Rob Minto

Sport, data, ideas and miscellany

Page 2 of 29

What can Fifa learn from other voting systems?


Everyone agrees that Fifa needs to change. But what about the tricky question of members’ votes? In general, the argument seems to go like this:

  • ‘One member, one vote’ gives smaller nations equal rights to large footballing countries.
  • Smaller nations – hello Africa and Asia – are happy with the corrupt kick-backs while bigger nations  – read Europe – are clean and want reform.
  • So reform should involve changing the one-vote-per-country system, in favour of bigger, more important nations.

Is this fair? Looking at the charge sheet from the DOJ, you might think the problem is not Africa and Asia, but South America, which has of course provided 9 of the 20 World Cup winners.  Let’s leave that aside for now – how should the voting system be changed? What systems do other organisations use?

Don’t forget that Fifa’s Executive committee, not the full members, chooses the World Cup hosts. Fifa Congress votes on modifications to the rules, and elects the president.

Body Function Members System
Fifa (congress) Football 209 1M-1V
UN General Assembly Security and world affairs 193 1M-1V
IMF / World Bank International finance 188 Weighted
Opec Oil production 11 1M-1V
Miss World Beauty 100+ Panel of 9
Eurovision Singing 40 1M-58V
ICC Cricket 105 Exec Committee

1M-1V = One member, one vote | 1M-58V = One member, 58 votes

UN General Assembly

One member, one vote. So the same as Fifa then. And open to the same problems. As a Bloomberg article put it:

China has the same voting power as Tuvalu despite a population 137,000 times as large… Want to know why small island states, including Tuvalu, are such a constant topic of discussion in UN meetings? Because small island states have such outsize power at the UN.

    Fifa factor? Same old same old.

World Bank

Very different: the IMF / World Bank uses a quota voting system which allocates votes according to how much each country contributes to the Bank, as well  other factors such as GDP, openness and international reserves. You can see the details here. The system is subject to various demands for tweaks, as some countries gain in size and power – emerging economies want a greater say to go with their greater wealth – so it is open to nagging, rather than wholesale reform.

    Fifa factor? Europe might like something which takes footballing size into account. Smaller countries would resist it. Finding the right formula would be almost impossible.


One member, one vote, but with a bit of a caveat – there are clearly more oil-producing nations than the 11 members of Opec – the US, for one. Opec isn’t exactly a model of openness either. Any Opec model would be akin to kicking everyone out of Fifa bar the biggest dozen or so countries, and then setting a World Cup that the rest of the world had to take part in, assuming they had the resources.

Fifa factor? A clubby cartel of the biggest producers doesn’t sound like a good model for football.

Miss World

Stay with me on this one. Bidding for World Cups is often referred to as a beauty contest, so how does Miss World work? Well, it doesn’t have members in the same way; the winner is decided by a judging panel of nine people, and their decisions are not published. So not a great example. However, there are a few elements that might be adopted. At least each contestant knows how they scored in each area – World Cup bidders could be marked according to various criteria, which might at least encourage some responsible voting.

Fifa factor? Committee – bad. Open criteria – good.


Again, stay with me. What has Eurovision got? A fantastic voting system, that’s what. You could call it ‘One member, 58 votes’, as each of the 40 countries allocates 12 points, 10 points, then 8 down to 1 to other countries. Although it is ripe for abuse as countries vote for each other in blocs, it still manages to throw up different winners each year.

What’s not so good is the 50:50 split between a judging panel and a public vote. That’s not going to win any friends amongst Fifa.

Fifa factor? Low. Would require every member to submit a bid. Public element won’t fly.


Lastly, it’s time to look at another sport. How about cricket? The ICC runs the game on the basis of a committee, where only the 10 Test nations get a say, plus three affiliate nations. But there is also the executive committee which has basically awarded extra power to Australia, England and India. It’s quite confusing. Plus, they can’t organise a World Cup for toffee, changing the format all the time and boring the pants off everyone with long, drawn-out events that are designed to give the bigger sides an easy path.

Fifa factor? Clubby committee might appeal to European grandees, but money issues aside, at least the football World Cup keeps the entertainment levels high, and is a fair game 32-team event. Pass.


Fifa’s smaller members aren’t about to vote for less money and influence. While a few of the lessons could be good (Miss World’s criteria, World Bank weighting), it will be interesting to see if any changes can actually be delivered.

Share Button

Sport Geek #3: Oh Fifa, inventing quotes, wither the all-rounder?

So much has been written about Fifa in the past week, it’s worth remembering that most of the allegations of corruption are old old news. Still…

Before we all forget, the Olympics is a pretty grubby thing too. Heroin ganglords, a history of scandals, and no-one wants to host the thing any more. Continue reading

Share Button

Sport Geek #2: Novak no-brainer, Sterling saga, Blatter’s brilliance

Is this Novak Djokovic’s French Open? Whether it’s Rafael Nadal’s atrocious form, or Djokovic’s incredibly detailed preparation, it looks that way.

You might hate Sepp Blatter
, but he understands the world better than you, you irrelevant Westerner. Meanwhile, Qatar’s World Cup death rate is now over 60 per match, and Brazil’s 2014 legacy is already a mess.

English clubs need to learn to love the Europa League. The country may soon lose a Champion’s League place. Continue reading

Share Button

PSG: liberty, fraternity, inequality

473809032Sport is inherently unequal. Talent and skills are not distributed fairly, and it would be a far more boring world if they were.

But when it comes to the wages that are paid to players, some leagues prefer a fairer system – especially in the US – and some are content with a less equal system. Some are downright ridiculous.

The data provided each year by Sporting Intelligence highlights the haves and have-nots by comparing average team wages in 333 teams across many major leagues. As ever, the American sports leagues are notable by their evenness. In the NFL, for example, the top paying team, the Miami Dolphins, pay an average annual salary of £1.37m per player. The lowest payers are the New York Jets, with £1.01m per player. That’s across 32 teams. The difference top to bottom is just £357,000.

Let’s look at some of the major European football leagues by way of comparison. The contrast and variation is astonishing.

The biggest gap is the French Ligue 1. The top club, Paris Saint Germain (now the highest wage paying club in the world), pay £5.2m per year per player. That’s £5m more than the average player at the bottom club, Guingamp. It’s a similar picture in Spain, where Real Madrid pay an average salary of £5.0m per year, which is £4.8m more than the bottom club, Rayo Vallecano.

The English Premier League is almost egalitarian in comparison, with the £5m wages paid by Manchester City just £4m higher than the £998,000 paid by Crystal Palace.

The worst league for inequality is in fact the Scottish Premier League – just 12 clubs, but Celtic (average salary £900,000) pay their players 25 times that of the bottom club, Ross County (average salary £36,000).

Ranking the leagues by Gini coefficient shows the differences. A score of 1 is perfect inequality, whereas 0 is perfect equality. The SPL scores over 0.5, as do La Liga in Spain and Ligue 1 of France. That’s not good. Some US leagues are below 0.1.

League (teams) Gini coefficient Highest wages (£ pa) Lowest wages (£ pa) Difference (£) Multiple
Scottish Premier League (12) 0.527 901,943 36,000 865,943 25.1
La Liga (20) 0.513 5,040,520 264,972 4,775,548 19.0
Ligue 1 (20) 0.507 5,298,693 263,331 5,035,362 20.1
CSL (China Super League) (16) 0.399 647,237 55,335 591,902 11.7
Serie A (20) 0.395 2,859,195 303,968 2,555,227 9.4
Bundesliga (18) 0.331 4,468,643 478,783 3,989,860 9.3
Major Soccer League (20) 0.315 519,898 81,602 438,296 6.4
English Premier League (20) 0.293 5,015,122 998,632 4,016,490 5.0
J-League (18) 0.209 246,388 52,595 193,793 4.7
MLB (30) 0.183 4,679,937 1,344,448 3,335,489 3.5
Nippon Pro Baseball (12) 0.144 644,491 266,561 377,930 2.4
NBA (30) 0.086 3,645,286 1,286,661 2,358,625 2.8
National Hockey League (30) 0.070 1,946,903 1,187,217 759,686 1.6
NFL (32) 0.043 1,368,255 1,011,208 357,047 1.4
Canadian Football League (9) 0.038 67,026 54,753 12,273 1.2
Australian Foorball League (18) 0.027 157,888 125,389 32,499 1.3
IPL (8) 0.020 2,626,933 2,356,386 270,547 1.1


The top-to-bottom difference is one thing, but the difference in wages can also be stark at the top too. After Real Madrid and Barcelona in Spain, there is a £2.9m per year drop to the next best paying team, Atletico Madrid. PSG of France pay players nearly three times more than the second team, Monaco. And German heavyweights Bayern Munich pay nearly £2m, or 1.8 times the next richest team in their league, Schalke.

England and Italy have leagues that are fairer in comparison, although both have more of a five or six team exclusive group, with a drop in wages after that.

Note that China’s Super League has a greater wages disparity than the English, German or Italian top leagues. And the US Major League Soccer has a worse Gini score and top-to-bottom gap than England. The EPL gets a bad press for unfairness, but it’s not that bad.

Whereas the relaxation of the Financial Fair play rules by UEFA looks pretty poorly timed, to say the least.

GSSS 2015 Ligue 1GSSS 2014 EPL GSSS 2015 Bundesliga GSSS 2015 La LigaGSSS 2015 Serie A GSSS 2015 SPL


Share Button

Sport Geek #1: genius, beauty and boredom

10 reasons why Barcelona won La Liga. You might think 1 to 9 are ‘Messi’, but there’s a lot more than that going on at the Nou Camp.

The beauty of Roger Federer’s tennis can cure relationships. And you thought you were a big Federer fan. Julian Barnes reviews the very strange Federer and Me by William Skidelsky. Continue reading

Share Button

A new newsletter

I have decided to share a weekly wrap of interesting sports writing as an email newsletter.

It won’t have match reports or updates. Instead, it will be a collection of longer pieces, analysis, data-driven journalism and other quirky pieces, from around the web, across a variety of sports.

Any ideas, let me know –

I hope to send it out every Tuesday. The sign up page is in the menu above, and below:

Share Button

Should KP be recalled to the England team?


Update (May 15): Adam Lyth has now been called into the England Test squad and will probably make his debut against New Zealand.


When a player hits 300-plus for their county, it’s hard not to take notice. But should Kevin Pietersen’s massive innings for Surrey get him back in the team?

He thinks so. He said afterwards:

“All I’ve been asked to do by the chairman-elect is to get a county and get runs,” said Pietersen.

“I’ve got runs, I’ve got a county and I do believe I’m good enough to play for England.

“All I can do is score runs, that’s it.

KP has been misguided and is confused, and here’s why.

This is nothing to do with that book (the one that trashed the ECB, former and current coaches and captains). It is quite simply that one innings isn’t enough.

If it was, then here are a list of people who would have been picked for England in the last 5 years:

Alex Gidman
Alex Lees
James Hildreth
Andrew Gale
Adam Lyth

All of the above players have hit 250-plus in county cricket. None have been picked for England’s senior Test side.

But if you look at the players who have scored the highest total runs in a county season, or had the highest average over a season (excluding overseas players and retired England players), there is a better chance of picked for the Test side. Adam Lyth would seem to have a better claim for a Test place then KP.

Highest averages
Year Player Mat Inns NO Runs Ave 100 50 Notes
2014 Adam Lyth 17 24 1 1,619 70.39 7 6 No England place
2013 Gary Ballance 15 22 1 1,363 64.9 6 6 Test debut Jan 2014
2012 Nick Compton 14 21 6 1,494 99.6 5 7 Test debut Nov 2012
2011 Nick Compton 14 23 4 1,098 57.78 2 6 See above
2010 James Hildreth 16 23 1 1,440 65.45 7 5 No England place


Most runs
Year Player Mat Inns NO Runs Ave 100 50 Notes
2014 Adam Lyth 17 24 1 1,619 70.39 7 6 No England place
2013 Moeen Ali 17 29 5 1,420 59.16 4 8 Test debut June 2014
2012 Nick Compton 14 21 6 1,494 99.6 5 7 Test debut Nov 2012
2011 James Taylor 17 32 3 1,602 55.24 3 10 Test debut Aug 2012
2010 Adam Lyth 16 29 0 1,509 52.03 3 9 No England place

(In 2011 Marcus Trescothick was the leading run scorer and had the highest average in county cricket, but had retired from the England team. In 2010 the most runs were scored by Mark Ramprakash – again, retired from the England team.)

Highest innings in season
Year Player Runs Team Match Date Notes
2014 Alex Gidman 264 Gloucs 09-Sep-14 No England place
2013 Alex Lees 275* Yorkshire 17-Jul-13 No England place
2012 James Hildreth 268 Somerset 31-Mar-12 No England place
2011 Michael Carberry 300* Hampshire 02-Aug-11 Test debut Mar 2010 (1 test), recalled Nov 2013, more than 2 years later
2010 James Taylor 206* Leics 29-May-10 Test debut Aug 2012 (after 2011 season, see above)

The selectors have been very clear in their methods – they reward consistency, not single innings. As it turns out, a recall isn’t going to happen, however many runs KP scores. Colin Graves (incoming ECB chairman) said the wrong thing (about KP having any recall chance), which was then taken the wrong way (regarding single innings).

But the KP recall bandwagon will get mightily awkward if he does keep getting runs and topping the average charts. Until he retires completely from the game, there will always be a question mark over Pietersen’s England inclusion.

(Data from ESPN Cricinfo)

Share Button

James Anderson’s record highlights England’s weakness

470122776Amid all the articles congratulating James Anderson for surpassing Ian Botham as England’s all-time Test wicket taker, I’ve not seen one to put the numbers in perspective. It’s a fine achievement, certainly, but compared to other countries, it’s pretty small beer.

Just like the centuries record that three years ago fell to Alastair Cook, the England Test wickets record was abnormally low.

For starters, England still is the only major Test nation (bar Zimbabwe and Bangladesh) to have its leading all-time Test wickets record below 400.

Put another way, if Anderson was from India or South Africa, he would be just 4th on that country’s list of all-time wicket-takers. His mark of 384 would put him third in Australia and the West Indies too.

Essentially, Botham’s record has been there for the taking for a long time. England play a lot of Test cricket, so there’s no excuse in terms of matches played. There just hasn’t been a bowler of the class and longevity required to take the record.

Botham was top of the whole world for a while, with a test record that stood for a couple of years. But then the record was pushed up over 400 by two other all rounders, Richard Hadlee and Kapil Dev; and and then 500 by Courtney Walsh.

Subsequently, the two spinners Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan took the record out of sight, over 600, then 700, with Murali on exactly 800 at the end of his career. The all-time list is below the break.


Anderson is a fine bowler, but I would be surprised if he gets over 500 wickets when he’s finished. He may well end up around 6th on the all time list if he can stay healthy and get to 450+ wickets. But Dale Steyn of South Africa is ahead of him already, despite playing 22 fewer tests. (A bit old now, but a superb Steyn-Anderson comparison is here that shows how far superior Steyn really is.)

England have not had a world-class consistent bowling attack for a generation. When the team has done well, the bowlers have flourished, but have then faded – such as Steve Harmison and Simon Jones, who had the potential to become a combination as good as any. Great test teams have needed bowlers who work as a unit, and stick around. Anderson has too often carried the attack alone, and while he has earned the record, it is a figure born of hard work and persistence, rather than from blowing teams away.

Continue reading

Share Button

2 strange things about the Boat Race


The Boat Race is a bizarre event in many ways. The course is incredibly winding and gives a potentially huge advantage to the crew on the Surrey station (the south side). It’s elitist. The participants are typically now international rowers rather than amateur undergraduates. It’s way longer (over 4 miles) than usual rowing races (2k).

But there are two other odd things going on.

1) The race is getting slower

For many years, as boat technology improved and crews trained harder and smarter, and the rowers became international pros, the winning time came down. From the 1950s to 2000, typical times went from around 20 minutes to 17. The course record was set in 1998, at 16:19 by Cambridge. From 1996 to 2005, 5 of the 10 winning times were sub-17 seconds.

But since 2005, there have been none below the 17 second mark. As the chart below of the rolling 10-year average shows, since 1999 the times are getting slower. (I’ve used the 10-year average to smooth out what is otherwise a very bumpy chart, and show the trend. The average also mitigates the impact of the bad-weather years.)

boat race 10 year rolling average winning time

Why the drop in pace? It’s hard to say for sure. My guess is that technological and fitness improvements are now very incremental. The shift to a global talent pool happened a while back. Instead, the races are tight, with clashing oars and cat-and-mouse tactics. It’s all about winning, not the clock.

This leads to the second odd thing:

2) The reserve crews are frequently quicker

Obviously, you would expect the Blue crew to beat the reserves (Goldie of Cambridge, Isis of Oxford). But some years the reserves, who race just before the Blues, are quicker. In fact, in seven of the last 18 years, the reserve crews have registered a faster time. The average gap between the winning times is also narrowing.

blue vs reserve

This suggests that there is a deeper pool of talent available to both teams. But it also backs up the idea that the Blue race is all about winning.


Share Button

6 Nations finale: saving the tries to last

467172764I’m still reeling from the 6 Nations final weekend. I was lucky enough to be at Twickenham, and rugby matches like that are remarkable. But the stats from the weekend are remarkable too.

For starters, the England-France match equalled the highest total number of tries in a 6N match (12) and was the second highest points total with 90. The only match that surpasses it in points (and equals it in tries) is the England-Italy match from 2001, but that was an 81-23 thrashing, mid-tournament.

Part of the reason it the last day was so dramatic was how each team in the previous match had set the bar higher. Wales did their best with eight tries vs Italy; Ireland scored 40 points against Scotland, winning by 30. And so the England-France match was set up perfectly, and it delivered right to the last moment.

And while the numbers can’t convey the excitement, they do back up idea that it was the most dramatic finish ever.

In total, 27 tries were scored on the last day of the 2015 6N. That’s 44 per cent of the tries scored in the whole competition. Compare that to 2012, when just four tries were scored on the last day.

The only other years that come close are 2005, 2007 and 2014, which also saw 20 or more tries on the last day (also all above 30 per cent of the total tries).

6N tries and last round

In those years, the outcome of the tournament was also in the balance on the final weekend. Wales won in 2005, securing the Grand Slam, although France had racked up seven tries against Italy to keep their title hopes alive. In 2007, France scored a last-minute try to take the title over Ireland by just 4 points. And in 2014, Ireland’s narrow 2-point victory over France (again with last-minute drama) gave them the title on points difference over England.

Recent advocates of changing the scoring system to include bonus points might be right in the long run, but with the last two competitions being decided right at the last, it might be a while before anyone signs up to a new set of rules.

Share Button
« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2015 Rob Minto

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑