Footballing pay and performance

By THE DATA TEAM

IN 2013 Sam Allardyce, then the manager of West Ham football club, came up with a no-nonsense explanation for footballing success. “Where you actually finish in the league depends on the money you’ve spent,” he bemoaned. “It’s a statistical fact, that.” But when the facts change, you′re supposed to change your mind—and following the crowning of Leicester City on May 2nd as champions of the English Premier League (EPL), the facts have changed dramatically. During the Foxes’ rapid ascent from the relegation zone to the title, they defied not only the bookmakers (who put the odds of their victory at 5,000 to 1) but also the nearly iron-clad relationship Big Sam bemoaned between pay and performance in the EPL. Since 1995-96, the league’s average champion has spent 2.25 times as much on salaries as the median team. The four clubs with the highest wages bills during that period—Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United and Liverpool—finished in the top four positions 80% of the time. In contrast, The Economist estimates that Leicester City’s payroll was just three-fourths of the league median this year. That made them the second club in EPL history, after Newcastle United in 2001-02, to even break into the top four with a below-median wage bill.