by Declan Jordan
In a recent post I considered the relative performance of clubs based in capital cities and in particular the differences between European former Communist countries and western European countries. Reviewing the data I was struck by the relative performance of capital-based clubs in small and large countries. It appears that in smaller countries (in terms of population) capital-based clubs do better. Two sets of graphs show the relationship below. These use the same country set as the previous post. The first graphs (with a blue background) show the relationship between national population and the proportion of titles won by clubs from the capital city since 1992. The difference between the two graphs is that the second removes the outlier in terms of population (Russia). It demonstrates a quite clear negative linear relationship between country size and the performance of capital-based clubs.
I returned to Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski's explanation of capital-based clubs' previous poor performance (and predicted future success) in Why England Lose. They suggest that in capital cities football "no football club can matter all that much". That capital cities have other attractions and diversions that provincial cities don't have and so their football club becomes more important. I have a lot of sympathy for this view living in Ireland's second city (by population) and hailing from it's third where it seems that sport matters so much more to the citizens.
The success of provincial city football clubs and relative under-performance of capital clubs may also be based on the extent to which provincial cities have a critical mass of population on which to draw. Where the population is dispersed throughout several larger cities this may reduce the extent to which a capital-based clubs may have an advantage over provincial clubs. Combined with the 'other diversions' idea it may be that capital clubs should not be expected to do well at all. The final two graphs above show the relationship between the share of the population living in the capital city (in 2010) and the proportion of titles won by capital-based clubs since 1992. The second graph removes outliers with relatively high proportions (approximately one third) which are Latvia and Estonia. It shows a positive relationship which suggests that where the capital city population is a smaller proportion of the total population - indicating larger provincial cities and/or a more dispersed population - the less successful are capital-based clubs. More robust analysis and controlling for other factors is needed to be definitive of course.
The success of provincial city football clubs and relative under-performance of capital clubs may also be based on the extent to which provincial cities have a critical mass of population on which to draw. Where the population is dispersed throughout several larger cities this may reduce the extent to which a capital-based clubs may have an advantage over provincial clubs. Combined with the 'other diversions' idea it may be that capital clubs should not be expected to do well at all. The final two graphs above show the relationship between the share of the population living in the capital city (in 2010) and the proportion of titles won by capital-based clubs since 1992. The second graph removes outliers with relatively high proportions (approximately one third) which are Latvia and Estonia. It shows a positive relationship which suggests that where the capital city population is a smaller proportion of the total population - indicating larger provincial cities and/or a more dispersed population - the less successful are capital-based clubs. More robust analysis and controlling for other factors is needed to be definitive of course.
RSS Feed