Home advantage in soccer: variations in its magnitude and a literature review of the inter-related factors associated with its existence.
Pollard, Richard
The existence of home advantage in competitive sport is well
documented, although the precise causes are less well understood and the
topic of much recent research. Courneya and Carron (1992), Nevill and
Holder (1999) and Carron, Loughead and Bray (2005) provide comprehensive
reviews. The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the current state of
knowledge with regards to home advantage in soccer.
The first paper to consider the concept of home advantage applied
exclusively to soccer was by Dowie (1982) in which he commented on the
success of countries hosting the World Cup and considered three possible
causes of the advantage in soccer which he labeled fatigue, familiarity
and fans. Data from the Football League in England were used, but no
clear-cut conclusions were reached. It should be noted that in England
the words football and soccer are synonymous. A more detailed study by
Pollard (1986) soon followed and this still serves as the starting point for a general review of the way in which home advantage applies
specifically to soccer. Data from various competitions in England and
Europe were used to assess the effects on home advantage of crowd
support, travel fatigue, familiarity, referee bias, tactics and
psychological factors. Wolfson and Neave (2004) also provide a review,
focusing on the coaching implications of the advantage of playing at
home.
Other studies have investigated particular aspects of soccer's
home advantage. These include pitch surface (Barnett & Hilditch,
1993), travel distance (Clarke & Norman, 1995), crowd factors
(Nevill, Newell & Gale, 1996), referee bias (Nevill, Balmer &
Williams, 2002), territoriality (Neave & Wolfson, 2003),
geographical variation (Pollard, 2006) and long-term trends (Pollard
& Pollard, 2005b). Many of these studies have made extensive use of
data from the Football League in England, a competition that has been in
existence since 1888 with very little modification over the years. It is
an excellent data source for the study of home advantage in soccer. This
is because the divisions that make up the league have always been based
on a perfectly balanced schedule of games in which each team plays each
other team at home and away once during each season. It is the original
model on which most other soccer leagues throughout the world are based,
so that meaningful international comparisons can easily be made. In the
next section the existence of home advantage will be established and
quantified in different competitions, in different time periods and in
different countries. Subsequent sections consider the evidence for and
against the main postulated causes of this advantage. A model for the
interacting way in which these factors influence home advantage is then
formulated.
Existence of Home Advantage
Leagues
The schedule in a league in which each team plays each other team
the same number of times at home and away is said to be
'balanced'. The overall home advantage in a balanced league
can be quantified as the number of points gained at home as a percentage
of the total number of points gained in all matches. A figure of 50%
would indicate no home advantage since the same number of points would
have been gained at home and away. The higher the figure above 50%, the
greater the home advantage. In this paper, all analyses are based on
data from balanced schedules unless otherwise stated.
Table 1 shows home advantage for the first and second divisions of
the national soccer leagues of France, Spain, Italy, Germany and England
over the six seasons 1996/97-2001/02. In all these countries, only very
small differences exist between the two divisions, even though crowds in
the first divisions are considerably larger than in the second. Data for
this table and for other national leagues later in this section where
obtained from the Internet at www.soccerway.com and www.rsssf.com.
To further investigate the relationship between competition level
and home advantage, Table 2 shows data from nine levels of competition
in England aggregated over the most recent six-year period in which
these nine levels existed unchanged. Level 1 is the Premier League,
levels 2 to 4 are the three divisions of the Football League, level 5 is
the Conference and levels 6 to 9 are the four divisions of the Ryman
Football League, one of three regional leagues that existed immediately
below the Conference. Promotion and relegation operated throughout the
nine levels, so in theory a team from level 9 could ultimately rise to
level 1. Home advantage and the average attendance at each of the nine
levels are shown. The Premier League and the three divisions of the
Football League have very similar home advantage figures (just over 60%)
despite large differences in average attendance. The Conference and the
four divisions of the Ryman Football League have lower home advantage,
but the figures are very similar to each other (around 55%), even at
level 9 where the average attendance is less than 100 spectators. This
compares with average crowds of nearly 1,500 at level 5 in the
Conference. The data for Table 2, and for all subsequent figures in this
paper for England, are obtained from the annual publication
'Rothmans Football Yearbook'
To put home advantage into a historical perspective, Table 3 shows
figures for the Football League in England for nine separate time
periods since its inception in 1888. In addition to the two World Wars,
a number of significant dates are used to define the periods. These are
1958 (the creation of Divisions 3 and 4 from the previous regional
Divisions 3 North and South), 1981 (the introduction of 3 points instead
of 2 for a win) and 1992 (the reorganization of the league structure and
creation of the Premier League). Somewhat surprisingly, home advantage
was at its greatest in the 19th century. It has been slightly lower at
level 1 than at level 2 in all the time periods and also lower than at
levels 3 and 4 in all but the most recent time period. Pollard and
Pollard (2005b) presented a season by season analysis of these data and
showed a sharp drop in home advantage immediately after World War 2
during which the league had been suspended for seven seasons. The data
for Table 3 prior to 1970 is from Laschke (1980).
For international comparison, Table 4 summarizes home advantage for
the national leagues of 44 countries in Europe, based on results during
the six most recent complete seasons prior to January 1st, 2003. This
table is derived from an earlier version in which full details of the
methodology are given (Pollard & Pollard, 2005a). The national
leagues of Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Scotland operated with
slightly unbalanced playing schedules; for all other countries the
schedule was balanced. Home advantage in Europe is clearly greatest in
the countries of the Balkans, the top seven nations all coming from this
region and all having very high home advantage, close to or above 70%.
The country with the greatest home advantage is Albania, closely
followed by Bosnia and both with figures approaching an extraordinary
80%, a higher home advantage than in any sport or competition previously
reported. During the period under analysis, there were separate national
leagues for the various combinations of ethnic groups in Bosnia. Only
leagues in which the majority Muslim population participated have been
included. Most of the major soccer playing countries of Western Europe have figures of between 60% and 65%, while home advantage below 60% is
mostly confined to the countries of northern Europe comprising
Scandinavia, the British Isles and the Baltic region. The lowest home
advantage was in the Latvian league (53.2%), with Latvia's two
Baltic neighbors, Lithuania and Estonia occupying two the next three
lowest positions.
In addition to the similarities within the Balkan countries, and
between the three Baltic republics, there are several other neighboring countries with strikingly similar home advantage figures. These include
Switzerland, Germany and Austria (all 63%), Netherlands and Belgium
(both 61%), Sweden, Norway and Finland (57%-58%) and Ireland and
Northern Ireland (both 55%).
For comparison with other professional team sports in North America over the last eight seasons (up to June 30th, 2004), Table 5 shows home
advantage for baseball (MLB), basketball (NBA), hockey (NHL) and
American football (NFL). Home advantage for these sports are all below
the 61.8% for Major League Soccer over the same period and mostly below
the figures for the major soccer leagues in Europe (Table 4). Thus home
advantage in soccer appears to be a more important factor than in other
major professional team sports.
Other competitions
The relative success of host nations in the World Cup up to 1978
noted by Dowie (1982) has continued. No host country has ever failed to
progress to the second stage of the final tournament, with France
winning in 1998 and South Korea surprisingly reaching the semifinals in
2002. Brown et al. (2002) estimated home advantage at 63% for the 32
international teams that reached the final stages of the 2002 World Cup.
However this figure was a 'winning percentage' and ignored
tied games. Re-working their data to include ties reduces home advantage
to 59%, but even the reliability of this figure is questionable due to
the highly unbalanced schedule of games used in the analysis.
Pollard (1986) showed that European club competitions for 1960-1984
displayed a greater home advantage than did domestic competitions in
England. The premier competition in Europe is now the Champions League,
the format of which is different from the old European Cup. However the
quarter-finals and semi-finals are still played on the basis of the
total goals scored between two teams in home and away games, thus
ensuring some degree of balance. Table 6 shows home advantage in these
rounds from 1960/61--2003/04 and confirms that the home advantage is
still greater than in most national leagues, especially at the
semi-final stage.
In the F.A. Cup, the main knock-out competition in England, Pollard
(1986) showed that home advantage was lower than in the Football League.
Table 7 brings the data up to date. Since the semi-finals are played on
neutral grounds, the sixth round (quarter-finals) is the last for which
home advantage can be a factor. The figure for this round (50.6%)
suggests that home advantage is virtually non-existent at this stage of
the competition. This contrasts with previous rounds in which home
advantage is more comparable to league play. Knock-out competitions,
such as the F.A. Cup do not have balanced playing schedules. However,
the draw for these competitions is performed in a completely random
manner, without seeding, so that there is very unlikely to be any bias
due to lack of balance.
Individual teams
Both Barnett and Hilditch (1993) and Clarke and Norman (1995)
showed that the ability of a team needs to be taken into account when
considering home advantage for individual teams, rather than for a
competition as a whole. Each developed a different approach from that
used for complete leagues, allowing the home advantage of individual
teams to be compared. This was used to investigate the influence of
different pitch surfaces and pitch dimensions, as well as travel
distances, on home advantage. These results will be discussed in the
next section in which the possible causes of home advantage are
explored. Bray, Law and Foyle (2003) also investigated the relationship
between the magnitude of the home advantage and the quality of
individual teams.
Factors associated with home advantage
The framework for this section will be based on that adopted by
Pollard (1986) for soccer and similar to that used by Nevill and Holder
(1999) in their review of home advantage for all sports.
Crowd support
The support of a home crowd is a likely cause of home advantage,
but this factor could operate in many ways and these have proved
difficult to isolate and quantify. For example does the effect of crowd
support depend on the size or density of the crowd, or on the intensity
of the support or on a combination of all three factors? Is it the home
or away team that is primarily affected, and is the referee
subconsciously influenced by the noise of a home crowd? The evidence is
conflicting and hard to interpret. Dowie (1982), Pollard (1986, 2005)
and Clarke and Norman (1995) all noted that home advantage varied little
over the four divisions of the Football League in England, despite large
differences in crowd size. Nevill et al. (1996) claimed to show a linear
decline in home advantage with crowd size when a lower league in England
and three divisions in Scotland were added to the four divisions
previously considered. However the results were based on a small sample
of games (only one season), and actually showed no difference between
the top three divisions in England
Tables 1, 2 and 3 shed further light on the effect of crowd size.
Based on an analysis of six seasons in England (Table 2) it proved
possible to quantify home advantage over nine levels of competition for
which crowd size was also available. The results confirmed very little
difference in home advantage between the top four levels (all just over
60%), despite large differences in crowd size. Below this level, home
advantage dropped to around 55%, but again there was very little
difference between the five leagues analyzed, despite considerable
differences in crowd size, and even with average crowds of below 100. It
therefore seems that in England, at least, home advantage will exist in
competitive soccer played before small crowds in small stadiums, and
that this advantage is currently about 55%. Once average crowds rise
about 3,000, then this figure increases to around 60% where it remains
up to the highest level of competition where crowds currently average
over 30,000. This latter conclusion is supported by the evidence
available from the top two divisions of the five leading national soccer
leagues in Western Europe (Table 1). In each country there is very
little difference between the top two divisions despite the big
difference in crowd size that must exist. Table 3 showed that for a
period of over 100 years the highest level of league play in England,
with the largest crowds, has never had a home advantage figure above
that of the next lower league with smaller crowds--a further fact that
argues against a simple relationship between crowd size and home
advantage.
Clarke and Norman (1995) analyzed the home advantage of individual
teams in England and their results showed no association with crowd
size. Pollard (1986) noted that crowd density did not appear to be
associated with the degree of home advantage. It was also shown that
when teams from within London played against each other ('local
derbies'), home advantage was reduced, a finding that was confirmed
by Clarke and Norman (1995). This could be attributed to the fact that
the intensity of support for each team was likely to be relatively
similar in these games. Likewise, in other games it is possible that the
magnitude of the away support should be taken into account when
assessing home advantage. This could be one reason why it has been
difficult to establish a clear relationship between crowd size and home
advantage.
It could also be argued that the drop in home advantage during the
1990s in England could be in part a consequence of the mandatory
requirement for all-seater accomodation in stadiums in the top two
divisions. This went into effect in August 1994. Prior to this most
stadiums had extensive 'terraces' providing relatively
low-cost standing room, often the source of loud and rowdy support for
the home team. These terraces have been replaced by less dense and much
more expensive seating, the inevitable result of which is a somewhat
more gentile audience and perhaps less intense crowd support.
Nevill, Balmer and Williams (1999, 2002) have produced evidence to
suggest that the noise of a home crowd may contribute to home advantage
by influencing the decisions of referees, a finding that will be
explored further under 'referee bias'. Wolfson, Wakelin and
Lewis (2005) investigated the influence that soccer fans themselves
perceive that they have in providing an advantage to the home team.
Their self-selected sample of supporters believed that crowd support was
the main factor in home advantage and that it operated by inspiring the
home team, intimidating the opponents and influencing the referee.
Travel fatigue
Conflicting evidence exists regarding the effects of travel on the
away team as a cause of home advantage. The reduced home advantage in
local derbies described in the previous section could be attributed to
the relative lack of travel for the away team, rather than to similar
levels of crowd support. Similarly, the higher home advantage in
European competition (Table 6) could be the consequence of longer and
more tiring travel. Moreover, Brown et al. (2002) showed evidence that
home advantage was affected by travel distance for international teams.
Clarke and Norman (1995) also reported that home advantage in England
increased as a function of the distance between the teams playing each
other. Conversely Pollard (1986) showed no difference in home advantage
comparing games between teams more than or less than 200 miles (320km)
apart. Finally, the steady decline in home advantage seen in England
since the 19th century (Table 3), before the days of motorized transport, could be explained by the fact that travel has become easier,
faster and more comfortable over the years.
Familiarity with local playing conditions
Barnett and Hilditch (1993) produced evidence that the few teams
playing on artificial turf in England derived an increased home
advantage compared with other teams. This report resulted in a ban of
the use of artificial turf in the Football League. The finding was
confirmed by Clarke and Norman (1995) and together these studies
suggested that familiarity with local playing conditions might be a
factor in home advantage. However, teams playing on unusually large or
small pitch dimensions did not appear to derive any increased home
advantage (Pollard, 1986). It has been shown that there is evidence that
a substantial part of home advantage disappears when a team moves to a
new stadium, possibly due to the loss of familiarity with home playing
conditions (Pollard, 2002). Although the examples were from other
sports, the results should also apply to soccer, although an
investigation by Loughead, Carron, Bray and Kim (2003) was inconclusive partly due to the small number of games analyzed. These playing
conditions associated with familiarity would include factors such as the
alignment of the pitch with regards to the prevailing wind and sun, the
visual cues players would acquire from knowledge of there own stadium,
and also the general benefits of preparing for a game in a familiar and
friendly environment. Familiarity, or lack of it, could be attributed to
the drop in home advantage immediately after the seven-year suspension
of the Football League in England during World War 2 (Pollard &
Pollard, 2005b). Teams had many new players who were unfamiliar with
their local environment when the league resumed play in 1946 and, if
familiarity were contributing to home advantage, the drop would have
been predicted.
Another opportunity to test the hypothesis of familiarity arose in
1996, the inaugural season of Major League Soccer in the United States.
New teams were created in 10 cities around the country and players
assigned to each team. Very few of these players had any prior
familiarity with their new home city, home stadium or team mates, so
that if familiarity were a factor, then home advantage would be expected
to have been affected. In fact the figure was 61.9% for the first
season, slightly above the average for the subsequent seven seasons,
providing no evidence that lack of familiarity had an influence on home
advantage in Major League Soccer.
Territoriality
Neave and Wolfson (2003) define territoriality as 'the
protective response to an invasion of one's perceived
territory' and provide evidence that this may be a factor
contributing to home advantage in soccer. Testosterone levels of players
were found to be significantly higher before a home game than before an
away game. An increase in competitiveness was suggested as an
explanation, but the exact way in which this finding might affect
performance awaits further research. It is also possible to interpret
the much higher home advantage found in the Balkan nations as a
consequence of territoriality. These countries have been the setting of
continual strife for hundreds of years, first during the occupation of
the Turks as part of the Ottoman Empire, then through two Balkan Wars,
two World Wars and more recently during the violent break-up of
Yugoslavia. It is not unreasonable to hypothesize a heightened sense of
territoriality in these countries, translating into an increased home
advantage. Pollard (2006) showed a similar situation in South America,
with the Andean countries of Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador having national
leagues with higher home advantage than elsewhere. A territorial
explanation comparable to that for the Balkan nations was suggested.
Much earlier, Morris (1981) had considered home advantage as a likely
'territorial reaction', but interpreted its effect more as a
negative one on the away team rather than a positive one for the team
playing at home in its own territory
Referee bias
There is mounting evidence that the referee may be influenced to
favor the home team by the intensity of crowd support, hence
contributing to home advantage. Using data from Belgium, Lefebvre and
Passer (1974) were the first to note that the away team at soccer
received more yellow cards and conceded more penalty kicks than the home
team. Although this could be the result of more time spent defending, or
more aggressive play, referee bias was also a possibility. Nevill et al.
(1996) observed that in England and Scotland, penalties and red cards
appeared to be given more against the away team. Furthermore the
magnitude of this effect increased with crowd size, suggesting referee
bias due to crowd noise as a possible explanation. Subsequently, Nevill
et al. (2002) analyzed the decisions of qualified referees watching
video recordings of games with and without the sound of the crowd. They
found that when assessing free-kicks, the referees tended to favor the
home team significantly more when the noise of crowd support was
present. This manifested itself in a reduction of fouls awarded against
the home team rather than in an increase against the away team. In a
previous study with a smaller sample of players, coaches and referees
watching games with and without sound, Nevill et al. (1999) had also
produced evidence of referee bias. However in this case it was a result
of more free kicks being awarded against the away team when crowd noise
was present. These studies suggest that referee bias, presumably subconscious, does contribute to home advantage as a consequence of the
noise generated by crowd support.
Schmid (2004) suggested that there might be other factors
contributing to referee bias. He showed that in the German part of
Switzerland, home advantage was greater if the referee was German
speaking than if not; similarly games involving French speaking referees
in the French part of Switzerland also showed an increased home
advantage. This implies an unidentified cultural effect superimposing
itself onto the simple effect of crowd noise on referees.
Special playing tactics
Teams playing away from home often adopt a more defensive and
cautious approach, tactics that may contribute to home advantage. For
example in the knock-out stages of European club competition total goals
home and away determine the winners, so that a narrow away loss in the
first game is considered a reasonable result. Home advantage in these
games (Table 6) is clearly higher than in the domestic leagues, a fact
that could be attributed to more defensive tactics used away from home.
Psychological factors
Whatever the basic causes of home advantage, it is ultimately the
minds and actions of the players themselves, as well as their coaches
and the referee, that will determine the progress and outcome of games
and hence the quantifiable magnitude of home advantage. The sparse knowledge of these psychological and behavioral factors is reviewed by
Nevill and Holder (1999) and by Carton et al. (2005). The advantage of
playing at home was evident in the very early days of competitive soccer
(Table 3) and is a deeply engrained concept. If players believe in its
existence, then it is likely it will increase their confidence when
playing at home and hence itself contribute to the continuing existence
of the advantage. The magnitude of this advantage will depend on the
degree to which these beliefs are reinforced by feelings generated by
familiarity and territoriality, as well as by the effects of crowd
support and travel.
There is some evidence that the performance of away teams may be
adversely affected by more aggressive and reckless actions, possibly as
a reaction to a hostile home crowd. This could be a plausible
alternative interpretation to the findings of both Lefebvre and Passer
(1974) and Nevill et al. (1996) discussed under referee bias. In
addition to this, Glamser (1990) found that the two black players on a
Conference team in England had a significant increase in yellow and red
cards when playing away from home, when compared with their white team
mates. One interpretation was that in away games at this time (1987),
black players in England were subject to more personal abuse from the
crowd than white players. This would translate into an increase in what
was termed a 'dysfunctional aggressive response' leading to
disciplinary action from the referee.
The creation of the Premier League in England in 1992, together
with the Bosman ruling on freedom of contract in 1995, have both
contributed to a much changed composition of professional teams in
England, especially in the Premier League. Not only do players change
teams more frequently than previously, but a large influx of non-English
players has resulted. It could be argued that the observed drop in home
advantage since 1992 is due to a less deep-rooted attachment that
players have to their home teams, resulting in a reduced feeling for the
concept of home and away. This in turn could influence their behavior
and performance on the field.
It is clear that more research is needed into the thinking and
subsequent actions of players, coaches and referees in order to further
investigate the psychological factors of home advantage.
Other considerations
In 1981, the number of points for a win in England was increased
from two to three, a system that now exists throughout the world. It can
be shown mathematically that a set of results will produce a home
advantage figure that is slightly greater if three points are awarded
for a win instead of two. However one of the purposes of introducing the
new system was to encourage more positive play by both teams, a fact
that itself could affect home advantage. In the event, there has
actually been a decline in home advantage in England since 1981 (Table
3), so that it is difficult to make any conclusion regarding the effects
of the two different points systems. Interestingly, Pollard (1986)
pointed out that when the Conference in England experimented with a
system whereby two points were given for a home win and three points for
an away win, approximately the same number of points were gained at home
and away, hence eliminating the effect of home advantage. In
competitions in which total goals from home and away games determine the
winner, the available evidence (Table 6) suggests that home advantage
may be magnified.
Barnett and Hilditch (1993) and Clarke and Norman (1995) both
showed that team ability needs to be taken into account when the home
advantages of individual teams are being compared. Furthermore, the
interpretation of home advantage needs to incorporate the exact method
of quantifying the advantage, be it based on points (as in this paper),
wins or goal difference.
Conclusions
Home advantage in soccer is due to many factors. It is clear that
some of these factors interact with each other, so that the
interpretation of observed variations in home advantage is not easy.
Figure 1 attempts to show the way in which this complex
inter-relationship might operate, based on considerations outlined in
the previous sections. Clearly much research is still needed to isolate
and quantify these effects, together with their interactions. Any future
conclusions will need to explain a number of findings for which there
are at present no clear explanations. These include:
1. The wide regional variation in home advantage throughout the
domestic national leagues of Europe (Table 4)
2. The inconsistent relationship between crowd size and home
advantage (Tables 1, 2, 3).
3. The high home advantage that existed over 100 years ago in the
initial years of competitive league soccer in England (Table 3).
4. The steady decline in home advantage in England, especially over
the last 20 years (Table 3).
5. The absence of home advantage in the quarter-finals of the
English F.A. Cup (Table 7).
Most previous studies have used an archival approach to investigate
home advantage in soccer. However, Nevill et al. (2002) have
demonstrated that it is possible to assess the effect of a single
component of the home advantage in a laboratory setting. It is now
probably time to focus more on the use of such controlled experiments to
eliminate confounding variables, with the goal of producing a better
understanding of the effects on home advantage of specific factors and
their interactions.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Author's Notes
This paper is based on a presentation given in May 2003 in Costa
Rica at the IVth International Congress of Sciences Applied to Soccer
(Pollard & Pollard, 2005a).
References
Barnett, V. & Hilditch, S. (1993). The effect of an artificial
pitch surface on home team performance in football (soccer). Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society A, 156, 39-50.
Bray, S.R., Law, J. & Foyle, J. (2003). Team quality and game
location effects in English professional soccer. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 26, 319-334.
Brown, T.D., Van Raalte, J.L., Brewer, B.W., Winter, C.R.,
Cornelius, A.E. & Andersen, M.B. (2002). World Cup Soccer home
advantage. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 134-144.
Carron, A.V., Loughead, T.M. & Bray, S.R. (2005). The home
advantage in sport competitions: Courneya and Carron's (1992)
conceptual framework a decade later. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23,
395-407.
Clarke, S.R. & Norman, J.M. (1995). Home ground advantage of
individual clubs in English soccer. The Statistician, 44, 509-521.
Courneya, K.S. & Carron, A.V. (1992). The home advantage in
sport competitions: a literature review. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 14, 13-27.
Dowie, J. (1982). Why Spain should win the World Cup. New
Scientist, 94, 693-695.
Glamser, F.D. (1990). Contest location, player misconduct, and
race: a case from English soccer. Journal of Sport Behavior, 13, 41-49.
Laschke, I. (1980). Rothmans Book of Football League Records:
1888-89 to 1978-79. London: Macdonald and Jane's.
Lefebvre, L.M. & Passer, M.W. (1974). The effects of game
location and importance on aggression in team sport. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 102-110.
Loughead, T.M., Carron, A.V., Bray, S.R. & Kim, A.J. (2003).
Facility familiarity and the home advantage in professional sports.
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 264-274.
Morris, D. (1981). The soccer tribe. London:Cape.
Neave, N. & Wolfson, S. (2003). Testosterone, territoriality,
and the 'home advantage'. Physiology and Behavior, 78,
269-275.
Nevill, A.M., Balmer, N.J. & Williams, A.M. (1999). Crowd
influence on decisions in association football. Lancet, 353, 1416.
Nevill, A.M., Balmer, N.J. & Williams, A.M. (2002). The
influence of crowd noise and experience upon refereeing decisions in
football. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 261-272.
Nevill, A.M. & Holder, R.L. (1999). Home advantage in sport: An
overview of studies on the advantage of playing at home. Sports
Medicine, 28, 221-236.
Nevill, A.M., Newell, S.M. & Gale, S. (1996). Factors
associated with home advantage in English and Scottish soccer matches.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 14, 181-186.
Pollard, R. (1986). Home advantage in soccer: a retrospective
analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 4, 237-248.
Pollard, R. (2002). Evidence of a reduced home advantage when a
team moves to a new stadium. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 969-973.
Pollard, R. (2006). Worldwide regional variations in home advantage
in association football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 231-240.
Pollard, R. & Pollard, G. (2005a). Home advantage in soccer: a
review of its existence and causes. International Journal of Soccer and
Science, 3, 25-33.
Pollard, R. & Pollard, G. (2005b). Long-term trends in home
advantage in professional team sports in North America and England
(1876-2003). Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 337-350.
Schmid, B. (2004). Der Heimvorteil im Schweizer Fussball--Welche
Rolle spielt def Kulturunterschied zwischen Schiedsrichter und Heimteam?
Unpublished master's thesis. Universitat Basel
Wolfson, S. and Neave, N. (2004). Preparing for home and away
matches. Insight, 8, 43-46.
Wolfson, S., Wakelin, D. & Lewis, M. (2005). Football
supporters' perceptions of their role in the home advantage.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 365-374.
Richard Pollard
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Address Correspondence To: 2401 Cloverfield Boulevard, Santa
Monica, CA 90405, e-mail: rpollard@calpoly.edu.
Table 1.
Home advantage in the First and Second Divisions
of the major leagues in Europe for the six
seasons 1996/97 - 2001/02.
Country Division 1 Division 2
France 65.0% 63.9%
Italy 64.2% 65.4%
Spain 63.9% 60.1%
Germany 63.3% 63.2%
England 60.7% 61.2%
Table 2.
Home advantage and average attendance at nine levels of
competition in England for the six seasons 1996/97 - 2001/02.
League Level Home advantage Average attendance
Premier 1 60.7% 31009
Division 1 2 61.2% 14160
Division 2 3 60.3% 6649
Division 3 4 61.9% 3757
Conference 5 56.7% 1484
Ryman Premier 6 56.7% 487
Ryman Division 1 7 54.1% 247
Ryman Division 2 8 55.3% 129
Ryman Division 3 9 55.1% 89
Table 3.
Home advantage at different levels * of the Football League
in England, 1888/89 - 2003/04.
Period Seasons Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
1888-1900 12 67.9% 70.1%
1900-1915 15 65.8% 68.3%
1919-1930 11 66.0% 66.2% 68.8%
1930-1939 9 67.3% 67.4% 69.4%
1946-1958 12 62.7% 64.5% 65.4%
1958-1970 12 62.9% 65.0% 65.6% 65.4%
1970-1981 11 63.6% 64.1% 64.8% 65.5%
1981-1992 11 62.7% 63.3% 63.1% 63.3%
1992-2004 12 60.6% 61.2% 60.4% 60.3%
Level 1: Div 1 (1888-1992), Premier (1992-2004).
Level 2: Div 2 (1892-1992), Div 1(1992-2004).
Level 3: Div 3 (1920-1921), Div 3 North & South (1921-1958),
Div 3 (1958-1992), Div 2 (1992-2004).
Level 4: Div 4 (1958-1992), Div 3 (1992-2004)
Table 4
Home advantage (HA) in national soccer leagues of Europe
for last six complete seasons prior to January 1st, 2003.
Region of Erope
HA Balkans South, West, Central, East
79% Albania
78%
77% Bosnia
76%
75%
74%
73%
72%
71% Bulgaria, Romania
70% Serbia, Macedonia
69%
68%
67% Croatia
66% Czech Republic, Ukraine
65% Slovalda, Cueece, France
64% Portugal, Poland, Italy
63% Spain, Slovenia, Switzerland,
Germany, Austria
62% Turkey, Russia, Hungary
61% Netherlands, Belgium
60% England
59%
58% Belarus Iceland, Sweden
57% Cypnas Norway, Finland
56% Moldova Faroes, Scotland, Wales, Denmark
55% Ireland, Northern Ireland
54% Malta, Luxembourg Lithuania
53% Estonia, Latvia
Table 5.
Home advantage in professional team sports in North America
for last 8 complete seasons prior to June 30th, 2004.
Sport League Total games played Home advantage
Baseball AL, NL 19,099 53.6%
Hockey NHL 9,307 54.4%
Football NFL 1,976 59.3%
Basketball NBA 9.048 60.5%
Soccer MLS 1,344 61.8%
Table 6.
Record of home teams in the European Cup and the Champions League,
1960/61-2003/04.
Goals Goals Total Home
Competition stage for against goals advantage
Quarter-finals 554 283 837 66.2%
Semi-finals 279 110 389 71.7%
Table 7.
Record of home teams in the F.A. Cup in England, 1960/61-2003/04.
Home
Round Played Won Drawn Lost advantage *
Third round 1407 602 416 389 57.6%
Fourth round 704 321 203 180 60.0%
Fifth round 352 169 95 88 61.5%
Sixth round 175 64 49 62 50.6%
* Home advantage calculated by assigning two points for a win, one
for a draw.