It raises an important question: is competitive balance worse for business? Fans love unpredictability, but money seems to be concentrating power.
Even the Yankees were deemed unbeatable because the power of their checkbook, yet they haven’t won the World Series since 2009 (according to quick search. I don’t follow baseball). So the big purse isn’t always the thing people make it to be. Sure it helps, but no guarantees. Otherwise, moneyball wouldn’t have been a thing
They are under investigation posteriori, they should've been stopped apriori acquiring top players for large sums of money.
Much more fun to go out and support lower league clubs. And cheaper too.
Also, nice article. I enjoyed the interactive graphs.
I also found this a bit off. Lots of goals ending in a draw can also be great fun. Wins are great for the fans of the winning team. But if you're a fan of the sport, then an engaging match, ideally with lots of goals is more fun even if it's a draw.
I've seen plenty of absolutely thrilling goalless draws, and plenty of boring 1 goal wins.
I found it particularly interesting that someone from the UK (as the author appears to be) suggested that draws might be boring. In my personal experience, that tends to be a North American phenomenon (not that others don't or can't express that feeling).
On a related note, Cricket draws can be epic. There are many examples like https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/dec/06/michael-athert....
But is one team thrashing another 5 - Nil (even in the first half) an "exciting game? Id argue not, for both sets of fans.
But in the money league (aka EPL) this is a big problem for many of the games.
Also, its the same small set of teams vying for the title EVERY year after year after year. Its almost as bad as the Bundesliga. Seriously, is Bayern Munchin going to win the Bundesliga this year? Or is it Rael Madrid or Barcelona that are going to win the Spanish League? Celtic or Rangers? BORING!
Say what you will about the American NFL, but at least they have more variety in who wins the Super Bowl. But they do have to sort out the lopsided score always in the final.
You guessed it: I didn't grow up in the US :)
Betting/gambling. Also talking shit to your friends in the pub which support the 'other' team (in a (friendly) banter).
I remember when I was betting (a lot) with Ladbrokes 15-20 years ago, I _loved_ statistics. But win/lose/draw was never my cup of tea. I would study the numbers and find teams who score/receive a lot and would bet on Over/Under. It didn't even have to be the 'premier' leagues. There were teams in Finland and Netherlands that would have an aggregate of 6-8 goals in most games. This was as certain as it could be. Low yield but steady yield. It just took time. I assume now with LLMs, one could write a prompt that would get an LLM to scour the interweb and give it "the games with over/under of x1.5 or more and teams that do so-and-so.. but.. who has time for that!
Eventually you get people having to invest in riskier clubs, like Leeds United, who don't quite have traction as they float in and out of the Premier League. This is still viewed as more valuable than other European leagues.
There are factors like ownership rules, limits on tickets prices, and politics in other leagues which make it less attractive for external entities to buy in. Therefore, there is less value in owning a smaller piece of it.
As with the Super League you'll get a lot of resistance from the clubs and authorities when there is a threat to some of the big clubs. They know that when things start changing, investment will come to some of the smaller and less successful clubs which will change the dynamics. Everyone knows that it'll change many elements of the game and people are rightly protective when they can be.
Frankly, for me the most boring is a 2-0 win where the team scores those 2 in the first 20 to 30 minutes, swaps to a 5-4-1, and plays tiki-taka passing possession control without trying hard to advance the ball for the remaining hour of the match.
Miami set the record for most points earned in a season for the regular season and then went out in the first round to an 8th seeded team. LA Galaxy won the title last season and are currently sitting at the bottom of the table halfway through the season.
Anybody can win any game, but most of the teams are thoroughly mediocre, and MLS struggles even to beat Mexican teams, let alone do well at something like the Club World Cup (Miami being an exception because they spent the money to sign the best person in the history of soccer to the team, and even then they suffered from the lack of depth caused by the salary cap).
IMO, parity and mediocrity is also boring, and I would much prefer a league that allowed teams to spend more if they want and really try to compete on an international level. Even if that means you have 2 or 3 teams that dominate the league, that is not necessarily bad. Baseball was dominated by the Yankees for literally decades, and it survived and even thrived.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesliga#List_of_champions
0-0 games are boring, but not because they're draws. It's because there are no goals!
I think most fans agree with me that a 2-2 draw is more entertaining than a 1-0 win.
Also, article makes another stupid claim when they try to extrapolate from a single game to average score in the whole season. A league where most games end in a draw would be very exciting, because pretty much every team would have an equal chance of winning a championship (and also of being relegated to lower league).
The most boring leagues are the ones such as French Ligue 1 or German Bundesliga, with one team clearly dominating the competition (PSG and Bayern, respectively). Premiership is probably the most exciting one, with most teams having real shot at championship.
Um. Yeah. No. In the last 10 seasons, 4 different teams have won titles. One of those have won it 6 times.
The amount of competition is Higher in Premier League. Teams like brentford or Brighton play top-tier football although they have no chance winning the title.
Arsenal is a complete loser, If Liverpool was instead of them in the title races of 22/23 and 23/24 they would have more chance.
Also, 4 different champions in the last 10 years is the most diverse of all major leagues. Bundesliga has Bayern winning 12 of the last 13 titles, Ligue 1 has PSG winning 10 of the last 12. In Spain the title basically alternates between Real and Barcelona, with Atletico winning 2 titles in the past 20 years.
What should be the measure of "boringness" of a game is Expected Goals, better known as xG. And of course a game with both teams having 1.3 xG is much better than 4xG vs. 0.04xG.
h46u5jytyhtg•6mo ago
Frequently draws are very exciting, they can make compelling viewing. In a game that is completely dominated by one team, there can be very little of interest.
An alternative metric would be the degree of uncertainty/jeopardy in the game. So a game that ends 1-1 has a high degree of jeopardy because at any moment a team can score and take point from the other team.
WesleyLivesay•6mo ago
There are boring draws, some are excruciating to watch because so little is happening.
There are also draws that are the most stressful, exciting, and action packed games you will ever see.
empath75•6mo ago
Some of the best games I've ever watched ended in draws, but that point mattered for whether my team was going to take over first place or not, or whether they made it out of the group stage or not.
The really boring draws are when one team is basically just playing very defensively and also the game doesn't matter to either team.
kmnc•6mo ago
0xcafecafe•6mo ago
dylan604•6mo ago
FranklinMaillot•6mo ago
dylan604•6mo ago
thom•6mo ago
tharmas•6mo ago
Dribbles or passing plays into the box which may not result in a shot are exciting too. For match excitement/entertainment value these should be measured also.