Chelsea: “Sporting merit” should only include things that happen in real life

UEFA has settled on the term “sporting merit” as the basis on which domestic leagues decide how to allocate Champions League and Europa League spots. Merit should be based on reality, which means Chelsea are in control of their own destiny.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned in the last month… let me start over. If there are a few things we should have learned in the last month, it’s that models can be woefully inaccurate; that assumptions have as much to do with shaping models as data; that decisions based on models last much longer than the validity of those models; that nothing compares to actual data; and that once you reach a baseline level of data from the population you are modeling, the initial assumptions and models should be given a zero-base review so that you are projecting from and for  the same population as much as possible.

Obviously, I’m talking about expected goals and end-of-season outcomes. What did you think I was referring to?

UEFA’s latest guidance to their constituents directs them to base their allocation of European berths on “sporting merit.” “Sporting merit” is a wonderfully ambiguous term that allows UEFA to say they said the right thing, while still letting the domestic leagues make their own choices and mistakes.

But, in the interests of sporting federalism, better this than a one-size-fits-all solution that treats England the same as Italy and Hungary and Sweden.

UEFA’s guidelines say nothing about how teams should or may conclude their regular season. Teams can still freeze their tables and call that the final standings; they can figure out a way to play the balance of the season; or they can do some sort of playoff to determine European places and possibly promotion / relegation places.

The most important thing leagues should commit to in applying the “sporting merit” standard is the reality of events that occurred or will occur. The uncertainty of the lockdown and the vagueness of UEFA’s direction should not justify a retreat into mathematical sophistry via models or projections.

The “sporting merit” standard effectively ends the chatter around the coefficient proposal we talked about yesterday.

But The Telegraph floats the idea of borrowing an idea from cricket that would predict the outcome of the season based on “the strengths of remaining opponents and whether games were home and away.” In blissful understatement, they say this would be “highly contentious.”

We’re fans and advocates of the entire “expected” family of advanced analytics, even some of the more arcane ones like expected non-penalty goals allowed per 90, expected stolen assists per Jorginho five-yard sideways pass or whatever else they have at Football-Reference. They are great ways to understand, analyze and discuss games and players. And they’re great for those of us in the content industry.

But the downside of xStats is that they have allowed the words “should” and “could” to achieve liturgical significance in football conversations. Too many fans and even some pundits have come to think that what should have happened or could have happened is more important than what actually did happen. Rather than using the analytics as a way to predict the future and provide context to the past, they have created an alternate reality where you can choose your preferred outcome from one of two universes.

For the FIFA and Football Manager generations (#TeamOld FTW!), it’s a dream. For everyone else, it’s like dealing with a world full of Tottenham fans talking about shoulds, coulds and what ifs while standing in front of an empty trophy case.

Models and projections have their place in backrooms and blogs. But they have no place in determining real life outcomes when pertinent real life events and data exist.

Applying “sporting merit” should require leagues to only assess things that happened before the end of the season. Whether the season ends after 29, 38 or 29 plus some playoff games, those games must be the only basis for the decision to allocate European berths and promotion / relegation.

Chelsea are not in fourth because the model says they should be there. They are in fourth because they are there. If, after the remaining games, Chelsea are no longer in the Champions League spots, then that’s where they will deserve to be. Not because we ran some numbers which said they should be, but because they are.

Reality is the greatest measure of merit. Under normal circumstances, that’s why Chelsea have a overflowing trophy case and the only three European cups in London. These surreal circumstances are no excuse to allow unreality to infect football.