Federalism in football

It's common in politics for constitutions to entrench certain 'rules of the game'. Making amendment more difficult, for instance by requiring a supermajority rather than a mere majority, is supposed to make things more stable and predictable. This isn't confined to political constitutions though. Similar things are true in football governance as well.

In the English Premier League, rule changes require a supermajority of 14 out of 20 clubs. (I'm not clear, from the article, how abstentions are handled. Would a 13-to-4 vote be enough?) Recent changes on Associated Party Transactions, for example, were approved by a vote of 16-to-4.

The Scottish Premier League is - or at least was (the source cited here is from 2012) - even more biased against change. Certain major changes require(d) support from 11 of the 12 clubs. That article reports on a proposal to change this to 75% (9 of 12), which failed.

I just saw an article on the BBC about German lower leagues. There were plans to replace the five current regional divisions with four. There was a recent vote on this, but change required not only an overall majority but also a majority in each of the five regions.

While the overall majority was reached (50.9%) only three of the regions (West, North, and Northeast) back the change. The Southwest voted for an alternative option and Bavaria for 'further talks'. Thus, the change was defeated - for now at least - despite majority support.

Lotteries in football (again)

Before the introduction of penalty shoot-outs, lotteries were sometimes used to decide football matches. This isn't necessary now for individual matches, but lotteries can still be used to decide group standings. This just happened in the Gulf Cup, after Oman and Iraq were level on all other criteria (points, head-to-head, goal difference, etc).

Farage beats Bin(face)

As widely expected, Nigel Farage won the Clacton by-election, securing over twice as many votes as his nearest rival.

The contest was interesting though, not only for marking Count Binface's best performance, but also for featuring a modern record 34 candidates. (This BBC page says 35, in the caption below the picture at the top, as well as 34, but I believe it's 34 that's right.) 

While this is a lot for the UK, it is far from a world record. The 2023 Toronto mayoral by-election featured over 100 candidates (see here and here). It's a good job that voters weren't required to rank all of the candidates! But I digress...

Since the 'main' parties decided not to stand in Clacton, most of the 34 are independents or fringe parties. Some are serial candidates and/or arguably part of a tradition of joke candidates. Interestingly, they include three candidates from the Monster Raving Loony Party - which makes sense only because voters vote for a candidate, rather than a party. (This kind of thing doesn't happen in Australia, for reasons discussed here.)

Most of these were largely irrelevant. Besides Farage and Binface, none received the 5% of the vote needed to return their deposit. Indeed, none of the others received even 500 votes, with 3rd place on just 492 votes. I make it that 21 of them received fewer than 100 votes and three of them received fewer than ten votes (which is the number of signatures one needs in order to stand, as documented here).

Penalties and lotteries (again)

I've talked about this at various points before, but the BBC has a new piece on the history of penalty shoot outs here. While shoot outs are often referred to by pundits as a lottery, they aren't random - rather, they are a test of skill and nerve.

Ironically, shoot outs were introduced to replace lotteries, such as coin flips. The article linked above credits the idea to Michael Almog (later Israeli FA chief), quoting him as describing the drawing of lots as  "an immoral and even cruel system for the losing team and not honourable for the winner".

Right and wrong ways to play the game?

In 'Essentially Contested Concepts,' W. B. Gallie imagines a championship contest where "each team specializes in a distinctive method, strategy and style of play" (p. 170) and there is no agreed scoring system, with each team competing to be acknowledged the best players of the game.

Of course, football isn't quite like this. There is an agreed method for determining who wins each match (who scores most goals) and the league championship (most points from all the games). But still, I'm sometimes reminded of Gallie when people debate how the game should be played.

Today, I see a bit of a discussion about importance of set pieces. This seems to be a current talking point on the BBC at least. Pundit Chris Sutton describes Arsenal as potentially "the ugliest Premier League-winning team in history". And Arne Slot says he doesn't like the emphasis on set pieces. It seems some don't like Arsenal winning the way they do, even if they are top of the table.

However, I was particularly struck by contrasting comments from Chelsea manager, Liam Rosenior, who is quoted as saying: 

"I think that is the beauty of football, you can do it in so many different ways. There's no right or wrong way to play football for me. I'm sure when we scored from a corner yesterday, our fans didn't care what the goal looked like. I'm sure Arsenal's fans didn't care what their goals looked like either. The game is about winning."

It looks like the debate will continue...

Ban on advertising junk food

We have a few more weeks of semester 1 (mostly assessment), before we start our second semester of teaching, but - when we get there - I'll be running my ethics of public policy module again. As usual, I'll start with a section on public health and paternalism, which includes tackling obesity. So, the advertising ban that comes into force tomorrow (5th Jan 2026) is particularly well-timed. This follows last year's earlier ban on multi-buy offers.

Parental licensing - in Denmark

Following on from yesterday's post, another topic that I'll cover next semester is parental licensing. This was proposed/defended by Hugh LaFollette some time ago. However, it turns out that it's not merely a philosophical thought experiment. I just learned that Denmark does actually have a parental competency test.

Unfortunately, I don't know any more about it than what's in that article. It seems it isn't applied to all (prospective) parents, but only those that are considered a risk. Nonetheless, it appears that children can be taken away from parents who fail the test, even if they haven't yet suffered any harm.

Scotland proposes to criminalise prostitution

The module that I'll be teaching next semester includes, amongst other things, a week on prostitution. So, it's good to know that there are moves to criminalise it in Scotland. This makes it more topical.

Disrespecting a Game 2

Earlier in the year, I made a post about disrespecting the game of football. That concerned the practice of standing on the ball in Brazil. But, thanks to a recent BBC article, I learned that "under Ifab's law 12.4, a player can be booked for dissent by word or action, or even for displaying unsportsmanlike behaviour such as showing a lack of respect for the game". Unfortunately, they don't give a link, but I assume this should be easy enough to find.

Forecasts and predictions

Political scientists are sometimes expected to predict elections (and maybe other political events). And there's often some comment if pollsters (are seen to) get it wrong. But making predictions about the future is difficult.

One comparison might be to sports pundits. Out of 30 BBC pundits, no one predicted Liverpool winning the Premier League last season, for example. Another might be to weather forecasting. There's an interesting piece about that on the BBC. Weather forecasting is getting more accurate. And it seems that AI might be improving things further, though there's a cautionary note that models based on the past may fail to predict unprecedented events.

Disrespecting a game

Luke Maring has an interesting article (here) on the obligation to vote. He argues that democratic citizens have a role-based obligation to vote, since failing to do so would disrespect democracy. And he motivates the idea that it's wrong to disrespect a practice with an example of a basketballer. (I forget the exact details of the case.)

I was reminded of this today, when I saw this article about Memphis Depay, in which the Brazilian Football Federation (CBF) is reported to have issued a letter saying that standing on the football is "provocation to a rival and disrespects the game."

I assume this was in Portuguese, so not sure how easy it would be to track down the original, but it's an interesting example (for those with more interest in football than basketball, at least).

EDIT: See follow-up post here.

A ban on outdoor smoking

According to BBC reports, the new Labour government (not to be confused with a New Labour government) is considering a ban on smoking in certain outdoor spaces. This might initially sound quite draconian, given that smoking outdoors is not generally so dangerous to others, but actually the places proposed - thinks like pub beer gardens - are places where one might well be in close proximity to other people's second-hand smoke. Whether or not this is a proportionate measure, it is potentially justified by harm to others, rather than paternalism.

A House of Citizens?

I don't know whether the Metro letter page is preserved for posterity or not, but there are some interesting comments on the House of Lords in today's letters. This seems to follow on from recent discussion, which includes one call to abolish the HoL entirely. This follows the recent news that at least one peer also wants to abolish the HoL.

I'm not clear whether some replacement is envisioned or whether James Bradshaw from London would prefer a unicameral parliament. However, David Jubb from Devon offers an interesting alternative in today's letters:

"I’d rather have a House of Citizens than a House of Lords, with people from all walks of life contributing, as we do with jury service.

It would bring common sense to Westminster from every part of the UK and could be based on the model of successful citizens’ assemblies."

This idea isn't new (as he perhaps knows, given the reference to citizens' assemblies). Random selection, along the lines of jury service, is generally known as sortition. It has been proposed before, as a way to replace the House of Lords (Amazon affiliate link) or, indeed, even to replace elected representatives (Amazon affiliate link).

Toronto Mayoral Election

I saw via the BBC that there are over 100 candidates, including a dog, running for Toronto mayor. Despite looking at a couple of sites that claimed to cover everything one might need to know, I struggled to find the voting system involved. The site just linked mentions that a candidate could win with just 20% of the vote. In fact, it seems that the election uses first past the post - at least, according to Wikipedia, though no citation is given. This means that, in theory, one candidate could win with just 1% of the vote.

FPTP seems pretty undesirable when there are this many candidates. However, while some form of instant run-off could overcome some problems, it would also be burdensome on voters to rank all of the candidates.

Why my vote wasn't counted

I didn't vote yesterday, but that's because I registered for postal voting and had posted my ballot last week. As it turns out, the election in my ward was declared void when one of the candidates died. My condolences to his family.

I didn't hear the news until later, and I doubt that many did, so I don't know how much effect it would have had one voting. However, this does highlight some interesting things about voting.

First, discussions of contraction consistency sometimes consider the effect of one candidate withdrawing. It is sometimes assumed that if A wins a three-way contest between A, B, and C then A should also beat B (or C) in a two-way contest. But this is not the case in many voting systems.

Second, this case also highlights the fact that - in the UK - voters elect individuals, not parties. If the votes were cast for the Conservative Party, rather than for Mr Galton, then he could presumably be replaced with another party nominee. But the votes are for the individual. This is relevant when elected officials decide to change party. It is sometimes suggested that this ought to trigger a by-election, though this is not the case.

Disrespecting a game

Luke Maring has a paper on voting that begins with a discussion of a basketballer whose actions are said (by some commentators) to disrespect the game. While I understand the point being made, this example isn't one I'm familiar with. Earlier today though, I witnessed a similar example in the snooker.

Hossein Vafaei played a very unusual break-off shot against Ronnie O'Sullivan, simply smashing into the pack of reds. You can see it here or here. Commentator John Virgo described it as "disrespectful" but, despite the headline on the linked page, I don't think he was explicit about who or what was disrespected. (Actually, I think someone said he was disrespecting his own ability, but this may have been co-commentator Stephen Henry.)

However, studio pundit Steve Davis was more specific, saying "I don't think it is necessarily disrespectful to Ronnie, but it is maybe considered disrespectful to the game of snooker". (These remarks are quoted in various places, including the Guardian and Independent.)

I doubt many of my students are snooker fans, but this example of alleged disrespect to a game is at least more recent, if not more relatable for them...

SNP use STV

Since I'm no longer in Scotland, I haven't followed the SNP leadership contest too closely, but this recent article caught my eye. It's mostly about membership numbers and transparency, but the bit I found most interesting was mention - at the very end - that the process uses the single transferable vote system.

This is slightly unusual terminology, since STV is normally used to refer to PR systems. When only one person is being elected, this is usually referred to as the alternative vote system - something I blogged about long ago. 

Nonetheless, it could be a useful example next time I'm teaching about these voting systems. I've previously used Conservative leadership contests as an example, though these aren't ideal in a couple of respects. First, unless there's a 'coronation' without a vote (as happened for May and Sunak), the final vote goes to party members, rather than MPs. This changes the electorate between rounds. Second, as a sort of consequence of this, someone can get over 50% in earlier rounds but not automatically win. This happened in 2019, when Boris Johnson received over 50% in the fourth and fifth rounds.

When is a woman (not) in Iran?

Democracy is rule by the people, but one key question is 'which people?'

If one believes in a principle like 'no taxation without representation' then there's no obvious justification for restricting the franchise to citizens. Immigrants pay taxes, so perhaps they should be enfranchised too. Indeed, it might even be necessary to extend voting rights to non-resident foreigners too, if they are subject to taxes.

Those working on this issue are often interested in laws that claim universal jurisdiction - that is, they are not restricted to the territory of the state in question, but purport to be binding (on citizens or even people generally) wherever they are.

I noticed an interesting example of something like this in this BBC article about Iranian headscarves. According to the article, "Women in Iran are required to wear headscarves in public, even when abroad" but this obviously doesn't make much sense. If an Iranian woman is abroad, then she's not in Iran. Thus, the law doesn't apply only to women in Iran.

I'm assuming this law applies to Iranian citizens, though perhaps it applies to all women ordinarily resident in Iran. In any case, it seems that they can commit an offence outside Iran.

Lightning doesn't strike twice... or does it?

An unusual story from Massachusetts, where Raymond Roberts didn't simply win the lottery once, but rather bought SIX winning tickets. The odds of winning are apparently 1 in 1.8 million. I guess that, if you buy six tickets with the same numbers, then the odds of winning six times aren't actually any higher. An interesting case for probability exercises too.

Should under-18s get to pick the Prime Minister?

One subject that I'll be covering in my Democratic Theory module in the coming semester is the voting age. There's been a long-running debate over votes at 16 and some political theorists have gone even further, suggesting that the voting age should be lowered to 12, to 6, or even abolished altogether. Of course, there are others who think that it should stay where it is, or perhaps even be raised higher.

In this context, I was quite interested to learn that children as young as 15 can vote in the current Conservative Party leadership contest. There's no need to be eligible to vote in general elections in order to participate. (Similarly, one need not be a British citizen either.)

The BBC article, linked to above (first one in the previous paragraph), includes interviews with several young Conservative Party members, most of whom seem to oppose a general lowering of the voting age. One is reported as saying that the fate of the country should not be in the hands of those who don't pay taxes, have mortgages, or support families. However, this ignores at least two things.

First, lowering the voting age to 16 wouldn't put the fate of the country in the hands of 16- and 17-year-olds, since they would still only be a small portion of the electorate. Those over 18 would continue to have a major say. Indeed, the electorate is currently dominated by the relatively elderly (because there are a lot of them and because they are more likely to vote).

Second, many over-18s don't do these things either. If one were to apply this principle consistently, then it would seem that these groups also ought to be excluded. I take it that this would be obviously undemocratic. Perhaps, then, the exclusion of 16-year-olds is also undemocratic.