Log In | Subscribe

The profound stupidity of football

David Goldblatt

Why England Lose and Other Curious Football Phenomena Explained
By Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski (Harper Collins, £15.99)

“Anyone who spends any time inside football soon discovers that just as oil is part of the oil business, stupidity is part of the football business.” Well, football may not spend billions of pounds actively seeking out stupidity, piping, refining and selling it, but as Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski demonstrate over and over again in Why England Lose, it is certainly swimming in the stuff.

For starters, take the case of the striker Nicolas Anelka, whom Real Madrid purchased from Arsenal for £22.3m. Multinational companies, like football clubs, spend a great deal of time locating and then transferring key personnel to foreign postings. When they do, they also spend a great deal of time and money making that reallocation as easy as possible: finding their staff housing, schools for their kids, and providing a variety of services to acclimatise them to new cultures and ways of working—on the grounds, not unreasonably, that they want them to focus on their job.

When you are moving young, often poorly educated, shy and emotionally fragile, inexperienced, young men who happen to play football very well, you might think this a useful model; not as an act of kindness or generosity, lord forbid, but because it makes economic sense. This of course is not the case in football. Anelka was left to rot at Real Madrid: for all the money thrown at him, when he arrived they failed to give him a locker, any assistance with housing, let alone any formal introductions to the team he was to be working with. Unsurprisingly, his performance at Real was disappointing. Didier Drogba spent months in a hotel looking for somewhere to live after training with Chelsea: one wonders how much faster he would have assumed his current form if his move, five years ago, had been better managed. The list goes on. In fact, the situation is so bad that Nike, a real business, employs minders to look after its transferred football stars, well aware that left to the clubs their brand ambassadors are likely to suffer a calamitous decline in form and thus value.

Economic rationality is just not football’s strong suit, and nor is emotional intelligence. As Kuper and Syzmanski demonstrate, the transfer market is full of obvious irrationalities. For example, scouts over-report blonde players—who stand out and stick in the mind—irrespective of their actual performance. Despite all evidence to the contrary, clubs also overpay for teenagers, for players of fashionable nationalities and for recent stars of international tournaments without properly assessing their likely course of development, their suitability for the football culture they are moving to or the latter’s real long-term track record and value.

In fact, almost every mainstream football homily is revealed by the authors of this book to be hokum: untested, prejudiced myth spawned by an unreflective, anti-educational and above all closed culture. What other business would allow a single person to take all the key purchasing and personnel decisions unexamined and untested by the rest of the company? They certainly don’t do that at Shell, but then Shell makes money while football and its megalomaniac managers pour it down the drain.

Kuper and Syzmanski are, by contrast, a highly effective and scrupulously rational team, combining the former’s detailed and nuanced understanding of European football with the latter’s sophisticated econometric analysis. With a remarkable lightness of touch, they demonstrate the limits of conventional thinking in football, as well as the real patterns of behaviour that shape sporting outcomes. Their statistical breakdown of English football spectators shows that despite the cultural centrality of the Nick Hornby-style of lifelong addiction to a single club, most of us are fair-weather friends with polygamous allegiances. Contrary to the myths that sporting calamities raise suicide rates among fans, they show that the unusual solidarities and shared communities of big football tournaments actually lead to a statistically significant drop in suicide rates.

As for the English football team, well, they do just about as well as they should. Taking the huge data bases of international football games that now exist, and using regression analysis—a statistical method that allows one to determine how much of a given outcome (winning football games) can be related to a other factors (wealth, population size, footballing experience, home advantage)—the authors suggest that England are in fact over-performing. And they show that England’s over-performance is especially significant when one recognises the talent pool that players are drawn from is much smaller than similarly sized countries because there is, within the industry, such a systematic bias against middle class and educated staff. Of all the 34 England team members who have played at the last three international tournaments, only 5 came from anything approaching a middle-class background. Gareth Southgate is emblematic of the anti-intellectualism that pervades football culture; a man pilloried in the sports press for having the temerity to read a broadsheet. English football nationalists should worry less about the flood of foreign players coming to the country and more about the class apartheid that operates in the game.

I enjoyed this book enormously. I was forced to think about and reassess innumerable aspects of the football industry and its history. Yet, as with every attempt to apply economics to sport, and indeed to any realm of human activity, both the authors and I also reached the intellectual limits of the dismal science. When considering, for example, the debate over the distribution of resources between clubs and the impact of new money from sovereign funds and itinerant billionaires, the authors recognise that there are moral questions in play. They claim that they cannot judge the rightness of the case either way. And indeed none of us can, certainly not with the precision offered by regression analysis. But as fans, citizens and intellectuals, we are obliged to assess it in other ways. The football industry, as this book shows, is too stupid, too insular and too unreflective at the moment to do so itself; those of us that can should not bottle the opportunity to do so.

Ooh! Aah! South Africa!

David Goldblatt

England have qualified in style for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, but there are no shortage of Cassandras predicting that the tournament itself will be a disaster. One throws a longer and gaunter shadow than the rest: the west London oracle, that venerable sports journalist Brian Glanville. Consistent and relentless, he opposed South Africa before Fifa awarded it hosting rights in 2004, after they won their bid, and at every step since. As the opening game approaches his tone rises to a new pitch of rhetorical fury. His pronouncement in the August issue of World Soccer magazine simply heralded the “impending chaos to come.”

Reading the entrails of this summer’s Fifa Confederations Cup—held in South Africa, and a kind of small-scale dry run for the World Cup—and adding his own special bile, his case against South Africa comes down to four things. First, the stadiums have soared in cost, and will leave a legacy of white elephants. Second, transport links between the cities are poor. Third, hotel space is limited. Fourth, there is a lot of crime.

Read more »

Wembley Stadium, Saturday 30th May 2009, 2.30pm

David Killen

wembleyFourteen years and ten days ago, I dressed my baby son in blue, propped him on the sofa next to me, and sat down to watch the FA cup final on television. We won that day, beating Manchester United 1-0, and I thought it heralded a return to our glory days of the previous decade. I was wrong: the intervening years have been entirely barren, often bringing little more than relief as each season ended. And they’ve also bred a dour cynicism among Evertonians that is proving highly resistant to even the relative success of recent years. Today, in the sunshine at Wembley, my teenage son is sitting next to me, proudly wearing an Everton shirt—and his heart on his sleeve. He hasn’t yet learnt what it means to be a Blue. Perhaps he won’t need to.

There are two enduring caricatures of the typical scouser. One is high pitched, over confident, quick to take offence, and prone to extravagant emotional outbursts. That image, usually attached to our rivals in red, is the media’s favourite. But there is another, older stereotype: mordant, laconic, lower pitched. Of the two, I’m more comfortable with the latter – and today I’m in like-minded company. Anyone who has spent time in the crowd at Everton games will know what I mean. We have honed “gallows humour” to a fine art. And we’ve also grown a collective thick skin, which makes it difficult to hurt us. There’s a gleeful unassailability about being able to mock the victors and get away with it. I remember Chelsea fans fuming with uncomprehending rage as our taunts hit home – even as their side knocked us out of the cup the last time we met in this competition (I’d love to tell you what we were chanting but I’m afraid it’s unprintable). So, if we lose—that, if I’m honest, is the more likely outcome—we have the armoury to deal with it. But what if we win? Six weeks ago I began to get a sense of what that might mean. From this very seat I watched us beat Manchester United in a penalty shoot-out. The wild celebrations that followed contained an element of disbelief, and there were more than a few damp eyes as long-suppressed hopes began to surface. If we lose today it will be business as usual, and we’ll still find some way of winding up those thin-skinned Chelsea fans. But if we win, I will be in tears, and I won’t be alone.

Football: The big 4, more different than you think

David Herman
Big four, in two halves

The big four, in two halves

Tuesday’s Times (2nd December, p81) ran a very interesting set of figures which set out to show that the Big Four buy more players in the summer than in January. What was much more interesting, though, was what the figures revealed and the article didn’t focus on.

First, the sheer amount the Big Four have been spending in recent years. Chelsea almost £400m since 2003. Manchester United over £200m, Liverpool over £150m and Arsenal over £100m. The days when small clubs like Derby and Nottingham Forest could win the English league are pretty much over. Clubs like Newcastle, Tottenham and Leeds who think of themselves as big clubs will either bust a gasket financially  (like Leeds) or have some either kind of breakdown (like Newcastle and Tottenham) in the attempt to keep up. The financial gap between the top clubs and the rest is huge. The possible exceptions are clubs like Manchester City who manage to lure big money owners, but that’s still too early to say. Money matters. Yes, Chelsea had three terrific managers and bought well, but they outspent everyone, even Manchester United by 2:1. In recent years, the clubs who spent most, won most. So far, so predictable. Less obvious are the differences between the Big Four.

Read more »