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.

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.