Comments on: “Parity” in soccer versus parity in American sports

By: Defending Soccer | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

Defending Soccer | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:35:04 +0000

[...] add that the structure of European football is one of the most inegalitarian in sport (see here and here for details), with big clubs absolutely dominating their smaller competitors in terms of both [...]

By: Conventional Folly » A little more on “parity”

Conventional Folly » A little more on “parity” — Sat, 30 May 2009 18:32:42 +0000

[...] those who didn’t wade into the comments on that last post, we got into the numbers a little more. In the past ten years, if Mark is to be believed (and I see [...]

By: uniondad

uniondad — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:47:23 +0000

And the bottom line, Ladies and Gents: In the US, who really cares about boring European Football or it’s lack of parity? Present company excepted of course.

By: Sonny Bunch

Sonny Bunch — Sat, 30 May 2009 02:28:58 +0000

But JL, the structure of the American leagues — wild cards, divisions, salary caps, etc. — all contribute to their various levels of parity. It’s part and parcel…

By: JL

JL — Sat, 30 May 2009 00:42:28 +0000

Sure, but of course there are no “wild card” teams in the Premiership. Soccer leagues reward consistency, and there are few opportunities for lesser teams to steal the title. I think the closest analogy would be the FA Cup, which actually is a playoff competition of sorts between premiership stalwarts and lesser clubs. And, indeed, lesser clubs have had more success there, reaching the final on several occasions, and even mid-table premiership clubs have occasionally raised the trophy (Portsmouth last year, for instance). One might argue, with some merit, that the top premiership teams field under-strength sides in the early stages of the competition, choosing to focus on the Champions League, so the parity is a little exaggerated. Equally, though, one could argue that there would be more upsets in the top flight if the victor were crowned in a playoff rather than on points. (An interesting case in this connection might be Hull City, a newly promoted team that was spectacularly successful in the early stages of this season – there was even talk of them qualifying for the Champions League – only to plummet mightily at the end of the season and barely escape relegation. But they had a good run in the FA cup, and nearly made it to the semifinals. In a playoff scenario, you could see a team like Hull winning the premiership.)

By: Sonny Bunch

Sonny Bunch — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:59:28 +0000

OK, so in the last ten years I think it’s fair to say that every single team in the league had a chance of winning the Super Bowl, right? Considering how many wild card teams have made (and won) the Super Bowl, I don’t think this is too far off from the truth, even among the weaker teams to make the playoffs. That sort of parity simply doesn’t exist in the Premiership (or most of the other soccer leagues).

By: Mark Thompson

Mark Thompson — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:13:50 +0000

On the NFL playoff teams, I can give you some hard numbers because I’m a Bills fan, and I’ve come to know them all too well. If your time frame is just the ’00s, then all but (I’m pretty sure) two NFL teams have made the playoffs: the Bills and the Lions. If your time frame is the last ten years, then every single NFL team has made the playoffs at least once, as the Bills and Lions both made the playoffs at the end of 1999. For the last ten years, my only taste of the playoffs as a football fan has been a freaking forward lateral!

By: Sonny Bunch

Sonny Bunch — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:21:23 +0000

Nav: Perhaps we’re operating from different ideas of “parity.” For me, parity suggests that, in any given year any team (or at least a reasonably high percentage of teams in any given league) has a shot of winning it all. That is simply not the case in the Premiership: four teams dominate, year in, year out. That’s just a fact. In the NFL you can have a team that’s relatively bad one year (like, say, the Cardinals) come within a minute of winning the entire thing the next. Some, like the Rams or the Ravens, actually pull it off. That just doesn’t happen in the Premiership.

If your definition of parity is movement through the middle/relegation and promotion, then I guess the Premiership has some parity? But that doesn’t seem like a terribly relevant definition of the term as it relates to sports…

By: Sonny Bunch

Sonny Bunch — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:15:15 +0000

Meh. Winning the UEFA Cup is like winning the NIT. You still wish you got into the big dance.

By: Nav

Nav — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:13:47 +0000

let me begin by conceding, that i may well be wrong…

however, couple of things. nfl has 12 teams in the playoffs. as a fraction, thats about the top 7 in the premier league, and a quick check gives me 17 teams that have done that in the premier league in the last decade. which given relegations etc. matches up fairly well with your nfl results. of course, given the differing incentives, this result is basically meangingless, but still…

my my best guess is that while the top four places are strongly correlated over long periods of time, below those positions you’ll only have a very weak year correlation between different placings. unfortunately, to do this analysis involves a fairly non-trivial amount of effort… also, i doubt you could use it to say smart things about relative parity.

the time issue is interesting. i’ll have to think about that some more. i think the number one wants is the rate of diffusion (in physics language, since that’s what i speak best) – we know, for example, the dynasties exist in the nfl, but they seem to have a lifetime of about a decade. in european soccer, no idea, though the date suggests it’s a least somewhat longer.