Premiership Ratings: Biggest Bang for the Buck

We’ve all seen the recent figures on wages in the Premiership, but which clubs get the most for their money?  Here in the States we’d ask who’s getting the best “bang for the buck”.  In England, I don’t know what they’d call it.  Quality for the quid?  Points for the pound?  Woot for the wedge?  Anyway, I found the most recent player payroll figures by club for the 2006-07 season.  I then matched these salary numbers up with the clubs’ point totals from that season’s league play.  You might argue that cup tournaments should have a chance to add to that productivity number, but it’s cleaner to ignore it rather than to obsess over how much to weight those non-league matches.  Simple point totals offer decent comparability across clubs.

As most anyone would guess, there’s a strong positive relationship between success and payroll. The plot below shows this:

What to me is more interesting, though, is to look at the clubs that appear far above and far below the fitted line.  A regression through all 20 observations shows the best fitting straight-line relationship between wages and points.  A club that had more points than its wage level alone would have predicted would appear above the line.  This is a measure of how effective they were in turning wages into results.  Clubs that aren’t so efficient will appear below the line.

Not surprisingly, all the demoted teams last year fell below the line.  Another notable underachiever was Newcastle.  Money alone doesn’t alleviate boredom, eh Kev?  On the other side of the “quality for the quid” spectrum is Man U.  They had a whopping 17 points more than their wage level would have suggested.  Others that did well by this metric were Spurs, Everton, Bolton and Reading.  For the Royals, mean reversion kicked in this year, but that’s another story.

Chelsea is an interesting case.  If you squint at the data the right way, you might see a kind of leveling off in Points at higher Wages.  If a curved line were fit instead, with Chelsea influencing the fall-off, we’d be showing diminishing marginal productivity.  (Does this make you nostalgic for your days in economics, Susan?)  NO, answers Susan.

Anyway, even just this simple analysis seems revealing.  Of course, I’m predisposed to anything that makes Man U look good.

Guest statistician:  Steve

Layer Cake

“The top four next year will be the same top four as this year.”

That was Kevin Keegan’s prediction after Newcastle United’s loss to Chelsea in the penultimate game of the season. He grumbled that the league’s evolution into an elite, uncrackable quartet plus sixteen also-rans meant that “boring” football was the inevitable result.

Keegan’s words unleashed a torrent of commentary. Just google “Keegan Football Boring” and take your pick of the opinions that were spouted by everyone from Reading’s Steve Coppell to every sports journalist in Britain to bloggers around the globe–except Soccer Orb. That is because I’m not inclined to conduct an examination of the state of English football that is sufficiently thorough and comparative to analyze Keegan’s assertions. It is true that since I’ve followed the English game (1998 or so), the title has been held by just three teams–Manchester United, Arsenal, and Chelsea. And the top four are nearly always those three, plus Liverpool. However, Everton finished fourth as recently as 2005 and both Newcastle United and Leeds United–currently residing in the “where-are-they-now” file–made several appearances during the past decade.

I am straying off-point already. I understand that the rich tend to get richer in the world of sport, especially in European soccer. Teams that regularly appear in the Champions League have access to cash flows that open doors that will forever remain closed to lesser teams. Everybody knows that. But does that make the EPL boring? Speaking from an American viewpoint–not at all.

Forget for the moment this year’s nail-biting race for the title and the relegation drama at the other end of the table. Just look at the non-league competitions that spice up European football. I was reminded of this by today’s UEFA Cup Final match between Glasgow Rangers and Zenit St. Petersburg. Though it isn’t nearly as prestigious or lucrative as the Champions League, the UEFA Cup tournament is a portal to extra-league competition for eighty clubs across the continent. Over the years, the most successful of these have been Juventus, Inter Milan, and Liverpool. Tens of thousands of supporters from Glasgow and St. Petersburg descended upon Manchester for the deciding match. Even though the UEFA Cup may be a poor relation compared to the Champions League, everybody seemed pretty happy to be there, especially the Zenit side at the final whistle.

Speaking of the Champions League…most American sports fans could never imagine anything like this. A tournament that runs simultaneously with the domestic league schedule? Just for fun, try suggesting this to an NFL or Major League Baseball fan. The level of competition is daunting, given that it’s reserved for truly the best of the best. And it’s not as if Champions League glory always goes to a domestic league winner. Liverpool finished in 5th place in 2005, yet won a great victory over AC Milan in the Champions League final. There’s nothing boring or predictable in either the UEFA Cup or Champions League tournaments.

Then there’s the FA Cup. True, it lacks the prestige of Europe and the top English teams often field youthful, inexperienced players in the early rounds. But Manchester United and Chelsea fought tooth and nail in the Cup final last May, if you’ll remember. Winning a Double is so difficult that it’s been done only ten times since 1889 and just one club has ever won the Premiership, FA Cup, and Champions League ttitles all in the same year.

All this implies that there’s no shortage of meaningful competition in English club soccer. The relegation/promotion system that governs the many layers of the English game guarantees that things get shaken up often enough in the lower half of the table to keep it interesting. It’s clear that the top of the Premiership strongly resembles a very stable oligarchy, yet this doesn’t trouble me. Why? Because real achievement is measured by multiple trophies these days. The top clubs are held to higher standards that are more difficult to meet. Doubles and trebles are rare and likely to remain so. Moreover, competition among those top clubs is keen. Were any supporters of Manchester United, Chelsea, or Arsenal bored this season? I doubt it.

I understand that the examples I’m providing here don’t really speak to Keegan’s point, which is the unlikelihood of second or third-tier clubs breaking the top four’s stranglehold on Premiership glory. This is probably true. And it won’t change unless the FA bans its clubs from participating in lucrative European competitions. The probability of that event is exactly zero, of course. So I would like to invite those Brits who find the Premiership boring to take a trip across the pond in late July or August. They can take in a baseball game…perhaps between teams like the Chicago White Sox and Kansas City Royals. Both were hopelessly out of contention–for anything at all–weeks before the 2007 season was over. With no threat of relegation, why did the fans bother to show up? For the beer, hot dogs and peanuts?

Once upon a time, in Sheffield

What do toilet paper and club soccer have in common?

According to Forbes magazine, 2007 marks the 150th anniversary for both. Of course, variations of the game have been around for centuries (just like toilet paper substitutes, one hopes). But an important step on the long, fitful path toward organized competition was taken on October 24, 1857 with the founding of Sheffield Football Club. Unlike other inventions from 1857, such as elevators and transatlantic telegraph cable, competitive club soccer didn’t immediately become a big-time commercial enterprise. Sheffield FC didn’t even have any one to compete against, forcing the club to stage games between members–bachelors vs. married men, for example. And it would be nearly three decades later before open professionalism was given the stamp of approval by the FA. It’s hard to believe that just 150 years ago today’s glamour game was a chaotic mess of quasi-professionals whose play was governed by a motley patchwork of rules.

Forbes is a business publication, so the article duly notes how soccer’s worldwide sporting dominance has helped to enrich shareholders of Nike, Adidas, and Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp. Real Madrid and Manchester United are global brands and ownership of top English clubs is the province of the super-wealthy. Apparently this is news to some Forbes readers.

As I read about the beautiful game’s humble origins, I began to think about what life was like in 19th century England. What did people do for fun? Was soccer the only game in town? Just how did it become so popular?

With the help of Wikipedia and a library book called Sports and Games of the 18th and 19th Centuries by Robert Crego (Greenwood Press, 2003), I learned a bit more about Victorian sporting life. Cricket was already the most established team sport. It was far ahead of soccer in terms of standardized rules, organization, and popularity. Crego states that it was “flourishing” a full one hundred years before the founding of Sheffield FC.

And then there’s rugby football. It had begun to evolve separately from the kicking game by the early 1800’s. To my 21st century eyes, rugby seems like anything but an upper-class pastime, but that’s exactly what it was. The working class did take to the oval ball game as the century wore on. In fact, Crego describes how the 1876 Yorkshire Cup Challenge was won by a team of working blokes, much to the dismay of those who considered such men their inferiors. The Rugby Football Union was formed in 1870, just eight years after the London Football Association. The Rugby Football League was organized in 1895 to govern the different style of play that was prevalent among the clubs in the north of England.

Golf and tennis were always socially exclusive but boxing and horse racing thrived among all classes. Writing of boxing, Crego notes, “With Britain at the height of its industrial boom, even the factory hand and the common laborer had money to spend on entertainment.” Professional horse racing took root in the early 18th century. Races were often part of the entertainment at fairs and festivals, where spectators included both farmers and gentry. There were other sports whose appeal was mostly limited to public school students, or anyone else whose means allowed it: cycling, rowing, track and field, cross country running, and even field hockey.

Get the picture? Soccer didn’t develop in a vacuum. It was a survivor in a battle that was as rough and tumble as the economic competition that characterized the Industrial Revolution. Its beauty lay in its simplicity, lack of expense, and accessibility. Marketing, advertising, and public relations gimmicks were not part of the formula.

To get an idea of just how dominant football is in the English sporting landscape, consider the structure of the English Football League system. Fanciful names–to Yank ears, at least–like Wycombe Wanderers and Accrington Stanley populate the current League Two table, far below glittering “brands” like Manchester United and Chelsea. Yet League Two holds a lofty spot in the pyramid, compared to the likes of Moneyfields and Wimborne Town in the Wessex League (Premier Division).

And yet English football as a business couldn’t be described as a smashing success until the top teams split off into the Premier League in 1992. Revenues poured into the new league from the sale of television broadcasting rights, tapping into a huge global demand for its product. According to Wikipedia, the latest TV rights deal (2007) will bring the League 2.7 billion pounds over three years. Compare this to the Premier League’s first sale of TV rights to Sky back in 1991–191 million pounds over five years–and it’s easy to see how the average player’s salary rose from 75,000 to 676,000 pounds per year over nearly the same period (latest figures were for the 2003-04 season). And to think that we Americans have been rather pleased with the 2007 MLS season!

So all of this means…what, exactly? That the conditions that produced English football are so vastly different from those that gave birth to Major League Soccer that comparisons are a waste of time. The complaints of Euro-snobs (like me) about MLS quality are very much beside the point. The Brits, not to mention the rest of the world, should be better than us. They’ve been at it since the game was known as “mob ball” in the Middle Ages.

It will take many decades to cross the canyon that separates the English soccer experience from what we’ve got in North America. There are a handful of oases for those who are trudging across this expanse, namely Fox Soccer Channel, GolTV and Setanta. Most of the time–unless David Beckham’s in town–the local MLS team will welcome weary pilgrims with open arms. Major League Soccer may not completely quench everyone’s thirst. Yet with stars like Blanco, Dichio, Angel, and Altidore, new soccer-specific stadiums, and expanded live TV coverage–it’s no mirage, either.

Be Careful What You Wish For

At one time I was a regular lurker on a Manchester United forum called Redcafe. Ah, what an innocent I was! For the cost of a few hours of my time, I received a top-notch cultural education. I learned a new vocabulary term: glory-hunter. I learned that United’s wild popularity around the globe didn’t give every fan the warm fuzzies. And I learned that there was an unwritten rule that only the support of one’s local team was appropriate. Ouch! To this naive little dismal scientist, that last one smacked of sports protectionism.

The most recent era of glorious football at Old Trafford began in the 1990’s. Thanks to their Champions League success and the broadcasting largesse of ESPN, I had seen more Red Devils games than those of any other team–including our very own Chicago Fire, who came to town in 1998. Until this household tuned into Fox Sports World, Champions League telecasts were the only way to see soccer, aside from the World Cup. Man United was the team that I had happened to see most frequently. It was natural that it would be my favorite, right? Not exactly. According to the vocal denizens of Redcafe, I had committed some sort of faux pas. People like me, apparently, were ruining English football.

Much of what I read on that forum made my jaw drop. Many posters would introduce themselves by reciting a sort of pedigree: “I’ve been going to games since 1970…my dad used to take me…I’m from ______, suburb of Manchester….” In other words, these people didn’t want to be mistaken for the glory hunters who had latched on to United as their favorite team during the trophy-laden, high-flying days of late. In their eyes, people like me weren’t true supporters. We would evaporate as soon as the team hit a rough patch. (Thanks to Sir Alex’ genius, I haven’t been tested yet, nine years on). And worse, our presence was the source of all kinds of nasty externalities (unintended side effects): bigger crowds, ticket scarcity, higher ticket prices, and…not enough singing at the games. These pseudo fans showed up at Old Trafford because, apparently, football had become fashionable. They didn’t know the songs and, besides, they were too busy stuffing themselves with prawn sandwiches to carry a tune. The nouveau fans drove up the demand for shirts and other United gear. Everything was more expensive for those pedigreed supporters who had been there for generations.

To summarize the Redcafe attitude: If you’re not from Manchester, why would you care about United?

To summarize my attitude: It’s easy-peasy for you guys to “support” United. They play in your own back yard! You were sitting on your grand-dad’s knee at every home match. No one looks at you and says “huh?” when you tell them your favorite sports team is Manchester United. I would love to sing at Old Trafford every other weekend, but it’s a bit pricey to get there from Chicago. In other words, I really have to work at supporting the team.

I was “gobsmacked” (love that word) at how different my American attitude was from theirs. While most of us do favor our local sports teams, we tend to move around a lot, so those ties are weaker. We think nothing of identifying with a team that may be several time zones away. We definitely aren’t insulted by out of towners who love our favorite teams, either–what could be more complimentary? No doubt there are guys in Texas who still have a soft spot for the Red Sox because Roger Clemens starred for them two decades ago. So what? The more the merrier!

Ah, but there’s the rub. You can’t just drop by Fenway Park to take in a Red Sox game any more. After two World Series victories in three years, you’ll pay a hefty price for tickets, assuming you can lay your hands on any. This got me to thinking about what would happen if soccer ever did become as popular in the US as it is nearly everywhere else…

The Fire would probably insist that I purchase the full season ticket package, instead of the half-season. The price would be a lot higher than the $30 or so per seat that I’ve been paying (for very nice seats, too). It is true that the atmosphere at the games would be more intense if every game sold out. But we’ve been drawing pretty well this year and most of the people sitting around me are very much into the games. It’s cool to go to Fire games because you know that you’re there with the other true believers, people who don’t mind standing up to the tiresome soccer-bashers in the media who try to tell us what we should and shouldn’t like. I began to sympathize with the long-time supporters in Manchester. When Beckham came to town our little stadium was overrun by tons of little kids. I don’t mind having kids at the matches–I want them to be there, believe me. But their parents kept getting up every five minutes to buy them snacks. Didn’t they know that they were missing large chunks of the match? Were they the Chicago equivalent of prawn-sandwich eaters?

Another benefit to soccer’s lower profile here is that we haven’t been overrun by ultra-type fans. Have we had any casualties among supporters? Didn’t think so.

Do I really suffer because soccer is the red-headed stepchild among American sports? Er, no. With Fox Soccer Channel and Champions League on ESPN I am treated to a banquet of world football coverage. (It would be even better if my neighborhood allowed satellite dishes and then I could get Setanta). And, dare I say this, soccer-mad Americans are better off than their Euro counterparts. We have MLS in the summer months, which gives us twelve full months of footy. No sneering about MLS quality either, Euro friends, as I know that many of you follow lower-division clubs. Moreover, I predict that MLS is on its way to bigger and better things. I am a very finicky consumer, and this is the first year that I’ve been really drawn into the league. It’s not because of that guy they brought to LA either. MLS is definitely not the same quality as the EPL, Serie A, or La Liga, but it does have some talented players and plenty of drama to tide me over from May to August.

I’m not arguing that life is perfectly sweet for Yank soccer fans. It’s a struggle for those who don’t live close to an MLS city, have no cable or the internet. But those of us who want to experience the beautiful game can do so quite beautifully, thanks very much.