FIFA Rankings – How much notice should we take?

FIFA Rankings – How much notice should we take?

Sorry there has been no blog for a while. My only excuse is that it has been a very busy period. In the last few months we have played a number of international matches, had a Centenary Dinner, submitted a funding application to LCSD, reviewed Project Phoenix with the Football Task Force, held a FIFA workshop on facility development, updated the Strategic Plan, started the Premier League not to mention many managerial tasks such as the annual Appraisal process, an internal risk assessment etc. I’m not asking for sympathy, I have an enjoyable and challenging job, it’s just that my blog hasn’t got to the top of my ‘to do’ list, until now that is. I will try and do better from now on.

FIFA Rankings

A recent article in the SCMP had the following headline; “Lift your game to justify $100m-plus funding Hong Kong Soccer told”. It went on to state that “the men’s soccer side must improve their world rankings or else the financial lifeline may close”. Firstly I would like to point out that this statement and the inference are both incorrect.

As mentioned above we have been reviewing Project Phoenix with the Government and looking ahead to the delivery of the new Strategic Plan, Aiming High – Together. This has been a very positive process. The truth is that the Government’s Football Task Force recognizes the good work that is being done by the HKFA, and that further progress can be made with additional investment based on the new Strategic Plan (which incidentally the AFC has described as ‘logical, comprehensive and coherent’). Government funding has been agreed but I cannot reveal the actual amount until it has been officially announced. Suffice to say it is more than we have been receiving under the Project Phoenix banner and for a longer period of time (5 years not 3). This is good news for football and demonstrates a solid relationship between the HKFA and the Government and not a ‘carrot and stick’ approach as implied in the SCMP article. Still I suppose as the saying goes….never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

For the avoidance of doubt, throughout the process of negotiating future funding we have never been told to ‘lift our game’ or that we needed to ‘rise up the rankings’ or that ‘the pipeline could be closed’ based on rankings. So for the record, the funding is NOT linked to the performance of the representative team as set out in the FIFA ranking. I hope that point is now abundantly clear. Future funding will be subject to a formal agreement between the HKFA and the Government and as you would expect there are a number of key performance indicators related to the delivery of the strategy that will be regularly reviewed. We accept and agree that the use of public money must be subject to scrutiny. We also understand that funding might be reduced if we do not deliver. However for very good reasons the FIFA rankings are not Performance Indicators within the agreement, they are referred to as ‘benchmarks’ and targets only. This is because it is made clear in the strategic plan that improvement in the rankings is dependent upon many things that are outside of the control of the HKFA, including the provision of better and additional pitches, the investment made by other countries etc.

It is also because, bizarre as it sounds, the FIFA rankings are not actually a very reliable indicator of performance. This may sound like an excuse, so let me explain how the ranking system works. Bear with me, it’s quite complicated.

A team’s total number of points is calculated over a four-year period and is determined by adding:

• The average number of points gained from matches during the past 12 months; and
• The average number of points gained from matches older than 12 months (depreciates yearly).

Calculation of points for a single match

The number of points that can be won in a match depends on the following factors:

• Was the match won or drawn? (M)
• How important was the match (ranging from a friendly match to a FIFA World Cup™ match)? (I)
• How strong was the opposing team in terms of ranking position and the confederation to which they belong? (T and C)

These factors are brought together in the following formula to ascertain the total number of points (P):

P = M x I x T x C

The following criteria apply to the calculation of points:

M: Points for match result: Teams gain 3 points for a victory, 1 point for a draw and 0 points for a defeat. In a penalty shoot-out, the winning team gains 2 points and the losing team gains 1 point.

I: Importance of match: Friendly match (including small competitions): I = 1.0. FIFA World Cup™ qualifier or confederation-level qualifier: I = 2.5. Confederation-level final competition or FIFA Confederations Cup: I = 3.0. FIFA World Cup™ final competition: I = 4.0

T: Strength of opposing team: The strength of the opponents is based on the formula: 200 – the ranking position of the opponents. As an exception to this formula, the team at the top of the ranking is always assigned the value 200 and the teams ranked 150th and below are assigned a minimum value of 50. The ranking position is taken from the opponents’ ranking in the most recently published FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking.

C: Strength of confederation: When calculating matches between teams from different confederations, the mean value of the confederations to which the two competing teams belong is used. The strength of a confederation is calculated on the basis of the number of victories by that confederation at the last three FIFA World Cup™ competitions.

Their current values are as follows: CONMEBOL 1.00. UEFA 0.99. AFC/CAF/OFC/CONCACAF 0.85

Hong Kong’s current ranking is 163 because we have 109 points based on the above scoring criteria and the results of matches over the last four years. This is set out below:

0.2 time frame

17-Nov-2010	PAR	0	Friendly
09-Feb-2011	MAS	0	Friendly
03-Jun-2011	MAS	49.02	Friendly
23-Jul-2011	KSA	0	FIFA World Cup Qualifier
28-Jul-2011	KSA	0	FIFA World Cup Qualifier
30-Sep-2011	PHI	43	Friendly
02-Oct-2011	MAC	129	Friendly
04-Oct-2011	TPE	129	Friendly

350.02 points from 8 matches, an average of 43.7525, multiplied by 0.2 = 8.7505

0.3 time frame

29-Feb-2012	TPE	129	Friendly
01-Jun-2012	SIN	129	Friendly
10-Jun-2012	VIE	0	Friendly
15-Aug-2012	SIN	0	Friendly
16-Oct-2012	MAS	0	Friendly

258 points, 5 games, 51.6 average, multiplied by 0.3 = 15.48

0.5 time frame

14-Nov-2012	MAS	43	Friendly
01-Dec-2012	GUM	129	Friendly
03-Dec-2012	AUS	0	Friendly
07-Dec-2012	TPE	129	Friendly
09-Dec-2012	PRK	0	Friendly
06-Feb-2013	UZB	310	Continental Qualifier
22-Mar-2013	VIE	457.95	Continental Qualifier
04-Jun-2013	PHI	0	Friendly
10-Sep-2013	SIN	129	Friendly
15-Oct-2013	UAE	0	Continental Qualifier

1197.55 points, 10 games, 119.755 average, multiplied by 0.5 = 59.8775

1.0 time frame

15-Nov-2013	UAE	0	Continental Qualifier
19-Nov-2013	UZB	0	Continental Qualifier
05-Mar-2014	VIE	0	Continental Qualifier
06-Sep-2014	VIE	0	Friendly
09-Sep-2014	SIN	42.5	Friendly
10-Oct-2014	SIN	130.05	Friendly
14-Oct-2014	ARG	0	Friendly

172.55 points, 7 games, 24.65 average, multiplied by 1 = 24.65

 

Adding it up: 8.7505 + 15.48 + 59.8775 + 24.65 = 108.758, rounded up to 109.

Discussion

After the SCMP article was published I received an email from a gentleman called Eduard Ranghiuc (a Romanian computer programmer) who specializes in advising Football Associations on how to develop strategies to increase their FIFA rankings. He provided some of the information above, so thank you Eduard. You can check him out here;  http://www.football-rankings.info/2014/08/signed-on-as-fifa-ranking-consultant.html The mere fact that there is a market for this type of service illustrates that the FIFA rankings are as much about mathematics as they are about how good you are at football. I exchanged a number of emails with Eduard and he seems like a very genuine and interesting guy. I am sure he is good at what he does and I’m sure if we followed his advice our ranking would improve.

For example, he told me that we should not have played friendly matches recently against Singapore and Argentina and that instead we should have played two games against Aruba. They are currently ranked 129 and two wins against them would have increased our 1.0 timeframe average from 24.65 to 57.8. As a result our points would have risen from 109 to 142 and we would have improved 10 places in the rankings. As easy as that! My point is that as a Football Association we have to take into account many factors when deciding how many matches to play and against which teams. I am not convinced that Aruba would have been a good choice for our Centenary match!

According to Eduard the top 10 teams to play against to improve our rankings would have been:

 

Aruba

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Antigua and Barbuda

St. Lucia

Dominican Republic

St. Kitts and Nevis

Sierra Leone

Botswana

Luxembourg

Afghanistan

Equally I’m not convinced (given what is happening in West Africa right now) that our players would have been too keen to play against Sierra Leone.

Of course it is all hypothetical and if we had beaten Argentina our ranking would have gone up to 142!

I can understand why some people will look at the rankings and use them to judge our progress. Hopefully the examples above will demonstrate why they should be viewed with caution. There are some other factors to bear in mind too.

• The rankings take into account matches played four years ago. In that time Project Phoenix has come and gone. I understand why FIFA want to look this far back because it is about consistency but should we be judged partially on what happened before our project started? 
• The number of points you get for playing in a competitive tournament are worth a lot more than points earned in friendlies, that is understandable and yet it is outside our control as to when competitive tournaments come around and who we are drawn against. This means that to some extent the ranking position becomes cyclical and based on the luck of the draw.
• I’ve always found it strange that the points gained take no notice of whether the match is home or away. It’s already a complicated formula so I assume FIFA decided not to bother with that important variable.
• Because the rankings are based on the average number of points, a good strategy to improving your ranking would be to play a relatively few number of matches against teams you know you can beat (and get them to come to your place) and then rest on your laurels. However that strategy means fewer opportunities for players to gain experience, not to mention fewer opportunities for fans the media and sponsors. It also means that you would never pit yourself against stronger opponents.
• We recently played a competitive home match against Uzbekistan. After 80 minutes the score was 0-0. We ended up losing that match and therefore got no points and our average suffered too. Had we held out for another 10 minutes we would have got 310 points and our ranking would have risen by 8 places. You are not telling me that that 10 minutes of football made us a better or worse team and yet that is what the rankings would have said.
• You get more points playing against teams from different Confederations. As a result of the failure of any of the Asian teams to win at the recent World Cup the difference is due to increase for countries in Asia. Furthermore, for financial reasons it is not always easy to play matches against teams from other continents and so again for no fault of our own, it will be more difficult in the future for us to gain ranking points.

It all goes to show that the rankings should not be taken too literally because there are so many factors at play. Eduard sent me a link which illustrates ‘how to play the FIFA rankings game’.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25134584 or to put it another way, the FIFA rankings only ‘broadly’ reflect how good you are. As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

So it is possible to adopt a strategy where the FIFA rankings are a priority but to me that could conflict with football development objectives. At our stage in the development cycle, we want to play matches to enable our players to gain experience of international football. We want the flexibility to ‘blood’ new young players or to try new styles and systems. We want to improve by playing against better teams, like Argentina. If we obsess about the FIFA rankings our strategy would be completely different. I like to think that our strategy is more enlightened than simply chasing ranking points. Over time if we use the new investment wisely to develop better players and give them opportunities to play, the quality of our football will improve. Eventually, this will be reflected in the rankings because we will qualify for tournament finals where the accumulation of points is exponential. The important point is that this won’t happen overnight and if money was taken away from us simply based on rankings it would be counterproductive. Once football in Hong Kong is more mature, we might want to review our strategy regarding the FIFA rankings.

Conclusion

I hope I have demonstrated why the FIFA Rankings should be seen as a target of progress and not a stick with which to beat the HKFA. If we wanted to we could have a strategy that was solely based on attaining a higher ranking. Indeed for some countries this is the priority. They will choose opponents that give them the best chance of gaining ranking points. But would we have been thanked for playing our Centenary match against Aruba? In playing against Argentina, we lost one ranking position rather than potentially gaining 10. Would it be fair to reduce our funding because of this? And would it be reasonable to reduce our funding in March 2015 when the value of the points secured against Vietnam two years previously will diminish? Personally I don’t think so. We all want to see Hong Kong’s position change for the better and I am confident that over time it will, but in the short term we should not get fixated with the FIFA rankings but rather we should see them for what they are, a benchmark of relative quality.

Thankfully (and contrary to the assumption of the SCMP), the Government appreciates that the ranking system is somewhat arbitrary and has not included the FIFA ranking as a performance indicator that could result in financial penalty if not attained. I, like them am content that we will be judged on more measurable, objective and more meaningful targets such as the number of people playing football, the effectiveness of grass roots football programmes, the number of qualified coaches and referees, the number of spectators at Premier League fixtures, the amount of sponsorship generated etc.

Mark Sutcliffe November 2014  

Note: The Chinese version will be released soon

 

 

Hong Kong Premier League – A New Start 香港超級聯賽 — 進入新篇章

Hong Kong Premier League – A New Start

It’s public knowledge now that nine teams have applied for and been granted a Licence for the new Hong Kong Premier League which will kick-off in September. The establishment of the new Hong Kong Premier League was one of the key recommendations of Project Phoenix and its creation marks an important milestone in the rejuvenation of football in Hong Kong. The Premier League is one of the last recommendations to fall into place. When I started the job in September 2012 it was obvious to me that the Premier League could not be implemented in time for the 2013/14 season. The 2014/15 season was a more realistic target but even that has been a challenging timescale. I would like to thank my colleagues at the HKFA who have put a huge amount of work into making the new league a reality.

I would also like to thank the Clubs that have embraced the challenge and completed the Licence application. As you would expect, some of the Clubs have been more enthusiastic than others. The more positive (and I would like to think enlightened clubs) have seen the new league as an opportunity to review their governance, management and operation and to put measures in place to improve things both on and off the pitch. I hope the less enthusiastic clubs will eventually see the benefits of the new league once it is up and running.

In granting Hong Kong Premier League Licences for 2014/15, the HKFA has been quite ‘generous’ in its evaluation. Some of the bids were borderline passes but we have taken the view that for this first year only we can use pragmatic discretion and grant the Licence, conditional upon further information being provided within a reasonable timescale. For example we need more information from a number of the clubs on sources of funding and we need to be satisfied that players do not have ‘two contracts’. A number of the criteria for the inaugural Hong Kong Premier League Licence have been ‘watered down’ from the AFC CL Club Licence to give the Clubs time to reach the desired standard. This means that clubs have been asked to demonstrate that they are ‘working towards’ certain standards rather than them being ‘mandatory’. Over time we intend to harmonise the two Licences and so we can’t afford to be so lenient next year. This means that there is no room for complacency on the part of the clubs. It will be significantly harder to get a Licence next season. We will of course work with the clubs to address their weaknesses and to help those that are ambitious to improve further.

Hong Kong Premier League – What Will Be Different?

The new league is fundamental to our strategy because a vibrant professional tier attracts people to play football at the grassroots and provides players for the representative teams. As a result, the sport benefits from the top to the bottom. A poor standard of professional football drags everything down as has been evident for the last decade or so.

Given our existing starting point and the resources we have at our disposal it is unrealistic to expect things to change massively from one season to the next. When all is said and done, it is largely the same clubs playing at the same facilities. The new Premier League is about ‘evolution’ not ‘revolution’. When the J League was set up in Japan it was ‘revolutionary’ because it had an instant injection of public and private sector funding but here in Hong Kong we simply don’t have the same level of Government and Commercial support. The process of change in Hong Kong will be more incremental and season 1 will be start of a journey, not the final destination. To some extent clubs and other stakeholders including the media and fans will need to be patient and ‘buy-into’ the longer term vision.  

The Licence system itself is an important step forward and although the changes that this will bring about may not be immediately visible, it will have a profound impact in the longer term. In setting up the system the HKFA is following the best practice as determined by the AFC and FIFA and it should allow our best teams to gain automatic entry into Asia’s top club competitions. Equally importantly it will help to ‘clean up’ the sport by requiring clubs to be more transparent about their ownership, governance, management and finances. It should also improve player welfare and therefore encourage more young people to want to play professional football.

I recognize that people will want to see something more tangible and we are doing our best to make some noticeable differences this season including:

·         A new Corporate Identity, image, logo etc

·         More marketing and promotion

·         Enhanced website coverage

·         Improved Fantasy game

·         Integrity initiatives

o   Monitoring of all matches

o   Compulsory education for players and coaches

o   Referees briefing

·         Pitch Improvement Programme in conjunction with LCSD and FIFA

·         Further investment in referee training, assessment and communication

·         Random drug testing programme

·         First steps to establish a player association

·         New format for the reserve league to focus on young players

·         Additional Cup competitions (Community Cup and League Cup)

Furthermore, we have persuaded the AFC to make us part of their ‘Kick Off’ programme which will mean experts from other countries coming to advise clubs on how to market themselves better and to generate more commercial revenue. We hope the clubs embrace this initiative because we need to work together to make sure the new league is better than its predecessor. And of course it is the club’s responsibility to improve the quality of play on the pitch (as well as the conduct) because that is the main change that people want to see. Significantly better standards of football take time to develop and the new league should be instrumental in doing that by producing a pipeline of young players and creating the revenue to bring in better foreign players. Our more ambitious clubs are investing in players and player development which is great to see. They are the ones that will ultimately benefit.

In time we would like to see the Premier League independent from the HKFA and that would bring further change. In reality this is a few seasons away because it is not a sustainable proposition now. Hopefully the new League will be the catalyst for this independence as more revenue is generated by clubs through ticket sales, commercial sponsorship and eventually broadcasting rights.  

The 2014/15 Premier League is a step in the right direction but everyone knows there is still a long way to go. Hopefully when we launch the new league towards the end of August we will have good news about sponsorship. If this is confirmed we will be able to enhance things further by, for example, increasing the prize money. So I am confident that the Premier League will be a success but everyone must remember that Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Mark Sutcliffe July 2014

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

香港超級聯賽 — 進入新篇章

眾所周知，香港超級聯賽(「港超聯」)將於今年九月正式開鑼，而九支球隊經已申請及獲得頒發香港超級聯賽牌照。港超聯的成立是「鳳凰計劃」重要的建議方案之一，其創立的使命是振興香港足球事業的一個重要里程。港超聯是其中一項最後完成的建議方案，當我在二○一二年九月正式履任時，我便意識到港超聯未必能夠及時趕及在二○一三/一四年度球季展開，因此二○一四/一五年度球季會是一個較為可行的目標，惟我們必須與時間競賽。本人非常感謝足總同事為港超聯而付出額外的汗水，將夢想變成現實。

本人同時感謝球會勇於接受挑戰，完成了申請牌照程序。誠然，部分球會對港超聯是滿腔熱誠的，他們(我認為是有遠見的球會)對新聯賽持正面態度，將它視之為一個檢討球會的管治、管理及行政各方面的機會，進一步改善其在賽場內外的表現。本人冀望一些對新聯賽反應較為冷淡的球會，最終能夠在新聯賽步入正軌時見到成效。

在頒發二○一四/一五年度球季香港超級聯賽的牌照上，香港足球總會在評審方面較為「寬鬆」，縱使部分申請僅僅合格，但我們以首年申請作考慮，透過實際問題的判斷來頒發牌照，惟要求申請者在合理的時間表內呈交進一步的補充資料作為條件。舉例說，我們要求多間球會在其財政來源上呈交更多資料、球員沒有同時擁有「兩份合約」等。與亞洲足協的球會牌照準則相比，香港超級聯賽的不同準則經已明顯調低了門檻，讓球會有充裕時間預備達標，這亦讓多家球會證明他們正「努力接近」相應標準而非純粹「強制」完成任務。隨著歲月流逝，我們傾力將兩個牌照準則加以協調，即下個球季未必再有寬大處理的情況出現，部分球會不能安於現狀，因獲頒發牌照的難度將於下個球季大幅增加。誠然，我們將會針對各球會的弱項予以援手，務求幫助他們加強改善的力度。

香港超級聯賽 – 有何分別？

新聯賽是我們計劃中的重要基石，因為一個專業的聯賽能夠吸引更多人加入草根足球行列，為香港代表隊注入新血。因此，運動本身的利益將會從上至下而來。一個低水平的專業足球聯賽將會把一切事情拖垮，過去十年間的實況已是最佳佐證。

以我們目前所獲得的起步時間和資源而言，大家不要過分期望從去季過度至新球季中會帶來翻天覆地的轉變。不管怎樣說，大部分球會正在使用去屆相同的設施，新聯賽講求的是「蛻變」而非「改革」。當日本職業聯賽最近成立時所作出的「重大改革」，全因獲得政府和私營方面即時注資贊助，相反香港並未獲得來自政府和商業贊助的同等待遇。香港足球的蛻變歷程將會隨著時間遞增，而首季只是漫長旅途的開始，而非一個旅程的終結。在某程度上，眾球會、球圈人士、傳媒以至球迷必須耐心等候，並共同支持這個宏遠的願景。

球會牌照制度本身向前邁進了一大步，儘管某些改變並不能即時預見，但長遠而言將會帶來深刻的影響。在擬訂牌照制度時，香港足球總會遵循了國際足協和亞洲足協的最佳方案，容許我們表現出色的球會能夠自動獲得現時亞洲球會競逐最高水平賽事的參賽資格，同樣地，新制度亦有助肅清賽場內外的不法行為，牌照要求各球會必須在其擁有權、管治、行政和財政上提供更高的透明度，亦必須改善球員福利，從而鼓勵更多年青人加入足球事業中。

本人明白大家想見到一些較為具體的變化，我們嘗試在來屆球季中作出以下明顯的轉變，包括：

·         一個全新的聯賽形象、商標

·         更多的市場推廣工作

·         網頁內容更加豐富

·         修改網上聯賽經理人遊戲

·         誠信措施：

o   監察所有賽事

o   球員和教練必須參加教育講座

o   裁判員簡報會

·         與國際足協和康樂及文化事務署聯手推行球場草地改善計劃

·         進一步增加資源在裁判員的培訓、考核及溝通工作

·         隨機執行禁藥測試制度

·         開始籌備球員工會

·         引入預備組賽事的新賽制，專注於年青球員上

·         增加更多賽事類型 (社區盾和聯賽盃，暫名)

此外，我們成功說服亞洲足協，讓我們成為他們旗下「Kick Off」計劃的一部分，讓來自其他國家的專家們透過計劃來港，指導本地球會如何在市場推廣方面做得更好以及增加更多的商業利益。我們期望球會能夠從善如流，因為大家必須同舟共濟，將新聯賽辦得更勝往昔。球會亦有責任去不斷改善比賽水平（包含行為操守），這是公眾所引頸以待的重大轉變。提升更高的足水平必須要用時間來沉澱，新聯賽的啟動將會造就更多年青球員加入，同時球會運用收益來引入更多高質素的外援，我們樂於看見不少具雄心壯志的球會正在斥資在收購球員及培訓工作上，全因他們的投資最終將會獲得豐厚的回報。

經過一段時間後，我們關注香港超級聯賽能否從香港足球總會中自行獨立而能夠帶來更多改變。事實上，這將會在數個球季後才會發生，因為目前不是一個持續性的方案。然而，我們期望新聯賽將會因其獨立運作而在各方面產生催化作用，包括球會透過門票收益而增加收入、商業贊助以至電視轉播權利。

二○一四/一五年度香港超級聯賽現朝著正確的方向前進，但大家都認同前方仍有漫漫長路。本人由衷盼望在八月下旬香港超級聯賽的新聞發布會上，帶來有關聯賽贊助的喜訊。倘若贊助商正式落實，我們希望能夠在各方面進一步增強，例如提高比賽獎金等。本人深信香港超級聯賽將會獲得空前成功，但大家必須謹記一點，羅馬不是一天建成的。

薜基輔

二○一四年七月