Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

MANAGERIAL AND DECISION ECONOMICS

Manage. Decis. Econ. 24: 403^10 (2003)


Published online 15 May 2003 in Wiley InterScience (wvv-w.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/mde.l 105

Productive Efficiency of English Football


TeamsA Data Envelopment
Analysis Approach
Dieter J. Haas*
Institute of Public Finance, University of Innsbruck. Austria

This paper investigates how close to their potential English Premier League Clubs play. Using
a deterministie Data Envelopment Analysis Approach, the productive efficiency of 20 teams in
the 2000/2001 season is measured and weaknesses of individual teams are disclosed. The
sensitivity of results is analyzed with regard to different model specifications and variable
combinations. Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION From an economic perspective the transforma-


tion of inputs into outputs is a production process
During the last decade professional football described by either a production function or a
entertainment has become a major business in production frontier. When making use of the latter
Europe andalthough to a lesser extent deviations of a constructed frontier can be
throughout the world. The financially strongest regarded as inefficiencies in production. In the
football clubs can be found in the European top case of football, discussions about the possible
leagues in Spain, Italy, Germany and especially in performance of a team with a given playing and
the English Premier League. Manchester United management talent, as well as comparisons be-
e.g., the most valuable team in Europe, showed tween the actual performance and the possible one
revenue figures of almost 200 million in the year are common. These discussions ultimately run
2000 (Deloitte and Touche, 2001). along one of the most fundamental economic
Year after year clubs invest in their squads in concepts, namely productive efficiency. Further-
order to improve the performance of the team in more, if teams do not meet the expectations of
the field, which in turn stimulates the interest of supporters and sponsors the question is, who
supporters and sponsors in the respective club. can be blamed for that. Is it the players in the
Nevertheless, some of the attempts aiming at field who do not perform up to their potential? Is it
increasing a team's success fail and the heavy the manager who did not combine the factors of
investments do not pay off. In such a case the production in an optimal way? Or is it a
supporters will be highly unsatisfied and compar- combination of both?
isons between a (theoretical) potential of a team In this paper the productive efficiency of teams
and its actual achievements will be the conse- in the English Premier Leagueone of the most
quence. important professional football leagues in the
worldis investigated. In the literature, at least
three different approaches to efficiency measure-
'Correspondence to: Institute of Public Finance (Finanzwis- ment in sports can be found. These approaches
senschaft), University of Innsbruck, Universitaetsstrasse 15/4,
A 6020 Innsbruck, Austria/Europe. E-mail: Dieter.Haas@ include efficiency measurement on the level of
uibk.ac.at single games (e.g., Carmichael et al, 2000),

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


404 D.J. HAAS

measurement of managerial or coaching efficiency The remainder of the paper is organized as


(Dawson et al, 2000; Fizel and D'itri, 1996; follows. Section 2 briefiy introduces the method of
Hadley et al, 2000; Koning, 2000) and the analysis DEA. In Section 3 the data base is described.
of a team's efficiency over an entire season Section 4 presents efficiency results along with
(Carmichael and Thomas, 1995; Hofler and Payne, optimization proposals using DEA and finally
1997). The approach chosen in this paper corre- Section 5 concludes.
sponds to the latter as it appears to be the most
interesting from an economic point of view
and allows to analyze the squads as well as the
coaches.
DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
Most of the above-mentioned studies analyze
The application of a specific DEA-model provides
efficiency on the basis of production functions
a single measure of technical efficiency when
which need to be specified in advance and
dealing with multiple inputs and multiple out-
problems of misspecification may occur (e.g.,
puts, and obviates the need to assign pre-specified
Carmichael and Thomas, 1995). In order to avoid
weights to either. The efficiency of a decision
the problem of misspecification, incorrect assump-
making unit (DMU; in this paper a football
tions on distribution and wrong weighting schemes
team) is measured relative to all other DM Us
of inputs and outputs, this study uses data
under the restriction that all DMUs lie on or
envelopment analysis (DEA) to measure the
below the efficient frontier, hence measures of
productive efficiency of football teams. The use
relative efficiency are obtained.' The indicated
of DEA has proved especially valuable when
optimization, then, accords the evaluated DMU
production involves multiple inputs and/or multi-
the most favorable weighting that the constraints
ple outputs, in cases where non-marketed inputs or
allow. Note that the DEA-approach has proved
outputs are being considered and, therefore, the
especially valuable in cases where non-marketed
correct weighting of inputs and output cannot be
inputs or outputs are taken into account and/or
defined. DEA, originally developed by Charnes
where correct weighting of inputs and outputs is
et al (1978), estimates a production efficiency
unknown or cannot be derived as is supposed for
frontier for teams and calculates the deviations
some of the variables used here.
from that frontier for inefficient teams. The above
mentioned appealing properties of DEA have Basically, an input-oriented DEA modeP which
made it a widely used efficiency measurement tool can process non-discretionary variables is employed
in a variety of different fields, like, e.g., public in order to get the efficiency score assuming
education, health care institutions (e.g. Hollings- constant returns to scale which represents the global
worth et al, 1999) or in the private transportation technical efficiency (TE) of a DMU. Additionally,
sector (e.g. Fethi, 2000). The applications of DEA an input-oriented variable returns to scale model
in the field of sports economics have been rare up is used to get the corresponding efficiency score,
to now (e.g. Haas et al, 2001) and most of them representing local pure technical efficiency
concentrate on efficiency measurement on the level (PTE). Decomposing global technical efficiency
of individuals (Anderson and Sharp, 1997; into local pure technical efficiency and scale
Sueyoshi et al, 1999). efficiency provides valuable information on the
sources of inefficiencyeither an inefficient trans-
It appears to be straightforward to employ DEA formation process of inputs into outputs or an
for revealing weaknesses and indicating areas for inefficiently small scale of operation, or bothfor
potential improvement within football clubs. DEA those teams being inefficient.
therefore is used in this paper to answer the
following important questions: Which Premier
League teams are on the efficiency frontier and
which teams could have performed better in the DATA
period of observation? What are the particular
weaknesses of the inefficient teams and to which The data^ have been provided by the 'Deloitte &
extent should improvements be made? How robust Touche Football team', which publishes reviews
are the results with regard to different input/ on the financial situation of English football
output combinations used in the calculation? teams twice a year and the population data which

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Manage. Decis. Econ. 24: 403-410 (2003)
PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL TEAMS 405

correspond to the year 1998 are taken from total revenues. The first output variable aims at
www.statistics.gov.uk. As team inputs the clubs capturing a team's athletic output in the national
total wages and salaries reduced by the amount league over the entire season. The number of
paid to the head coach and the salary of the head points lead to a ranking which determines the
coach are considered. In doing so, the approach national champion, those teams which qualify for
pioneered by Szymanski and Smith (1997) and an international tournament in the following
Szymanski and Kuypers (1999) to proxy the talent season (usually teams ranked first to fifth), and
available to a team by data on financial expendi- those two or three teams which are relegated to
tures is taken. The salary of the head-coach is a Division One, the second highest league in
separate input variable"* as evidence indicates that England, in the next year.^ From the importance
coaches significantly influence the performance of of points in the national league it is evident that
teams in the field (e.g. Clement and McCormick, this is the core output of any (European) football
1989 and Ruggiero et al., 1996). Although, the team and that this output variable is positively
proxy for the playing talent available to a team is correlated to fan interest and a clubs revenue
not perfect in the sense that also non-playing potential. Nevertheless, taking points awarded in
employees are included in the total wages and the national Premier League as the only output
salaries, it appears to be the best proxy available variable would be misleading, because European
as alternative proxies are highly subjective, like football competitions on team level are organized
pre-season estimates of playing success as fre- hierarchically with national and international
quently published in newspapers, do not include matches played simultaneously.
all players in the squad and/or depend heavily on Some teams, especially the big ones, not only
the average length of the contract, as e.g. aim at success on the national level but also in
'amortisation of players registrations' where international competitions and are therefore will-
young home-grown players are not accounted ing to employ more and better players. These
for. Furthermore, the data on wages appear to teams would come out very inefficient when only
be the most realistic as club managers have pre- variables representing national outputs are taken
season estimates of success in mind and will into account.^ Therefore a variable capturing a
accordingly plan the team roster.^ team's output, irrespective of whether the team is
Some additional input variables may be applic- engaged nationally or additionally plays on the
able, e.g. ex ante players' ability or the manage- international level had to be found and total
ment capabilities. These possible inputs were revenues appear to suit best.^
rejected partly because of their short-term nature, Total revenue figures serve as an indicator
their subjectivity or their uneven distribution for a team's commercial output and include
among the teams investigated. Note that not only revenues from ticket sales, merchandising, TV
the value, but also the size of the player squad, rights sales, advertising and sponsoring.' Further-
which is an important factor in determining the more, total revenues include also revenues from
performance in sport leagues, is implicitly reflected national cup tournaments and so a team which
in the variable 'total wages and salaries'. Finally, plays only in the national league, but is rather
when measuring technical efficiency of football successful in one ofthe national cups can also raise
teams it has to be accounted for the fact that those its total revenues significantly. Therefore, total
teams come from different parts of the country revenue figures promise to be a very encompassing
with accordingly varying population densities and variable in order to measure outputs of football
ultimately differing demand for football entertain- teams.'"
ment, which in turn influences the revenue Table 1 reports the input and output data taken
potential of the teams. Therefore, the population from the 2000/2001 season and ranks the teams
of the clubs' home town is introduced as a non- according to their final rank at the end of that
discretionary input variablea variable represent- season. As the drawing potential of the Premier
ing an input which is beyond the control of the League teams varies considerably, the absolute
club management, but still has some influence on number of spectators during the entire season is
the production process. indicated as an additional information. The
The outputs include points awarded during the column 'International' in Table 1 states whether
2000/2001 Premier League season and the season a team had participated in an international

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Manage. Decis. Econ. 24: 403^10 (2003)
406 D.J. HAAS

Table 1. Raw Data for the Premier League Season 2000/2001


Final Club Total wages Coach Home town Points Spectators Revenue in Inter-
rank and salaries salary Population'' in 1000 Mio. e national"
(excl. coach) in 1000 e in 1000 e
in Mio.
1 Manchester United 44.6 232 427 80 1282 194.6 CL
2 FC Arsenal 33.7 266 7122 70 721 101.8 CL
3 FC Liverpool 39.9 140 463 69 830 77.5 UC
4 Leeds United 27.5 276 727 68 740 94.9 CL
5 Ipswich Town 9.9 69 117 66 428 45.4
6 FC Chelsea 46.6 346 7122 61 659 127.5 UC
7 Sunderland 22.1 70 293 57 889 62.0
8 Aston Villa 21.4 138 1014 54 600 59.6
9 Charlton Athletic 10.9 104 7122 52 380 19.5
10 FC Southampton 13.7 140 215 52 287 28.7
11 Newcastle United 28.6 266 279 51 975 74.9
12 Tottenham Hotspur 25.9 208 7122 49 669 19.1
13 Leicester City 20.3 150 294 48 389 43.3 UC
14 FC Middlesbrough 24.7 138 144 42 584 46.0
15 West Ham United 25.0 125 7122 42 669 59.3
16 FC Everton 22.2 91 464 42 649 46.7
17 Derby County 17.3 191 236 42 542 36.1
18 Manchester City 14.7 166 428 34 647 52.9
19 Coventry City 15.7 111 304 34 391 33.5
20 Bradford City 21.9 96 483 26 352 12.7

"CL (Champions-League), UC (UEFA-Cup).


''Refers to the year 1998.
Source: Annual Review of Football Finance 2001, www.footballtransfers.net and www.statistics.gov.uk.

competition in 2000/2001, for which the teams performance in international competitions and the
have qualified in the previous season. worldwide reputation of the club. Teams like
Arsenal, Liverpool or Leeds Unitedwhich ended
up between second and fourth, thus qualifying for
international competition in 2001/2002are quite
RESULTS far away from the efficiency frontier, indicating
that they had invested too much resources (inputs)
For calculating efficiency scores the software compared to the output finally achieved in the
DEA-solver, professional version 1.0 is used. particular year under investigation.
Table 2 reports the results for both variable Teams' efficiency scores rise slightly when
returns to scale (VRS) and constant returns to allowing for variable returns to scale (VRS)'^ but
scale (CRS). The efficiency scores between teams only the same four teams lie on the VRS frontier.
engaged additionally in international competition As already explained in Section 2, inefficiency can
and those which compete only on the national be decomposed into technical inefficiency and
level are not significantly different" and so scale inefficiency by relating CRS-efficiency scores
considering total revenueswhich includes also to VRS-efficiency scores (see column 'scale efficiency'
revenues from international competitionas in Table 2). Those teams being globally technical
output variable does not systematically bias efficient (CRS) are, of course, also locally technical
efficiency results in favor of teams competing efficient and consequently scale efficient. One
internationally. teamAston Villais perfectly scale efficient,
Global technical efficiency (CRS) is achieved by although the production process as such shows
four teams: Charlton Athletic, Ipswich Town, quite clear inefficiencies and some more team-
Manchester United and Sunderland. The variable se.g. Manchester City or Tottenham Hot-
driving the efficiency of the 2000/01 champion spurare inefficient under both CRS and VRS,
Manchester United is the highest total revenues of but are very close to the scale efficiency frontier
all teams which can partly be attributed to the with efficiency scores ranging from 0.96 to 0.99.

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Manage. Decis. Econ. 24: 403-410 (2003)
PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL TEAMS 407

Table 2. DEA Results for Three Inputs and Two Outputs


Final Club CRS-efficiency VRS-efficiency Scale-efficiency reference-set V R S "
rank
1 Manchester United 1 1 1 A, = 1.00
2 FC Arsenal 0.68 0.70 0.97 A, = 0 . 3 9 , As = 0.51, A9 = 0.10
3 FC Liverpool 0.64 0.75 0.85 Ai=0.21, As = 0.78, A9 = 0.01
4 Leeds United 0.75 0.78 0.96 A, = 0 . 3 3 , As = 0.66, A9 = 0.01
5 Ipswich Town 1 1 1 As = 1 . 0 0
6 FC Chelsea 0.61 0.64 0.95 A, = 0.57, As = 0.34, A9 = 0.09
7 Sunderland 1 1 1 AT = 1 . 0 0
8 Aston Villa 0.62 0.62 1 A, = 0.09, As = 0.89, A9 = 0.01
9 Charlton Athletic 1 1 1 A9 = 1.00
10 FC Southampton 0.57 0.72 0.79 As = 0.99, A9 = 0.01
II Newcastle United 0.57 0.59 0.97 A, = 0.20, As = 0.80, A9 = 0.01
12 Tottenham Hotspur 0.70 0.71 0.98 A, = 0 . 2 5 , As = 0.65, A9 = 0.10
13 Leicester City 0.47 0.49 0.96 As = 0.99, A9 = 0.02
14 FC Middlesbrough 0.44 0.5 0.88 As = 0.95, A7 = 0.05, A9 = 0.01
15 West Ham United 0.59 0.63 0.94 A, = 0 . 0 5 , As = 0.62, A7 = 0.32, A9 = 0.01
16 FC Everton 0.68 0.79 0.86 As = 0.67, A7 = 0.23, A9 = 0.10
17 Derby County 0.45 0.57 0.79 As = 0.99, A9 = 0.01
18 Manchester City 0.78 0.79 0.99 A, = 0 . 0 5 , As = 0.95, A9 = 0.01
19 Coventry City 0.47 0.63 0.75 As = 0.99, A9 = 0.02
20 Bradford City 0.29 0.72 0.40 As = 0.99, A9 = 0.01

" Figures may not add up to 1.00 due to rounding. CRS; constant returns to scale; VRS: variable returns to scale.
Source: Own calculation.

Thus, the scale of their production is (almost) comes from employing an input-oriented DEA
optimal and their relatively high global inefficiency model and in case the input reductions do not lead
is purely caused by inefficient operation. For all the inefficient teams completely to the frontier,
other teams inefficiency is caused both by ineffi- output increases are proposed. The optimization
cient operation and by operating on a sub-optimal results suggest that none of the teams will reach
scale. However, scale efficiencies are, on average, the efficient frontier by input reduction only. For
very close to one, indicating that most ofthe teams most inefficient teams, in addition to input
operate on, or close to, the optimal scale. reductions, improvements in the points awarded
The optimal values of Xj in the outer right are suggested and some even should have higher
column of Table 2 provide the linear combination revenue figures in order to become efficient. An
of teams on the efficiency frontier (assuming VRS) extreme case is the team of Bradford City, which
closest to a particular team. The linear combina- shows the lowest revenue of all teams. There, only
tion is also referred to as the 'peer group' or a substantial increase in revenues and points,
'reference set' for this team. The A-subscript j together with sharp salary cuts would lead the
denotes the final Premier League rank of team / team to the efficient frontier. The optimization
The highest of the /i-values indicates to which of results for that team also make clear that higher
the efficient teams an inefficient team is closest in revenues should be possible given the relatively
its combination of inputs and outputs. large home town population. Generally, no clear
In order to provide the inefficient clubs with optimization pattern can be detected on the input
information about how to improve their perfor- side, where particular weaknesses of the teams
mance and how to reach the efficiency frontier, the either of the players or the coach are revealed
optimization results of the input-oriented DEA and improvements are suggested accordingly. On
model assuming constant returns to scale are the output side, a clear tendency towards higher
indicated in Table 3. The figures represent the proposed increases concerning the points awarded
percentage of input-reduction ( - ) or percentage of can be seen at the lower end of the league table.
output-increase ( + ) necessary for the inefficient Finally, the issue of sensitivity of efficiency
teams to reach the efficiency frontier. scores with respect to the chosen output variables
The fact that observed inefficiencies are sug- should be addressed. As argued in Section 3, the
gested to be removed mainly by input reductions choice of three inputs and two outputs aimed at

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Manage. Decis. Econ. 24: 403^10 (2003)
408 D.J. HAAS

Table 3. DEA Optimization Results


Final rank Club Total wages Coach salary Points Revenue
and salaries
2 FC Arsenal -29.60 -48.44 + 0.25
3 FC Liverpool -56.20 -24.82 + 0.51
4 Leeds United -21.94 -55.13 + 3.76
6 FC Chelsea -36.39 -52.22 + 19.00
8 Aston Villa -37.84 -38.29 + 24.42
10 FC Southampton -27.53 -50.44 + 26.89 + 58.14
11 Newcastle United -41.23 -61.79 + 34.81
12 Tottenham Hotspur -28.39 -45.64 + 38.97
13 Leicester City -51.01 -53.72 + 37.43 + 4.81
14 FC Middlesbrough -57.68 -49.74 + 56.06
15 West Ham United -36.74 -36.74 + 52.22
16 FC Everton -42.12 -20.47 + 48.86
17 Derby County -42.78 -63.82 + 57.13 + 25.7
18 Manchester City -20.93 -53.41 + 96.09
19 Coventry City -36.75 -37.40 + 93.94 + 35.39
20 Bradford City -54.64 -28.09 + 153.57 + 257.32
Source: Own calculation.

Table 4. Comparison of DEA Results When Using Different Outputs


Final Club Outputs
rank
Points and revenue Points
CRS(2) VRS(2) CRS(I) VRS(l)
1 Manchester United 1 1 0.36 1
2 FC Arsenal 0.68 0.70 0.32 0.69
3 FC Liverpool 0.64 0,75 0.52 0.75
4 Leeds United 0.75 0.78 0.37 0.55
5 Ipswich Town 1 1 1 1
6 FC Chelsea 0.61 0.64 0.20 0.21
7 Sunderland 1 1 0.86 0.99
8 Aston Villa 0.62 0.62 0.41 0.50
9 Charlton Athletic 1 1 1 1
10 FC Southampton 0.57 0.72 0.57 0.72
11 Newcastle United 0.57 0.59 0.27 0.34
12 Tottenham Hotspur 0.70 0.71 0.29 0.39
13 Leicester City 0.47 0.49 0.36 0.49
14 FC Middlesbrough 0.44 0.5 0.32 0.5
15 West Ham United 0.59 0.63 0.35 0.55
16 FC Everton 0.68 0.79 0.53 0.79
17 Derby County 0.45 0.57 0.36 0.57
18 Manchester City 0.78 0.79 0.35 0.67
19 Coventry City 0.47 0.63 0.33 0.63
20 Bradford City 0.29 0.72 0.28 0.72
CRS: constant returns to scale; VRS: variable returns to scale.
Source: Own calculation.

capturing team efficiency in a broader way. Table 4, would systematically bias the efficiency
Therefore, athletic and commercial output vari- scores in favor of those teams which play
ables have been included in the calculation; exclusively on the national level.
furthermore, the commercial output variable has The data in Table 4 indicates rather stable
the appealing property that it includes success in efficiency measurement results in the top English
international competitions which would otherwise, football league which depend only to a minor
by focusing on points awarded in the national degree on the assumed type of technology (CRS or
league, be neglected. This in turn, as can be seen in VRS). Concerning the efficiency scores when the

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Manage. Decis. Econ. lA: 403-410 (2003)
PRODUCTIVE EFFtCIENCY OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL TEAMS 409

output variable revenue is dropped in the calcula- Coventry City and Bradford City; thus, for those
tion two remarks have to be made: first, efficiency teams being relegated at the end of the season.
scores tend to decrease as the space for possible Contrary to that, a team like Liverpool would
optimization is narrowed; second, the efficiency have to reduce primarily the value of the squad
scores of prominent and internationally reputed when trying to get efficient, given the attained
teams like Manchester United, FC Arsenal, FC output level of the 2000/2001 season. The com-
Chelsea or Leeds United drop dramatically, mercial output levels of most teams are satisfactory
especially with CRS. Therefore, when technical and remarkable adjustments are proposed for a
efficiency is measured in the field of sports the used handful of teams only. Those teams are mainly at
variables have to be selected carefully and as long the end of the final league table, with the
as this is done, DEA appears to be a suitable tool exemption of Southampton for which an almost
for measuring efficiency and detecting weaknesses 60 percent increase of revenuesamongst other
in the context of football teams. adjustmentsis proposed.
Finally, when global technical efficiency scores
are analyzed in more detail and the sources of
inefficiency are revealed the results indicate that
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION most teams operate at, or close to, the optimal
scale. It follows that inefficient operation is the
From the football supporter's point of view it can main source of overall inefficiencies. Efficiency
be said, that at the end of a season 'The champion scores and correspondingly the ranks based on
was the best'. When trying to measure productive efficiency scores only change significandy when
efficiency of professional football teams in a essential parts of the outputs are dropped and so
broader context by using DEA this simple state- the hierarchical structure of European competi-
ment has to be revised as there is enough space for tions is not accounted for. This leads to the
improvementeven for very successful teams conclusion that data envelopment analysis appears
and the Premier League ranking at the end of the to be a suitable tool for measuring efficiency of
season is not significantly related to the ranking football teams although the applicable variables
based on efficiency scores. must be treated with some caution.
Based on the 2000/2001 season in the English
Premier League the technical and scale efficiency
of football teams has been studied. Using proxies
for the playing talent and the coaching capabi- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
lities available to a team as inputs and points won
and total revenues as outputs, while taking The author would like to thank Martin Kocher
the population size of the home town as a non- and Matthias Sutterwithout implicating them
discretionary input, it can be shown that about a for their support and two anonymous referees
quarter to one third of the teams are on the for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of
efficiency frontier. this paper.
Ipswich Town and Charlton Athletic are the
only teams coming out efficient in all models and
specifications. The results of those teams are NOTES
mainly driven by relatively moderate expenditures 1. DEA-efficient DMUs are not necessarily efficient in
on both, players and the coach. In contrast, the an absolute sense, but for a DEA-efficient DMU it
is impossible to detect a better performing DMU
performance of Arsenal as well as Chelsea and
within the same sample.
especially Newcastle United is surprisingly bad, 2. While output-oriented models lead to exactly the
given the success in the field of the 2nd ranked same efficiency scores like input-oriented models
Arsenal. Their results are mainly driven by squads, when assuming constant returns to scale and slacks
whichin the sense of the underlying assump- are zero, differences may occur concerning the
optimization and when variable returns to scale
tionsare of highest quality but do not lead to the are assumed (see Seiford and Thrall, 1990). In this
corresponding success. paper an input-oriented model is applied as inputs
Shortfalls concerning the athletic output have appear easier to be varied in the context of football
been detected first of all for Manchester City, teams.

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Manage. Decis. Econ. 24: 403^10 (2003)
410 D.J. HAAS

3. The data has been taken from the 2000/01 season Carmichael F, Thomas D. 1995. Production and
only as DEA requires positive data on each DMU in efficiency in team sports: an investigation of rugby
any period observed and this would not be the case league football. Applied Economics Tl\ 859-869.
for English Premier League teams when looking at Carmichael F, Thomas D, Ward R. 2000. Team
more than one season due to promotion and performance 2: production and efficiency in English
relegation. premiership football. Aberystwyth Research Paper
4. Only the wage of the coach who was initially hired no. 3, 2000.
for the season 2000/2001 is considered. In case a Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. 1978. Measuring
coach was fired during the season, the wage of the the efficiency of decision making units. European
successor is disregarded. Note that Koning (2000), Journal of Operational Research 2: 429-444.
for instance, does not find any econometric support Clement R, McCormick R. 1989. Coaching team
for the claim that firing a coach improves team production. Economic Inquiry 27: 287-304.
performance (in the Dutch football league). Hence, Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K. 2000. Data
the restriction on the initial coach's wage is seen as Envelopment Analysis. Kluwer: Boston.
unproblematic. Dawson P, Dobson S, Gerrard B. 2000. Estimating
5. Dawson et al. (2000) criticized the approach to coach efficiency in professional team sports: evidence
proxy playing talent by players' wages as this from English Association Football. Scottish Journal of
represents end-of-season data and, therefore, in- Political Economy 47: 399-421.
clude bonuses depending on a team's success during Deloitte & Touche 2001. Annual Review of Eootball
the season. This criticism does not hold for this Finance. Deloitte & Touche: Manchester.
study as the financial data is taken from the year Fethi MD. 2000. Efficiency and productivity growth in
2000 and bonus payments at the end ofthe 2000/01- the European airlines industry: applications of Data
season are not included. Envelopment Analysis, Malmquist Productivity Index
6. The reason behind taking only points of national and Tobit Analysis. University of Leicester, unpub-
matches into account is that in the national lished Ph.D. thesis.
competition each team has to play the same rivals Fizel JL, D'ltri M. 1996. Estimating managerial
twice. Rivals in international games, on the con- efficiency: the case of college basketball coaches.
trary, are drawn and chance plays a major role. Journal of Sport Management 10: 435445.
7. As will be seen below, if DEA is applied to the data, Haas D, Kocher MG, Sutter M. 2001. Measuring
excluding total revenues those teams engaged in efficiency of German Football Teams by Data
international competition come out very inefficient. Envelopment Analysis. Institute of Public Economics
8. The significantly higher financial expenditures of Discussion Papers, University of Sunsbritck 4.
internationally successful teams (one-sided Mann- Hadley L, Poitras M, Ruggiero J, Knowles S. 2000.
Whitney {/-test, N=2Q\ /> = 0.05 for players and Perfonnance evaluation of National Football League
p = 0.006 for coaches) is not surprising and the teams. Managerial and Decision Economics 21: 63-70.
direction of causality promises to be an interesting Hofier RA, Payne JE. 1997. Measuring efficiency in the
field for further research, but appears to be out of National Basketball Association. Economics Letters
the scope of this paper. 55: 293-299.
9. The figures of the variables Total wages & salaries Hollingsworth B, Dawson PJ, Maniadakis N. 1999.
(excl. coach)' and 'Revenue' correspond to the Efficiency measurement of health care: a review of
financial statements of the year 2000. non-parametric methods and applications. Health
10. The entertainment 'produced' by a team could be Care Management Science 2: S. 161-172.
measured by attendance figures, but as the demand Koning R. 2000. An econometric evaluation ofthe firing
for a team is implicitly refiected in the revenue of a coach on team performance. Research Report
figures, a separate variable aiming at capturing the 00F40, Research Institute SOM, University of
social output generated by a team is not employed. Georingen.
11. A one-sided Mann-Whitney [/-test reveals signifi- Ruggiero J, Hadley L, Gustafson E. 1996. Technical
cance levels of (/7 = 0.59) when constant returns to efficiency in major league baseball. In: Baseball
scale are assumed and of (p = 0.96) when a variable Economics: Current Research, Fizel J, Gustafson E,
returns to scale model is employed. Hadley L (eds). Praeger: Westport: 191-200.
12. As noted in Section 2 the VRS is the more general Seiford LM, Thrall RM. 1990. Recent developments in
model. Both models, VRS and CRS, are indicated DEA. The Mathematical Programming Approach to
because there is no theoretic rationale for one of the Frontier Analysis. European Journal of Econometrics
models and it is necessary to have both efficiency 46: 7-38.
scores to assess scale efficiency. Sueyoshi T, Ohnishi K, Konase Y. 1999. A benchmark
approach for baseball evaluation. European Journal of
Operational Research 115: 429-448.
REFERENCES Szymanski S, Kuypers T. 1999. Winners & losers: the
business strategy of football. Penguin: London.
Anderson T, Sharp G. 1997. A new measure of baseball Szymanski S, Smith R. 1997. The English football
batters using DEA. Annals of Operations Research industry: profit, performance and industrial structure.
73: 141-155. International Review of Applied Economics 11: 379-392.

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Manage. Decis. Econ. 24: 403^10 (2003)

Оценить