Soccernomics summary

The cult of the manager is a strong one – a new managerial appointment is always pored over by media and fans alike.

The reality is that the vast majority of managers make little difference. Most, in fact, are mediocre. For proof, look no further than the man who oversaw one of the greatest feats in English soccer.

In the summer of 2017, soccer clubs around the world spent a phenomenal $4.71 billion on transfers. What if much of this spending was a waste?

Well, there are lots of ways to waste money in the transfer market.

If there is only a weak relationship between transfer spending and performance, how come the richest clubs usually win? Well, it’s because there is a relationship between money and performance.

While studies find no strong link between spending on transfers and performance, they find a very strong relationship between spending on wages and performance.

When pundits comment on soccer matches, they often talk of passion, drive and determination to win a match – statistics, less so.

But behind the scenes, data is playing a bigger and bigger role in modern soccer.

Why is it that towns like Nottingham and Dortmund have won European Cups, while great capitals such as London, Paris, Rome, and Moscow never succeeded until London’s Chelsea finally managed it in 2012? It turns out there are some significant connections between cities, politics, industry and soccer.

The late 1950s and 1960s were the time of totalitarian soccer.

From Didier Drogba to Diego Maradona, the origins of many soccer stars are lowly. Is there a connection between poverty off the pitch and riches on it?

The facts show that rich countries are significantly better at sports than poorer countries.

The idea that people throw themselves off buildings when their teams lose is a common one, and there are cases where that’s happened.

But working with a team of Greek researchers, the authors found evidence that these anecdotes belie the reality – that soccer reduces suicides by the thousands.

The country that invented the game has failed to win anything since the 1966 World Cup. Why does England never win?

After failing to qualify for Euro 2008, England midfielder Steven Gerrard said the large number of foreign players competing in England was threatening homegrown talent. That, however, is very likely wrong.

In the last three World Cup’s, the teams finishing first, second and third were all from Western Europe, with the sole exception of Argentina in 2014.

Why are Western European teams so dominant? One important reason is how networked Western Europe is.

In the 1890s, two Englishmen visited the remote Scottish island of South Uist. They brought with them a soccer ball. Within 20 years, Shinty – a traditional sport played on the island for 1,400 years – was wiped out. Soccer conquered South Uist like it had with populations around the world.

Traveling Brits introduced soccer to Europe, Africa and Latin America in the nineteenth century, but it’s only in the last twenty years that soccer became a truly global game.