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

During the summer of 2015, I wrote about the Republic of Ireland football team and the number of drawn games the team was involved in. 4 years ago, the Boys In Green led the way for the number of draws during UEFA qualifying for major championships (World Cup and Euros). With Ireland's fate now to be decided next month in the Aviva, I thought it timely to revisit this. The reality is that Ireland have become even more of an outlier.

Let's look closer.

The graphic below presented data on draw (blue)/win(red) /loss(green) outcomes for all UEFA nations between 2002 and 2020 qualifying, as of today. Yet again, the Republic of Ireland appear on the far left.

W​ith a loss rate of just 16 games, only 13 UEFA members have a better record than the Boys in Green over nearly 20 years. Belgium, Sweden, Czech Republic, Turkey and Greece have all lost more times.

However, despite losing more games, Turkey have played at the same number of major finals (3), Belgium 4 (and with Euro 2020 this will be 5), Greece 5 (including winning Euro 2004!), Czech Republic 6 and Sweden 7! 

As I said in 2015, we simply draw too many games. This campaign alone has witnessed three (Denmark, Switzerland and Georgia). As we now know, a draw at home to Denmark next month won't be enough. Let's hope we can avoid, what seems to be, the inevitability of this - a next month a draw is the same as a loss. 

By Robbie Butler

Next year, Club Internacional de Fútbol Miami, more commonly known as Inter Miami will join Major League Soccer (MLS) and become the 26th active franchise in North America. The arrival of the Florida based team is well flagged, even within European circles, as it is linked to the 2007 contract that David Beckham signed when agreeing to play for LA Galaxy. MLS is different to European leagues in regards to many aspects, and here is yet another example.

The goal of most sports franchise owners in North America is to maximise profit. While this is advantageous in European leagues, clubs are more often regarded as 'win maximers'. The reason North American sports can focus on profit (as well as winning) is helped by the behaviour of franchise owners, who often manage or directly influence the leagues they compete it. Acting as a monopsony, owners behave in a manner that reduces the power of other stakeholders. e.g. players.

One way this can occurs is through league expansion. Creating a new franchise is no easy task. As North American leagues generally don't facilitate promotion and relegation, successful entry to a league means 'permanent' status. Such entry is then only permitted with the payment of a sizable fee, and full agreement of the current league members.

For evidence of league expansions one need only look at US soccer. By 2022, the MLS should reach 28 franchises. Inter Miami will be joined by Nashville SC next year, Austin FC (2021) and St. Louis (2022). 28 is a good number and a far cry from the original 10-team MLS that started in 1996. However, as the image below shows, it hasn't been all plain sailing.

​Since the league was inaugurated in 1996, three franchises have gone out of business. Worryingly for Backham and Co., two of these were based in Florida (Tampa Bay and Miami).

The most recent bankruptcy was Chivas USA, which left the MLS in 2014. Sale of the franchise to a group of businessmen, including Cardiff owner Vincent Tan, resulted in the emergence of Los Angeles FC in 2017.

This brings the number of major franchises in LA to 10! (NFL - Rams and Chargers; MLB Dodgers and Angels; NBA - Lakers and Clippers; NHL -Kings and Ducks; MLS - Galaxy). Only New York (11) has more.

One can only guess as to how much more the MLS will expand, but it would seem that 30 to 32 franchises may be the target. This would then put the sport in line with MLB, NBA or NFL. In fact, the current franchise map is starting to look very like the other major sports.

On the left, the current locations of the MLS sit reasonably well with the locations of NFL franchises. The return of a second MLS franchise to Florida would appear to make sense. As does the arrival of the first franchises in Missouri and Tennesse. 

The decision to create a 3rd franchise in Texas is a little less obvious but a first for the MLS. No other state will have 3 MLS teams. In fact, the only example of  major US sport with the three NHL franchises in the same city is that of New York - New York Rangers, New York Islanders and Buffalo Sabres.

By Robbie Butler

As a teenager of the 1990s one of my favourite programmes on television was British comedy Men Behaving Badly. The sitcom followed the lives of two main charters (Gary and Tony) and their attempts to prolong their youth whilst sharing a flat together in London. The show was often highlighted for its political incorrectness and one has to wonder what reaction it might receive if it were aired today for the first time.

As a consequence, I was immediately drawn to a recent paper in the Journal of Sports Economics entitled "Universities Behaving Badly: The Impact of Athletic Malfeasance on Student Quality and Enrollment". The paper explore the relationship between the behaviour of university teams during competitions run by the National Collegiate Athletic Association in men’s basketball and subsequent student enrolment.

For example, it has long been viewed the superior performance in football or basketball at national level could attract more students to one of the 1,268 North American institutions and conferences under NCAA regulation. This paper finds that negative media attention also has an impact - such behaviour "could serve as a signal to prospective students regarding the quality of the institution". In other words, if the behaviour of sports teams does not meet the standards of the institution which they represent, how can we know the quality of teaching doesn't suffer from the same problem?

The paper goes onto say that following the introduction of a ban, as a result of impropriety, student enrolment suffers. However, this is likely short-lived and "rebounds" (no pun intended) once the ban is lifted. There may be a long term reduction in student quality. 

Those representing university teams therefore need to remember exact what they are playing for. ​The privilege to play is more than the opportunity to win. But also to promote one's university to prospective students and past alumni. 

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 Robbie Butler
​
Home advantage in sport has received considerable attention in both the economics and psychology literature. Playing at home is advantageous for teams as it is a familiar environment for players, requires shorter travel and often contains a partisan groups of supporters.

Previously, Nevill, Balmer & Williams (2002) have found that crowd noise effects refereeing decisions, with home teams awarded significantly more free-kick than away teams. Garicano, Palacios-Huerta and Prendergast (2005) report referees often favour home teams, in order to satisfy the crowds in the stadium, by shortening close games where the home team is ahead, and lengthening close games where the home team is behind. In fact, stadiums where supporters are located further from the field of play, for example due to the presence of a running track, are more likely to witness more impartial refereeing decisions. Spectators simply can't influence referees in the same way.

The English Premier League (EPL) is a nice place to consider this. One of the many great things about the EPL is the substantial presence of away fans at games. If one watches other European leagues, particularly La Liga, away fans are barely noticeable. For example, when Barcelona travel to Madrid to play great rivals Real, a scattering of fans can be seen in the upper tier of the Bernabeu when they score. The same is true of Real fans at the Camp Nou.

Away fans in the EPL normally get access to 3,000 tickets per game, or 10% of stadium capacity if greater than 30,000 seats. In 2017/18 the EPL introduced rule changes to further encourage away fan attendance. This was on a back of a three-year cap on away fan ticket prices at £30. According to the EPL, the 2017 changes included a commitment that would see "away supporters...seated together at all stadiums and at least one block of away fan seats...made available pitch side". This is important as it moved away fans closer to the field on play.

Four clubs at the time were earmarked for change: Sunderland, Newcastle, Manchester United and Tottenham. I often thought it a masterstroke from Manchester United to place fans in the upper tier of the stadium by the corner flag. The Old Trafford club have subsequently had to change, as have Sunderland. Tottenham moved stadium but have since now allocated away fans lower tier seats in the new Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. Newcastle remain the only club to place fans in the 'gods'. The Tyneside clubs are permitted to do so on health and safety grounds, meaning away fans are a long way from their heroes at St. James Park.

By Robbie Butler

I have previously spoken about broadcasting and the Premier League on this blog on numerous occasion (see here and here) and have a more detailed analysis of supply in the market published in the Journal of Sports Economics (see here). Things have developed further for customers in the Republic of Ireland since the return of the Premier League last week. Let's take a closer look.

To summaries what I have previously said, it seems that customers of subscription television were best off when the service was provided by a monopoly. The best of all scenarios was the free-to-air model that existed until 1992 for top tier English football. However, following BSkyB's purchasing of the rights from the 1992/93 season, consumer surplus started to be reduced. The European ruling to ban monopoly selling of broadcasting rights from 2006/07 resulted two providers selling the product. This will move to 3 this year in the UK, with the arrival of Amazon, and 4 in the Republic of Ireland. 

The Republic of Ireland is not subject to the 3pm Saturday blackout rule in the UK. As such live games can be screened on television. Premier Sports has the right to screen these games. During 2017/18, these games came as part of the Sky Sports subscription. 

Sky now sells both BT Sport and Premier Sports as part of an "extra" sports package, with the pricing varying initially from between €10 and about €17 depending on circumstances. An extra payment of somewhere between €20 and €40 is required for Sky Sports. While customers are receiving a reduced rate in many cases buy the BT Sport and Premier Sports subscription, the irony of course is that people are now paying for something (3pm Saturday game) that they were getting for free last year! 

if you are paying the extra charge, you are getting BT Sports. The rest is hardly extra. And if Premier Sports is to be considered extra, Sky Sports customers are then arguably getting less during 2019/20 then they were in 2018/19, aside from 2 additional games. 

By Robbie Butler

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations is a masterful exploration of political economy by the late Harvard professor David Landes. Very early into this 650 page text the author raises the issue of Eurocentrism - a worldview that is inherently biased towards Western civilization, or western Europe (depending on ones' definition). 

At a recent event at the University of Oxford, UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin appeared to suggest that such Eurocentrism is alive and well in European football. The former Slovenian lawyer said the following about the recent Europa League Final stage in Baku, Azerbaijan:

"We decided a year and a half ago that we play in Baku, which has a modern stadium of 70,000. I think there is only one stadium in England that is bigger....If somebody asks me why we played in Baku, I would say: 'People live there. Homo sapiens live there...They had to watch the game at 11pm because of the time difference but nobody complained...If we have two Azerbaijani teams playing in London nobody would complain. They would come and play without any problems...We have to develop football everywhere not England, Germany only...[the] Europa League and everything else should be shared with the others who love football."

Ceferin's comment was largely motivated by the negativity surrounding the Final last month between Chelsea and Arsenal. Much of the commentary of the Final focused on the empty seats at the stadium and lack of atmosphere. Many questioned why fans had to travel so far to see their teams complete. A vivid example of Eurocentrism?

Although the 'big 5' have some of the largest populations in Europe, UEFA represents 55 full member associations . The association’s strategic plan from 2019-2024 has four pillars one of which aims to “Promote and develop football infrastructure across Europe”. Spreading the game is a mission that has been at the core of UEFA, and FIFA for that matter, for many years. This is why cities such as Baku get the chance to host major finals. 

It was impossible to predict who would play in Baku, and the distance fans had to travel was probably accentuated by the fact that Chelsea and Arsenal are under 10 miles apart. Despite what people may now believe, this was not a poorly attended final. In fact, it is the 3rd best attended Europa League Final to date.

Countries on the periphery of Europe are just as entitled to hosts these games as the England, Germany or Spain. In fact, I recall not so long ago a country on the edge of Europe hosting the Europa League final. I was there when two Portugesse teams just 55 km apart, were forced to travel a round trip in excess of 2,700 km. The location? Dublin. I don't remember the Portuguese having any problems. 

45,391 people showed up in the Aviva that night. There were 5,979 more in the Baku Olympic Stadium. 

By Robbie Butler,

One year ago next week I wrote this. The piece tries to explain where the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) can be usefully deployed in football, and where it cannot.

It's fair to say, the response to VAR has been mixed. It is very much debatable where the benefits of the system outweigh the (often) unintended consequences of using the technology. My original piece explains that in certain instances in football, video technology can help referees make better decisions. However, in some cases it is unhelpful. The crux of the issue is whether the rule of law is being interpreted objectively or subjectively.

Tottenham vs Manchester City last night provides two perfect examples.

VAR 1: Danny Rose's "handball".
IFAB Laws of the Game state that handling the ball involves "a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm. The following must be considered: • the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) • the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) • the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence." Deciding whether or not Danny Rose's action last night was deliberate is purely subjective. Some may argue he made himself bigger. Others may suggest his hands were in a natural position for a defender making a last ditch tackle and that there was a short distance between Rose and Sterling. I don't believe it was a penalty, and more tellingly neither did the Man City players or staff. Not one opponent looked for a penalty.

VAR 2: Heung Son-Min keeps the ball in play.
The question put to the referee is simply did all of the ball cross all of the end-line. This is not subjective. The ball either did or didn't. Here VAR worked perfectly, just like it does in tennis and rugby.

VAR is supposed to eliminate controversy, not cause it. It needs to be dropped in the case of VAR 1 and kept in the case of VAR 2.

​Referee's should decide if the ball was deliberately handled. That's what they are there for after all!

By Robbie Butler

I had the pleasure of lecturing the Thoroughbred Horseracing Industries MBA class at the University of Liverpool this week. We discussed funding horse racing in Ireland and the possible consequences of Brexit. The group came from a variety of industry stakeholders throughout these islands. 

At a general level, horse racing in Ireland is in relatively good health. According to Horse Racing Ireland (HRI), Irish bloodstock sold at public auction was to the value of €161.5m last year. While racecourse attendances continued to decline in 2018, large racing festivals are starting to attract record attendances again in recovery-Ireland. Prize-money also grew by 3.9% to €63.5m in 2018. it should be noted, more than 60% of this is sourced from budgetary support. 

While this annual report is largely positive, Brexit cases a shadow over the (very near) future. The eight "No" votes last night in the UK Parliament means a hard Brexit in early April remains a possibility.

30 years of progress within Irish racing could be undone over night. Chief concerns are centred on the Irish bloodstock industry, animal welfare and the tripartite agreement between Ireland, Britain and France. It remains to be seen how this will be affected in the weeks ahead and it should come as a concern that Aintree 2019 might be the last as we currently know it. 

While Irish racing successes in Britain have probably never been as obvious, the next two weeks will dictate if this could continue into the future, or come to a crashing halt.