
Empty stadiums have shrunk football teams’ home advantage - prostoalex
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/25/empty-stadiums-have-shrunk-football-teams-home-advantage
======
elgenie
Home field advantage lessening but not disappearing is as expected. There are
two major sources of home field advantage (basing on US sports):

* What fans influence: subconscious referee biases (not wanting to be booed for a close call), heckling that slightly impacts players’ focus, objects being waved in their line of sight, noise levels rising at inopportune times, etc.

* Travel/comfort: the home team players sleep in their own custom-tailored sleeping environments (these can include stuff like oxygen tents, not just nice mattresses), don’t spend time encased in a plane / train / bus environment not designed for optimizing future athletic performance, and don’t have travel stresses and logistical headaches. Also for those inclined, the local club / strip club / groupie scene doesn’t hold the same mysterious allure on a random Tuesday night as it might for the lad from out of town.

The second set of factors remains even when fans aren’t allowed inside the
arena.

~~~
mrisoli
And maybe not so relevant these days because most pitches are standard size,
but years ago football pitches could vary in size, 90-120m in length, and
45-90m in width, maybe in the past even more, I remember some quoting some
pitches as long as 130m+

Teams who were on the boundaries of these often took advantage of it, my home
team played in a larger than average pitch and you would clearly see teams
that went in full pressure to lose a lot of gas by the second half, the best
coaches knew how to make this count. On the other side of the spectrum, teams
with shorter fields favoured playing long balls straight from goal kicks to
the strikers.

Tbf I miss a little bit the days where these small inconsistencies would
affect the game and require a little bit more studying on the coaches part.

~~~
zimpenfish
The numbers you quoted are still the standard although international pitches
are constrained to 64-75m wide, 100-110m long. That probably means top teams
are likely to use the international standard or at least have the option to
mark the pitch thusly when things like the World Cup or Euros need stadiums.

~~~
mrisoli
In Brazil they would vary wildly so that's where my nostalgia comes from,
after the WC in 2014 pretty much all of them were standardised to 105x68

------
ComputerGuru
A bit of a shameless plug, but a few years ago I Googled for scientific and
statistical analyses of home field advantage and didn't find anything, so I
ended up crunching the numbers for myself.

With the caveat that this is for baseball and not football, home field
advantage has shrunk tremendously over the years. Just look at the curve of
"field kindness" over the history of the MLB, it is insane how much of a
difference the field you were visiting used to make!

[https://neosmart.net/blog/2016/homefield-
advantage/](https://neosmart.net/blog/2016/homefield-advantage/)

(my favorite bit is the curve ball when it comes to fields that confer a
statistical _advantage_ to the visiting team!)

~~~
regulation_d
tbh, I don't really understand why Coors would be such an advantage. It's not
like the visiting team doesn't also benefit from the additional ball flight.

Do you think it has to do with roster building? Like the Rockies don't spend
money on pitching because pitching has less value at Coors, so they load up on
offensive talent instead?

~~~
willturman
In addition to farther fly ball flight, the thinner air in Coors Field lessens
the amount of distance a breaking ball moves when pitched. You'd think they
would spend top dollar for every pitcher with a heavy 94+ mph sinker.

While other teams play a single (or handful of) series a year at Coors Field,
the Rockies have to adjust to breaking pitches being more effective while
playing away half the time which would be a bigger disadvantage than the ball
not flying as far at away ballparks.

------
tomasz207
Freakonomics covered this in one of their podcasts. Their finding was that
home-field advantage had more to do with the crowd influencing the calls of
the officials. They would typically favor the home team. I wonder if this will
change further with the use of VAR.

[https://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-
ho...](https://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-
advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/)

~~~
dfxm12
It's amazing that the MLB has the smallest home field advantage, despite the
fact that baseball fields are actually pretty different from each other.

I would've thought stuff like being used to the visual backdrop behind a
pitcher's arm would let you see a pitch better or knowing where to stand to
best play a ball caroming off the outfield wall would give more of an
advantage.

~~~
InitialLastName
> It's amazing that the MLB has the smallest home field advantage

And given that, relative to the other sports, there's an actual difference in
the rules and play of the game based on which team is at home (less so now hat
the DH is in both leagues).

------
bluejellybean
I'm really surprised we don't hear more about teams using tools like VR to
play in the 'opponents turf'. One thing I noticed playing sports was how
terrible we could feel just from not knowing where locker rooms are when one
gets off a bus. I would love to see a study do something along the lines of,
make players travel to opponents facilities a few times and check results.

This above result could easily take place in VR for the opponents facilities
and arena. Model their locker rooms, field/court/etc, model screaming fans of
the wrong color, model boos, etc etc. Essentially try and eliminate some home
field advantage by making it feel more like home.

~~~
dmurray
Not VR but it was reported the English rugby team were training in front of
giant speakers to prepare for matches against Wales [0], who have a famously
loud crowd and a stadium that amplifies it, especially if the roof is closed.

I'd be surprised if gridiron teams don't do something similar since crowd
noise is genuinely a tactical issue there (it's more disruptive to the
offense) in addition to a psychological one.

[0] [https://www.skysports.com/rugby-
union/news/12333/9699222/six...](https://www.skysports.com/rugby-
union/news/12333/9699222/six-nations-england-using-speakers-to-replicate-
noise-ahead-of-wales-game)

------
russellbeattie
The Italian league games I've seen played in empty stadiums have been great. I
think adding the sense of hearing back into the game due to lack of crowd
noise does a lot for a team's coordination and thus quality of play. Maybe
this is just my opinion based on a few matches, but there is a palpable
difference in play.

Also a lot less flopping on the ground in fake agony. With no crowd to play
to, players fall over and then get back up again. It's very refreshing to
watch.

~~~
smabie
I was under the impression that they fell over in agony for the refs, not the
crowd? But then I don't know much about soccer.

~~~
ehnto
Perhaps it's harder to justify internally if the only people watching know
exactly what you just did? I've always been surprised by the shamelessness of
soccer dives, I definitely don't understand it.

~~~
dynamite-ready
A totally subjective answer here, but I think it's because of the speed the
game is played at.

It's very easy to trip when sprinting at full speed while concentrating on a
single object. The slightest external force will put you on the ground very
quickly.

Rugby, Gridiron and Ice Hockey players will also know that, but frequent falls
under pressure are expected by the rules. In soccer, it's a lot more subtle
(shirt pulling, various rules around obstruction, the height at which you keep
your hands... all sorts). There's plenty of opportunity fool a referee, so you
will instinctively try to do so. Especially if your style of play generally
draws opposing players into fouling you regularly already.

I'd say that the introduction of video referees (VAR) are probably more
effective in stopping that kind of behaviour, than empty stadiums. But you'd
never know.

------
dynamite-ready
I also wonder if player performance has measurably improved (or degraded),
when playing regularly without an audience.

~~~
dairylee
I think this is interesting and something I've thought about since the return
of football.

Jurgen Klopp was always trying to get the crowd engaged and pumped up because
he believes it has a huge effect on how his Liverpool team play. Without the
crowd they seem to be missing that extra 1% of intensity that made them
incredible pre-lockdown.

Whereas Manchester City probably don't feed off the crowd as much as Liverpool
do. Manchester City are all about rehearsed routines so they may even find it
easier without a crowd as they'll be able to communicate much easier.

~~~
sleavey
Hard to say because by the start of lockdown Liverpool had basically wrapped
up the title. Their performance dropped after they were mathematically
champions.

~~~
amateurdev
Yeah I agree with this. They were in top form and the crowd obviously helped.
Anfield is massive for the team with supporters around. But after having such
a long break due to the lockdown can change the dynamics. Its hard to produce
that kind of form after a hiatus. And yes, maybe there even was something
about already having won the league mathematically. It can calm the players
and lower the intensity slightly.

------
niffydroid
I can understand this. Portsmouth at home is pretty loud and vocal. After
watching Pompey fail in the play offs, it might have helped, but then again
that's probably because Kenny Jacket football style is horrible. #JacketOut

------
_the_inflator
Very interesting.

I don't know whether this study measures only the outcome or contributing
factors. For example, in Germany, anti-COVID measurements lead to the
following result: way fewer to now discussions with the umpire. Pack forming
has been forbidden. Empty stadiums are only part of the measures but, in my
opinion, not the contributing factors. These factors contributed massively to
the pace of the game. And if no players are trying to influence the umpire -
well, you get different results.

------
amachefe
Familiarity of the stadium also count, I mean you are going to play in an
arena 19 times vs once, there will be differences.

------
known
disadvantage for extrinsic motivators relative to internal is that work does
not persist long once external rewards are removed
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Extrinsic_motivatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Extrinsic_motivation)

