what he perceived as their unwillingness to critically evaluate the game.  Nor is he impressed with the sports broadcasters and their choice of pundits.  Or to use James Tippett's words, "Less intelligent ex-professionals dominate the inner relams of sport, whilst the smarter analysts find themselves struggling to have their voices heard".

As the anger subsides, The Expected Goals Philosophy developes into a well structured and clear explanation of the use of data in football.  Figure 3-1, and the surrounding dicussion, mark a turning point.  Figure 3-1 presents on the Google Search for expected goals after an outburst against the statistic by Jeff Stelling.  After this the anger at the pundits, broadcasters, and fans subsides.  What follows is a step-by-step explanation of the construction of the expected goals and expected assists statistics.  This is combined with illustrations familiar to Tippett.  Hence the sizable chapter devoted to Brentford.

The book includes just enough data to illustrate the points that Tippett wants to discuss, e.g. the best player in the world according to the statistics on goals and assists.  It is also presented in a way that makes it easy to understand.  It is one of the best introductions to the use of statistics in football.  It is the polar opposite of those textbooks that carry titles like "Statistics for Sport" where the authors write books about statistics and illustrates them with some data from sport (often the data is hypothetical).  This is a book that is worth reading for anyone unfamiliar with the calculation and use of the term "expected" in football analysis.

Tippett, and others, might remember that the purpose of pundits is NOT to predict scores or results.  Their purpose is to engage the public (customers).  A team mate explained this to me as a teenager.  After one particular game, it seemed to me that everyone believed I had given one of the better performances.  However, the newspaper report did not mention my performance.  Instead the reporter focused on the poorer performances of two of my better known colleagues.  Decades later I can still remember the words of my team mate, "The readers don't want to know who played well or badly.  They want to know how well or badly the players that they know played."  The newspaper reporter understood.

By Robbie Butler

When Novak Djokovic decided to hit a tennis ball, in frustration, towards the back of the court earlier this week he effectively started a new era in tennis. For the first time since 2012 (Andy Murray) there will be a first-time Grand Slam winner. Should they only win one title for the remainder of their career, it will be the first time this has happened since Marin Cilic - who incidentally won the US Open in 2014. If Cliic wins another Slam, you will have to go back to Juan Martín del Potro in 2009 to find the last winner of a major that won just one. Again the US Open. 

In 2014 and 2017 I blogged on this. I didn't expect to still be blogging about it in late 2020 but such is the dominance of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. And this is important because it strikes to the heart of the origins of sports economics - uncertainty of outcome and competitive balance. 

This year's US Open is the first Grand Slam in 16 years where none of the "Big 3" - Roger, Rafa or Novak will appear in the semi-final stage. It is quite a remarkable statistic and demonstrates the sheer dominance of the Big 3. But has this concentration of major titles impacted spectator interest? Certainly not. Yet it is almost four years since anyone other than those 3 has won a Grand Slam - Stan Wawrinka (again the US Open).

The changing of the guard this year might in fact reduce interest in the sport as it is likely Federer and Nadal, in particularly, will feature less and less in major tournament finals. The interest and goodwill than both player endear has been nothing but wonderful from men's tennis. In fact, it is likely that the retirement of both players will lead to a massive increase in uncertainty of outcome, and with it, lower interest in the sport.

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe people are tired of seeing the same players win. However, the cheering and support than greet Federer and Nadal at major tournaments would seem to suggest otherwise.

By Robbie Butler

With the English Premier League set to return on Saturday there will be many predictions on the season ahead. Who will be crowned champions? Will Pep's City come roaring back? Will Liverpool, having gone 30 years without a league title, now win two in a row? Can Ole, Jose or Mikel get their respective teams to challenge City or Liverpool? And what about Chelsea. Could they win the title after spending so much money?

Naturally, there will be other prediction as to who will get relegated, what manager will be sacked first, what teams will reach Europe, and on and on. The variety of predictions (often in the form of bets) is almost endless.

Listening to the "experts" will help - at least at an individual match level. This is what our recent paper in the European Journal of Operational Research has found at least.

Our paper analyses the forecasting accuracy of experts vis-à-vis laypeople over three seasons of English Premier League matches from 2014 to 2017. We find that former professional football players have superior forecasting ability when compared to laypeople. 

There currently limited free access to the paper for the next 30 days available here. 

By Robbie Butler

Just like John in the post before this one, I too watched Stage 5 of the Tour de France. However, unlike John, my motivation was not to watch the cycling but rather the route in southern France that finished in the small town of Privas.

Most people (French people that I have met included) have never heard of Privas. With a population of less than 10,000 people it is easy to understand why. However, the town is a commune of France, and capital of the Ardèche department, the smallest administrative centre of any department in France. The reason I know is Privas is because I was lucky enough to visit the area 5 times during 2010-2013 while completing my PhD. It was fantastic to see the sprint finish into the town, along it's narrow streets, a far cry from the Champs-Élysées where the tour will finish.

And turning to Paris, where the Tour will end on the 20th of September, one can imagine that the Champions League loss is still fresh in the memory of Parisians. The end of the Tour might be a welcome distraction for many. The club's first appearance in the showpiece European game did not work out as expected. And while the champion of the Tour de France will always be crowned in Paris, the Champions League trophy has never been to the French capital.

And Paris is not alone in this regard.

One my second trip to Privas in 2010 I spent the entirety of my TGV journey from Paris Charles de Gaulle to Valence (south of Lyon) reading the wonderful Soccernomics by Kuper and Szymanski. I couldn't put it down. It was one of those rare books that I had to stop myself from reading, so as to have it for just a little longer. One of the earlier chapters recalls the success of club football teams in the European Cup. It is somewhat remarkable how so few clubs from Western capital cities have won the competition. PSG and Paris remain in this list.

The Table below lists the number of times the European Cup/Champions League trophy has been won by capital cities and regional cities in Western Europe. Just two other countries have clubs teams that have won the cup - Romania and the Former Yugoslavia. In both cases the teams were from the capitals (Steaua București (1986) and Red Star Belgrade (1991). Both were under dictatorship communists government at the time of their success. 

Berlin, Edinburgh, Rome and Paris are all devoid of success. This is not to mention Athens, Bern, Brussels, Copenhagen, etc. who will probably never boast the winner. Instead the power lies in the regional cities. Places like Munich, Milan, Liverpool, Manchester, Barcelona and Turin. And historically in cities like Birmingham, Nottingham, Hamburg, Rotterdam, Eindhoven, Glasgow, Porto and Dortmund.

Kuper and Szymanski hypothesize why this might be the case, and why capitals like Paris could emerge as winners in the not too distance future. But for now, Neymar and co. will have to wait. 

By John Considine

Yesterday, I tuned in to the coverage of the Tour de France on Eurosport.  It was a couple of kilometres before the leaders arrived in Veynes.  Unfortunately, I could only watch the coverage until it passed Col du Festre.  Between these two points, viewers were treated to a range of material that would not be out of place in an economics course.

As the breakaway group of six riders approached Veynes, Carlton Kirby and Sean Kelly discussed the possible strategies that might be in play in the upcoming intermediate sprint.  There was a financial incentive to be in the first three riders as the winner received €1,500, second received €1,000, and the third rider over the line received €500.  The commentators wondered if the riders from the bigger teams would allow the riders from the smaller teams collect the financial rewards.  In addition to any need related to their "socio-economics status", it might also encourage greater effort on the day itself.  When that did not come to pass, the commentators started discussing if the size of the prize encouraged more individual rather than group action.  There followed a comparison with the prize money on offer in the Vuelta.  In doing so the commentators explained how, only a few years ago, the third place prize money on the Vuelta was €15.  Incentives and behaviour.

Green Jersey points were also on offer in Veynes.  Ireland's Sam Bennett brought the peleton over the line and the points collected drew him level with Peter Sagan.  A day later he would be the first Irish man in green since the previously mentioned Sean Kelly in 1989.

After leaving Veynes, Kirby and Kelly got to discussing the resistance efforts, last meal, and economic policies of Francois Mitterrand.  The discussion prompted by Mitterrand's resistance links to the region.  His reduction of the working week and his wealth tax featured strongly.  A bit of economic history.

Kirby then got to discussing one of the two French riders who might win the overall classification.  He suggested that the French organisers might have designed this year's tour to engineer a French winner.  Kelly was having none of it on a cycling level but his comments suggested that it was not beyond the authorities to engage in such behaviour.  Public choice scholars would approve.

At Col du Festre there was €300 on offer for the first rider plus two points in the King of the Mountain classification.  The smaller prizes only briefly stirred the interest of the commentators.  And that was where I had to leave it.