By Robbie Butler

The United States Grand Prix was held yesterday. Many had anticipated a Lewis Hamilton victory which would have secured the British drivers' 5th Formula One World Drivers' Championship (WDC). This was not to be as Ferrari's Kimi Räikkönen finished in first place, with Hamilton nearly three seconds behind in 3rd place.

Regardless of Ferrari's success, this has delayed the inevitable, and with Hamilton 70 points ahead in the race for the WDC, he is likely to be crowned next weekend in Mexico City. Success for Hamilton will mean his 4th title in five years, and represent a five-in-a-row for Mercedes in the World Constructors' Championship (WCC).

Such dominance is nothing new to Formula One. Since 2000 just eight men have won the WDC. Including the 2018 Championship, and assuming Hamilton wins the title, it will mean three drivers (Hamilton, Vettel and Schumacher) will have won 14 of the past 19 WDC. 

The WCC is even more concentrated. Again since 2000, just six teams have won this title, and 15 of the 19 are shared by three constructors (Ferrari (6), Red Bull (4) and Mercedes (5 including this year). 

Whether this is good for the sport is an open question.

In 2010, rule changes were implemented into the scoring. Although the sport has a long history of altering the scoring system, there was a radical move to award the winner of each race 25 points. This had traditionally been 10 points or less. It could be argued that this rule change has reduced competitive balance.

Is this the case? I don't believe so. The figure above presents one measure of competitive balance, a concentration ratio, of the top two drivers in the WDC standing each year since 2005. It is hard to argue that rule changes to the scoring system in 2010 are responsibility for a reduction in competition. The sport was at its most competitive (since 2005) the year before the rule change, three of the seasons that followed have been less concentrated than the WDC's in 2005, 2006 and 2007. 

The trend is suggesting a movement away from more competitive races but this may not be a consequence of the points scoring changes. The new owners may want to consider the level of competitive balance. Sports fans generally start to become disinterested in events that become noncompetitive. However, the answer to this problem might require more than just changing the points scoring within races. 

By John Considine

Michael Lewis has written his fair share of popular books that have economic themes.  The Undoing Project: A Friendship that Changed Our Minds seems to suggest that we got a bit carried away with the potential for late 20th century economics.  One could possibly say the same about his perspective on financial markets in his earlier book The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine.  But what about Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game?  I've read the book and seen the movie but I was never sure about it's verdict on economics.

While someone with a degree in economics might have helped the Oakland A's, the underlying message was surely not that different to The Undoing Project or The Big Short.  Individual decisions, and the outcome of the decisions of many individuals, is not always perfect or efficient.  If the player market was perfect then Billy Beane would not have been able to identify undervalued players.

In Moneyball we were presented with scouts who were blinded by the ways they had traditionally rated players, e.g. great wheels.  It is not dissimilar to the theory-induced-blindness of "mainstream" economists in The Undoing Project.  As I say, I'm not sure about the perspective on economics presented in Moneyball.  There is a scene towards the end of the movie where Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) says his draft experience taught him never to make decisions based on money.  Maybe Michael Lewis was never a fan of the discipline.  Maybe the friendship between Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman was not needed to change his mind.

Moneyball did draw attention to the use of data and statistics.  Scientists of all persuasions would surely approve.  Plenty of other books on the use of data and statistics followed.  A few have been reviewed on this blog.  The Numbers Game is one of my favourites.  It includes a lovely discussion on the Maldini principle.  The Maldini principle is the sporting equivalent of the dog that did not bark in the night (on second thoughts I'm not sure about this as the original Conan Doyle story concerned a sporting event).  In short it refers to the fact that Paolo Maldini's "numbers" did not fully reflect his defensive play.  It is a warning that statistics can only capture so much.

Younger followers of football may not remember, or have even heard about, Paolo Maldini.  They will know Romelu Lukaku.  The Manchester United and Belgium striker has racked up an impressive array of statistics.  He is among the youngest to score 50 and 100 Premier League goals.  On the international scene he has outdone Messi and Ronaldo when it comes to early career goals.  Of course, there are those who will question the quality of the opposition.  These critics would do well to remember that there is also attacking contributions that basic count statistics do not capture.  The third goal scored by Belgium against Japan in the 2018 World Cup is a case in point.

With time almost up, the score was 2-2 and Japan had a corner kick.  The Belgium goalkeeper catches the corner kick.  Twelve second later Belgium are 3-2 ahead.  Lukaku play a huge role in the goal by (i) making a run to create space for a team mate and (ii) by stepping over the ball (see the goal here).  These contributions are not always measured.

Back to Michael Lewis and Moneyball. The book plays an important role in reminding us of the importance of an empirical approach to sport and economics. There is also a little bit of satisfaction in seeing the scouts and other insiders getting a little egg on their face. But it would be wrong to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Experience at the coalface is invaluable. One can appreciate Moneyball and also appreciate more qualitative evidence. My knowledge of baseball is extremely limited but it is impossible to read baseball books by journalists like Leonard Koppett or participants like Tony La Russa without realising that understanding the game requires more than a degree in economics or statistics.

By David Butler
​
In addition to following the predictive success of Premier League pundits as I usually do, I have also kept an eye on the profitability of the predictions offered by Sky Sports and BBC experts.

After 8 rounds of fixtures, the news is good for both Paul Merson and Mark Lawrenson. If a punter was to place a 1 stake on all of the 80 outcomes (win/loss/draw) they have suggested so far one would turn a profit of €51.04 following Merson and a profit of €25.50 following Lawrenson. Betting on each pundits specific scoreline prediction returns similar profits. Merson’s scoreline estimates return a profit of €55.72 while Lawrenson’s return a profit of €25.50.

These profits were helped by a sterling performance by the pundits in week 7 of the Premier League. Before Gylfi Sigurdsson’s 89 minute goal to give Everton a 3-0 lead over Fulham, all 3pm Saturday kick-offs were at 2-0… one of the pundits favourite predictions! Half of all the fixtures ended 2-0 that week, something which the pundits really capitalised on. 

By Robbie Butler

For those that watch the League of Ireland, it seems apparent (to me anyway) that competitive balance in the league has shifted in the past number of seasons.

On the 4th of November 2018 Cork City and Dundalk will meet for the 4th successive year in the FAI Cup Final. The meeting of the same two teams, four years in a row, has never happened in the FA Cup or Scottish Cup. This is also true of the Copa Del Rey and many other cups across Europe I have checked. 

Given the dynamics of a knock-out competition, and the probability of drawing a team at any stage, it is quite remarkable that Cork and Dundalk meet again. It is all the more remarkable that the last 3 meetings ended tied at the end of normal time, meaning neither has been beaten over 90 minutes in the FAI Cup since late summer 2014! This year's league table gives us further insight to the dominance of these two clubs, and how Dundalk's achievement in regaining the league title is somewhat of an outlier in recent years.

Since 2009 (ten full seasons) six clubs have been crowned champions of Ireland; Bohemians (2009), Shamrock Rovers (2010 and 2011); Sligo Rovers (2012); St Patrick's Athletic (2013) Dundalk (2014, 2015, 2016 and 2018) and Cork City (2017).

The charts below demonstrate how Dundalk and Cork have solidified their positions in recent years. 

It has taken Dundalk just one season to regain the league title. It remains to be seen if Cork City can do the same next year, but if they can it will be further evidence of a "Big 2" in Ireland. For the first time in the history of the League of Ireland, which commenced in 1921, the same two teams finished first and second (in any order) five years in a row. The previous record stood at three. 

​This is important in the context of what comes next. The other four winners of the League since 2009 have failed to regain their title. This is not unusual and I have previously addressed the issue here.

The graphic above presents league position for Bohemians, Shamrock Rovers, Sligo Rovers and St Patrick's Athletic from the season before winning the title to four years after. Following on from winning the League, all four then start a gradual slide. In the case of Bohs and St Pat's, this meant battling with relegation not long after winning the league.

What Dundalk and, to a lesser extent, Cork City are doing is not what we have been used to in recent years. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues. While such dominance will not be welcomed by fans of other clubs, it is in the interest of the league generally, in terms of improving UEFA coefficients and European club competition progression. 

The upcoming FAI Cup Final will be required viewing. If extra time is needed, both Dundalk and Cork will go close to 5 years without losing a FAI Cup game in normal time. I wonder has any other country ever had this experience? 

By David Butler
​
As the League of Ireland is coming to a conclusion there have been recent posts on topics such as attendance figures and play-off records.   

For international readers of this blog it may seem unusual that our league is concluding. The League of Ireland, unlike many European Leagues, adopts a February-October schedule. This is colloquially known as ‘summer soccer’. The league switched from an August-May schedule in 2003. We’re not the only UEFA country with this domestic league structure; other countries, many of which have harsher climates than Ireland, also adopt a February/March-October/November schedule. Examples include Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Latvia and Lithuania.

The motivations for the February-October schedule were partly strategic (Irish teams would be mid-season when competing in European competitions) and also to increase the attractiveness of the product. Playing mostly through the summer months allows for improved playing conditions, perhaps bringing with it more attractive football and larger attendances.

Below is an attempt to visualise ‘summer soccer’. The charts show the recorded temperature and sunsets for each match this season at the location where it was played. The average temperature for a League of Ireland match this season was 9.66°C (median, 9°C). For me, this is hardly balmy weather and might be even slightly higher than previous years as we had a warm summer. Several of the earliest fixtures are played before the clocks go forward in March, hence the jump in the sunset data.

These data lend to the view that the use of the term ‘summer soccer’ is misplaced – if anything there colloquialism should be ‘winter-summer-winter soccer’ given the Irish climate. Somehow I don’t think it will catch on!

By Daragh O'Leary

Competition design is an essential element of sport. The structure of these competition dictate the outcomes that are achieved. Organisers of events should be interested in designing competitions that are fairest to all those competing. 

One positive attribute of the league system is that it’s a very fair type of competition to judge which teams are the strongest. It’s a test of a team’s ability and endurance over a long period of time where every team plays each other twice (home and away). With this in mind you can say that the team which finishes 1st is probably the overall strongest in the league, the team in 2nd is probably the next strongest in the league, and so on. So it makes sense that if three teams from a league are going to be promoted to a higher division that those three teams should be the three strongest in that league. 

With this in mind, I turn to the Championship Playoffs in the second tier of English football. As most know, the step up from Championship to the Premier League is no easy task for any club. In fact John Eakins found that on average at least 1 of the promoted teams are relegated from the premiership the following season (see here).

While the step up is big for all promoted clubs, it is probably tougher for the club which gains promotion via the Championship Playoffs. For any reader who is unsure how the Championship promotion system works, the teams which finish in 1st and 2nd gain automatic promotion to the Premier League the next season, and the teams that finish in 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th place compete in a knockout competition for the third available promotion spot. 9 times in the last 20 years has a team which gained promotion via the playoffs managed to avoid relegation from the Premier League the following season. And there’s a good reason for this too. They’re usually a much weaker side than the other two promoted teams.

This system might seem a little unfair considering that at the end of last season there was thirteen points between 3rd place Fulham and 6th place Derby County. Yet both teams are equally eligible for promotion to a higher division the following season. Fulham did go on to win the playoffs that year but usually the 3rd place teams are not so lucky. Only 38% of the time in the past twenty years has the 3rd place team managed to gain promotion.

This appears even more unfair when you consider that the teams which win the playoffs and finish in 3rd place perform better in the Premier League the following season than teams who win the playoffs and finish below 3rd place. As can be seen in the table to the right, only 37.5% of teams in the last 20 years which win the playoffs and finish 3rd are relegated, whereas teams which win and finish in lower league positions all get relegated more frequently the next season.

With this in mind, does it not seem fairer that the top three teams from the Championship should be promoted? Particularly when you consider that the financial rewards gained from competing in the Premier League are far greater than those gained from competing in the Championship, and that being the next season puts serious financial pressure on a club. Of course, the Championship playoffs make for great entertainment, but should promotion spots to a higher league not be given out on a “best team for the job” basis?

By Robbie Butler

There was a time when buying your favourite club's home shirt was somewhat of an investment. One could be confident that their team would wear the shirt with pride in the seasons that followed. Crest and sponsorship deals were largely unaltered from season-to-season. Fans could even wear the jersey once it had been replaced by another, usually with minor alterations, and only those with a keen eye could spot the difference.

Not so anymore. In fact, the only thing that seems to change faster than managers in the Premier League today, are the kits players wears.

The data below presents information on 37 clubs that have played in the Premier League since 2009/10 and the number of kits launched during that time. Obviously, this is an overall figure so naturally teams that have never been relegated are much higher on the scale.

In total, 587 seperate kits have been launched in the past ten seasons. The "big 6" of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspurs are responsible for just over 200 of these, roughly 35%. Spurs (41) are the only club to break the 40-kit barrier. This can be largely explained by differing sponsorship deals in the Premier League and Champions League in seasons past. 

On average, clubs that have played in the Premier League for at least four of the past ten seasons, have produced 2.8 kits per season. This data is present below.

Again, Tottenham lead and are followed by Newcastle United. Whilst Tottenham's jersey's differed at times due to sponsor changes, Newcastle actually launched four different jerseys during the 2013 – 2014 and 2014 – 2015 seasons. This had been done just once before (Everton 2008-2009). 

It seems the football jersey is not the investment it once was. As they say, caveat emptor.

By Robbie Butler

In Semester 1 of the 2016/17 academic year I started teaching a module "The Economics of Sport" for the first time at UCC. This elective module (for 3rd year students) explores aspects of economics through the lens of sport. Participants are introduced to economics concepts such as industry analysis, competition, public finance and labour markets using examples and data from the professional sports industry. 

The structure of the module has altered a slightly since the first deliver and this year students covering the following six sections:

• Section 1 – Introduction to the economics of sport;
• Section 2 – Competition design and rule changes; 
• Section 3 – Demand and profit maximisation;
• Section 4 – Labour market issues and imperfections;
• Section 5 – Economic impact and mega-events;
• Section 6 – Sports broadcasting (past, present and future).

Since it was introduced, the uptake has been remarkably strong. The figure aside illustrates this for the three years of the module's existence. 

While it is not possible for me to verify this, I have been told by colleagues in the sports economics domain (whom I meet at conference) that the undergraduate class in Cork is probably the biggest sports economics in any third level institution. 

Regardless, my objective of spreading the message that sports economics' content seems to be working. Our research masters is then a natural pathway for those that wish to continue in the area, and delve deeper into the subject.  

by Declan Jordan

At the business end of the Airtricity League of Ireland there is very little yet to be decided. Dundalk are on the verge of being champions, UCD won the First Division, and Bray Wanderers are effectively relegated from the Premier Division.
​
It is also very likely that my own club, Limerick FC, will take part in the relegation/promotion play-off against as they seem destined to finish second from bottom of the Premier Division.

To find some hope I looked back over previous playoffs. It made for unhappy reading. The table below shows the outcome of the last 11 relegation/promotion playoffs (there were no playoffs in 2017 and 2008).

In the last 11 years, the First Division team won the playoff. The odds would seem stacked against Limerick this season. The remarkable success of the promoted teams may reflect the momentum going into the game, where from a First Division gets a boost from achieving a play-off place while the Premier Division team is deflated by not avoiding a play-off place.

This may be a similar effect in the English Championship where the promotion play-offs are contested by teams finishing third to sixth at the end of the season. In the last 10 seasons, the third place team was promoted 50% of the time.

By John Eakins

The new American football or NFL season is just four weeks old but it has already caught many people’s attention with some exciting games and outrageous plays. The highlights section on the nfl.com website is a great way of catching up on all of the best action over each weekend for those who have yet to be fully initiated into the game. American football matches are generally exciting to watch but I am sure for a person who hasn’t seen a game before they can be difficult to follow. In describing the NFL to a novice, most people would probably start with the line that it is similar to rugby and the origins of American football is interlinked to an extent with Rugby. In both games the objective is to get the ball from one end of the pitch to the other end of the pitch into either the oppositions in goal area (rugby) or end zone (in NFL). You can also score by kicking the ball through the goal posts either with a conversion, drop goal or penalty goal in Rugby or a point after touchdown or field goal in the NFL.

There are many other facets of the game however that make American football quite different to Rugby. One is the goal posts. In Rugby the goal posts are H-shaped but in American football they are shaped like a fork with just two prongs. The other difference is that the goal posts in Rugby are on the try line or at the front of the in goal area whereas in the NFL they are at the back of the end zone. What is interesting about this is that there was a time when the goal posts in American football were H-shaped and positioned in the same spot as they are now for Rugby.

The following Sports Illustrated article (here) provides a quick history of NFL Goal Posts. When the NFL was founded in 1920 it originally had H-shaped goal posts at the back of end zone to follow the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) rules. But in 1933 the NFL wrote its own rules and positioned the goal posts at the goal line. Interestingly the article states that this was to increase field goal attempts because there was too many tied games. In 1967 a proposal to change the shape of the goalposts to a fork was put forward mainly because of safety concerns but also because teams were using the goalposts in offensive strategies, e.g. an extra blocker. Initially the fork shaped goalposts were placed on the goal line but by 1974 every team had placed them at the back of the end zone to remove their influence (almost) completely.

Why the quick history lesson? In researching the history of NFL goalposts it made me wonder if the Rugby law makers have ever thought about making a similar change to their goalposts. What would be the costs and benefits to such as change? The benefits for changing would be broadly similar to what happened in the NFL and would particularly remove the awkward rule where a player can score a try by grounding the ball at the base of the goal posts (which is the case in rugby union but not interestingly in rugby league). It should make it easier to score a try although there is an argument that the additional benefit of removing H-shaped goal posts is much greater in American football given that the ball can be thrown into the end zone, a play which is not permissible is rugby.

The costs of changing would probably be reflected in a decrease in penalty goals and drop goals (conversions wouldn’t be affected as they can be taken from any point perpendicular to where the try was scored). This might not be that significant in rugby league where penalty goals and particularly drop goals are less important (drop goals are only worth 1 point in rugby league) but it would have major implications for rugby union. An allowance could be made for penalty goals by automatically bringing the ball forward to compensate for the extra distance but the same could not be done for drop goals. Whether penalty goals and drop goals are still important in rugby union is another matter and I suspect (although I haven’t checked the stats) they are less frequent. So we will see American football style goal posts in either rugby code at some stage in the future? Probably not given the costs (which would also include monetary costs) and benefits outlined. Tradition would also be a strong motivating factor against any such change..