By Robbie Butler,

It was recently reported (see here and here) that UEFA intend to hold a discussion about the future of the "away goals" rule in European club competitions. Introduced in the mid-1960s, the rule is used as a tie-breaker where, in the event a two-legged match remains level, goals scored away from home count double. For example, if Team A and Team B drew 1-1 in the first leg (with Team A at home), and 2-2 in the second leg (with Team B at home), the 3-3 deadlock would be broken by virtue of the fact that Team A's 2 away goals exceeds Team B's single away goal.

Football has changed dramatically since the 1960s, with coaches and managers now suggesting that scoring away from home is not as hard as it once was. The costs associated with travel have collapsed in recent years, while labour mobility has shot up. Once unknown and distance places are much easier to now play in. Those in favour of the move also argue that an unintended consequence of the rule, is actually more defensive play, with teams afraid to concede away goals. Similar rule changes in rugby, to encourage more tries with the use of a bonus point, have had the same perverse effect. 

What does the data suggest? Below are the number of away goals scored in the UEFA Champions League, since the move in 2003/4 to the current competition structure. ​

The coaches and managers appear to be right. The most recent competition in 2017/18 saw the greatest number of away goals (44). This is six more the the previous record of 38 set during the 2013/14 competition. The trend is also upward, with the three lowest totals since 2003/4 reported in 2006, 2008 and 2012. Just 20 goals were scored away from home during the 2005/6 knock-out stage, less than half of last years' total.

In the months ahead it will be interesting to see what UEFA decide to do. A removal of the rule will allow for a nice comparisons in the years ahead, to see if teams (especially those are home) become more offensive. 

By Robbie Butler,

While the annual majors in golf are widely anticipated, it is probably this month's biennial event that is most coveted in the sport. On Friday the 28th of September, the Ryder Cup will return to our television screens from Le Golf National, Albatros Course, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Paris, France.

It is the first time that France has hosted the three-day event, and only the third time in the history of European staged-events that the tournament has left the United Kingdom. The two previous times being Spain (1997) and Ireland (2006). It is to Ireland that I now turn.

There is speculation that the 2026 Ryder Cup could return to Ireland, with Adare Manor a possible location. In terms of major sporting events, the Ryder Cup is on the boundary of what Ireland should be attempting to host. The 2006 event is widely regarded as a success .

While state support is probably necessary, this would be nowhere near the scale required for the 2023 Rugby World Cup, which the island unsuccessfully bid for. The three-day golf tournament would require some capital investment, as well as temporary overlay, but nothing like the government promised support for our most recent mega-event bid. 

The Shannon region is reasonably well equipped at this point in time, and fulfils one of the major European Tour requirements for hosting - a major international airport. The airport is also importantly connected to the US.  Owner of Adare Mannor JP McManus has said it is his "dream" to see Adare Manor host the Ryder Cup.

I for one hope his dream becomes a reality. 

By Robbie Butler

We have just returned from a very successful European Sport Economics Association annual conference, which was hosted this year by the School of Management at the University of Liverpool. 

This was the 10th such gathering of sports economists and the event appears to be in very good health, with a diverse range of topics presented, across a wide spectrum of sports.

Amongst other things discussed, the annual general meeting confirmed that the 2019 European Sport Economics Association (ESEA) Conference will be held in Gijon, Spain. For those familiar with the field, Gijon has hosted a very successful annual conference for more than a decade and no doubt the 11th instalment of the ESEA will be just as successful. It is also likely that the 2020 gathering will head to Finland for the first time. 

As has become the norm, the International Journal of Sport Finance will be running a special issue of conference papers. Full details of submission can be found here.

Among the highlights was a keynote address on Friday afternoon by Prof Ian McHale of the University of Liverpool. Prof McHale provided an insight into his attempts to develop a player rating system using analytics. It essentially creates a mechanism to weight the marginal benefit of each player, relative to any other in that position, and simulates outcomes based on these changes. 

Given his impact in the wider sports industry to date, and player rating systems, this is certainly an area to watch. 

By Robbie Butler

For the first time in many years, September will not see the traditional commencement or continuation of a UEFA qualifying group for a major championships. Instead next month UEFA members will take a step into the unknown with the start of the UEFA Nations League.

This new format appears to have two main purposes; the elimination of friendly matches from the fixture calendar; and secondly, offering an entry point to the 2020 UEFA European Championships. While the former is very much welcome, the latter might be less so given the competition structure of the new league. 

With 55 teams set to take part, countries will be divided into four groups based on international performance over the past number of years. Group A includes the likes of Belgium, France and Germany. The Republic of Ireland are in Group B (second-tier) along with countries such as Russia and Sweden. Group C contains weaker nations again such as Bulgaria, Finland and Albania, while Group D comprises of the traditionally weakest teams such as Malta, Latvia and San Marino. 

The good news for the minnows is that they not only get to play one another, and therefore have a golden opportunity to register a rare international win, the winner of this group also qualifies for the 2020 European Championships. This poses an obvious question? Is a country better-off targeting a place in Group D rather than Group C? This logic can apply to Group C/B and Group B/A. 

It will be interest to see how this plays out in the months and years ahead. It may be that some tweaking of the competition structure is required. This is certainly not unusual for new competitions.

By Robbie Butler,

Following on from our successful workshop last week on sports betting, it is rather appropriate that we re-start our blog with the traditional Galway Races exercise that puts the Fama's Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) to the test.

Last year we branched out and followed two leading trainers. A profit of more than 31% was reported for Willie Mullins, but Dermot Weld followers would have incurred a loss. As this is our 6th attempt, and with last years draw, the scorelines stands at 1.5 - 3.5, in favour of the bookies. Not deterred, we go again this evening, and for the next six days. 

The rules are as follows. A hypothetical stake of €2 (to win) will be wagered on on all Weld and Mullins trained runners shorter than 4/1, and €1 each way on all those 4/1 or greater. Guaranteed prices are assumed. The trainers will be evaluated separately. 

Updates during the week will follow.

2018 is not a year to forget quickly. An excellent return is reported. In total, 156 horses were wagered on. Mullins saddled 112 and Weld 44.

​Following both trainers resulted in a profit of €56.32 for a €2 stake per horse. That's a 36.1% return. Things were even better for Mullins alone, with a reported profit of €71.52 for a €2 stake. This is a massive 63.9% return! 

By Robbie Butler,

The title of this post is not a mistake. Rather it is driven by an overview (see here for full piece) of player nationality and region of birth at World Cups since 2002. This in-depth work explores the past four World Cups and the current tournament and finds that France has been most successful at producing players to perform at the tournament.

Since Korea and Japan, France has provided 216 players at five world cups. While more than half have represented their country of birth, squad limits of 23 mean that 100+ have represented other nations. This is no doubt a consequence of France's colonial past. Players born in the country have put many international jerseys on, including the likes of Senegal, Tunisia, Algeria and Ivory Coast. 

As we head towards the end of Week 1 at the 2018 World Cup, it is interesting to examine a possible team that the city of Paris could field. The eleven would include the likes of Bernard Mendy, N'golo Kante, Paul Pogba and Kylian Mbappe. What is even more remarkable is the fact that the team could include the likes of Anthony Martial, Riyad Mahrez and Kingsely Coman, none of which made it to Russia.

From an Irish perspective, 12 players born on this island, make the overall list. This might appear to be low and places the country second last behind Iceland, Togo, Panama and Trinidad and Tobago. This can be explained by a number of factors.

​Firstly, the Irish team last reached the World Cup finals in 2002 so there is a single observation. Secondly, as the world's first colony, Irish squads are often dominated by players who's parents and grandparent migrated to England, Wales and Scotland. Lastly, migration to Ireland is a relatively new phenomenon. In fact, this did not significantly start until the early 2000s. However, things might be about to change. Most migration to Ireland in this time has come from Eastern Europe and West Africa. Children born in this country, whose parents emigrated to Ireland, could now be as old as 17 or 18. In the not too distance future we may start to see children born in places such as Dublin and Cork represent countries like Poland, Latvia, Nigeria and Ivory Coast. 

And of course, we would also argue that the Irish figures should be higher, and France around 20 lower. We haven't forgotten about Thierry Henry and that handball in Paris in 2009. I don't think we ever will. 

By Robbie Butler,

​We are now just days away from the start of the 2018 FIFA World Cup Finals. The word "finals" is important. 211 teams have participated in the 2018 World Cup with qualifying starting in Africa as early as the 12th of March 2015.

Unfortunately I am only too aware of when qualifying ended for the tournament in Europe. It was Tuesday the 14th of November 2017. I sat in the Aviva Stadium, Dublin and watched Denmark take the final UEFA spot in Russia at the expense of the Republic of Ireland.The following day Peru claimed the final spot beating New Zealand in a play-off. We will revisit Peru shortly.

As an Irish supporter it is frustrating to finish 2nd in a qualifying group, ahead of two teams ranked 10th and 15th in the FIFA World Ranking at the time of the draw, only to face the 19th best team globally in a play-off. 

I have previously shown how it is becoming harder for UEFA members of qualify for the World Cup. Even expansion in 2026 will do little to help the European cause. Some might argue UEFA have the best deal of all. There will be 14 teams at the Finals this summer from the confederation. This includes hosts Russia and is almost treble that of any other FIFA confederation. The pie chart below presents the breakdown for the 2018 Finals.

Just five of the six confederations are represented. This is because no OFC (Oceania) country managed to qualify. This confederation represents 14 countries and the failure to qualify  does beg the question of whether this truly is a "world cup".

Having watched this tournament, with clear memory since 1990 (I do recall the final in 1986), it seems natural inequalities play a role when qualifying.

Geographic location on this planet is very important. Outside of Europe countries such as South Korea, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and USA (although not this time round) seem to appear every four years. Brazil in fact are the only country to have played at all 21 World Cup finals. The CONMEBOL qualification system plays a huge role in this regard. The graphic below presents the number of teams eliminated versus those qualifying from each confederations for the 2018 Finals. South America is an obvious outlier. 

CONMEBOL members will benefit from the expanded tournament, starting in 2026, when a 6th place with be available in South America. That means more teams could play at the finals, than are eliminated in regional qualifying. Maybe it is the fear of the likes of Brazil or Argentina not qualifying (as is the case with Italy this time round) but one has to spare a thought for African, Asian and Central/North American FIFA members. 135 of these nations started out in qualifying. More than 90% (122) won't be in Russia. 

Peru, a country that lost 6 games in qualifying, will line out against Denmark on the 16th of June. The country qualified with a total of 26 points from 18 games, an average of just points per game 1.44. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland had an average return in qualifying of 1.9. Italy's was 2.3. 

Switzerland finished second in UEFA qualifying Group B with 27 points. The Swiss then had to win a two-legged playoff against Northern Ireland to qualify. Colombia finished 4th in CONMEBOL with 27 points and qualified directly for the finals. 27 points from 18 games. In fact, the Swiss got more points from 10 games then Peru did from 18!

​If only Ireland was in South America...

By Robbie Butler,

For the next 10 days the posts on this blog will focus on the FIFA World Cup which is due to kick-off in the Luzhniki Stadium, Moscow on Thursday 14th of June. This is the first time Russia has hosted either of the big two football tournaments. Games will be played across 11 different cities, spanning a huge geographical area, from Kallingrad in the west to Yekaterinburg in the east. The distance between these two cities is almost 2,500 km (1546 miles). That is roughly the same as Cork to Sofia in Bulgaria.

Like all major events, the tournament is likely to cost more to the Russian state than is recouped in revenue. However, FIFA suggest that the benefits lie elsewhere. According to the government bodies Russian's can look forward to the following:

"Some of the benefits experienced by host countries of FIFA competitions include:

• A catalyst for new and improved facilities to support the development of the game at all levels;
• Increased number of and higher quality football development programmes for both the elite game, talent identification and grassroots;
• Increased cooperation and goodwill between the various stakeholders – the member association, the government and other bid stakeholders such as the bid host cities, commercial partners, the media and the community at large;
• Increased civic pride and community empowerment as groups of stakeholders get to contribute to and support the bid, together with new skills and training for those involved in delivering the event;
• Enhanced partnerships and greater commercial activity and investment from new sponsors, media, broadcasters and large corporations;
• Help in breaking down social barriers to participation and high performance by both women and young people;
• Using successful players as role models to encourage young and emerging players and to promote health and other social benefits”.

Two notable studies have looked at the feel-good factor associated with hosting the world’s biggest football tournament. Maenning and Sussmuth (2007) examined the 2006 World Cup in Germany and found locals were happier after hosting the tournament. In former East Germany the effects were found to be greatest, particularly among the less-well educated. Kavetos and Szymanski (2004) consider a longitudinal data set from 1978 to 1994. Using happiness data from the Eurobarometer Survey the authors found that hosting a tournament has a positive, significant effect on a country’s happiness, both during and after the Finals. As one might expect, those under 50, males, the unemployed and less educated saw the greatest jumps in happiness.

The happiness of the Russians might depend on how long the their team stay in the competition. At odds of around 40/1 to win the tournament that may not be too long...

By Robbie Butler

With the dust settling on the 2017/18 Premier League season, preparations for the league's return in August are already gathering pace. With World Cup 2018 on the horizon, club activity usually occurs in two bursts. before and after the tournament, making World Cup years feel somewhat different.

This is no more evident that the recent sacking/parting company of Premier League managers in the past number of days. Arsenal have been joined by West Ham United, Everton, and today Swansea and Stoke, who are all seeking a new managerial appointment. 

In a previous post, I illustrated the downward trend in the number of days managers stay in their job, which the League Managers Association chief Richard Beven described as "embarrassing" for the sport. His words have had little effect on club owners.

During the 2017/18, excluding the recent exists of Arsene Wenger, David Moyes, Sam Allardyce, Carlos Carvalhal and Paul Lambert, ten managers lost their jobs. This includes two changes at West Bromwich Albion. That's a total of 16 managerial changes. 

The pressure that managers come under, particularly at the start of the season, seems to be growing year on year. Within this, the league itself appears to be breaking into two groups. Teams fighting for the top 4 and teams in a relegation battle.The mid-table appears to be disappearing. In fact, this season one could argue only Burnley and possibly Watford (although their season tapered off) were not in a relegation battle or in with a realistic chance of reaching the top 4.

The graph below would support this somewhat, and illustrates how the league is squeezing out the mid-table teams.

The data used in the graphic is drawn from Premier League tables from 1995-96 season to 2017-18. Data prior to this is not useful as the league contained more than 20 teams. 

The number of points required to win the league and finish 4th (last Champions League place) is upward trending. The points needed to survive is downward sloping.

As a general rule, 40 points is used as a benchmark for safety. One would have to go back to 2002/03 to find the last time 40 points was actually required to be safe. in the past five seasons, an average of just 34.4 were required to stay in the division. The average from 1995-96 to 1999-00 was 37.4

On the other hand, the number of points needed for the top 4 is climbing. Just 65.6 points were required in the first five seasons show above. Since 2013-14 this has risen to 73.2. In the first twelve seasons (1995 to 2007) only once did the 4th place team break 70 points. In the eleven since May 2007 the 4th placed team was broken 70 points on 8 occasions. Arsenal finished 4th in 2013-14 with a whopping 79 points. 

By Robbie Butler

There are presently 86 racing courses operating in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland, or British Isles to use the geographic terminology. The breakdown by country is England (52), Ireland (24), Scotland (5), Wales (3) and Northern Ireland (2). Racing at these locations is an all year round occurrence, with only Christmas Day and Christmas Eve in the UK certain to have no fixtures each year.

The regularity of the sport ensures a constant stream of live content for sports broadcasters. Traditionally available on free-to-air television and within bookmaker betting shops, the market for live content changed in the early 2000s with the arrival of subscription channels. Much like the market for Premier League football a number of broadcasters now exist and “compete” with one another.

As Hoehn and Lancefield (2003) identify, completion occurs in a two-stage game; the first stage involves competing for rights to the race courses, if rights are non-exclusive or face close substitutes, broadcasters compete in respect of the quality of their coverage and analysis. The second is competition in the downstream market for consumers.

In the UK, there are two main racecourse owners. Arc Racing Company and Jockey Club. Between the two they control almost half of all British race courses. The remainder are owned independently.

Ireland is somewhat different. Horse Race Ireland (HRI), a government financed government body, manages the sport on an all-island basis with the two tracks in Northern Ireland directed from Co. Kildare. While ownership of the courses is largely private, direction, fixtures and the vast majority of funding comes from HRI.

Racing is available on free-to-air channels in the UK and Ireland on a weekly basis. That said,  the number of races shown is limited and coverage is normally restricted to a Saturday. Remaining races can be viewed on a subscription basis by purchasing one of two channels; Attheraces (to be rebranded Sky Sports Racing from on or before January 1st, 2019) and Racing UK.
​
As on May 2018 Attheraces has the rights to all 15 Arena Racing Company, Hereford Racecourse (run by the local council), a number of independent tracks and all 26 race course on the island of Ireland. Racing UK holds the rights all 14 Jockey Club tracks, two run by Chester Race Company and numerous independent course.

Things are set to change however as it was recently announced the Racing UK had won the rights to show all racing from Ireland from 2019 onwards. While Sky Sports Racing recently announced an agreement to take over broadcasting of live races from Chester Race Company’s course in Bangor-on-Dee and Chester, the loss of 26 courses will be seen as a major blow. The graphic above demonstrates the change in market power from 2018 to 2019 for both channels.
​
Attheraces coverage of Irish racing has been excellent over the past decade or more. It will be interesting to see how the move to Racing UK (which may now require rebranding) works out.