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

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,

​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 Brian Cronin,

The Republic of Ireland U17 European Championship squad made national headlines recently when they controversially exited the tournament on penalties at the hands of the Netherlands. The performance of the squad raises hope for the future and is no doubt down to a combination of dedication, effort and skill on the part of the players, and excellence in coaching and tactics.

Another factor at play might be a relative age effect. The concept, which is now well understood, suggests relatively older children, assembly collectively under a selection year, will outperform their younger peers.  

To have been eligible to compete in the 2018 U17 European Championships, all players had to have been born on or after 1 January 2001. Indeed, the January 1 cut-off date is also used in Irish underage schoolboy competitions. Consequently, the Relative Age Effect (RAE) manifests itself, whereby players born closest to this cut-off date would tend to be physically more mature and co-ordinated when compared with players born later in the year. They are also likely to be both cognitively and psychologically more developed. Ultimately, this results in these players then getting chosen for representative squads at an earlier age where they are exposed to better coaching, better opposition and greater opportunities to progress within the game. 

​The chart below shows that of the 21 players selected in the Republic of Ireland squad for the 2018 UEFA U17 European Championships (Kian Clarke, who was originally selected but ruled out through injury, is also included). 

9 (43%) were born in the first three months of the year (seven in 2001 and two in 2002). Conversely, not a single player selected was born in the final three months of the year, even though the distribution of the general population in Ireland is evenly spread throughout the year.

The particularly interesting feature of this Irish U17 squad is that, although there were no players born in the final three months of 2001, there were two players born in the first three months of 2002 - both of whom started all four games at the tournament (Troy Parrott and Jimmy Corcoran). This accentuates the pervasiveness of RAE - these players, being two of the more physically developed within their 2002 age group, would have been more likely to have been exposed to elite coaching growing up when compared with those born in the final months of 2001.

Perhaps some food for thought for underage schoolboy soccer coaches.

Brian Cronin is a 3rd year student at University College Cork and has just completed an Erasmus Year in France as part of his BComm International (French) Degree. Brian represented the Republic of Ireland at U16 level and is now the goalkeeping coach to four Cork Schoolboys League Kennedy Cup teams, and has coached goalkeepers at regional Emerging Talent level as well as internationally, with the Irish Amputee Football team. 

For more on Irish soccer and the relative age effect see here.

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

It is hard to escape the Brexit debate in Ireland at the moment. The shadow of the UK's pending departure from the European Union hangs over all aspects of life on this island. Sport is no exception.

We have previously agreed the issue on various occasions in the past year or so (here, here, here, here and here). With the talks between the EU and UK ongoing, a lack of clarity as to the final outcome remains. Generally speaking, there are two broad outcomes; the UK leaves without a deal in March 2019 or a deal is agreed resulting in a transition period to the end of 2020. Given the demands on both sides it is difficult to know which outcome is more likely.

Derry City football club have a greater stake than most in the outcome of the talks n this regard. Based in County Derry, one of the six counties of Northern Ireland, the club joined the League of Ireland (in the Republic of Ireland) in 1985. Derry have since played in the league ever since from their home ground the Brandywell. 

The EU status and free-travel agreement between Ireland and the UK historical meant the process of playing away games, and welcoming visiting team, was effectively seamless. This was made even easier following the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 and, in the years that followed, an absence of controls of any sort. 

Things are about to change however. The UK's current position is to leave the EU, Single Market and Customs Union. Should the country exist all three it is extremely difficult to envisage how a customs border could be avoided on the island of Ireland, at least one that is managed on the Irish side, to prevent certain goods entering the European Union.

This will no doubt create a difficulty for Derry City each time they play an away football match. The club will be travelling from a non-EU country to the EU. The opposite is true of all clubs visiting the Brandywell. The logsictal problems this will create are still unknown, but is it likely the players, management and supporters will face challenges in the seasons ahead should a deal remain elusive.

If a "hard" Brexit is the outcome, the club itself may have to consider whether the benefits of League of Ireland membership continue to outweigh the costs. 

By Robbie Butler

I sat watching the Champions League semi-final first leg between Liverpool and Roma last week and had mixed emotions at the end of the game. As a Liverpool supporter I have been trying to reason why I was a little uneasy despite the fact the Reds had secured (another) three goal advantage going into the second leg of a Champions League knock-out game.I consoled myself with the fact that others around me had similar feelings. 

Before the game I think a three goal lead would have been taken by every Liverpool player and supporter. In fact, all would probably have taken a win, of any description, and some may have been content with a 0-0. Even a score draw would not have been an awful result. 

The root of my uneasiness can be somewhat explained by anchoring - a cognitive bias that explain the tendency for people (in this case a football supporter) to rely too heavily on an initial piece of information. The initial information was a 5-0 lead that had me thinking about the final. 5-1 was less favourable to this. 5-2, as the result turned out be, was less favourable again. 

The sequence of the score was very important. Had Roma led 2-0, a 5-2 win for Liverpool would have been heralded as one of the greatest comebacks of all time. Had the game been 2-2, and Liverpool gone onto win 5-2, the win would have been seen as a great victory. When 5-0 becomes 5-1, and then 5-2, this is not the case despite the fact the outcome is identical. 

This moves me on to prospect theory - the idea that  people make decisions based on the potential value of losses and gains rather than the final outcome. There are three fundamental pillars at the heart of the theory, created by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. One: Evaluation is relative to a neutral reference point. Two: Diminishing sensitivity to gains and losses exist. Three: Loss aversion is paramount, with losses looming larger than gains.

​The theory is best explained by the graphic to the right, which I have manipulated to show the relationship between the joy and pain from scoring and conceding a goal which I experienced last week.

By Robbie Butler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Robbie Butler

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

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

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

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

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

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