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.
Sport 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|
|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|
|Nippon Pro Baseball (12)||0.144||644,491||266,561||377,930||2.4|
|National Hockey League (30)||0.070||1,946,903||1,187,217||759,686||1.6|
|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|
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.
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 – firstname.lastname@example.org
I hope to send it out every Tuesday. The sign up page is in the menu above, and below:
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:
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.
|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|
|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|
|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)
Amid 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.
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.)
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.
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.
I’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).
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.
Chelsea took the unusual step of publishing an official moan about their lack of penalties this season. It has been widely reported (Guardian, BBC), but without anyone really taking them to task on the data. But a little statistical digging might have shown that they have nothing to complain about.
The Chelsea article said:
It is in our 28 Premier League games this season where we have been awarded just two penalties. Both were for infringements on the league’s most-fouled player, Eden Hazard, and both were in home London derbies, against Arsenal and QPR respectively. The most recent was four-and-a-half months ago.
Historically, this figure seems abnormally low.
In the Double-winning 2009/10 campaign, when we were the country’s outstanding attacking team, we were awarded 12 league penalties.
So let’s look at the evidence. The numbers that Chelsea point to only look at their own penalties awarded. Statistically, it’s known as sampling bias, but you don’t need to know that to see that it is a bunch of numbers out of context.
What we really care about is a few things: how many penalties should a team expect over a season? Are better teams given more penalties? And how do the league winners compare? The only way to know this is to (with apologies to Peter Moores) look at the data.
Chelsea did indeed get 12 penalties in 2009-10. But this is an outlier – in fact, for all the penalties data I could get from the 1998-99 season onwards, it is the highest number given to one team in a single season.
Two other teams have also been awarded 12 penalties in one campaign. Can you guess which teams they are? Have a go. Other league winners? Nope. In fact, it was Liverpool, in 2013-14 when they finished second; and Crystal Palace, in 2004-05, finishing in 18th place!
That might give a clue as to whether league position and penalties are connected. Basically, they are not. They are very weakly correlated, by a score of -0.28. *
Over a season, the average penalties per team per season has varied between two and six. And in the 16 years of available data, the Premier League winners have had a lower penalty count than the average team five times. That leaves 11 times when it has been higher (see chart below). Yes, you would expect the league winners to play attacking football and get a more penalties than the league average, as Chelsea suggest – but for Chelsea to get less than the average this season is hardly unprecedented.
Put another way: only four times in the sixteen years of data have the team winning the league also been awarded the most penalties (Arsenal 2001-02, Manchester United 2002-03, 2007-08 and Chelsea 2009-10). Penalties are not some divine right of the best team. History shows that a team can be given a lot of penalties and still finish low down the league. Just ask Palace. Or Sunderland (6 penalties, 14th place last year). Or Blackpool (8 penalties, 19th place in 2010-11). Or West Ham (9 penalties, 17th place in 2009-10).
In other words: Chelsea’s current lack of penalties is nothing strange. It’s just… football.
* A negative number should be expected here, as a better league position is a lower number. For penalties and league position to be correlated, a score closer to -1 would be needed. For those wondering, it is very weakly positively correlated to the points a team gets over a season, with a score of 0.32.
It was probably the worst thing he could say. “We’ve got to look at the data” is not a great line for a cricket coach to say to the press after going out of a World Cup.
It’s especially bad when that team has been previously criticised for being over-reliant on data, and sucking the spontaneity out of players.
But let’s be fair to Peter Moores: whatever he had said would not be good enough. The question whenever a country flounders in a big event is: “what went wrong?”. The answer is usually complicated and not necessarily immediately evident. And so the reply is often of the form: “we will try and work it out and learn from it.”
So how do teams work it out? Using anecdotes? Talking to fans? Plucking a theory out of thin air? No, they look at the (whisper it quietly) data.
Of course they do. If looking at data is now taboo, English cricket will suffer. What England need to do is look at the right data, put it in context, and work out what to do next.
But several media commentators have latched on to data as the culprit. We have our new bogeyman, and he is armed with a spreadsheet.
“English cricket kills itself”. That’s the headline in the Spectator. From the piece by Alex Massie:
“We’ve got to look at the data.” If ever there was an appropriate epitaph or this era of English cricket this is it. England have, under Moores, known the price of everything but the value of nothing. The data has given them heaps of information; they’ve had no idea what to do with it.
But why would they? Cricket is a complex game but not a mysterious one. It has changed much less than most people think….
England, however, think there’s some magic sauce that can unlock the mysteries of cricket. So they crunch numbers and discover that x percent of games are won by a score of y or that when z then b and if c then a+b = d. Is it any wonder then they play like humans impersonating robots?
And so on, until this conclusion: “The problem is the bloody data.”
Really? What’s the alternative?
And so the bandwagon starts to roll:
Peter Moores: ‘We’ll have to have a look at the data.’ That one sentence should stand as lasting indictment of England cricket in 2015.
— Oliver Brown (@oliverbrown_tel) March 9, 2015
The data…the ****ing DATA. You’re not trading pork bellies, Moores, you quarter-wit, it’s a cricket team. http://t.co/xrv54uOrKP
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) March 9, 2015
Yet… When articles are written about England’s loss to Bangladesh, they will cite numbers such as:
Between the 21st and 31st overs, only 40 runs were scored for the loss of 3 wickets.
(I just came up with that. I looked at the data.)
Or commentators will look at some other stat which will be seen as where the match was won or lost. That Bangladesh were allowed to plunder 78 off the last 10 overs. That England had them at 32 for 2 after 10 overs, but let a good start get away from them. You can take your pick.
England will have more sophisticated numbers at their disposal, such as what kinds of deliveries produced more dot-balls, or about field placings. Should they ignore them? Simply say it was a “bad day at the office”, or some other sporting cliche?
As the Guardian’s Andy Bull put it recently:
The laptop is just another tool in the box, useless unless the players understand the value of the information it provides, and no more valuable than their own ability to adapt and improvise during a match.
Interestingly, the word that Massie and Bull both use is “value”. If we consign data to a marginal or even zero role, then we will miss valuable insights.
The statistics are there. They lend themselves to being crunched. That’s not a bad thing, per se. Nor is it a good thing. But to say that the numbers are the problem is madness.