By Robbie Butler

I have dedicated a number of posts on this site to VAR over the past 18 months or so. I must admit, my understanding of how VAR works is getting worse rather than better with the passage of time.

From the economist's perspective the beauty of VAR, indeed football, is that it is about decision making. While the rules are codified, and have been so since 1863, interpretation of these rules is open to judgement - that of the referee. Prior to VAR many believed that the introduction of technology would move us from judgement or normative analysis towards science or positive analysis. I do not believe this has happened or if it is indeed possible with our current technology.

The biggest issue with the use of VAR for me is the scientific analysis imposed on one parameter (the attacking player's position on the field of play) and the arbitrary nature of the other parameters which are equally critical. Here are three that seem to be considered at the judgement of the officials:

1. When the ball is kicked. Offside has two points and differs from a photo finish in horse racing in this regard. It does not matter where the horses started (in national hunt racing at least) only where they finish. When the ball is kicked/first touched even, it actually has not left the foot of the player. To use a freeze frame with VAR's current technology, where the ball has moved (even slightly) is then not accurate. 
2. What part of the body the vertical defending line is drawn. When imposing this restriction, I have seen the line drawn anywhere from the shoulder to below the elbow. When the arm of the defender is outstretched this could be a foot of more in distance. 
3. Where the vertical lines touch the ground. These lines should be perpendicular to the feet. The recent Burnley Man City match illustrates an example of this not being the case. For me, this is the most glaring error of all. The left knee of a defending player had a line dropped that met the ground in the wrong place (at a 90 degree angle to the right foot and not the left foot) - an error. 

One of these problems is enough to undermine VAR. Combined, they demonstrate how inaccurate it can be and instead of improving decision making it could be making it worse. As someone said to me recently, we have moved back to 1990 when in-line with the defender was actually offside. The movement in the early 1990s to make in-line onside was very positive for the game.

Maybe in time VAR will evolve and a player will be onside if any part of their body is in-line with the defender. So we could have to go backwards to the early 1990s to go forwards.

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

Football (soccer) leagues around the world are almost all open systems. This means teams move up and down divisions.

For those of us with an interest in sport and economics, this is crucial to competition design and makes these leagues different to closed systems like the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB) or Major League Soccer (MLS) – a rare example of a soccer league with no ‘punishment for failure’.

In the world of Covid-19, the difference between open and closed systems is now more apparent than ever.

Debate continues to rage as to whether leagues should restart (when safe) or should be scrapped. For the majority of leagues that follow an August-May schedule, at least two problems with declaring the season null-and-void present themselves.

Firstly, most leagues are probably 80% complete hence a narrative is written. Secondly, and more critically, open systems promote and relegate teams. The designation of champions, while important for bragging rights and prize money, is not as critical as promotion and relegation. Qualification for intercontinental tournaments is a further element of complexity.

Turning to the Premier League in England as an example, while Liverpool are clearly the best team so far this season, the plight of Norwich City, Aston Villa, Bournemouth, Watford, West Ham, Brighton, etc. is far more critical to the league structure. Relegation will result in the loss of millions of pounds of revenue in season relegation+1. This is exemplified the longer one is outside the Premier League.

Nottingham Forrest are now 20 years outside of the Premier League. This is important too. The East Midlands club are currently 5th in the English Championship. Promotion to the Premier League is in sight. In fact, 13th placed QPR are just 6 points away from the coveted 6th placed, that could lead to Wembley and the Premier League.  

Finishing these leagues is crucial so that a restart is possible. A restart without finishing 2019/20 is more complicated than the delay leagues currently face. The obvious league battles that will arise could last for years.

Cups on the other hand could get the axe. There does not need to be an FA Cup winner for 2019/20 to have the competition next year. The same is true of the UEFA Champions League. The 2019/20 is effectively closed, aside from the winners getting automatically into the following seasons competition.

The best way to start 2020/21 is to finish 2019/20. This is why all open system leagues will have to finish – probably.
​
For Liverpool, top of the Premier League, their near 30-year association with Carlsberg couldn’t be more apt. They will be league champions - probably. 

By Robbie Butler

Earlier this week, former England manager Sam Allardyce said on TalkSport radio:

"The best way to get a Premier League job if you are British is to change your name to a foreign name. I have always said if I was ‘Allardicio’ I could have managed Manchester United". (The interview can be seen here).

This is quite a statement given that Allardyce, who began his managerial career in Ireland taking charge of Limerick, is the only person ever to manage 7 Premier League clubs over some 512 games (Bolton Wanderers (226), West Ham United (114), Blackburn Rovers (76), Sunderland (30), Everton (24), Newcastle United (21), Crystal Palace (21)). 

10 of the top 12 managers, listed by the number of Premier League games they have managed, are from Great Britain or Northern Ireland. This includes Sam himself, Alex Ferguson, Harry Redknapp, David Moyes, , Mark Hughes, Steve Bruce, Martin O'Neill, Alan Curbishley, Tony Pulis and Alan Pardew.

The overall distribution of managers by nationality is also skewed towards domestic (U.K) managers. In total 204 men have been appointed to 399 positions. The distribution by nationality is presented below.  

At present in the Premier League almost half of the managers are from Great Britain or Northern Ireland. While this is a drop in domestic representation when compared with the overall data from 1992, it is hard to argue that British managers are not well represented in the top league.

Of course, a different argument is that home-grown managers are not given the "top" jobs but this is a different argument entirely.

​The biggest job of them all, the England national team job, has been held by four English men since Italian Fabio Capello left the post in 2012. Alex Ferguson, David Moyes, Roy Hodgson, Kenny Dalglish, Tim Sherwood and Frank Lampard all manage(d) at top clubs during this decade.

As a starting point, the best way to get a job in the Premier League today is probably to be a very good manager.

By Robbie Butler

For UK and Ireland subscribers of live Premier League games, we are now under a month away from the arrival of a third supplier in the market – Amazon, via their streaming service Amazon Prime. For those unfamiliar with the history of the broadcasting of top flight football in England, the game has moved from provision by free-to-air services in the 1980s, to subscription television since 1992.

Our paper in the Journal of Sports Economics this year explains why the BSkyB monopoly from 1992 to 2007 was brought to an end by the European Commission. However, since then Sky Sports has competed with only one other provider at a given time. While the competition has changed from Setanta Sports, to ESPN, to BT Sports, the ending of the 12-year-old duopoly by Amazon next month is uncharted territory.

While the European Commission’s intervention in the market, to break up the monopoly, sought to protect consumers, it has only resulted in making it worse. A 3rd provider may be another step in the wrong direct.

From December 3rd Amazon Prime will show 2 of the 20 live games it has rights to screen during the 2019/20 season. However, unlike Sky Sports and BT Sports it won’t be possible to watch all live games as some occur simultaneously.  Crystal Palace v Bournemouth will kick-off at 7.30pm on December 3rd while Burnley v Manchester City will start at 8:15pm. This means a clash between part of the second half of the 7.30pm game and first half of the 8.15pm game.

Things get worse the following night. On Wednesday the 4th, five games will kick-off together at 7.30pm (Chelsea v Aston Villa, Leicester v Watford, Manchester United v Tottenham, Southampton v Norwich Wolves v West Ham) while the Merseyside Derby between Liverpool and Everton will start at 8.15pm.
​
Given the kick-off times in the second round of games Amazon Prime will show on the 26th of December, it will only be possible to watch 8 of the 20 games in their entirety. All 128 games on Sky Sports, and the 52 games on BT Sports can be watched as they do not clash with one another. The 3rd provider has a different set of dynamics and one has to wonder how customers will react.

By Robbie Butler

Recently, former Premier League manager Ian Holloway made some bizarre comments on Sky Sports show The Debate regarding Brexit:

"I hope we get out, Brexit, because that's what we all voted for. And sort that out because you cannot have someone telling us how to do our own game. FIFA and UEFA have brought these rules in, they told us we've got to use VAR that I’ve got no problem with, but that handball rule that they’ve made up, I don’t want to listen to them. That’s nonsensical," 

He later went onto say, "Brexit is nothing to do with the football rules, is it? I’m not that stupid, so I suggest people wash their ears out and listen. As an English person, I’m sick and fed up of being told what we’ve got to do. Our country is fantastic. If you let us make our own rules up, do what we want to do, we’ll be in control of it a lot better. I don’t like UEFA and I don’t like FIFA telling us what we should do in our English football game. We should take control of our own game, then that wouldn’t have happened. Let’s get out and stop the EU dictating to us what we can do. I feel exactly the same with UEFA and FIFA over our football."

Let's take a closer look at how inaccurate these comments are. 

The body with responsibility for developing and preserving the rules of the game are the International Football Association Board (IFAB), founded by the four British football associations. These originally consisted of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. However, following the formaiton of the Irish Free State  in 1921, IFAB  became the football associations' of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Each of these has one vote on the IFBA Board today. FIFA is now also a member and holds 4 votes, or 50% of the voting power. However, the rule changes that Holloway is opposed to needed 6 votes to pass, so at least 2 UK members were required to tell 'England what to do with their football game'. 

So instead of what Holloway is suggesting that "...you cannot have someone telling us how to do our own game. FIFA and UEFA have brought these rules in", they have not. 

He continues "If you let us make our own rules up, do what we want to do, we’ll be in control of it a lot better". But that is pretty much what you have. There are 211 FIFA affiliated associations. Only 4 are members of IFAB. The same 4 countries that voted in the Brexit Referendum. 

Finally, his comments "Let’s get out and stop the EU dictating to us what we can do. I feel exactly the same with UEFA and FIFA over our football", are inaccuarte becasue neither can dictate. In fact, IFAB could never pass another rule change again if just Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) decided to vote against every change. So 3 countries could block 208 others and FIFA. Where is the loss of control?

Holloway is not the only manager to comment on Brexit. Last year Cardiff City's Neil Warnock said:

"I don't know why politicians don't do what the country wanted, if I'm honest. They had a referendum and now we see different politicians and everyone else trying to put their foot in it. Why did we have a referendum in the first place? I can't wait to get out of it, if I'm honest. I think we'll be far better out of the thing - in every aspect, football-wise as well, absolutely. To hell with the rest of the world." The club were quick to point out that "These comments do not reflect the political position of Cardiff City Football Club, nor its board of directors."

While Warnock and Holloway appear to be stanuch Brexiters, Liverpool's Jurgen Klopp takes a very different view. Earlier this year the German said:

"What do you want? A not perfect situation alone or a not perfect situation as a strong partner in a very strong unit. That's only common sense. That's only common sense because history taught us that if you are alone you are weaker than the unit. I'm 51 years old so I have never experienced a war. We are really blessed in our generation, but the past showed us that as long as strong partners are together, Europe is a much safer place...Yes, we have problems but let's solve them...Just calm down and stick together and stop listening to people with no knowledge, from the right side because that's never the solution...I still hope that somebody will use common sense at the end and doesn't use the situation to try and improve only their own position".

While just 51, Klopp must surely have been only too aware of the devastating consequences of World War II and the partition of Germany. As the past 3 years have demonstrated, the UK appears to looks upon the years 1939 to 1945 as to how 'going it alone' in Europe is the key to success. 

I also wonder to what extent the presence of non-British managers in top English clubs, for about the past 20 years, is influencing the views of the likes of Warnock and Holloway. This generation of British managers were the first ever not to be given the chance to manage many of the top English clubs. That must be the EU's fault too. 

By Stephen Brosnan

Previously, I have written about the effect of star players on team performance in the Premier League. The piece identifies the usefulness of Collis and Montgomery’s resource-based view of the firm (RBV) in explaining the impact of ‘star’ players on team competitiveness. RBV explains how a firm’s resources drive its performance in a dynamic competitive environment. In a sporting context, team performance may be driven by a key resource e.g. star player. However, given the risk of injury, suspension, fatigue and loss of form over the course of the season, the over reliance of a team on the contribution of one ‘star’ player can significantly impact their long-term competitiveness.

Table 1 highlights the contribution of each Premier League clubs ‘star’ player during the current season. The players selected have amassed the highest number of Fantasy Premier League (FPL) points for their respective clubs. The analysis considers the percentage of team’s goals in which the player was involved in, the points lost in the absence of this contribution and the players contribution to the team’s Premier League points total. 

Three team’s leading FPL points scorer are their goalkeepers: Neil Etheridge (Cardiff), Jonas Lössl (Huddersfield) and Martin Dubravka (Newcastle). Given the reliance on goals and assists to determine the contribution of star players to team performance, this analysis is limited to outfield players only. Therefore, these players have been replaced with highest outfield FPL points scorer for this analysis.

Aleksandar Mitrovic has the highest overall contribution to his team’s outcomes, both in terms of contribution to goals scored and contribution to points accumulated. Mitrovic has been involved in over half of all Fulham’s goals (52%) and has contributed to 76% of all their points earned. Fulham’s (over)reliance on their talisman may be summed up by their failure to win any game in which Mitrovic has not scored and he has had to score two goals in three of these games to ensure victory: Burnley 4 – 2 (2 goals, 1 assist), Southampton 3 – 2 (2 goals), Huddersfield 1-0 (1 goal) and Brighton 4-2 (2 goals).

However, it appears not all goals are created equal as Glenn Murray has been involved in 35% of Brighton’s goals this season with these goals contributing to 41% of the team’s overall points. Meanwhile, Everton’s Gylfi Sigurdsson has been involved in a similar number of Everton’s goals (33%) but these goals have only contributed to 12% of the team’s overall points.
​
In the Premier League title race, Liverpool appear to be more reliant on their star man, Mo Salah, compared with rivals Man City and Tottenham. Salah has contributed to 31% of Liverpool’s points while Man City and Tottenham have been less reliant on their star players Sterling and Son (18%). Both these teams have already shown their ability to succeed with numerous injury problems e.g. Spurs winning every game since Harry Kane’s injury. Liverpool have yet to have significant injury setback and their ability to deal with potential injury or loss of form to Salah may go a long way to deciding the outcome of this season’s Premier League.

 Robbie Butler

In early December I addressed the current title race in the Premier League and the remarkable pace being set by both Liverpool and Manchester City. As the league enters February it appears that the title will end up in either Anfield or the Eithad come May, unless one of the chasing pack can put a remarkable run of results together.

Whilst this is the normal course of events for Man City in recent years - the club have won 3 Premier League title since May 2013 - this is not so for Liverpool. Older fans of the Reds will recall the 1989/90 season with fondest, but the title has not returned to Liverpool since then. There have been a couple of near misses since.

Gerard Houllier's treble-wining squad of 2001 ran an excellent Arsenal close the following season. Rafa Benetiz managed to put Manchester United under pressure during the 2008/09 season without ever really looking like winning the title. The closest since 1990 is surely Brendan Roger's squad which came unstuck in the final 3 games during April/May 2013, having had the title destiny in their own hand.

So what might be different this time around? Like most things in football, the answer can be explained by money. Most that watch the Premier League would agree Virgil van Dijk and Alisson, both signed since January 2018 have transformed Liverpool's defence. Jurgen Klopp's acquisitions appear to be reaping their rewards. Since his arrival in October 2015, the German has added 16 "senior" players to his squad. A further 27 have left permanently.. In that time Klopp's net spend has been €128.23 million. 

Liverpool's improvement this season, when compared to Klopp's previous years coincides with a big increase in net spending. The graphic below illustrates this for Klopp's time in charge.

In total the club has spent €437.13 million on player purchases since the winter transfer window, during the 2015/16 season.

Klopp's spending effectively remained neutral until the summer of 2018. During that time the German added Sadio Mane, Georginio Wijnaldum, Virgil van Dijk, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, Andy Robertson and Mohamed Salah to the squad! 

These signings were financed by the sale of the likes of Christian Benteke, Jordon Ibe, Joe Allen, Philippe Coutinho and Mamadou Sakho. In fact, Benteke, Ibe, Allen and Sakho fetched €92.9 miilion. Salah, Mane and Robertson cost €92.2 million; a profit of €700,000. Coutinho sale for €135 meant the combined cost of van Dijk and Alisson stands at just €6.3 million. 

The improvement this season may be explained by a net spend of €134.7 million. This has been driven by the additions of Alisson, Naby Keïta, Fabinho and Xherdan Shaqiri. Only time will tell if this is enough to bring the league title back to Anfield.

If it is it, Liverpool fans will unanimously agree it was the best €134.7 million the club ever spent.  

By Robbie Butler

Yesterday, Liverpool secured a dramatic last minute win in the Merseyside Derby to bring them back to within two points of Manchester City. As a fan of the Reds I was delighted at the end of the game, albeit in highly unusually circumstances. As is commonplace, once the final whistle sounded the league table almost immediately appeared on our screens. Liverpool, highlighted in blue, stood in second on 36 points from 14 games.

This got me thinking. Had any team in the Premier League era amassed 11 wins and 3 draws from their first 14, yet still find themselves second!?

The answer is no. 

Thanks to friends in OPTA, the data below can demonstrate just how hot the race for the league is this year. It will be very interesting to calculate competitive balance for the 2018/19 season, come May of next year.  

The first table demonstrates just how strong the top of the table is this season. Quite remarkably, Manchester City are two points worse off when compared to 2017/18. 

Newcastle United are a notable inclusion on the list, during the 1995/96 season, and are the only team not to go on and win the league having accumulated 35 points or more from 14 games. This record will have to fall this year, as either City or Liverpool, or maybe both, fail to win the league having reached 36 and 38 points respectively from 14 games.

The second table lists the seasons since 1992/93, 19 in total, where Liverpool would be top at this stage. The column on the right shows the number of points clear the Reds would be. On two occasions, they would be 9 points clear. One of these is compared to the Liverpool team of Gerard Houllier. On a further three occasions the Merseyside club would now be 8 points clear at the top. 

There certainly is a long way to go until next May but the pace that City and Liverpool are setting, and the evidence from past seasons, suggests the Premier League is a sprint more than a marathon. Exciting times lie ahead. 

by Declan Jordan

Earlier this week David Butler posted on the English FA's proposal to limit the number of non-homegrown players in senior squads, a move that has not gone down too well with the Premier League. I agree that the proposal may damage the quality of the Premier League. The justification reminds me of Brexiteers blaming UK economic problems on immigrants, when in reality, just as it is with the Premier League, immigrants are the potential solution to economic issues rather than the cause of them.

There is recent evidence however on the impact of foreign players on club performance in a recent paper in the Journal of Sports Economics (requires subscription). A colleague, Vicente Royuela, and his co-author Roberto Gasquez, from the University of Barcelona examined the influence of foreign players on the success of football clubs.

Using data from 971 clubs across the top-tier of 71 leagues, the paper shows that clubs in leagues with a higher proprtion of foreign players tend to perform better than clubs in leagues with less foreign players. However, within a league, having more foreign players does not have a significant effect on a club's performance.

This has implications for the FA's new policy on caps on foreign players. Fewer foreign players will negatively affect the quality of the clubs in the Premier League, damaging the 'product'. This indicates why the Premier League would oppose the move. At the same time, the relative performance of clubs with the Premier League will be unaffected. The most important determinant of within-league performance according to the authors is a club's wealth.

This suggests that those clubs that can afford to sign better quality foreign players will still be relatively better able to sign them. It highlights of course that the most important part of performance is not from where players come, but how good they are.