By Robbie Butler

As is normal for this week of the year, we turn our attention to Cheltenham. Over the past four years of this blog, I and others on this blog, have attempted to beat the market, with varying levels of success.

Since 2009 my record stands 3-6. I really need 2018 to be a good year as the bookies are getting away. 

In the past I have attempted to beat the market by selecting my own picks (and here), following the favourite, and backing Willie Mullins and Ruby Walsh ridden horses.

The only year of the four that was successful was when we followed Ruby. And we will do just that this year with a €2 stake on all Ruby Walsh ridden horses. The stake will be placed each way if the horse 5/1 or more. 

Daily updates to follow. 

**************************************************************************************************************************************
DAY 1

A very good start to the week. Ruby Walsh had 5 mounts on the opening day, resulting in a stake of €10. Two winners (Footpad (5/6) and Benie Des Dieux (9/2)) were registered. 

Stake Day 1: €10
Return: €14.67
Profit/Loss on Day 1: €4.67
Overall Profit/Loss: €4.67
Overall % Return on Investment: 46.7%
​
**************************************************************************************************************************************
DAY 2 

A disaster on day two as Ruby fractures his leg in the 2nd race, ruling him out for the week. Having finished 3rd in the first race yesterday, the official return on the day is;

Stake Day 2: €4
Return: €0
Profit/Loss on Day 1: -€4
Overall Profit/Loss: €0.67
Overall % Return on Investment: 4.79%

However, for the purposes on this exercise we can continue by assuming Ruby would have ridden the horses he was booked to ride and and include the two races he was present for (Races 1 and 2). 

Stake: €10
Return: €2.50
Profit/Loss on Day 2: -€7.50
Overall Profit/Loss: -€2.83
Overall % Return on Investment: -14.15%

For the final two days, will follow Paul Townend, the second string jockey of trainer Willie Mullins. Paul will ride the ride the horses Ruby Walsh would probably have ridden, and whilst not perfect, it will allow us to continue this study.

​**************************************************************************************************************************************
DAY 3

The third day proved to be an excellent one for Paul Townend. Four mounts returned two winner. Current state of play as follows:

Stake Day 3: €8
Return: €19.54
Profit/Loss on Day 3: €11.54
Overall Profit/Loss: €8.71
Overall % Return on Investment: 31.1%

**************************************************************************************************************************************
DAY 4

Five mounts on the final day did not herald a victory, and we had to make do with a second in the opening race at odds of 8/1. Final day and overall return as follows:

Stake Day 3: €10
Return: €2.60
Profit/Loss on Day 4: -€7.40
Overall Profit/Loss: €1.31
Overall % Return on Investment: 3.45%

The market is beaten for the 4th time in a decade. The score going into 2019 reads 4-6. 

By Robbie Butler

This week Republic of Ireland manager Martin O’Neill announced a squad of 30 players for an upcoming friendly against Turkey. As one might expect, the squad is a mixture of regulars and new faces. While some argue about the merit of such friendlies at this time of the year, it is an opportunity to allow younger players to showcase their talents on the senior international stage. These fixtures also represent a passing of the guard. The likes of John O’Shea and Glenn Whelan have been part of the Irish set up since mid-2000 but are absent from 30 man list. Whether this will continue remains to be seen but there is a good chance we have seen the last of both in a green jersey. 

As Ireland will not compete at the World Cup in Russia this summer, eyes naturally turn the pending UEFA European Championship qualifiers. The draw for this takes place on the 2nd of December 2018 at the Convention Centre in Dublin. For the first time ever, Ireland will be hoping to secure qualification for the same tournament three times in a row.

While some regard qualification as a minimum requirement, others  are more pragmatic about reaching the finals of major competitions. The recent World Cup play-off defeat is an example. I for one was surprised Ireland reached the play-off stage. The country was the only Pot 4 nation to make it that far in the competition. While elimination at the hands of Denmark was particularly sore given the 5-1 defeat in Dublin, one should be conscience of the quality of our own squad as well as the opposition. The table below is worth considering. 

The rows 1990 to 2016 present descriptive statistics on approximate measures of player quality. These of course are only a guide and do not control for all factors. The data only applies to Irish internationals playing in England and covers the top 18 players in the squad for each of the major tournaments Ireland qualified for. Examples of missing players include Packie Bonnar (Celtic) John Aldridge (Real Sociedad) in 1990 and Robbie Keane (LA Galaxy) in 2012.

The column of data named "Cumulative League Rank of Players" is calculated based on the finishing league position of the club each player played for. For example, the squad of 1994 contained Dennis Irwin of Manchester United. Man United won the league that season so Irwin gets a value of 1. Roy Keane is also awarded a value of won. Terry Phelan played for Manchester City who finished 16th in the league. These three players therefore are 1+1+16=18. John Aldridge at the time played for Tranmere Rovers. The Merseyside club finished 6th in second tier of English football so Aldridge gets a value of 26, as there are 26 better 

The 2018 row presents data on the top 18 players, called into the squad this week, that have received at least one cap to date. All 30 play in England so no omissions are reported. 

​What does it tell us?

​For one, the Irish squad that qualified for the 2002 World Cup in Korea and Japan was arguably the best. A cumulative league position of the top 18 players added to just 195. That’s an average of 10.83. Effectively, this means the average player in the squad was a mid-table Premier League player. The lowest ranked player (Richard Dunne) played for the 21st best team in England (Manchester City) who had just won the Championship. The remaining 95% of the squad all played in the Premier League that season. Is it any wonder the team played its best football at a World Cup, scored more than a single goal in a game for the first time (3-0 win over Saudi Arabia) and reached the last sixteen of the competition? The team left Korea and Japan without losing a game in normal time or extra time.

Since then the trend has been downwards. The Euro Championship Finals squads of 2012 and 2016 were effectively Premier League teams just above the relegation zone (between 15th and 17th) . I would argue that qualifying for these finals was a very good achievement by both international managers.

In future it may be even more difficult. The most recent squad has a cumulative league position of 368. That’s nearly double the 2002 World Cup Squad. The highest ranked player (Jeff Hendrick) is 7th in the current Premier League table. The average player now plays for the bottom Premier League club (19.94). Just 9 (50%) of the top 18 players are Premier League players. These figures will probably improve once the qualifiers come around. Robbie Brady Darren Randolph, Stephen Ward and Richard Keogh will all make things better but even with these players included the average league position is 17.13.

Food for thought the next time you hear someone argue the team “should be doing better”.

By David Butler

To my knowledge a new record was set at Southwell Racecourse last Friday when just 13 paying customers arrived at the track. The bitter cold and schedule reorganisation were offered as reasons for the surely record breaking turnout.  

The data on attendance at UK meetings from 1989 to 2015 shows that prior to Southwell last Friday, the previous lowest attendance was at Wolverhampton in December 2012. This meeting was held three days before Christmas – 111 showed up and only 5 bookmakers were present on course.

From 1989 to 2015, 952 UK meetings have attracted below 500 punters. The data shows that 644 (67%) of these were held at Wolverhampton racetrack. Southwell held the second highest percentage of meetings with under 500 attendees - 123 meetings (19%). Along with Lingfield, these meetings at these tracks appear to be designed for bookmakers shops and off-course bettors rather than racegoers. It is also the case that the vast majority of races run at these tracks are on an all-weather surface. Wolverhampton Racecourse only hosts all-weather events on its recently installed Tapeta surface.

The weather, and perhaps the Christmas season, appear to be important regulators for meetings in this <500 club too. The chart below shows the data by month for the 952 meetings. Typically, these events fall into months with adverse weather conditions. While not denying the importance of race quality and facilitates,, this might be something authorities need to consider more when organising the racing calendar to help smaller racetracks improve attendances. That is of course, if the motivation is to attract greater attendances.

By Robbie Butler

There were some recent changes in the competition structure of the UEFA Champions League that is good news for the big four leagues of Spain (1), Germany (2), England (3) and Italy (4). From next season (2018/19) all four leagues will have a guaranteed four places in the Group Stage of the competition.

Fans of the Premier League will be familiar with the 4th placed team having to navigate, a sometimes tricky, play-off round at the start of each new season. For example, this season Liverpool had to overcome German club Hoffenheim in a two-leg playoff in August before entering the group stages.

Since 2009-10 this route has been more difficult than before, as clubs from the bigger leagues must go down the "League Path" to qualify. This is different to the "Champions Path". The Champions Path is for clubs that win their respective leagues but do not automatically qualify for the Group Stages. By definition these are weaker clubs from weaker leagues, but have the advantage of playing one another in order to qualify. This is largely the reasons clubs from Cyprus, Hungary and Slovakia have reached the last 32 of the competition.

However, the new competition structure is reducing the number of teams that can qualify from the Champions Path from 5 to 4. This is particularly bad news for League of Ireland clubs. The last 32 of the competition continues to remains elusive for clubs on this island (both North and South) and despite some near misses (Shelbourne and Dundalk) next years' competition will be even harder to get to.

The new rules are also bad news for UEFA leagues ranked 11 and 12 (currently Czech rep and Switzerland) as the champions of both leagues, normally guaranteed qualification to the last 32, will now need to come through a play-off. 

It seems as if the bigger leagues are fighting back, and concessions made in 2009/10 are in reverse somewhat. As David pointed out last September there is clear balance issues with the Champions route. 

​By David Butler

It was recently announced that transfer (registration) window will close for all English football league clubs on 9th August at 5.00pm. The window for EFL clubs is now synchronised with the Premier League, who have collectively chosen to close the window two days before the 18/19 season starts. This is well before the window shuts for the rest of Europe.

As the true valuation clubs place on players is often only revealed at the eleventh hour, supporters have become accustomed to seeing a deadline effect. Last minute deals are often cut as bargaining power shifts close to a deadline. A chain reaction usually occurs as one deal begets another; clubs won’t sell without a replacement. I would guess that this behaviour, and all the associated hype, will just be moved backward three weeks.

There might be some subtle and some unforeseen effects however. This could go two ways. Pushing the deadline back may make things more frantic, particularly during years where international competitions take place. In turn, this could increase the frequency of business in the January window. Oppositely, it may stop panic buys which can occur under the current rules. At the moment clubs can overpay after a bad start.

Moving the transfer window backward may alter the ‘deadline day’ activity in other ways too. The buying-selling dynamic of the window will likely change as clubs will still have plenty of time to offload players abroad.  Will we see more last minute splurges as clubs still have an extra few weeks to flog unwanted talent on the continent? Perhaps. Equally, it will present a challenge for elite clubs who have players in demand from the European giants – top Premier League clubs may have to work harder to fend off Barcelona, PSG, Real et al. While these situations are rare, clubs won’t be able to reinvest any monies accrued from a sale after the domestic window closes.

While the craziness could be just pushed back three weeks, the negative externality associated with unruly players trying to push through a move will likely end. Managers who crave stability could be the winners. By voting for the new rules clubs seem to be willing to sacrifice a star player who could be useful, albeit for 3-4 matches, for the sake of certainty and having no disruptive forces existing in the dressing room.

Recently, Sanchez, Costa, Coutinho and van Dijk were withdrawn from the first eleven as speculation mounted about their future. A good example prior to this year’s start was the case of Gylfi Sigurdsson. The Icelander wasn’t in the ‘right frame of mind’ to go on Swansea’s pre-season tour. He moved to Everton on the 16th of August. One of the most famous examples occurred in the 2008/2009. The atmosphere at Tottenham was close to toxic for the first few matches as the benched Dimitar Berbatov (successfully) forced through a move to Manchester United on deadline day. Tottenham scored 1 point out of 9 before the window closed. Juande Ramos was sacked soon after. The Berbatov transfer debacle did him no favours.

Moving things back will allow inevitable transfers to take place earlier and may negate any dressing room spillover effect associated with want-away stars. Also, increased squad certainty may improve parity between clubs. If negative effects caused by one individual spreads across a dressing room, another club may luckily play them in the first few weeks, prior to the windows close. Hopefully an early close will stop teams randomly benefiting from an unsettled opposition.  Finally, moving things back may do away with any perverse incentives stories (or conspiracy theories that surface online). For instance, Oxlade-Chamberlain represented Arsenal in Liverpool ‘s 4-0 win. A week later he joined the Merseyside club.

It will be interesting to see the effects of this change. Something in me thinks that without the buy in of other European leagues, the desired impact of the rule change may not be fully reached. If anything, big European leagues could see the Premier League's first move as giving them leverage in the transfer market. 

By Stephen Brosnan

Recently, I discussed how the rules governing the National Basketball Association (NBA) draft system have contributed to the phenomenon of ‘tanking’ in the NBA. Tanking involves NBA organisations implementing a strategy of losing games on purpose with the aim of securing a high draft pick in the following season’s draft. Last week, another scandal has rocked the NBA with the news that several universities, players, coaches and agents have been implicated in FBI surveillance focused on ‘loans’ paid to NCAA players by agents. The players involved include LA Lakers forward Kyle Kuzma, Dallas Mavericks point guard Dennis Smith Jr., and the Philadelphia 76’s number one overall draft pick, Markelle Fultz.

The scale of the corruption has many commentators questioning the amateur structure of NCAA teams. Under NCAA rules, college players cannot receive any financial compensation for playing college basketball. This is despite the fact the college basketball is a multi-million dollar business which generates revenue for both universities and coaching staff. Louisville coach Rick Pitino is the highest paid NCAA coach in 2018, earning an annual salary of over $7 million. Overall, there are 40 NCAA coaches earning $1 million or more per year. The NCAA tournament, known as March Madness, is an American sports extravaganza which is a single-elimination tournament featuring 68 college basketball teams to determine the national championship. The tournament has grossed $19.6 billion in TV money for the NCAA Tournament over the past 22 years.

The NCAA model has contributed to the creation of what economists call a ‘black market’. A black market is a market characterised by some form of illegality or noncompliance with an institutional set of rules. The NBA requires players entering the draft to be at least 19 years of age which has produced one-and-done players that play college basketball for one year before declaring for the draft. As such, recruiters, agents and managers with an in-depth knowledge of the NCAA market can identify the likely NBA draft picks. Highly coveted college players offer an essentially risk free investment to an agent. Given the salaries earned by players on their rookie contracts is likely to be tens of millions of dollars, the agent will hope to recoup his ‘loan’ as well as a percentage of future earnings.

The latest controversies surrounding payments to NCAA players has led to a number of proposed solutions to:

1. A reduction in the age limit required to enter the NBA draft which will reduce the number of one-and-done players i.e. those most likely to receive payments.
2. An introduction of player salaries in college basketball in line with revenues generated through the basketball programs.
3. Allowing college players to generate their own incomes through sponsorships etc.
4. Increased regulation in the market for NCAA players with increased punishment for universities and players found in breach of the rules.

The financial implications for universities, advertisers and media companies will likely lead to changes being made in the near future. CBS and Turner, a division of Time Warner, having extended their media rights deal with the NCAA for $8.8 billion over eight years. While previously being considered a safe bet in terms of TV ratings, with the current scandal there is a fear surrounding ratings and advertising dollars for March Madness should star players and teams miss the tournament.

By Robbie Butler

The 2018 Winter Olympics closed in Pyeongchang, South Korea in the early hours of this morning to much fan fare. The ceremonial event involved the passing of the Olympic Torch to Beijing where the 2022 Winter Games will take place. Beijing will host its second Olympics in 14 years, following on from the Summer Games in 2008.

Much has been written on this blog about the hosting of major sporting events and the costs involved. In a previous post, I also addressed the number of bidders prior to the voting for the Summer Games. Not surprisingly, given the costs involved there has been a gradual decline in the number of bidders, from a high point in the 1990s, to more recent times. The graphic below presents the number of bidders for both the Summer and Winter Games from 1984 to the Summer Games in 2028. 

The Winter Games appear to be following a similar trend to Summer version. For the years 1984 to 1992 all Games were held in the same years. This changed in 1994 when the Winter Games broke for the Summer schedule.

Since the start of this decade there has been a consistent decline in the number of bidders for both sets of Games. The Winter Games has seen a fall from 8 in 2010, to 7 in 2014, to 3 in 2018, to just 2 for the 2022 Games. 

The Summer Games went one step further when Paris and Los Angeles effectively agreed to let each other have a solo run at the 2024 and 2028 Games respectively.

While the destination of the 2026 Winter Olympics will not be known until the 134th International Olympic Committee Session in Milan, Italy during September 2019, it will be interesting to see if all four potential hosts currently suggesting they will be, will actually do so. If Sion, Sapporo, Stockholm and Calgary all do, they will buck the recent trend in host bidding.

By John Considine

"[A] university's decision to discontinue collegiate football reduces the size of its applicant pool by 32% of the size of the typical applicant pool ... [and] reduces the quality of the incoming class by 4.7% of the value of the typical institution's ACT composite score".  These are the findings in a recent Applied Economics paper by Caudill, Hourican, and Mixon.  The latter, Franklin Mixon, being one of those with a long history of looking at the issue.

The authors say they use a unique data set comprising of universities who added or eliminated football in the 20 year period to 2015.

The findings are impressive in themselves. However, when I read the paper, I was looking for the causal model linking the institution's decision on football with the students' decisions on applications.  When conducting a balanced review of the literature the authors suggest media exposure could play a role.  Later they discuss the possibility that college football brings economic benefits to surrounding community and the possibility that football provides "students with an outlet for garnering extra-curricular benefits".

I'm hampered by my lack of knowledge of the US system to make a full judgement on the paper.  However, it is the latest in a line of literature that raises all sorts of interesting questions.  There are questions surrounding the role of sport in academic institutions.  There are questions about the extent to which sporting success provides information to potential students.  And, there are questions about what goes on in the mind of a student where the college football programme is the deciding factor.  Are their decisions the based on careful consideration of all the alternatives or some rule-of-thumb they have acquired?

By Robbie Butler

The graphic below is the best way I could illustrate the fluctuation of Premier League clubs influence on the destination of the UEFA Champions League since Liverpool's famous recovery in Istanbul back in 2005. The good news for supporters of English clubs is, given the evidence of the past week, it's likely we will see a Premier League club crowned champions of Europe sooner rather than later. 

Starting with the 2004/5 competition, I illustrate the percentage success rate for Premier League clubs in reaching the last 16 of the competition, QF, SF, Final and being crowned winners. A Champions League trophy icon marks the three occasions this happened (2005, 2008 and 2012).

Where a bar is fully red it means 100% of Premier League clubs that could get to that stage did. For example, if the Last 16 bar is all red, the four clubs representing England reached the knockout stage of the competition. This happened on 6 occasions. The final bar in the graphic actually corresponds to 5 clubs as Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspurs have all reached the knockout stage. In fact, there is a decent chance that all 5 could make the last 8 of the competition. Liverpool and Man City are probably guaranteed to be there already following the first leg of their Last 16 round matches. 

It should be evident from the graphic that the dominant days of the Premier League clubs in the Champions League ran from around 2007 to 2009 and are marked clearly by more red than yellow. All four English clubs qualified for the last 16 in 2007, 2008 and 2009. All four progressed to the QF stage in 2008 and 2009. 

The semi finals in 2007, 2008 and 2009 each had three English clubs, therefore an all-English semi-final and by extension an English club in the final. 2008 is probably the high point of dominance, and the only all Premier League Final to date, with Chelsea lining up against Manchester United.

Barren years did follow, and despite Chelsea's success in the competition in 2012, much of the red disappears in the second half of the graphic. In reality this represents the rise of  the Spanish in the form of Barcelona, Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid. A low point was reached in 2013 when just two English clubs made the knockout stage with neither progressing to the QF. In fact, since Chelsea's win in 2012 only two Premier League clubs have reached the semi-finals (Chelsea 2014 and Man City 2016).

I believe that trend is about to change. Don't discount two or even three English clubs in the semi-finals (depending on the draw) and even the possibility of a repeat of 2008 -  an all-English Final.