By Robbie Butler

The 25th season of Major League Soccer will kick-off at the end of next month and will include David Beckham's new franchise Inter Miami CF and Tennessee franchise Nashville SC. This will bring the total number of teams to 26 – the highest to date.

Inter Miami will form part of the Eastern Conference, while Nashville SC will join the Western Conference. This, despite the fact that the Nissan Stadium, home of Nashville, is more easterly than Soldier Field, the home of Chicago Fire who play in the Eastern Conference. The arrival of the new franchises, and the division they play in, got me thinking about the distances these teams must travel weekly in order to fulfill fixtures.

I recall Steven Gerrard’s time with LA Galaxy and comments by the former Liverpool player that the travel involved playing MLS was exhausting. This is especially true when one compares it to the Premier League in England.

In early January, Liverpool played Everton in an FA Cup 3rd round game. During a stoppage in play, a drone above the stadium moved slightly northwards, and Everton’s Goodison Park came into view. There is less than 1 mile between the two stadiums. For newly recruited players of Inter Miami, their 'derby match' with Orlando City SC will require a 205-mile journey north. This is just shy of Liverpool visiting a London club, which is hardly a derby.

The distances a franchise will travel in the MLS arequite something. In this post I considered only the Eastern Conference. The Western Conference would appear far worse. New players for Inter Miami have some serious travel ahead, given Miami’s location. After Orlando, the next closest venue is the 580-mile trip to the magnificent Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta, a round trip of nearly 1,200 miles. This is like Liverpool heading to Cologne in Germany.

Inter Miami players will have at least seven trips in the Eastern conference that exceed 1,000 miles one way! The longest being the 1387-mile distance to play Montreal Impact – the greatest distance between two franchises in the Eastern Conference. Liverpool to Rome is almost the exact same distance.

Considering all franchises for the conference, there is probably just one derby, by European standards that is. The 20 miles separating the Yankee Stadium from the Red Bull Arena in New Jersey, homes of the New York City and New York Red Bulls.

Travel distances can be found to have significant impact on performance. I will consider the impact this has on match outcomes in the MLS in a future post. For new recruits of Inter Miami, they better be ready to travel. Although, Nashville SC will make this look short. More to follow on this. 

By Robbie Butler

Casual fans of football might have been surprised to see a score line from the Quarter Final of the Carabao (league) Cup that read Aston Villa 5 - 0 Liverpool. The recently promoted team beat the European Champions comfortably to book their place in the last 4.

What the score line doesn't tell you is that the average age of the Liverpool team was a little over 19. Probably more discrete, but equally telling, is that the sum of the squad numbers for Liverpool was just short of 1,300! That's an average of 72. The lowest number on the back of any Liverpool jersey at Villa Park was the "51" visible on the back of Ki-Jana Hoever. 

While the youngsters were battling against Villa the Liverpool first team was busy preparing in Qatar for the FIFA World Club Championship Semi-Final. Unfortunately for the Merseyside club, fixture congestion meant that the only way the club could compete in both competitions was to hold games within 24 hours of one another. 

There are many reasons why the club decided to priorities a trip to Qatar over Birmingham but probably the most obvious is the chasm in prizemoney available in both. The figures below provide sources of prizemoney for the 2019/20 season. Data for the Premier League is taken from 2018/1 as the variability in winnings are based on the number of appearances on television, as well as finishing position. 

On the left, all competitions that Liverpool will compete in are presented. The Premier League was the source of more than £150 million pounds in prize money last season. In 2019/20 success in the Champions League again would results in a windfall of around £70 million. The FA Cup could be worth almost £7 million in prizemoney.

While the FIFA World Club Championship is worth about half of the FA Cup (£3.75 million) it involves just two games. In fact, just showing up is worth in Qatar is worth £1.5 million to the Red. 

Compare this to winning the Carabao Cup. The figure to the right, takes a closer look at the FIFA World Club Championship and Carabao Cup, as the latter is too small to see on the left-hand graphic. At just £100,000 for the winners it is easy to see why Liverpool chose to head to the sun this week. 

By Robbie Butler

Earlier this week, former England manager Sam Allardyce said on TalkSport radio:

"The best way to get a Premier League job if you are British is to change your name to a foreign name. I have always said if I was ‘Allardicio’ I could have managed Manchester United". (The interview can be seen here).

This is quite a statement given that Allardyce, who began his managerial career in Ireland taking charge of Limerick, is the only person ever to manage 7 Premier League clubs over some 512 games (Bolton Wanderers (226), West Ham United (114), Blackburn Rovers (76), Sunderland (30), Everton (24), Newcastle United (21), Crystal Palace (21)). 

10 of the top 12 managers, listed by the number of Premier League games they have managed, are from Great Britain or Northern Ireland. This includes Sam himself, Alex Ferguson, Harry Redknapp, David Moyes, , Mark Hughes, Steve Bruce, Martin O'Neill, Alan Curbishley, Tony Pulis and Alan Pardew.

The overall distribution of managers by nationality is also skewed towards domestic (U.K) managers. In total 204 men have been appointed to 399 positions. The distribution by nationality is presented below.  

At present in the Premier League almost half of the managers are from Great Britain or Northern Ireland. While this is a drop in domestic representation when compared with the overall data from 1992, it is hard to argue that British managers are not well represented in the top league.

Of course, a different argument is that home-grown managers are not given the "top" jobs but this is a different argument entirely.

​The biggest job of them all, the England national team job, has been held by four English men since Italian Fabio Capello left the post in 2012. Alex Ferguson, David Moyes, Roy Hodgson, Kenny Dalglish, Tim Sherwood and Frank Lampard all manage(d) at top clubs during this decade.

As a starting point, the best way to get a job in the Premier League today is probably to be a very good manager.

By Robbie Butler

For UK and Ireland subscribers of live Premier League games, we are now under a month away from the arrival of a third supplier in the market – Amazon, via their streaming service Amazon Prime. For those unfamiliar with the history of the broadcasting of top flight football in England, the game has moved from provision by free-to-air services in the 1980s, to subscription television since 1992.

Our paper in the Journal of Sports Economics this year explains why the BSkyB monopoly from 1992 to 2007 was brought to an end by the European Commission. However, since then Sky Sports has competed with only one other provider at a given time. While the competition has changed from Setanta Sports, to ESPN, to BT Sports, the ending of the 12-year-old duopoly by Amazon next month is uncharted territory.

While the European Commission’s intervention in the market, to break up the monopoly, sought to protect consumers, it has only resulted in making it worse. A 3rd provider may be another step in the wrong direct.

From December 3rd Amazon Prime will show 2 of the 20 live games it has rights to screen during the 2019/20 season. However, unlike Sky Sports and BT Sports it won’t be possible to watch all live games as some occur simultaneously.  Crystal Palace v Bournemouth will kick-off at 7.30pm on December 3rd while Burnley v Manchester City will start at 8:15pm. This means a clash between part of the second half of the 7.30pm game and first half of the 8.15pm game.

Things get worse the following night. On Wednesday the 4th, five games will kick-off together at 7.30pm (Chelsea v Aston Villa, Leicester v Watford, Manchester United v Tottenham, Southampton v Norwich Wolves v West Ham) while the Merseyside Derby between Liverpool and Everton will start at 8.15pm.
​
Given the kick-off times in the second round of games Amazon Prime will show on the 26th of December, it will only be possible to watch 8 of the 20 games in their entirety. All 128 games on Sky Sports, and the 52 games on BT Sports can be watched as they do not clash with one another. The 3rd provider has a different set of dynamics and one has to wonder how customers will react.

By Robbie Butler

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

Let's look closer.

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

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

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

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

By Robbie Butler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Robbie Butler

Recently, former Premier League manager Ian Holloway made some bizarre comments on Sky Sports show The Debate regarding Brexit:

"I hope we get out, Brexit, because that's what we all voted for. And sort that out because you cannot have someone telling us how to do our own game. FIFA and UEFA have brought these rules in, they told us we've got to use VAR that I’ve got no problem with, but that handball rule that they’ve made up, I don’t want to listen to them. That’s nonsensical," 

He later went onto say, "Brexit is nothing to do with the football rules, is it? I’m not that stupid, so I suggest people wash their ears out and listen. As an English person, I’m sick and fed up of being told what we’ve got to do. Our country is fantastic. If you let us make our own rules up, do what we want to do, we’ll be in control of it a lot better. I don’t like UEFA and I don’t like FIFA telling us what we should do in our English football game. We should take control of our own game, then that wouldn’t have happened. Let’s get out and stop the EU dictating to us what we can do. I feel exactly the same with UEFA and FIFA over our football."

Let's take a closer look at how inaccurate these comments are. 

The body with responsibility for developing and preserving the rules of the game are the International Football Association Board (IFAB), founded by the four British football associations. These originally consisted of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. However, following the formaiton of the Irish Free State  in 1921, IFAB  became the football associations' of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Each of these has one vote on the IFBA Board today. FIFA is now also a member and holds 4 votes, or 50% of the voting power. However, the rule changes that Holloway is opposed to needed 6 votes to pass, so at least 2 UK members were required to tell 'England what to do with their football game'. 

So instead of what Holloway is suggesting that "...you cannot have someone telling us how to do our own game. FIFA and UEFA have brought these rules in", they have not. 

He continues "If you let us make our own rules up, do what we want to do, we’ll be in control of it a lot better". But that is pretty much what you have. There are 211 FIFA affiliated associations. Only 4 are members of IFAB. The same 4 countries that voted in the Brexit Referendum. 

Finally, his comments "Let’s get out and stop the EU dictating to us what we can do. I feel exactly the same with UEFA and FIFA over our football", are inaccuarte becasue neither can dictate. In fact, IFAB could never pass another rule change again if just Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) decided to vote against every change. So 3 countries could block 208 others and FIFA. Where is the loss of control?

Holloway is not the only manager to comment on Brexit. Last year Cardiff City's Neil Warnock said:

"I don't know why politicians don't do what the country wanted, if I'm honest. They had a referendum and now we see different politicians and everyone else trying to put their foot in it. Why did we have a referendum in the first place? I can't wait to get out of it, if I'm honest. I think we'll be far better out of the thing - in every aspect, football-wise as well, absolutely. To hell with the rest of the world." The club were quick to point out that "These comments do not reflect the political position of Cardiff City Football Club, nor its board of directors."

While Warnock and Holloway appear to be stanuch Brexiters, Liverpool's Jurgen Klopp takes a very different view. Earlier this year the German said:

"What do you want? A not perfect situation alone or a not perfect situation as a strong partner in a very strong unit. That's only common sense. That's only common sense because history taught us that if you are alone you are weaker than the unit. I'm 51 years old so I have never experienced a war. We are really blessed in our generation, but the past showed us that as long as strong partners are together, Europe is a much safer place...Yes, we have problems but let's solve them...Just calm down and stick together and stop listening to people with no knowledge, from the right side because that's never the solution...I still hope that somebody will use common sense at the end and doesn't use the situation to try and improve only their own position".

While just 51, Klopp must surely have been only too aware of the devastating consequences of World War II and the partition of Germany. As the past 3 years have demonstrated, the UK appears to looks upon the years 1939 to 1945 as to how 'going it alone' in Europe is the key to success. 

I also wonder to what extent the presence of non-British managers in top English clubs, for about the past 20 years, is influencing the views of the likes of Warnock and Holloway. This generation of British managers were the first ever not to be given the chance to manage many of the top English clubs. That must be the EU's fault too. 

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

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

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

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

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

By Robbie Butler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Declan Jordan

The FIFA Women's World Cup in France continues to throw up great games and surprises. The women's game is in the spotlight and, while the football has been great, there are frustrations at FIFA's organisation and commitment to the game, pay inequality, and sexism.

It is perhaps unavoidable that the competition and women's football generally is compared to the men's equivalent. It is not difficult to find patronising commentary on television and in print media whenever women's football is covered. There is almost surprise, particularly in the Irish and UK coverage with which I am most familiar, that professional athletes are technically skillful, competitive, and committed. (There are similarities in the treatment of female football analysts, referred to by Alex Scott here. That it is surprising that someone who has played 140 times for her country should be insightful about the game says a lot about our attitudes to women in football).

Perhaps these attitudes are based on an outdated notion of the women's game, though there are certainly socialised stereotypes at play as well. In a recent article in the Irish Examiner, Larry Ryan referred to a comment by England striker Toni Duggan that she was somewhat heartened to see the anger from opposition fans when she celebrated a goal she scored for Barcelona. For her it showed that the game mattered and the players were being taken seriously. The article though warns that the women's game should try to avoid going down the road of the men's game and should instead try to hold on to the values of inclusion, loyalty, and community.

This doesn't mean of course that the women's game will not get more competitive, skillful, and demanding.

The negative stereotypes will take time to break down of course, but it is interesting to review the data on previous World Cup Finals, both women's and men's, to shed some light on the game's development.The USA's 13-0 demolition of Thailand has led to some suggestions that the World Cup is losing credibility and the increase in teams from 16 to 24 will damage the tournament with more one-sided games.

The data doesn't back this up however.

The graph below shows the goals per game at each of the last seven World Cup Finals tournaments (the last men's tournament was 2018 in Russia and the last Women's tournament was in 2015 in Canada). For information, in the first round of group matches in the current tournament (12 in all) to Tuesday June 11, there have been 3.17 goals per game. Excluding the USA-Thailand game the ratio is 2.27 goals per game).

It is striking how the ratio of goals per game has declined over the seven tournaments. From having just over a goal more per game, the women's tournament has now reached a comparable level with the men's. Whether this is a positive or negative development is unclear, though even as the number of countries in the finals of the Women's World Cup has increased goals have become more difficult to come by.

Similarly with the number of low-scoring games, there has been a narrowing in the differences between the tournaments over time. The Women's World Cup Finals did not see a scoreless match until the final day of the third World Cup (in 1999) when both the third place play-off and the final ended nil all. Up to the last World Cup finals there have been nine scoreless matches. There has been one more in current tournament when Argentina parked the bus against the favoured Japanese. In comparison over the last seven men's tournaments there has been an increase in scoreless matches from close to 5% of matches to 15% in 2014. In 2018 there was only one scoreless match.

It is interesting though to include the number of games that have ended 1-0. The green bar in the graph below shows the proportion of matches that have had one goal or less (within 90 minutes). The women's World Cup has gone from about 12% of matches in the first tournament in 1991 (and only 6% in 1999) to a third of matches in 2015. (A third of the 12 games in the current tournament have had one goal or less). 

​The grey bar shows the corresponding data for the men's tournaments. Rising from 1994 to 2010 before falling in 2014 and 2018, the level has been between about a quarter and a third. The women's rate has exceeded the men's in the most recent tournament. 

It may be that the fewer number of participants in the women's finals means the best teams are playing and the matches are closer. The number of teams taking part increased however in 2015 from 16 to 24. Adding the extra teams has not diminished the closeness of the games (measured by the proportion of low scoring games). It may instead point to an increase in standards - or at least a decrease in the variability of standards - at the elite level and the women's game converging with the men's game, whether for good or ill.

The data may also point to greater levels of organisation in coaching and associated resources from national bodies for the women's national teams, and further posts may explore that idea.