By Robbie Butler

FIFA is the body that has run world football since 1904 but it does not hold responsibility over the rules of the game. Instead the International Football Association Board (IFAB) retains this honour, and has done so since 1886. FIFA is represented on IFAB and, given the voting arrangements on the Board, any rule changes require FIFA support. Those that follow football closely will recognise that this authority is quite conservative. 

The 2017/18 Laws of the Game are very different in this regard as they saw the inclusion of new laws, for the purposes of testing, the most significant being the introduction of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR). VAR is mentioned twice in this document and it says:
​
“For a Law to be changed, The IFAB must be convinced that the change will benefit the game. This sometimes means that the proposal will be tested, e.g. the current video assistance for referees (VAR) and 4th substitute in extra time experiments”.

“The IFAB will continue the video assistant referee (VAR) experiment with around 20 competitions, including FIFA, undertaking ‘live’ experiments of the protocols established in 2016”.

I have watched a large number of games where VAR has been used. In my opinion, it has not benefited the game. It’s becoming clear that there are certain instances in football, and indeed sport, where video technology can help and other scenarios where it is no better than the referee. The dividing point comes down to whether a rule or law is objective or subjective.

Objective rules are based on fact. They don’t require opinion, feelings or emotions. Something is or isn't. Subjective rules are open to interpretation and can be influenced by emotion or opinion. 

Tennis and rugby are two excellent examples where video technology are used superbly to ensure fairness in the application of the rules of each game. Hawk-Eye has become an exciting element of tennis and is effectively flawless as the rule is objective. Did any part of the ball touch any part of the line? If yes, the ball is in. If no, it is out. We don't read about instances where Hawk-Eye 'may have got it wrong'.

Ireland’s third try against England at Twickenham in the recent Six Nations is another great example. Jacob Stockdale’s solo run had a number of questions posed of it. Did Stockdale knock the ball forward with his hand? Yes, or no? Did the ball cross the end-line before Stockdale put downward pressure on it? Yes, or no? Did Stockdale apply downward pressure on the ball? Yes, or no. These questions don’t require interpretation. They are not open to opinion or judgement calls.

Football has had similar success with goal-line technology. The question is objective. Did all of the ball, cross all of the goal line? This change has been a welcome addition. I bet Frank Lampard wishes it was in place during the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. I have yet to see this technology fail. I doubt it ever will. 

If the VAR experiment is to work like these examples, it needs to be altered. Using VAR to “help” with subjective rules is a recipe for disaster. Everyone views the game differently. A good tackle to one person might be a foul to another. A pull on a jersey, where a player goes down, could be a penalty to one viewer and a dive to another. That is what the referee is there for. If VAR is to be used for these, why the need for the referee? 

To use VAR, there must be a 'clear and obvious' need - this seems objective but in reality it is still fuzzy. How do we justify that the foul on player X was clear and obvious but the foul on player Y was not? The controversy is just pushed back a step.   

VAR could be used in some circumstances but only where rules are objective. For example, goals where offside may be an issue could offer some hope but the parameters for use need to be made very clear.

At the moment a player is offside if "any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent”.

There are two instances here where VAR could work, for the benefit of the game. Scenario one occurred in the recent Champions League semi-final between Manchester City and Liverpool. Leroy Sane was incorrectly judged to be offside, having put the ball in the net, just before half-time. In this instance, VAR could have confirmed an incorrect decision and awarded the goals. The second scenario is when a goal is scored and awarded, where offside might be an issue. These occurrences are rare but do occur, and in this case, the referee could rule out the goal and award the defending team an indirect free-kick as is the norm with offside decisions. ​Crucially, in both cases, the game can only restart in one of two ways; a kick-off at the centre circle or an indirect free-kick. At the moment VAR could result in a kick-off, penalty, an indirect-free kick, a thrown-in, a corner, a goal-kick, etc. 

A word of caution. The parameters on this would need to made very clear so that everyone is aware how far back in play offside decisions could be viewed. VAR may require a complete overhaul of the Rules of the Game if it is to work like technology in other sports. This begs the questions whether it is worth the cost. 
​
Most recently, German referee Guido Winkmann had to ask players from Mainz and Freiburg to return to the pitch during half time as VAR had awarded a penalty. Anyone that thinks this will “benefit the game” is mistaken. 

By Robbie Butler

Last week Sky Sports published an interest article about the record revenues recently announced by Tottenham Hotspur. The piece explains the growth in Spurs' revenues and presents a table of data labelled "Tottenham financial highlights". Below I reproduce an abridged version of this and circle an interesting dimension - gate receipts.

What has become apparent in recent years is the diminishing importance of gate receipts, to Premier League clubs, in the overall context of club revenue. For the vast majority of the history of football, getting fans through the turnstiles was the primary way to fund club expenditure. This is still the case for most lower league clubs but no longer the reality in the Premier League. 

In the last number of weeks, various clubs have made announcements about ticket prices for the 2018/19 season. Manchester United will freeze prices for a 7th consecutive season, and introduce further third degree price discrimination, by charging a lower price to 18-25 year age bracket, in an attempt to improve the atmosphere at home games. This is on the back of a general reduction across all clubs, of about 33%, during the 2016-17 Premier League season.

In an era of record club revenues this might come as a surprise. The graphic above should help explain the apparent contradiction (ironically this is not the case for Tottenham).

Ticket revenues are dwarfed by broadcasting deals today. Reducing ticket prices, or at a minimum freezing prices, has high impact in terms on public perception. In fact, the television spectacle is greatly enhanced by full stadiums. The fans are a major reasons why the Premier League has become so exportable globally.

​If broadcasting revenues continue to climb, local supporters should see further reductions in ticket prices, where television viewers effectively subside the club's core fan base. 

By Robbie Butler

This week Republic of Ireland manager Martin O’Neill announced a squad of 30 players for an upcoming friendly against Turkey. As one might expect, the squad is a mixture of regulars and new faces. While some argue about the merit of such friendlies at this time of the year, it is an opportunity to allow younger players to showcase their talents on the senior international stage. These fixtures also represent a passing of the guard. The likes of John O’Shea and Glenn Whelan have been part of the Irish set up since mid-2000 but are absent from 30 man list. Whether this will continue remains to be seen but there is a good chance we have seen the last of both in a green jersey. 

As Ireland will not compete at the World Cup in Russia this summer, eyes naturally turn the pending UEFA European Championship qualifiers. The draw for this takes place on the 2nd of December 2018 at the Convention Centre in Dublin. For the first time ever, Ireland will be hoping to secure qualification for the same tournament three times in a row.

While some regard qualification as a minimum requirement, others  are more pragmatic about reaching the finals of major competitions. The recent World Cup play-off defeat is an example. I for one was surprised Ireland reached the play-off stage. The country was the only Pot 4 nation to make it that far in the competition. While elimination at the hands of Denmark was particularly sore given the 5-1 defeat in Dublin, one should be conscience of the quality of our own squad as well as the opposition. The table below is worth considering. 

The rows 1990 to 2016 present descriptive statistics on approximate measures of player quality. These of course are only a guide and do not control for all factors. The data only applies to Irish internationals playing in England and covers the top 18 players in the squad for each of the major tournaments Ireland qualified for. Examples of missing players include Packie Bonnar (Celtic) John Aldridge (Real Sociedad) in 1990 and Robbie Keane (LA Galaxy) in 2012.

The column of data named "Cumulative League Rank of Players" is calculated based on the finishing league position of the club each player played for. For example, the squad of 1994 contained Dennis Irwin of Manchester United. Man United won the league that season so Irwin gets a value of 1. Roy Keane is also awarded a value of won. Terry Phelan played for Manchester City who finished 16th in the league. These three players therefore are 1+1+16=18. John Aldridge at the time played for Tranmere Rovers. The Merseyside club finished 6th in second tier of English football so Aldridge gets a value of 26, as there are 26 better 

The 2018 row presents data on the top 18 players, called into the squad this week, that have received at least one cap to date. All 30 play in England so no omissions are reported. 

​What does it tell us?

​For one, the Irish squad that qualified for the 2002 World Cup in Korea and Japan was arguably the best. A cumulative league position of the top 18 players added to just 195. That’s an average of 10.83. Effectively, this means the average player in the squad was a mid-table Premier League player. The lowest ranked player (Richard Dunne) played for the 21st best team in England (Manchester City) who had just won the Championship. The remaining 95% of the squad all played in the Premier League that season. Is it any wonder the team played its best football at a World Cup, scored more than a single goal in a game for the first time (3-0 win over Saudi Arabia) and reached the last sixteen of the competition? The team left Korea and Japan without losing a game in normal time or extra time.

Since then the trend has been downwards. The Euro Championship Finals squads of 2012 and 2016 were effectively Premier League teams just above the relegation zone (between 15th and 17th) . I would argue that qualifying for these finals was a very good achievement by both international managers.

In future it may be even more difficult. The most recent squad has a cumulative league position of 368. That’s nearly double the 2002 World Cup Squad. The highest ranked player (Jeff Hendrick) is 7th in the current Premier League table. The average player now plays for the bottom Premier League club (19.94). Just 9 (50%) of the top 18 players are Premier League players. These figures will probably improve once the qualifiers come around. Robbie Brady Darren Randolph, Stephen Ward and Richard Keogh will all make things better but even with these players included the average league position is 17.13.

Food for thought the next time you hear someone argue the team “should be doing better”.

By Robbie Butler

There were some recent changes in the competition structure of the UEFA Champions League that is good news for the big four leagues of Spain (1), Germany (2), England (3) and Italy (4). From next season (2018/19) all four leagues will have a guaranteed four places in the Group Stage of the competition.

Fans of the Premier League will be familiar with the 4th placed team having to navigate, a sometimes tricky, play-off round at the start of each new season. For example, this season Liverpool had to overcome German club Hoffenheim in a two-leg playoff in August before entering the group stages.

Since 2009-10 this route has been more difficult than before, as clubs from the bigger leagues must go down the "League Path" to qualify. This is different to the "Champions Path". The Champions Path is for clubs that win their respective leagues but do not automatically qualify for the Group Stages. By definition these are weaker clubs from weaker leagues, but have the advantage of playing one another in order to qualify. This is largely the reasons clubs from Cyprus, Hungary and Slovakia have reached the last 32 of the competition.

However, the new competition structure is reducing the number of teams that can qualify from the Champions Path from 5 to 4. This is particularly bad news for League of Ireland clubs. The last 32 of the competition continues to remains elusive for clubs on this island (both North and South) and despite some near misses (Shelbourne and Dundalk) next years' competition will be even harder to get to.

The new rules are also bad news for UEFA leagues ranked 11 and 12 (currently Czech rep and Switzerland) as the champions of both leagues, normally guaranteed qualification to the last 32, will now need to come through a play-off. 

It seems as if the bigger leagues are fighting back, and concessions made in 2009/10 are in reverse somewhat. As David pointed out last September there is clear balance issues with the Champions route. 

By Robbie Butler

The 2018 Winter Olympics closed in Pyeongchang, South Korea in the early hours of this morning to much fan fare. The ceremonial event involved the passing of the Olympic Torch to Beijing where the 2022 Winter Games will take place. Beijing will host its second Olympics in 14 years, following on from the Summer Games in 2008.

Much has been written on this blog about the hosting of major sporting events and the costs involved. In a previous post, I also addressed the number of bidders prior to the voting for the Summer Games. Not surprisingly, given the costs involved there has been a gradual decline in the number of bidders, from a high point in the 1990s, to more recent times. The graphic below presents the number of bidders for both the Summer and Winter Games from 1984 to the Summer Games in 2028. 

The Winter Games appear to be following a similar trend to Summer version. For the years 1984 to 1992 all Games were held in the same years. This changed in 1994 when the Winter Games broke for the Summer schedule.

Since the start of this decade there has been a consistent decline in the number of bidders for both sets of Games. The Winter Games has seen a fall from 8 in 2010, to 7 in 2014, to 3 in 2018, to just 2 for the 2022 Games. 

The Summer Games went one step further when Paris and Los Angeles effectively agreed to let each other have a solo run at the 2024 and 2028 Games respectively.

While the destination of the 2026 Winter Olympics will not be known until the 134th International Olympic Committee Session in Milan, Italy during September 2019, it will be interesting to see if all four potential hosts currently suggesting they will be, will actually do so. If Sion, Sapporo, Stockholm and Calgary all do, they will buck the recent trend in host bidding.

By Robbie Butler

The graphic below is the best way I could illustrate the fluctuation of Premier League clubs influence on the destination of the UEFA Champions League since Liverpool's famous recovery in Istanbul back in 2005. The good news for supporters of English clubs is, given the evidence of the past week, it's likely we will see a Premier League club crowned champions of Europe sooner rather than later. 

Starting with the 2004/5 competition, I illustrate the percentage success rate for Premier League clubs in reaching the last 16 of the competition, QF, SF, Final and being crowned winners. A Champions League trophy icon marks the three occasions this happened (2005, 2008 and 2012).

Where a bar is fully red it means 100% of Premier League clubs that could get to that stage did. For example, if the Last 16 bar is all red, the four clubs representing England reached the knockout stage of the competition. This happened on 6 occasions. The final bar in the graphic actually corresponds to 5 clubs as Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspurs have all reached the knockout stage. In fact, there is a decent chance that all 5 could make the last 8 of the competition. Liverpool and Man City are probably guaranteed to be there already following the first leg of their Last 16 round matches. 

It should be evident from the graphic that the dominant days of the Premier League clubs in the Champions League ran from around 2007 to 2009 and are marked clearly by more red than yellow. All four English clubs qualified for the last 16 in 2007, 2008 and 2009. All four progressed to the QF stage in 2008 and 2009. 

The semi finals in 2007, 2008 and 2009 each had three English clubs, therefore an all-English semi-final and by extension an English club in the final. 2008 is probably the high point of dominance, and the only all Premier League Final to date, with Chelsea lining up against Manchester United.

Barren years did follow, and despite Chelsea's success in the competition in 2012, much of the red disappears in the second half of the graphic. In reality this represents the rise of  the Spanish in the form of Barcelona, Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid. A low point was reached in 2013 when just two English clubs made the knockout stage with neither progressing to the QF. In fact, since Chelsea's win in 2012 only two Premier League clubs have reached the semi-finals (Chelsea 2014 and Man City 2016).

I believe that trend is about to change. Don't discount two or even three English clubs in the semi-finals (depending on the draw) and even the possibility of a repeat of 2008 -  an all-English Final. 

By Robbie Butler

Rugby's Six Nations Championship kicks off tomorrow at 2.15pm when Wales host Scotland at the Principality Stadium in Cardiff. This time last year I wrote about the introduction of bonus points in the Championship for the first time and the possible rationale for the rule change. 

The 2017 tournament resulted in the award of 11 bonus points in total. 5 bonus points were awarded for scoring four or more tries while a further six were awarded as losing bonus points (losing by seven or fewer points). As one might expect, the 2017 winners England gained the most (winning 3 bonus points over their five games), while Ireland, France, Scotland and Wales all won two bonus points each. Only Italy did not benefit from the new system.

It is to Italy I now turn. As the newest member of the group, joining in 2000, Italy have traditionally been the weakest team in the Championship. The ​Azzurri have collected the "wooden spoon" (award for finishing last) on 12 of the 18 times they have played in the Six Nations, including the last two years. As stated, the bonus points system failed to helped them last year. 

A more subtle problem might also be emerging. Given the relative weakness of Italy, the other teams could 'target' them for bonus points. England, France, Ireland and Scotland all won try bonus points from their games with Italy. The only other try bonus point was won by England in their victory over Scotland. This may be an unintended consequence of the rule change.

An analysis of Italy's points difference from their first appearance in 2000 to last year's competition is presented below. 

As one might expect, the Italians have never recorded a positive points difference. 

What could be of concern for the country and rule makers is the 2017 observation, the last point on the graph. The country reported their biggest negative score ever, with a points difference of -151. This coincides with the introduction of bonus points. 

It is important to note, this is a single data point, and more are required before one can start to draw conclusions about any potential unintended effect the new rules have had on the Italians. It is interesting however. That said, their performance in 2016, before the bonus points system commenced, was their worst to date. Maybe the team is just weaker than ever before? Either way, it will be interesting to watch the Azzurri over the next six weeks to see if the trend continues.

By Robbie Butler

A number of weeks ago the Irish Labour Court rejected an appeal by Ballydoyle Racing Stables, which attempted to prevent changes to the categorisation of its employees. The stable's failure in the Labour Court could have a significant impact on horse racing in this country.

For those unfamiliar with the case here is a brief summary.

Employees of the horse racing industry in Ireland have historically been deemed to be “agricultural workers”. According to 2010 Employee Regulation Order covering this sector, an agricultural worker is defined as:

       “a person employed under a contract of service or apprenticeship whose work under the contract is or includes              work in agriculture, but does not mean a person whose work under such contract is mainly domestic service”.

Importantly, this means that such workers can be asked to engage in:

​      “a wide variety of activities, which are weather dependant, seasonal, unpredictable and often require 7 day week         flexible working arrangements”.

In 2015, the Irish Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) changed legislation covering the horse racing industry so that employees were no longer classified as “agricultural workers”. This has had serious consequences for the number of hours and days employees could be asked to work without a break.

On a routine inspect of Ballydoyle stables, the home of many world famous Aidan O’Brien trained horses in May 2016, the WRC found the employers to be in breach of the law. Ballydoyle’s failure to overturn the ruling in the Labour Court has left the industry at a crossroads. A further appeal to the High Court is possible, and if successful, could result in a return to the status quo.

It is worth pointing out that the definition of “Agriculture” under the 2010 Order is as follows:

““Agriculture” means horticulture, the production of any consumable produce, which is grown for sale or for consumption or other use, dairy farming, poultry farming, the use of land as grazing, meadow or pasture land or orchard or osier land or woodland, or for market gardens, private gardens, nursery grounds or sports grounds, the caring for or the rearing or training of animals and any other incidental activities connected with agriculture”.

It is also worth pointing out, that Irish Government support for the horse racing industry has, since 2011, been provided by the Department of Agriculture. 

By Robbie Butler

In the coming months those interested in the English Premier League will know the broadcasters that have won the rights to show live league matches from August 2019 to May 2022. I have previously addressed this topic here and here.

I am at a loss to see how the “competition” forced upon the market by the European Commission has in any way helped consumers. With the likes of Amazon, Netflix and Facebook all suggested as potential bidders, the big losers in this could be the very people that opening up the market sought to protect. To understand why, an overview of the seven packages that are on offer from 2019 to 2022 need to be considered. These are presented below. 

Currently, two broadcasters, (BSkyB and BT) share the rights to the 168 live games per season screened. In order to win one of the seven packages a broadcaster must make a single, sealed-bid prior to the decision date. As no guidance as to what others are willing to bid is provided, bidders must bid high in order to have a chance of success. In some cases, this could be interpreted as overbidding in order to ensure success. Great news for the Premier League but bad news for bidders and customers of subscription channels.

The large increase in the cost of winning the rights, which will probably go above £2 billion per season from 2019-20, sustains the inflation we see in the transfer market. The reason players today earn far more than players even ten years ago, is largely due to inflation in the price of live games.
​
In theory seven different companies could share the packages listed. If this were the case, seven different subscription charges would be required to watch all live games. As strange as this may seem, consumers would probably be better off if one company, for example Sky Sports as was the case from 1992 to 2007, won the rights to all 200 games. Odd that a monopoly is preferable to "competition".

The reality of course is that this is not competition but instead has led to the creation of seven different monopolies. Prices would fall, and with it transfer fees and player salaries, if more than one broadcaster could buy the same package. Only then will the market be competitive.

By Robbie Butler

While most national football leagues are progressing toward their halfway point, the League of Ireland is currently in close season. This is because the league is structured around a February to October schedule, more commonly referred to as 'summer soccer. Yesterday the 2018 SSE Airtricity League format was confirmed.

As is often the case, rule changes have been implemented. Much of the changes have taken placed in the 2nd tier of Irish football (First Division). This league will consist of 10 teams in 2018 (there had been between 8 and 10 for the past number of years) and involves an extended playoff scenario at the end of the season. 

To quote the source above directly it says:
"The champions of the First Division will be guaranteed automatic promotion to the Premier Division where they will replace the team which finishes 10th in the top tier". This is standard practice.

The big change revolves around the 4th placed team where:  "the 2nd/3rd/4th placed clubs will go into the promotion/relegation play-offs at the end of the season. The team which finishes fourth will play the team which finishes third and the winner of that tie will face the team which finishes second. The winner of that tie will then play the team which finishes ninth in the Premier Division in the final promotion/relegation play-off, with all play-offs played over two legs".

The reason the 4th place team is now 'lucky' is because 2nd and 3rd placed teams in seasons past (not the 2017 season) had entered a similar playoff. 

Why might this have happened? Economic theory can help.

The First Division is effectively a closed system at one end (the bottom). In recent years, clubs have not been relegated to regional leagues (some have left voluntarily). This brings with it a certain set of incentives.

With 10 teams in a league it is important to keep all interested as long as possible. Relegation does this for teams fighting at the bottom. Remove the threat of relegation and teams could simply lose interest mid-season if only the top two teams were promoted. Offering the 4th placed team a shot at promotion should keep lots of clubs interested throughout the season. For example, a club in 6th, 7th or even 8th with five games to go might still be only a handful of points off 4th spot and a possible play-off. 

Hopefully, this move will increase interest and activity in the all too often forgotten league in this country.