1

Statistics and Economics in Soccer

Nick Xu

Writing 2

Valentina Fahler

Aug 19, 2020

 2

Having connections with various academic disciplines, soccer is one of the most

popular sports in the world. “No Better Moment to Score a Goal Than Just Before Half

Time? A Soccer Myth Statistically Tested” by Stijin Baert and Simon Amez shows the

application of statistics while “Accounting for soccer players: capitalization paradigm vs.

expenditure” by Victor-Bogdan Oprean and Tudor Oprisor indicates the involvement of

economics in the modern soccer world. These two articles from the disciplines of statistics

and economics have distinct characteristics. After conducting a careful analysis of these two

articles, it is evident that the differences are their objective, their way of dealing with

evidence, their organization, and their discourse community.

First, for the disparity in their goals, Baert and Amez’ looked to find a right or wrong

answer in their article while Oprean and Oprisor discussed an open-ended topic. By closely

examining the two articles’ theses, it is clear that they have different objectives. The statistics

article’s thesis is about testing whether scoring a goal before half time will impact the final

match outcome (Baert & Amez, 2018). The thesis’s content is the same as a science

experiment’s hypothesis, which usually proves a topic’s truthfulness. True or False will be

the only outcome of the experiment in the statistics article. This feature demonstrates that the

article is a science research paper and follows that statistics is under the broader academic

category of science. In contrast, Oprean and Oprisor (2014) stated in their article’s thesis that

“we will take into consideration the impact of the financial statements on the licensing

process from the football governing body.” The answer to this thesis is open-ended and

explanatory. This characteristic conforms to the fact that economics belongs to the broader

knowledge of social science. As for their intentions, the authors of the article wanted to assist

the audience in understanding how accounting is applied to modern professional soccer. They

also intended to help the audience to realize difficulties when it comes to doing so. After

finding out the authors’ purposes of writing their article, it is apparent that their goals are
 3

distinct from testing a hypothesis. The two articles’ different objectives require disparate

ways of answers, leading to their differences in analysis approach, paragraph structure, and

discourse community.

Second, the statistics article’s authors gathered data as evidence and employed a

scientific approach to process their data. By contrast, the economics article’s authors used

literature as evidence and explained their evidence by words. In section 2.1 (Data) of the

statistics article, Baert and Amez (2018) stated that “our first source of data was reports of

games in the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Europa League.” The authors’

description demonstrates that match data is their primary evidence. On the other hand,

Oprean and Oprisor incorporated written documents like Flamholtz’s “Human Resource

Accounting” in their article to tell the audience how accounting participates in soccer. For

evidence processing, Baert and Amez entered their data collected from UEFA matches into a

sophisticated linear regression model consisting of six independent variables. The results

generated by the regression model are strong and direct evidence to evaluate the effect of

scoring a goal before half time on a match’s final result. For the economics article, Oprean

and Oprisor described and analyzed other scholars’ papers about soccer human resource

accounting and UEFA regulations by words. By doing so, they aimed to introduce the

complicated application of accounting principles in soccer to the audience. In short, the

authors of the statistics article gathered numerical evidence and conducted their experiment

independently. In contrast, the authors of the economics article partly relied on other writers’

literary works.

Third, Baert and Amez wrote all sections progressively and gave suggestions for future

experiments. By contrast, Oprean and Oprisor put down their second and third sections

parallel and did not suggest further research. According to “Academic Arguments” by

Lunsford and others (2004), “How does the article report its results and findings?” and “does
 4

the article use charts and graphs or other visuals to report data?” are important questions

defining an article’s organization. By examining its organization closely, the statistics article

is divided into four sections: the introduction, method, discussion, and conclusion. Baert and

Amez first introduced the context and thesis. They then explained the data sources, the

regression model used to calculate the data, and the result. In the third section, they discussed

reasons that may lead to the result. Lastly, they made a summary and suggested ways that can

improve future research. Each section has a progressive relationship—the latter section based

on the content of the previous section. Dissimilarly, Oprean and Oprisor split their article’s

structure into introduction, literature review, the reporting framework in the football industry,

and conclusion remarks. The relationship between the second and third sections are parallel

in the economics article. The second section talks about different theories regarding the

player’s valuation method, and the third section discusses the current accounting regulations

in soccer. The content of these two sections is independent rather than progressive. As for the

conclusion, the economics article’s authors finished up by giving a summary but had no

suggestions for further research. The reason behind the difference in two articles’ paragraph

structuring is that the statistics article is a science research paper, while the economics article

is expository. Baert and Amez conducted their experiment step by step. Plus, a research paper

must be rigorous. Therefore, in the statistics article, the previous section closely progressed to

the latter section. Contrastingly, the Oprean and Oprisor focus on introducing and explaining

soccer accounting’s current situation. Having a parallel section can enable the economics

article’s author to share new topics on different aspects with their audience. For future

suggestions, the statistics article authors incorporate them because scholars are always eager

to do more research for more exploration. Moreover, due to the fact that an experiment has

numerous controlling factors, there are always rooms for an experiment to improve.

Furthermore, by pointing out ways to improve their research, Baert and Amez can make their
 5

audience view them as humble and objective people, enhancing their credibility in their

audience’s mind.

Last, there is enough evidence to prove that the statistics and economics articles belong

to different discourse communities from the analysis in the previous paragraphs. Dan Melzer

(2020) defined that discourse community describes “a community of people who share the

same goals, the same methods of communicating, the same genres, and the same lexis.”

According to the previous analysis, the two articles are different in all the Melzer’s criteria.

Therefore, they are not in the same discourse community. For his purpose of writing the

article, “Understanding Discourse Community,” Melzer told his student to think about the

discourse community before writing. Interestingly, by analyzing the two articles I chose, I

learned Melzer’s idea again in the opposite direction. The two article’s difference in

discourse communities shows their authors’ careful consideration of their intended discourse

communities before writing. Thus, the two articles are great examples demonstrating the

importance of identifying the right discourse community before writing.

Though statistics and economics have a close relation, articles under these two

disciplines are inherently different because they belong to the broader academic knowledge

of science and social science. Overall, through analyzing the two representatives from the

two disciplines, it is safe to conclude that articles from statistics and economics are different

in their thesis, evidence’s processing, organization, and discourse community. Baert and

Amez’s work has a definite answer, a reliance on numerical evidence, and a progressive

structure. On the other hand, Oprean and Oprisor’s work has an open-ended thesis discussed

solely by words with outside literatures’ support.

 6

References

Baert, S., & Amez, S. (2018). No better moment to score a goal than just before half time? A

soccer myth statistically tested. PLOS ONE, 13(3), E0194255.

Lunsford, A. A., Ruszkiewicz, J. J., & Walters, K. (2004). Academic Arguments.

Everything's an Argument. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Melzer, D. (2020). 7 Understanding Discourse Communities. writingspaces, 100.

Oprean, V., & Oprisor, T. (2014). Accounting for Soccer Players: Capitalization Paradigm

vs. Expenditure. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 1647-1654.