1. It is Harder, not Easier, to Predict the Winner of the Champions League Jeroen Schokkaert and Johan Swinnen LICOS Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, University of Leuven (KU Leuven)

2. Outline 1. Introduction 2. Main Differences between the Champions League and the European Cup 3. Theoretical Predictions 4. Empirical Evidence 5. Conclusion

3. 1.Introduction Champions League (CL): Most prestigious football club competition Successor European Champion Clubs’ Cup (EC) 1992  1955

4. 1.Introduction Academic studies on change EC-CL: During the last decade […] the concentration of club quality increased quite significantly. In conclusion, […] the premier European club competition has become much more concentrated (in terms of success) as global soccer market has come to life (Milanovic, 2005). When international quality differences increase, fans in countries with low- quality leagues are worse off […] while fans in high-quality leagues are better off […]. International competitions, however, become less exciting (Haan et al., 2002, 2012).

5. 1.Introduction Popular press on change EC-CL: This is a time when English football […] dominates European football. […] But let me ask you this: if you were French, Portugese, Spanish or even Italian, would you watch the Champions League? No. The Champions League has become boring and predictable (Cross, 2009). The Champions League has become predictable at the top end – Porto in 2004 were the last club outwith Europe's real elite to win (Fisher, 2012). The Champions League is now dominated by the richest clubs in Europe. […] This is where the problem lies. […] it’s no wonder that football today seems less vital, less intriguing and less exciting. Sure we keep getting told how great it is by the TV companies but there’s something missing. Something called fun (Gall, 2012).

6. 1.Introduction Ad hoc observations: 1988/89 EC final  1998/99 CL final

8. 1.Introduction In 13/37 seasons the EC winner was the winner of the previous season  0/20 for the CL  Betting on winner previous season: 35% chance in EC  0% in CL  Argument of more predictable CL-outcomes inconsistent with ad hoc observations on history EC and CL

9. 1.Introduction Our findings:  easier to predict who will qualify for lower KO rounds in the CL than in the EC  Consistent with earlier argument of more predictability  harder to predict who will qualify for later stages and who will win the tournament in the CL than in the EC  Not consistent with earlier argument  it is harder, not easier, to predict the winner of the CL

10. 2.Main Differences CL-EC Tournament format EC: pure (unseeded) KO format CL: hybrid format combining (seeded) round robin and (seeded) KO from R16

11. 2.Main Differences CL-EC Admission rules EC: only national league champions qualified directly CL: from 1999 also multiple teams from the highest ranked leagues

12. 2.Main Differences CL-EC

13. 3.Theoretical Predictions Operational research: simulation methods to compare outcome uncertainty under ≠ tournament formats Scarf et al. (2009): simulation CL outcomes for 11 formats EC: “unseeded 2 leg KO” CL: “seeded 1 GR and 2 leg seeded KO” Average ranking of teams in the different KO rounds (in later rounds) higher for (current) CL than for EC  On average the highly ranked teams more likely to qualify for R16 in the CL than in the EC

14. 3.Theoretical Predictions Scarf et al. (2009) ignore the effect of allowing multiple teams from the highest ranked leagues to qualify directly for the CL  These teams more likely to qualify for R16 in the CL than in the EC since they also qualify if they end 2 nd or 3 rd  Less likely for team from a lower ranked league: Only champions qualify Fewer spots remain to directly qualify

15. 3.Theoretical Predictions  A specific highly ranked team from one of the highest ranked leagues more likely to qualify for the round of 16 in the CL than in the EC  Quality differences between the teams smaller at later stages  Also more difficult for a specific highly ranked team from one of the highest ranked leagues to progress at later stages in the tournament

16. 3.Theoretical Predictions In sum, due to change in tournament format and in admission rules: On average easier to predict who will qualify for the lower rounds in the CL than in the EC On average harder to predict who will qualify for later stages in the CL than in the EC

17. 4.Empirical Evidence

18. Indicator commonly used in literature: “uncertainty of outcome” (UO) 3 ≠ levels: match, season, championship Most studies: match or season (static measure) Our study: UO in CL and EC: Dominance of a championship across seasons (dynamic measure)

19. 4.Empirical Evidence

21. Differences in UO between the CL (1992-2011) and the EC (1955-1991) 4.Empirical Evidence

22. Differences in UO between the CL after 1999 (1999-2011) and before 1999 (1992-1998) 4.Empirical Evidence

23. Results driven by the longer sample period of the EC?

24. 4.Empirical Evidence Results also robust to: Comparing UO between the CL before and after 1999 over periods of equal length Switching the data from the 1991/92 season between the EC era and the CL era

25. 5.Conclusion Change in tournament format and admission rules:  More likely for a specific highly ranked team from one of the highest ranked leagues to qualify for R16 in the CL than in the EC  Outcomes of lower rounds more predictable in the CL  Less likely for a specific highly ranked team from one of the highest ranked leagues to qualify for later stages in the CL than in the EC  Outcomes of later rounds less predictable in the CL

26. Thank you for your attention!