Freakonomics and football.

[The Exile]

Just watched the freakonomics movie. Fascinating stuff, particularly the bit about exposing corruption in Sumo wrestling.

Could something like this be done with football? Much more data to go through of course, but surely all that means is it takes a little bit longer.

We all 'know' the little teams get shafted so the big teams continue to thrive, but having compelling evidence would surely have to force FIFA, UEFA and the FA's hand wouldn't it?

[lambretta]

There's a freakonomics movie? Read the books, excellent stuff, didn't realise there was a movie...

Reading The Fix now, about fixing football around the world, astonishing what goes on (allegedly). The 2 would be a good collaboration

[Windypants]

Originally Posted by The Exile

Just watched the freakonomics movie. Fascinating stuff, particularly the bit about exposing corruption in Sumo wrestling.

Could something like this be done with football? Much more data to go through of course, but surely all that means is it takes a little bit longer.

We all 'know' the little teams get shafted so the big teams continue to thrive, but having compelling evidence would surely have to force FIFA, UEFA and the FA's hand wouldn't it?

Do the little teams get shafted? What sort of compelling evidence are you talking about?

[Medulla]

Originally Posted by The Exile

Just watched the freakonomics movie. Fascinating stuff, particularly the bit about exposing corruption in Sumo wrestling.

Could something like this be done with football? Much more data to go through of course, but surely all that means is it takes a little bit longer.

We all 'know' the little teams get shafted so the big teams continue to thrive, but having compelling evidence would surely have to force FIFA, UEFA and the FA's hand wouldn't it?

I don't think 'we' would accept evidence to the contrary, even if it were provided.

[The Exile]

Originally Posted by Medulla

I don't think 'we' would accept evidence to the contrary, even if it were provided.

I don't know, something as comprehensive as the evidence presented on Sumo, even if it were to the contrary to what a lot of people believe, would have to be taken seriously.

[Harry Angstrom]

Originally Posted by The Exile

Just watched the freakonomics movie. Fascinating stuff, particularly the bit about exposing corruption in Sumo wrestling.

Could something like this be done with football? Much more data to go through of course, but surely all that means is it takes a little bit longer.

We all 'know' the little teams get shafted so the big teams continue to thrive, but having compelling evidence would surely have to force FIFA, UEFA and the FA's hand wouldn't it?

Do we? I thought was because some clubs can afford better players.

i must be naive.

[The Exile]

Originally Posted by Windypants

Do the little teams get shafted? What sort of compelling evidence are you talking about?

It certainly looks that way mind.

I'm interested to see what the percentages are on teams getting decisions in their favour 'out of nothing', similar to that Chelsea goal at the weekend. Anything that gives an advantage to the opposition, for whichever team, could be looked at.

Take Barca. The impression a lot of people have is that in almost every game their opposition gets a man sent off or concedes a penalty. Is that really true? Is it way above average, even taking into account their status as a great team?

Originally Posted by Harry Angstrom

Do we? I thought was because some clubs can afford better players.

i must be naive.

The better players argument could be incorporated into it. Do some teams get way more decisions in their favour than their position in the league dictates they should?

If you've spent thirty million on a player is it right that every other tackle on him results in a booking or sending off, or not? I'm not speaking about anyone in particular, I'd just be interested to see if these numbers are skewed in any way.

[Harry Angstrom]

Originally Posted by The Exile

It certainly looks that way mind.

I'm interested to see what the percentages are on teams getting decisions in their favour 'out of nothing', similar to that Chelsea goal at the weekend. Anything that gives an advantage to the opposition, for whichever team, could be looked at.

Take Barca. The impression a lot of people have is that in almost every game their opposition gets a man sent off or concedes a penalty. Is that really true? Is it way above average, even taking into account their status as a great team?

And what happens if there is a bias in favour of the bigger teams. What happens then?

If it is a human trait and not corruption what would be the point of knowing?

[Windypants]

Originally Posted by The Exile

I don't know, something as comprehensive as the evidence presented on Sumo, even if it were to the contrary to what a lot of people believe, would have to be taken seriously.

Thingy Levitt and What's His Name Dubner are very good at what they do. I'm still not sure what it is that people think should be done, though. The problem with the Sumo stuff is that I'm not sure it is accurately mitigated to account for the 'this means nothing to me, so I can't really be arsed' factor.

[Harry Angstrom]

Originally Posted by The Exile

The better players argument could be incorporated into it. Do some teams get way more decisions in their favour than their position in the league dictates they should?

If you've spent thirty million on a player is it right that every other tackle on him results in a booking or sending off, or not? I'm not speaking about anyone in particular, I'd just be interested to see if these numbers are skewed in any way.

Again what would you do about it?

I assume the refs are trained to be impartial, would there be new techniques for training refs?