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

Qualifying for Euro 2020 started last night and continues over the coming days. Scotland got off to the worst possible start losing by three goals to nil in Kazakhstan. The positive news for the Scots is that qualifying for the Euro's is not as difficult as it once was. The competition structure has changed quite dramatically since the early years of the competition, and next year 24 of the 55 UEFA members will appear at the finals. That's not far off one in two nations.

If one discounts the seven lowest ranked teams in UEFA (Gibraltar, Faroe Islands, Latvia, Liechenstein, Andorra, Malta and San Marino), every second country entering the competition will qualify.

Compare this to Ireland's first appearance at a Final's - Euro '88. While there were just 32 UEFA members, only 8 appreaded in Germany at the Finals. Just seven qualified as the hosts were guaranteed a place at the party. This means roughly 4 out of 5 countries watched on as Ireland famously toured Stuttgart, Hanover and Gelsenkirchen. This probably remains the countries biggest achievement when it comes to tournament qualification.

The figure illustrates the fraction of UEFA teams that could qualify for World Cups and European Championships from 1986 to 2020. ​

The trend line is almost flat (slightly rising). The interesting quirk in the data, if one looks closely at the years, is the flip in difficulty between competitions. In 1988 and 1992 the Euros were hard to get to, the World Cup much easier. Today the Euros have expanded meaning the chances of qualifying are much higher. World Cup qualification from Europe is much tougher and is likely to stay at way even after the competition expands.

So disappointed Scotland fans waking up this morning should take comfort. Yesterday's loss might not be as damaging as in the past. The Euro Finals are not what they once were. 

By Stephen Brosnan

This post explores the relationship between Premier League club’s spending on both salaries and transfers and the number of points won during the current Premier League season.

Since 2015, Man United have had the highest annual player salaries amongst Premier League clubs. This year total salary paid out to players at Old Trafford topped £148 million. This includes the Premier Leagues top earner Alexis Sanchez, often founding warming up the United bench while picking up a hefty £315,000 p/w.

Cardiff City have the lowest wage bill in the Premier League this season. The newly promoted Bluebirds remained conservative in their approach to top flight survival. Cardiff’s summer transfer spending (£29m) was a fraction of the other promoted team’s spending. Fulham spent a hefty £105m during the summer while Wolves brought in £65m worth of talent. Only Tottenham (£0), Crystal Palace (£9.5m) and Newcastle (£23.2m) spent less than Cardiff last summer.

The question remains who have been the most efficient club in terms of spending on annual salaries? The figure below shows Premier League team’s total points and spending on salaries. 

All the teams above the line can be considered ‘efficient’. Wolves rank first for points per £m spent on player’s salaries. So far this season, Wolves have accumulated 40 points in the Premier League having spent £39 million on player’s salaries. This represents 1.02 points per million pounds spent on player’s salaries. Other ‘efficient’ teams include Manchester City, Liverpool, Tottenham, Watford and Brighton.

Manchester United are the most inefficient team in terms of points per £ spent on player’s salaries. The team has only won 0.37 points per million pounds spent on player’s salaries. This may be surprising given their recent form under Ole Gunnar Solskjaer but also may go a long way in explaining why they replaced former manager Jose Mourinho.
​
The other ‘inefficient’ teams include relegation candidates Huddersfield and Fulham along with Southampton, Crystal Palace, Everton, Leicester and West Ham. Over half of these teams have changed manager throughout the season which suggests that the team’s inefficiencies were no secret. Meanwhile, none of the managers of the ten ‘efficient’ teams have lost their jobs. 

By Stephen Brosnan

Previously, I have written about the effect of star players on team performance in the Premier League. The piece identifies the usefulness of Collis and Montgomery’s resource-based view of the firm (RBV) in explaining the impact of ‘star’ players on team competitiveness. RBV explains how a firm’s resources drive its performance in a dynamic competitive environment. In a sporting context, team performance may be driven by a key resource e.g. star player. However, given the risk of injury, suspension, fatigue and loss of form over the course of the season, the over reliance of a team on the contribution of one ‘star’ player can significantly impact their long-term competitiveness.

Table 1 highlights the contribution of each Premier League clubs ‘star’ player during the current season. The players selected have amassed the highest number of Fantasy Premier League (FPL) points for their respective clubs. The analysis considers the percentage of team’s goals in which the player was involved in, the points lost in the absence of this contribution and the players contribution to the team’s Premier League points total. 

Three team’s leading FPL points scorer are their goalkeepers: Neil Etheridge (Cardiff), Jonas Lössl (Huddersfield) and Martin Dubravka (Newcastle). Given the reliance on goals and assists to determine the contribution of star players to team performance, this analysis is limited to outfield players only. Therefore, these players have been replaced with highest outfield FPL points scorer for this analysis.

Aleksandar Mitrovic has the highest overall contribution to his team’s outcomes, both in terms of contribution to goals scored and contribution to points accumulated. Mitrovic has been involved in over half of all Fulham’s goals (52%) and has contributed to 76% of all their points earned. Fulham’s (over)reliance on their talisman may be summed up by their failure to win any game in which Mitrovic has not scored and he has had to score two goals in three of these games to ensure victory: Burnley 4 – 2 (2 goals, 1 assist), Southampton 3 – 2 (2 goals), Huddersfield 1-0 (1 goal) and Brighton 4-2 (2 goals).

However, it appears not all goals are created equal as Glenn Murray has been involved in 35% of Brighton’s goals this season with these goals contributing to 41% of the team’s overall points. Meanwhile, Everton’s Gylfi Sigurdsson has been involved in a similar number of Everton’s goals (33%) but these goals have only contributed to 12% of the team’s overall points.
​
In the Premier League title race, Liverpool appear to be more reliant on their star man, Mo Salah, compared with rivals Man City and Tottenham. Salah has contributed to 31% of Liverpool’s points while Man City and Tottenham have been less reliant on their star players Sterling and Son (18%). Both these teams have already shown their ability to succeed with numerous injury problems e.g. Spurs winning every game since Harry Kane’s injury. Liverpool have yet to have significant injury setback and their ability to deal with potential injury or loss of form to Salah may go a long way to deciding the outcome of this season’s Premier League.

 Robbie Butler

In early December I addressed the current title race in the Premier League and the remarkable pace being set by both Liverpool and Manchester City. As the league enters February it appears that the title will end up in either Anfield or the Eithad come May, unless one of the chasing pack can put a remarkable run of results together.

Whilst this is the normal course of events for Man City in recent years - the club have won 3 Premier League title since May 2013 - this is not so for Liverpool. Older fans of the Reds will recall the 1989/90 season with fondest, but the title has not returned to Liverpool since then. There have been a couple of near misses since.

Gerard Houllier's treble-wining squad of 2001 ran an excellent Arsenal close the following season. Rafa Benetiz managed to put Manchester United under pressure during the 2008/09 season without ever really looking like winning the title. The closest since 1990 is surely Brendan Roger's squad which came unstuck in the final 3 games during April/May 2013, having had the title destiny in their own hand.

So what might be different this time around? Like most things in football, the answer can be explained by money. Most that watch the Premier League would agree Virgil van Dijk and Alisson, both signed since January 2018 have transformed Liverpool's defence. Jurgen Klopp's acquisitions appear to be reaping their rewards. Since his arrival in October 2015, the German has added 16 "senior" players to his squad. A further 27 have left permanently.. In that time Klopp's net spend has been €128.23 million. 

Liverpool's improvement this season, when compared to Klopp's previous years coincides with a big increase in net spending. The graphic below illustrates this for Klopp's time in charge.

In total the club has spent €437.13 million on player purchases since the winter transfer window, during the 2015/16 season.

Klopp's spending effectively remained neutral until the summer of 2018. During that time the German added Sadio Mane, Georginio Wijnaldum, Virgil van Dijk, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, Andy Robertson and Mohamed Salah to the squad! 

These signings were financed by the sale of the likes of Christian Benteke, Jordon Ibe, Joe Allen, Philippe Coutinho and Mamadou Sakho. In fact, Benteke, Ibe, Allen and Sakho fetched €92.9 miilion. Salah, Mane and Robertson cost €92.2 million; a profit of €700,000. Coutinho sale for €135 meant the combined cost of van Dijk and Alisson stands at just €6.3 million. 

The improvement this season may be explained by a net spend of €134.7 million. This has been driven by the additions of Alisson, Naby Keïta, Fabinho and Xherdan Shaqiri. Only time will tell if this is enough to bring the league title back to Anfield.

If it is it, Liverpool fans will unanimously agree it was the best €134.7 million the club ever spent.  

By Robbie Butler,

On the 14th of November I wrote about the 2018 MLS season, and the rise of Atlanta United. The piece was in the context of competitive balance in Major League Soccer, and the fact that 12 franchises had won the US title, making it more competitive than any major European league over the past 23 years.

We can make that 13. Atlanta United were crowned MLS Champions on Saturday evening at around 10pm EST.

The remarkable thing about the "The Five Stripes" is that they are playing in just their second season of the Eastern Conference. In total the franchise has played under 80 games in its entire existence, yet is now the number 1 US football team.To put this into context, it is great to compare the closed system in the US, to the oldest set of interconnected leagues in the world in England.

It is difficult to know how many tiers there are in England (there could be up to 22) but it is safe to assume that there are at least 8 interconnected divisions. These range from regional leagues at the lower end, to the Premier League at the top, and are list below. 

Assuming Atlanta United were an English club, and had won promotion in Years 1 and 2 of their existence, the club would be heading into the National League South (given Atlanta's location in the US we will assume South rather than North). From a starting point in this league, it would take a minimum of 6 seasons before the club could even challenge for the Premier League title.

​The current dominance of the big six clubs in England's means they have little to fear from the remaining Premier League clubs (Leicester City may obviously disagree), never mind clubs in the lower tiers of English football. The rise of Atalanta United is not something you can expect to be replicated in England anytime soon, if ever. 

Just another example of how the structure of the same sport on either size of the Atlantic is different, and can result in very different outcomes.  

By Robbie Butler

Yesterday, Liverpool secured a dramatic last minute win in the Merseyside Derby to bring them back to within two points of Manchester City. As a fan of the Reds I was delighted at the end of the game, albeit in highly unusually circumstances. As is commonplace, once the final whistle sounded the league table almost immediately appeared on our screens. Liverpool, highlighted in blue, stood in second on 36 points from 14 games.

This got me thinking. Had any team in the Premier League era amassed 11 wins and 3 draws from their first 14, yet still find themselves second!?

The answer is no. 

Thanks to friends in OPTA, the data below can demonstrate just how hot the race for the league is this year. It will be very interesting to calculate competitive balance for the 2018/19 season, come May of next year.  

The first table demonstrates just how strong the top of the table is this season. Quite remarkably, Manchester City are two points worse off when compared to 2017/18. 

Newcastle United are a notable inclusion on the list, during the 1995/96 season, and are the only team not to go on and win the league having accumulated 35 points or more from 14 games. This record will have to fall this year, as either City or Liverpool, or maybe both, fail to win the league having reached 36 and 38 points respectively from 14 games.

The second table lists the seasons since 1992/93, 19 in total, where Liverpool would be top at this stage. The column on the right shows the number of points clear the Reds would be. On two occasions, they would be 9 points clear. One of these is compared to the Liverpool team of Gerard Houllier. On a further three occasions the Merseyside club would now be 8 points clear at the top. 

There certainly is a long way to go until next May but the pace that City and Liverpool are setting, and the evidence from past seasons, suggests the Premier League is a sprint more than a marathon. Exciting times lie ahead. 

by Declan Jordan

Earlier this week David Butler posted on the English FA's proposal to limit the number of non-homegrown players in senior squads, a move that has not gone down too well with the Premier League. I agree that the proposal may damage the quality of the Premier League. The justification reminds me of Brexiteers blaming UK economic problems on immigrants, when in reality, just as it is with the Premier League, immigrants are the potential solution to economic issues rather than the cause of them.

There is recent evidence however on the impact of foreign players on club performance in a recent paper in the Journal of Sports Economics (requires subscription). A colleague, Vicente Royuela, and his co-author Roberto Gasquez, from the University of Barcelona examined the influence of foreign players on the success of football clubs.

Using data from 971 clubs across the top-tier of 71 leagues, the paper shows that clubs in leagues with a higher proprtion of foreign players tend to perform better than clubs in leagues with less foreign players. However, within a league, having more foreign players does not have a significant effect on a club's performance.

This has implications for the FA's new policy on caps on foreign players. Fewer foreign players will negatively affect the quality of the clubs in the Premier League, damaging the 'product'. This indicates why the Premier League would oppose the move. At the same time, the relative performance of clubs with the Premier League will be unaffected. The most important determinant of within-league performance according to the authors is a club's wealth.

This suggests that those clubs that can afford to sign better quality foreign players will still be relatively better able to sign them. It highlights of course that the most important part of performance is not from where players come, but how good they are.

By Robbie Butler

This week the Football Association of Ireland parted ways with manager Martin O'Neill and his backroom team. The search now starts for the next the Republic of Ireland manager, who will become the 15th man to manage the national team. The list is illustrious with the likes of John Giles, Jack Charlton and Giovanni Trappatoni all taking charge of the Boys in Green. 

O'Neill achieved considerable success in relative terms. He managed to qualify the  Republic of Ireland for the European Championship Final in 2016 where the team beat Italy in the Group stages, and also recorded a draw against Sweden in Paris.

While these are notable highlights, one that went under the radar was the teams' success in Vienna in November 2016. James McClean's goal that night ensured the Republic of Ireland's first away win in a group game, against a higher seeded team, since 1967.

Performances since haven't reached the same heights but the team's FIFA Ranking has remained quite stable. 

While there was a notable decline under the most recent manager, O'Neill's team has not had an alarming decline. That's said, relegation to Group C of the UEFA Nations League will make qualifying for Euro 2020 more tricky.

By Robbie Butler

The UEFA Nations League returned last night and will continue over the coming days. For those unfamiliar with the tournament, the competition has been created by UEFA to reduce the number of friendly internationals teams play, and offers an opportunity to qualify for Euro 2020. Unfortunately for the Republic of Ireland we have had little to cheer. Things could change on Monday night when the country travels to Denmark, and a win would lift team moral going into the UEFA European Qualifiers.

The game on Monday night (and those in the Nations League that have preceded it) has one oddity when compared to other Irish international games. It is a competitive fixture that is not available on free-to-air television. The reason this is unusual is down to European Commission rules and the Irish Statute Book.

At present, EU Member States can designate sporting and cultural events as being of major importance to society. Any events so designated should be available on a free-to-air television service.The  Irish Statute Book (2016) currently says "All events deemed to be “of major importance to society for which the right of a qualifying broadcaster to provide coverage on a live basis on free television services should be provided in the public interest”. This list includes, amongst other things,Ireland’s home and away qualifying games in the European Football Championship and the FIFA World Cup Tournaments, and Ireland games in the European Football Championship Finals and FIFA World Cup Finals Tournament.

Effectively, this means all competitive games involving the team must be shown on free-to-air television in the "public interest".

​The Nations League has recently joined the list of UEFA competitions. I wonder if this competition will be added to the Statute Book when reviewed by the Former Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment. Last year the Minister added the "All-Ireland Senior Ladies Gaelic Football and Camogie Finals to the Free to Air designation list with full backing from the Cabinet and the European Commission".

It would seem to make sense for Nations League games to join the list.