By Robbie Butler

Back in 2014, when this blog was less than one year old, David Butler explored video game sales in one of the great duopolies or our time; FIFA and Pro Evolution. For those unfamiliar with the rivalry, the FIFA series was developed by EA Sports and has existed in one form or another since 1993. Pro Evolution, often referred to as PES, is an alternative option created by Konami and has also existed in various forms since the 1990s.

Around 2000 the rivalry really took off when the FIFA series had to go head-to-head with the ISS Pro Evolution franchise. A common question at the time was FIFA or Pro? While FIFA had the advantage of licensing and trademark agreements, I always preferred the Konami series as the gameplay was better. Others would disagree and the battle for dominance would go on. 

Around 2008 something changed. As the 2014 posted illustrates, while FIFA outsold Pro in Europe, the gap between the two widened quickly from this point. I was among the converts to FIFA as the gameplay on the EA Sports game improved and had the added bonus of licensing.

Ironically, it was at this time that Konami's Pro Evolution began to acquire some licensing agreements - the UEFA Champions League for one - that sales began to plummet. Things wouldn't improve and the data below is an update of the 2014 post, with global sales for both titles up to and including FIFA 2019 and Pro Evolution Soccer 2019​.

Pro Evolution Soccer 2019 would prove to be the end of an era, and in 2019 Konami decided to switch focus and move into online gaming and esports with the launch of eFootball PES 2020. The battle with EA Sports and FIFA had been effectively lost.

This was probably a direct result of the failure of Pro Evolution Soccer 2019 to sell, with just over half a million copies of the title sold worldwide, coupled with the obvious declining interest in the game series from 2008. This compared the 8.5 million copies of Pro Evolution Soccer 2008​ sold globally. The FIFA series on the other hand was annually selling between 14 and 16 million copies. 

Konami have continued production of their esports game and eFootball PES 2020 was followed up in 2021 and 2022, with the most recent edition of the game dropping the famous PES title so that it is simply eFootball 2022. 

A second new chapter also approaches. EA Sports will make their final installment of their legendary game with FIFA 2023. World football's governing body have decided to end their 30 year association with the software developer for FIFA 2024. This game will appear next year, but will not be made by EA Sports. Instead EA Sport will launch EA Sports FC from 2023. 
​
Imagine, this time next year, we will live in a world where EA's Sports FIFA and PES are a thing of retro gamers.

By Robbie Butler

Do we really need more seats?

​This was the question I asked myself earlier in the week when I read that South Dublin County Council had opened a tendering process for the naming rights of Tallaght Stadium, home of League or Ireland football club Shamrock Rovers. The council plans to increase the capacity of the stadium to above 10,000 seats as part of a €11.5 million investment. 

As our recent paper in the Economic and Social Review shows, the average attendance at Shamrock Rover's home games from 2012 to 2019 was somewhere between 2,041 and 3,444 fans. The maximum attendance at any game during the 8-year period was 7,021 . The current capacity of the stadium is 8,000. Is there really a need for a 20+% expansion?

Of course, there may be an element of Kevin Costner in Field of Dream - "If you build it, they will come". But Dublin is presently one of the most "seated" capitals in Europe right now. A post some 8 years ago on this site raised the issue and ranked Ireland as number one in Europe for stadium seats.

The illustration below is an attempt to update this, not at a country-level, but rather capital cities on these islands. I compare Dublin with Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. One word of caution; this is open source data that should reliable but may have some shortcomings.

Dublin currently has more than 10 outdoor stadiums with seating capacity. Two of these (Croke Park and Aviva Stadium) have in excess of 50,000 seats. Croke Park has the third biggest capacity in Europe. With the current population estimate of Dublin at just over 1.2 million people, and more than 163,000 stadium seats, there is a seat in Dublin for nearly 1 in every 8 people. The GAA is responsible for about 70,000 of these and rugby in excess of 65,000 seats. Ignoring soccer's shared use of the Aviva Stadium, traditionally a rugby venue, League of Ireland soccer provides just under 20,000 seats. Cricket, horse sport and athletics provide the remainder.

While many people will travel to Dublin from outside of the city to watch events, the ratio of people to seats is quite high. However, it is topped by both Cardiff and Edinburgh. In the Welsh capital there is a stadium seat for every 4.3 people. Edinburgh is a close 2nd. The Scottish capital has a stadium seat for nearly 1 in every 5 people.

Belfast is similar to Dublin, with one seat for every 8.67 people. London has a tighter supply, with 1 seat for every 13  Londoners. England's capital has a whopping 686,000 stadium seats spread across icon venues such as Wembley Stadium, Twickenham Stadium, Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, Centre Court, Wimbledon, Lord's Cricket Ground and the London Stadium, home of the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. However, with a population of nearly 9 million people and more than a dozen professional sports teams it is easy to see how these stadiums regularly sell out.

Dublin on the other hand has very few full-time professional sports teams. And even those that are regularly fail to sell out their stadiums. And while it is not as concentrated as the capitals in Wales or Scotland, Dublin has nearly twice as many stadium seats per person than London. 

​Do we really need more seats?

By Robbie Butler

Recently, I had a conversation with my television provider about my sports subscription payments. As is always the case, this rises through time, and one often ends up paying far more than one would like for access to 'premium' sports content.

My call was motivated by the fact that the company is advertising a discount offer at the moment to new customers, or existing customers that do not have the sports subscription package. My question to the person I was speaking to was “Why is my 'loyalty' punished?”.

Of course, the question was not answered but negotiations started, and my payment was reduced, though not as far as the discounted offer to others.

I understand the logic. The company, rather than seeing me as loyal, views my demand as relatively inelastic. I’ve been willing to pay for this service for many years, so they assume it is somewhat essential to me. The discounted price is offered to those that view the product as more of a luxury, in the hope that the reduced cost might entice some to sign-up. The model seems to work.

While my demand for this sports product is from the armchair, others demand the product from inside the stadium. Football clubs – to their enduring credit – appear to do the exact opposite to television providers. Loyalty is not punished but rather rewarded.

The season ticket – the ultimate commitment that any supporter can make year-to-year to support their team – is sold at a discounted price on average. This is especially true outside of the very elite clubs (it would probably be possible to buy individual seats at the lowest price range for less than a season ticket in some top clubs). The reason for this dates back decades, and was an attempt by owners to become cash-rich before the season kicked off, in order to fund the team in the months that followed.

This logic runs counter to the subscription sports provider. The season ticket holder must be, by definition, the most inelastic consumer of the football team’s product. Would they not be wiling to pay more? Probably. Yet clubs do the opposite and reward their commitment and loyalty. Yet another example of the public good status of the football club.

By Robbie Butler

Penalties are often a source of attraction for economists seeking to explore decision making. The data below considers English Premier League (EPL) penalties scored by 40 of the teams that have appeared in the EPL (EPL) to date. It does not included missed penalties - but as a general rule - the conversion rate over the long run is about 70%. 

From the first graphic we can see that clubs that have appeared in the most EPL seasons to date (31 being the maximum) have scored the most penalties. Chelsea have converted the most to date (88), Man City are second (86), with Man Utd (84) and Liverpool (82) next. Arsenal (71), Tottenham (63) and Everton (60) are well ahead of 8th placed Crystal Palace (48).

However, the south London club are somewhat of an outlier. The Eagles have scored 48 penalties from just 13 seasons in the EPL.

The second figure controls for the number of seasons in the EPL. No longer do the top clubs dominate. Penalties per season appear to favour some of the small clubs - with fewer years in the EPL - and is led by recently promoted Bournemouth. Blackpool are dropped from the figure, (and would be clearly out in front) having been awarded 7 penalties in their only season in the EPL. 

Brighton, Crystal Palace and Man City make up the top four. At the other end, QPR, Middleborough, Leeds United and Charlton Athletic might all consider themselves unlucky. These four have scored less than one EPL penalty on average per season. Maybe it is poor finishing. Or it could be a lack of opportunity. Or both. 

Assuming the conversion rates are stable across clubs, there is no evidence that the bigger and more popular clubs score more penalties. 

By Robbie Butler

In September 2018 I wrote this regarding UEFA discussions to remove the away goals rule. In June 2021, UEFA decided to press ahead with the change so that away goals - a cornerstone of European club competition since 1965 - would no longer be worth double in the event of a draw.

UEFA made a statement saying that: "away goals would no longer be given additional weight to decide a tie, [and] be removed from the criteria used to determine the rankings when two or more teams are equal on points in the group stage i.e. the criteria applied to matches played by the teams in question.". 

European football's governing body provided a rationale for this, stating that: "Statistics from the mid-1970s until now show a clear trend of continuous reduction in the gap between the number of home/away wins (from 61%/19% to 47%/30%) and the average number of goals per match scored at home/away (from 2.02/0.95 to 1.58/1.15) in men’s competitions".

UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin went onto say: "The impact of the rule now runs counter to its original purpose as, in fact, it now dissuades home teams – especially in first legs – from attacking, because they fear conceding a goal that would give their opponents a crucial advantage. There is also criticism of the unfairness, especially in extra time, of obliging the home team to score twice when the away team has scored. It is fair to say that home advantage is nowadays no longer as significant as it once was. Taking into consideration the consistency across Europe in terms of styles of play, and many different factors which have led to a decline in home advantage, the UEFA Executive Committee has taken the correct decision in adopting the view that it is no longer appropriate for an away goal to carry more weight than one scored at home.”

An unintended consequence of the away goals rule (discouraging home teams from attacking in the first leg) appears to be central to the debate. 

With the return of the Champions League knock-out stage this week, it has been interesting to observe teams in action. PSG, Sporting Lisbon, RB Salzburg and Inter Milan all played at home. There was no longer a fear of conceding an "away goal".

While Real Madrid were held scoreless by PSG, the other three away teams (Manchester City, Bayern Munich and Liverpool) all scored at least once. However, these are no longer as valuable as before. This brings in another possible unintended consequence of the new rule - more penalty shootouts. 

Prior to 2021/22 there were five criteria to decide matches in the knockout stage, up to the Final;

1. Number of goals after two legs.
2. Number of away goals after two legs.
3. Number of goals after two legs and extra time.
4. Number of away goals after two legs and extra time.
5. Penalties.

Penalties could be avoided if either team outperformed their opponent in 1, then 2, then 3 and finally 4.​

UEFA's decision has reduced the list to just three.

1. Number of goals after two legs.
2. Number of goals after two legs and extra time.
3. Penalties.

Now penalties can only be avoided by steps 1 or 2. 

Since 2011/12, there have been just 4 penalty shootouts in the Champions League knockout stage (excluding the Final (just one: Chelsea vs Bayern Munich). 15 ties were decided by away goals. However, under the new rules, these 15 ties will now be decided by penalties.

It will be interesting to see how often the 'spot' will be required in the games ahead. My guess is that it will be more than we have seen before. 

By Robbie Butler
 
I am old enough to recall when former Minister of State for European Affairs and Lord Mayor of Dublin, Gay Mitchell, floated the idea of the 2016 Summer Olympics in Dublin. Yes, the Summer Olympics!

The year was 1992 and Barcelona had just staged a relatively successful Summer Games. Andrew Zimbalist's Circus Maximus provides a lovely summary of this and argues that part of the success of the Games was down to the funding model. The $11.5 billion cost (constant 2000 dollars) was 60% privately funded. Of the 40% that came from public funds, just 5% ($235 million) was sourced from Barcelona's city budget.
 
Mitchell's idea didn't gain much traction and Dublin never entered the race. This was before the start of the heady days of the Celtic Tiger. However, a seed had been planted.
 
By 2000 soccer was the focus. The Football Association of Ireland (FAI) sounded out the Scottish Football Association (SFA), Irish Football Association and Football Association of Wales regarding the possibility of a four-way Celtic bid for Euro 2008.
 
By February 2002 Wales and Northern Ireland had opted not to continue. However, undeterred, the FAI and SFA made public that they intended to make a joint bid to host Euro 2008. Scotland would provide 7 venues and Ireland 3. By December 2002 UEFA’s National Teams Committee had visited all potential host countries and concluded that only four bids had the capability of organising the tournament. The Scotland–Republic of Ireland (joint bid) was not one of them.
 
The failure of this effort was predictable. At the time a story circulated that the UEFA delegation had been brought to three locations in Dublin. The first was a stadium that was to be knocked down and rebuilt (Lansdowne Road). The second was a venue that did not allow association football to be played in at the time (Croke Park). The third was a greenfield site that was to be developed and become the new national stadium (often referred to as the Bertie Bowl after then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern). This was never built.
 
The following year would bring some success with the arrival of the 2003 Special Olympics World Summer Games. These Games were hosted in late June and held largely in Dublin. Further success would arrive in 2006 when Ireland and the K Club arguably held the biggest sporting event to date on these shores - the Ryder Cup.
 
Some compensation for the failed Euro 2008 bid gained when UEFA granted Dublin and the Aviva Stadium the right to host the 2011 Europa League Final. Portuguese club sides Porto and Braga met on the night, with former Manchester United striker Radamel Falcao scoring the winning goal. The Europa League Final will return to Dublin in 2024.
 
While the 2003, 2006 and 2011 events were successful and popular, Ireland was turning its attention to rugby. By summer 2013 it was widely reported that the island was to bid for the 2023 Rugby World Cup. On the back of economic impact estimates of between €600 million and €800 million the public was almost unanimously behind the bid. Such support was mirrored in the Houses of the Oireachtas (parliament). In 2017 the Rugby World Cup Act passed breezed through the Irish parliament. There was hardly a dissenting voice. The few that did raise concerns need not have worried. Despite some optimism in the lead up to the bidding, Ireland was eliminated and finished behind South Africa and the winning bid made by France.
​
The country has not been discouraged by failure. The latest international hosting competition Ireland and Cork have entered is the America's Cup. The oldest international competition still operating in any sport may come to Ireland in 2024 if the bid is successful. While not on the scale of the Rugby World Cup, this would be a significant achievement for those behind the bid.
 
And those that hope to host an even bigger event don't have to wait too long. The journey is starting all over again. The joint England-Scotland-Wales-Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland Euro 2028 bid has been kicked off. While England, and maybe even Scotland, could host this alone, chances of success for Ireland (or more likely Dublin) are higher. Having missed out on Euro 2020 due to Covid, the Irish capital might finally get to host European Championship Finals matches.
 
That said, our record since Gay Mitchell's idea back in 1992, isn't great. I await the outcome in hope (as a football fan) not expectation.

By Robbie Butler

Last week this blog looked at Covid cases in the English Premier League and the reoccurrence of the postponement of fixtures. While this may all seem inevitable, a closer look at the 3 other top European leagues in Spain, Germany and Italy demonstrate it does not have to be this way.

The figure below presents data on the number of top flight fixtures scheduled and played on Saturday and Sunday, and vaccine uptake by players playing in the top flight of each of these leagues.

The English Premier League has less than 70% of players double vaccinated. This compares poorly to the other three leagues, all of which exceed 90%. Is it any wonder then why no games were postponed in Europe, yet England's top division played less than half the scheduled fixtures?

Given the trajectory of the disease right now, it is difficult to see how this can improve in the short run. This will be a considerable blow to broadcasters of the league is suspended. Amazon Prime have just two allocated fixture dates all season, one of which is the 28th of December. What a blow this will be if the games are postponed. 

By Robbie Butler

This week the Journal of Sports Economics published "The Who and the What of the Journal of Sports Economics – 20th Anniversary Edition. The paper, co-authored by Carlos Gomez-Gonzalez, Julio del Corral and Plácido Rodríguez is a celebration of the first twenty years of the journal. 

The abstract says "This article describes the content published in the Journal of Sports Economics (JSE) for its 20th anniversary. The analysis focuses on the most relevant topics and captures the characteristics of authors, institutions, and types of collaborations over a 20-year period. In total, the sample includes 663 research articles (published from
February 2000 to December 2019) and 856 authors from 490 institutions. The 20-year period offers an insightful picture of sports economics research. The article discusses additional features and trends and reflects on expected directions for future research in the journal."

Among the range of data and issues addressed, one aspect focuses on the "evolution of the topics analyzed in JSE contributions." The trend is quite stable. Questions examining "behavior" and "competitive balance and demand" are 1 and 2 for the 4 five-year periods between 2000 and 2019. Combined these make up about 30%-40% of all accepted submissions. Competitive balance and demand are clearly the most cited papers, with the top 4 cited papers all listed under this heading. Each has more than 300 citations to date. 

Since 2015, soccer has been the most written about sport. Baseball appropriately dominated the 2000-2004 period but has since dropped to 3rd spot on the list, with American Football in second. 

There is also a really nice map called "Geographical concentration of contributions to the JSE". The paper states: "Map 1 displays the percentage of authors who have contributed to the JSE from institutions in different countries and yields a significant imbalance. While the journal is missing the contribution of authors from several countries, especially in Africa, Central America, and the Middle East, four countries concentrate more than 75% of the contributions: the United States (60%), followed far behind by Germany (7%), the United Kingdom (5%), and Spain (4%). Other countries in the Top 11 are Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, South Korea, Australia, Italy, and France."

The full paper, which is brilliant reading, can be found here.

By Robbie Butler

With the delayed 2020 Summer Olympic Games now over, the medal table looked pretty much as expected. The USA were 1st (39 Gold/113 Total), China 2nd (38 Gold/88 Total), Japan 3rd (27 Gold/58 Total) and Great Britain (GB) 4th (22 Gold/65 Total).

When one thinks about the factors that help countries accumulate medals at the Games, it would appear on the surface that GDP is very important. The USA, China and Japan had the largest GDPs in 2020 and won medals in that order. GB in 4th in the medal table had the 5th biggest GDP in 2020. Had Germany finished 4th instead of 9th, there would have been a perfect match between the medal table and GDP in 2020.

Of course, it is much more complex than that. A recently published paper by Vadim Kufenko and Vincent Geloso in the Journal of Institutional Economics explores this. 

Using data from the Economic Freedom index and the medal table at the 2016 Summer Games in Rio, the authors test the relationship between success and inequality. They find "inequality only matters in determining medal numbers for unfree countries". Free society success at the Games is not effected by the level of inequality within countries. Instead they authors argue that  "institutions [within free societies] generate incentives to invest in the talents of individuals at the bottom of the income distribution". 

From an Irish perspective, we can relate to this. We won two gold medals (rowing and boxing), one of which was won by an competitor from a low income area in Dublin. The paper argues that the incentives in place in a country like Ireland mitigate the negative effect that inequality plays in the selection of athletes and their success.

By Robbie Butler

When almost all UEFA football came to a halt in March 2020, European leagues became frozen in time. Some leagues were cancelled, others used predicted points to reach a final league table, and others returned to play in empty stadiums during the summer months. 

While Liverpool finally won the Premier League and Real Madrid La Liga, the other three big leagues in Europe were won by the defending champions - PSG, Bayern Munich and Juventus. In the cases of Bayern and Juve, it was their 8th and 9th consecutive league titles.

​They were not alone in UEFA leagues in this regard. Prior to the outbreak of Covid-19, eight teams in Europe had winning streaks of 6 years or more. These are presented to the left below.

Following the resumption of football behind closed doors it is interesting to observe how many of these streaks survived. 

Probably the most high-profile casualties were the two teams seeking 10-in-a-row; Celtic and Juventus. Both the Scottish and Italian champions failed to live up to expectations during the 2020/21 season when playing behind closed doors.

Of course, this is not the only reason why they may have come up well short, but neither looked like winning their 10th title in a row from early in the season. Inter Milan (last weekend) and Rangers (a number of weeks ago) have already been crowned champions of Italy and Scotland respectively. 

But these two are not alone in losing their streak. APOEL and Astana both lost their streaks in 2020 and 2021. Of the 8 teams that entered the Covid-19 era with a streak in tact, just 4 are still standing; Bayern, Ludogorets, Qarabag and Red Bull Salzburg. 

It will be interesting to see if a return of fans helps or hinders the cause of the four remaining streaks that have survived Covid.