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. 

By Robbie Butler,

This blog/website was launched in July 2013. Not long after Tokyo, Japan was awarded the 2020 Summer Olympic Games. Two of the very first posts I ever wrote focused on this and can be found here and here. In the second post from September 2013 I say:

       "A projected cost of $8 billion by the Japanese seems way too conservative.  An examination of recent past games would suggest, a figure of $15 billion to $18 billion is more likely to represent the true cost of the games. Eight years is a long time to wait but watch this space…"

As we know all too well, the Games were postponed in 2021 until this summer. By last year the cost of the Games had risen from the original $8 billion to $12.6 billion. No surprise there for anyone that has read any past literature on the topic. 

The delay in. the Games to this summer has not helped and has cost both Tokyo and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) money. A recent study by the University of Oxford estimates that the Toyko Games could now cost almost $16 billion.

And it could get worse. Those in favour of hosting such mega-events often point to the economic gains that can be made. Sure, these exist, but they are often in the private domain. The 'public gain' is found in the net increase in tourist arrivals which generates welfare effects from additional consumption and tax revenue. If recent reports emerging from Japan are correct, there may be an outright ban on foreign tourist arriving for the Games due to Coivd-19, thus eliminating one of the single biggest benefits in the public domain.  

if the Games are attended by Japanese fans only, there will be substitution effects but little or no income effects. It is simply the replacement of one purchase (a ticket to watch track events) with another (an endless list of alternatives). Japan might be on-course to record one of the single biggest public losses on any Summer Games if this is the case. Not that the revenue generated from foreign arrivals could go anywhere near the $16 billion costs to date, but it could close this gap by $3bn-$5bn potentially. 

Such evidence is now overwhelming and needs to be kept in mind for future suitors. 

By Robbie Butler

As expected, release of the 2020 financial accounts for the GAA did not make for good reading. The national game and Association were badly hit by the Covid-19 pandemic and reported a deficit of €34.1 million for the calendar year. These losses were a combinations of both central (€27.1m) and county (€7m) level deficits, and compare to a surplus in 2019 of about €10 million.

The core problem facing the Association in 2020 was both the decline in commercial and gate revenues. Combined, these revenues sources fell 60%, from €73.9m to €31.4m. According to the Association "In 2019 the GAA earned €36M from gate receipts, whereas in 2020 income from gate receipts was just €3.6M". This means that both revenue sources added about 50% each in 2019 but gate revenues obviously collapsed in 2020.  

While few could have predicted in early 2020 that there would be a collapse in gate revenues, reliance on this source of revenue makes the GAA look more like lower-tier football clubs in England or the early years of the Premier League. Broadcasting revenues now dwarf gate receipts in almost all major sports with the NFL and Premier League being the two best examples.

The GAA have sought to rectify this in recent years by selling broadcasting rights to subscriptions channels such as Eir Sport and Sky Sports. However, the sums involved still do not match ticket sales. For example, the current BSkyB/GAA broadcasting agreement, which runs until 2022, is worth about €11 million per year. This is about the same value as a single Premier League game broadcast by Sky Sports, BT or Amazon.

News that Amazon may be about to bid for GAA matches from 2023 could be good news for the Association. It might move the game away from a reliance on state aid (currently more than half of all revenue) and gate receipts.

The reliance on gate receipts is probably the main reason why a rescheduled calendar for 2021 would see club games start first, with inter-county matches starting later in the year. If the latter were to start in October, for example, restricted attendance might be possible, assuming vaccine rollout continues apace. Any revenue in this form would be welcome news following a dreadful 2020 season. 

By Robbie Butler

We received some great news recently when learning that our paper "Contracts, Pay and Performance in the Sport of Kings: Evidence from Horse Racing" had been accepted by the British Journal of Industrial Relations. The paper is co-authored with David Butler and Robert Simmons (Lancaster University). 

Using twenty year of data from 2000-2019 we explore the relationship between jockey pay and performance for flat racing in Great Britain. In essence, the work is an extension of Fernie and Metclaf (1999) and seeks to understand if  performance-related pay schemes can raise worker productivity with much of this increase due to worker sorting. The beauty of horse racing in the context is that it allows us to consider variations in the power of performance-related pay contracts which can be rarely observed in other employment settings.

Unlike previous findings, we find no evidence of worker shirking when the power of incentive contracts is reduced through jockeys switching from complete performance-related pay scheme into a salaried (retainer) contract. Moreover, salary contracts result in legacy effects with superior performance continuing for elite jockeys even after their salary agreements have expired. Amongst other things, we argue this is due to a reduction in monitoring costs. 

The acceptance marks our 4th peer-reviewed acceptance in sports economics over the past 10 months. It is also the 4th sport (rugby, football and boxing the other three) we have explored. I wish to thank attendees at the 2018 ESEA Conference in Liverpool and the 2020 NAASE virtual conference for their many helpful suggestions. 

Once ready, we will make a link to the paper available.  

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.