The Economist explains Brazil’s home advantage in the World Cup

Whatsapp News

IN 2010 700m people huddled together in front of their television sets watch the final between the Netherlands and Spain. Even more are expected tune in this year’s contest, which kicks off on June 12th with a match between Brazil and Croatia in São Paulo. Brazil are the runaway favourites the tournament, with bookmakers offering odds of less than three to one on the home team lifting the trophy. The Economist’s own faintly dubious analysis Brazil by far the best chance of winning. Many pundits agree that the country will benefit from a strong home advantage, as local crowds roar on the Seleção. How much does playing on home turf really affect a team’s performance? Armchair analysts and sports scientists have come up with all sorts of theories explain why playing at home helps. In 2007 a study investigated the influence of crowd noise on referees in the English Premier League. It showed that some were more likely to flash yellow cards and award penalties against touring players than the hosts, because they relied on the split- rise in the home crowd’s roar as a cue to determine if a tackle deserved punishment. In the most recent season of the Spanish Liga, two-thirds of all penalty kicks were awarded to the home team. Biased referees are not the only worry for visiting teams. Hectic travel schedules can tire them out and unfamiliar conditions can spook them. Foreign teams sometimes struggle against Bolivia at its Hernando Siles stadium, which lies at a headache-inducing altitude of 3,636 metres (11,932 feet). A bit of gamesmanship also comes in handy. One successful London club reputedly offers a cramped away-team dressing room with low kit-lockers and high shirt-hangers.

By 2030, three middle-class consumers will be added to the global economy, driving an unprecedented level of demand, but also placing a potentially deva…
Do these factors really a difference? The numbers suggest that they do. In the latest English season, the top 20 clubs enjoyed a home rate of 50%, while their victory rate on the road was 32%. In 12 of the past 19 World Cups the host nation has made it to the semi-finals and six times it has gone on to . The effect can be seen in sports too. Before the start of the London Olympics in 2012, UK Sport, a government agency, pored over the results of more than 100 big tournaments across 14 Olympic sports and predicted that the London home advantage would Britain’s medal haul by as much as 25%. As it turned out, Britain bettered its 2008 performance by winning 18 more medals (10 of them gold), an improvement of 38%. At the Beijing games, China won 59% more medals than it had done at the 2004 Athens games. Russia topped the medal table in Sochi; in the previous winter Olympics it had come sixth.
Given these numbers, it is not surprising that teams have poured money into maximising their home advantage. The Beaver stadium at Pennsylvania State , for example, was acoustically tweaked to amplify noise levels during the college American- matches that take place there. (A study from 2009 found that American- crowds maintain a quiet hum of 75-80 decibels during “home plays”, but blare at 110-115 decibels when a visiting team has the ball, impairing the quarterback’s range of communication.) Brazil has spent a fortune on a lavish, if somewhat leisurely, programme of stadium and renovation. In all its home advantage is worth the equivalent of a 0.6-goal headstart in every match, according to Goldman Sachs, an investment bank. Like most others, Goldman predicts that Brazil will triumph this year. countries’ fans will have to hope for a miracle—and perhaps bid to stage the Cup on their own home turf next time.