by Declan Jordan

The debate on immigration that has seemed to dominate British politics recently also has its echoes in football discussions. I have even in Ireland heard how there are too many foreign players in the English game. When I point out that Irish players are also foreign in the English game this prompts an exception. Even at the top of the English game the argument for limiting the number of foreign players seems to be getting traction - despite the lack of evidence and faulty logic. 

The emphasis in English commentary is on the number of players immigrating into the Premier League. This is probably because so few English players emigrate to ply their trade in foreign leagues. So while the argument goes that it may be bad for the English national side to have so many foreign players blocking chances for local players to progress, there is a corollary there that the English national team may benefit from English players going to play in other leagues.

I was pleased to come across a paper in the area in Applied Economics Letters co-authored by Grant Allan and John Moffatt from Strathclyde and Durham respectively. Grant is a colleague of mine in the Regional Science Association so we have even more to discuss at our annual conferences.

The implication of the study for English football is to embrace the 'other' aspect of openness of international labour markets by encouraging English footballers to play abroad, broadening their experience and developing skills and awareness. The paper considers two phenomena - muscle drain (the loss of players to foreign leagues) and brain gain (the hiring of foreign managers to manage the national side). The paper considers the effect of these two issues on national team performance.

The paper finds, using data on national team ranking, league standing and numbers of foreign-based players and imported managers, that the 'player export' variable is robustly positive and significant, suggesting that having players playing abroad has a beneficial effect on the national team ranking. The 'manager import' variable however is negative, suggesting that there may be cultural differences between players and managers that may be difficult to surmount.

It's interesting to consider these findings in the context of performances at this year's World Cup in Brazil. In their squad England had one foreign based player - Fraser Forster the third choice goalkeeper who plays with Celtic in Scotland. Of the semi-finalists, Brazil had 19 players out of 23 playing outside Brazil, Germany had 7 playing abroad (in England, Italy and Spain), Argentina had 20 playing abroad and the Netherlands had 13 playing abroad. Of the other teams in their group, the number of domestic players in each squad were 20 for Italy, 10 for Costa Rica, and 1 for Uruguay. The latter two qualified for the quarter final. This is an interesting site for data on this. 

While England had an English manager at a World Cup for the first time since 1998 it wasn't enough to overcome the 'player export' variable. Maybe it's worth noting that that the semi-finalists all had domestic managers too.

By Paul O'Sullivan

A snippet entitled ‘PLAYERS BANNED OVER OWN-GOAL ‘CONSPIRACY’” caught my attention in last weekend’s Sunday Times. In a play-off game in the Indonesian Super league Premier Division between PSS Sleman and PSIS Semarang to determine who would top Group 1 and play Group 2 runners-up Pusamania Borneo FC in the semi-final, the teams scored five own goals between them in the last twelve minutes, with PSS ‘winning’ 3-2. Both teams have been disqualified from the competition. More on the story, including video coverage of some of the ‘goals’, is here (check out a super finish for one of the own-goals from near the corner flag!).

What seems to have driven this behaviour, according to this article, is that both teams are believed to have wanted to avoid Group B runners-up Pusamania Borneo in the semi-finals, on the basis that the latter are owned by local gangsters. What is not clear is why the scoring spree started in the 78th minute and how the scoring stopped at five.

In soccer, one can think of a 90-minute ‘game’ as a series of finitely repeated games within the ninety minutes, with the number of sub-games, at least two (i.e. each half), depending on how many goals are scored. The winner is the one who has scored most goals across all sub-games. Each sub-game can last as long as it takes one team to score after the most-recent kick-off, or until the end of the half, whichever occurs first. If a team is not trying to win, but not deliberately trying to lose, the optimal time to concede a goal is just before the final whistle.

In this instance, both teams may have wanted to lose but believed that their rival wanted to win. At some point, given the score was 0-0, each team may have realised that their rival also did not want to win. Given this, both teams would then have to deliberately lose. The biggest question is why did the own-goals begin in the 78th minute and, given this, why did the first team to put the ball in their own net, PSS, only do so twice? Considering that PSS would have automatically retained possession at the kick-off, then PSIS would have to have turned over possession in order to manufacture three own goals. How, or why, there were only five own goals in twelve minutes is not clear.

Another issue is that if Pusamania Borneo is actually owned by local gangsters that will intimidate all other teams, then it is likely that they will be in final anyway. If the ‘loser’ of the PSS and PSIS game went on to make the final, where they would likely be playing Pusimania, then what was to be gained by throwing their play-off game? Were they hoping that if they made the final against Pusimania that they may be likely to receive a relatively large ‘inducement’ to not be at their best?

What makes this case more interesting is that, if the allegations of gangster ownership are true, how did Pusamania Borneo came second in their group? Is it possible that their ‘owners’ wanted them to have higher ‘odds’ of winning the competition in order to profit from betting on them? I tried to get their odds on Betfair but of the 46 countries whose soccer can be invested in on Betfair, Indonesia is not one of them.

To make matters worse for the clubs involved, the Indonesian FA say there could be more severe sanctions, including relegation, if evidence of match-fixing is found. On the face of it, this would seem a strange, and easily detected, way to fix a match. However, allegations of improper behaviour have been strongly denied. According to the Telegraph article above, “PSS manager Soepardjiono denied accusations that the own-goals were intentional.” We never planned to make those own-goals," he said.” 

By Robbie Butler

In Part 1 of this piece I consider the competitiveness of sports, with particular focus on tennis. As stated, I believe we are currently watching three of the greatest tennis players not just of a generation but of all time. Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic have between them won 38 of the last 45 Grand Slams. Since Federer's Wimbledon victory in the summer of 2003 only Andy Roddick, Gastón Gaudio, Marat Safin, Juan Martín del Petro, Andy Murray (twice), Stanislas Wawrinka and Marin Cilic have won a Grand Slam. 

The trio of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic held a monopoly on Grand Slams from Wimbledon 2004 until the 2009 US Open when sixth seed Juan Martín del Petro shocked Federer in the final, winning by 3 sets to 2. Remarkably, del Petro was vistorious despite the fact Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all reached the semi-final stage. However, the monopoly quickly resumed and was only broken in 2012, again at the US Open, when Andy Murray overcame Djokovic in the final. 

The graph below attempts to capture the dominance of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic since 2005. The top four players in the ATP Tour Ranking at the end of each season are analysed to give a C4 measure of competitive balisrnce.

By Robbie Butler

In recent years I have watched tennis not so much because I am a massive fan of the sport but more so because I believe we are lucky enough to be witnessing a golden generation. Roger Federer (17), Rafa Nadal (14) and Novak Djokovic (7) have to date won 38 Grand Slams between them. Since Federer won his first Grand Slam in 2003 (Wimbledon) only seven others (excluding Nadal and Djokovic) have won a Grand Slam title. Between them the three have won nearly 87% of all Grand Slams since Wimbledon 2003. This covers a massive 45 Slams! While the three have dominated tennis for more than a decade, there is still uncertainty of outcome when it comes to them playing one another. 

Many sports fans are often critical of champions that are 'too dominant' and suggest that they are beating a sub-standard level of opponent. World Heavyweight Boxing Champion Wladimir Klitschko comes to mind. The current WBA (Super), IBF, WBO, IBO and The Ring world champion is now unbeaten in his last twenty-one fights, with his last defeat coming way back in 2004. However, Dr. Steelhammer is often criticised unfairly for the standard of opponent he faces. Surely, this isn't his fault? All he can do it beat what's put in front of him. Great boxers are often remembered not because they won every fight but because they were part of a golden generation which fans of the sport were privileged to be part of. Sugar Ray Lenoard, Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler and Thomas Hearns are still considered some of the greatest boxers ever to enter the ring. All were defeated. However each fought against one another in what many consider to be a golden generation of middleweight boxers. 

Fans of equine sport will recall the titanic battles between Kauto Star and Denman from 2007 to 2010. The great Arkle, regarded by most and more importantly the national hunt handicapper, as the greatest national hunt horse of all time, had to overcome the almost equally great Mill House. 

One could argue Messi and Ronaldo are locked in an equally great struggle to be crowned the greatest player of all time. 

It seems sports stars become legends when they are faced with an equally great opponent and are not just defined by their own ability but also the ability of those around them. Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are very lucky in that regard. Each is surrounded by greatness on two sides. We are lucky enough to have front row seat. 

We'll take a closer look at the data on this in Part 2.

By Robbie Butler

The result in Scotland last week has damaged the chances of the Irish team qualifying for Euro 2016. Following the end of all matches on Sunday, I glanced at the groups and have to say that Ireland are in a particularly strong, if not the strongest, qualification group. This is in spite of the fact the Boys In Green were placed in the 2nd Seed pot when the draw was made in Nice last February. 

Following the result last week, I'm now very worried about our qualification prospects. In fact, if I'm honest, I don't think the Irish team will make the play-off spot (3rd).    

Our FIFA ranking supports this view. I know people often claim the rankings are meaningless but overall they do a fairly good job at estimating the current strength of a nation. (Click here for an explanation of how the rankings are calculated). Below is Ireland's world ranking from 2000 to 2014.

Here's what has me worried. If we consider Germany, Poland and Scotland since the start of 2014 you'll see FIFA believe we are now the 4th best of these teams. Germany have moved to #1 sport since winning the World Cup. Scotland have consistently outperformed us, while Poland are now surging ahead of us.  

This is some good news though. Ireland have qualified for 5 major tournaments to date; Euro '88, Italia '90, USA '94, Korea and Japan in 2002 and Euro 2012. Only once in this period of time was there a competition when more than 30% of UEFA members qualified for the finals that Ireland did not qualify; Euro 1996. The 2016 tournament in France will see nearly half of all UEFA members participate (24/53).  

Will Ireland be at the party? I really hope so but I'm not so sure....

By John Considine

Last Sunday, NewsTalk's Off The Ball radio show broadcast an interview with Simon Kuper (at approximately 49 minutes of part 4 of the show here).  Kuper was in Dublin at the web summit and the Off The Ball crew took the opportunity to interview him.

The interview starts with a discussion of how the legendary Bill James does not have a smart phone.  It then moves to a discussion of the use of statistics in sport.  A sizable part of the interview is devoted to an examination of Louis van Gaal's reign at Manchester United.  The other large part of the interview involves Kuper discussing what we can expect from the next edition of Soccernomics.

When discussing the use of statistics in soccer, Kuper makes the point that soccer is drowning in a sea of statistics and that there is a need for some "mopping up".  He says there is a need to determine what statistics are useful.  Kuper recounts a discussion he had with Carlo Ancelotti where the Real Madrid boss pointed out that the statistics tended to focus on the 1 minute the player has the ball and ignore the 89 minutes the player is without the ball.  It reminded me of the Maldini Principle discussed by Chris Anderson and David Sally in their book The Numbers Game.  Anderson & Sally point out that if a defender is doing a good job then they will probably be required to do less tackling.  Good positional sense reduces the need to tackle.  Anderson & Sally say that Alex Ferguson admits that it was his incorrect intrepretation of the tackle statistics that lead to him allow Jaap Stam to leave Old Trafford.

In the interview Kuper says that Alex Ferguson's view on statistics will be included in the new edition of Soccernomics.  There will also be new material on Financial Fair Play, the Brazil World Cup, and on the use of match statistics.

Kuper was asked what they might have got wrong in the earlier edition.  In not so many words, Kuper says "nothing".  He does say that some of the issues they raised in the earlier edition have now become mainstream.  For example, he says people now accept that host countries do not benefit financially from major sporting events.  There are not too many sports economists that would disagree.

The interview ended with Kuper being asked about his love of soccer and if it has changed.  He admitted his love for club football has dimished because he has "looked behind the curtain".  He says players and managers are in it for the money.  However, he maintains a love for the representative game in the guise of the Netherlands national team.  It is ironic that the economics of the situation seems to suggest that club is increasingly dominating country.

By Robbie Butler

Two weeks ago the Badger Ales Trophy went to post at Wincanton racecourse. This Class 1 Listed handicap chase had a prize fund of some £60,000 with the winner scoping just over £34,000. On the day, the Neil Mulholland trained The Young Master easily won the chase by some seven lengths. 

However, things were not as they appeared. 

In the minutes after the race, Channel Four commentators began to question whether the horse was eligible to run. One of the race's entry criteria was that a horse must have run in at least three chases. The Young Master had run in just two. Confusion set in. The steward held an inquiry but found that they could not alter the result of the race on the grounds of "ineligibility". The result stood, backers of The Young Master were paid in full, and the matter was passed to the British Horseracing Authority (BHA). 

The BHA subsequently met and ruled that The Young Master should not have run and was disqualified. Trainer Neil Mulholland was fined £250. The £34,000 prize fund was taken from the owners. However, bets were unaffected. Those that had backed second placed Court By Surprise to win the race could not collected.

Here's where it get very interesting. The Young Master's handicap mark was not left alone. The horse was raised 14 lbs in the ratings. This is despite the fact he was disqualified. This seems like a double punishment. 

BHA director of racing Ruth Quinn said: "We have a duty to the sport as a whole, including punters and other horsemen, and that duty is not played out by not taking account of the form from Saturday's race. We appreciate that this may be seen as a hard line by some, but we are confident that in the best interests of the sport it is the correct decision. It is borne out by other precedents of horses being disqualified - for example for taking the wrong course - then being reassessed off the back of these performances."

While the BHA acknowledge that they and Weatherbys (horseracing administrators) made a mistake in letting the horse run, they believe the ultimate responsibility for entry lies with the trainer; hence the double punishment. Racing authorities suggest the error occurred due to 'computer failure'. Blame the computer. The Little Britain "Computer Say No" sketch comes to mind.