An Interview with Simon Kuper

Simon Kuper, co-author (with Stefan Szymanski) of Soccernomics and award-winning columnist for the Financial Times, has a new book out in the United States -- Ajax, the Dutch, The War: The Strange Tale of Soccer During Europe's Darkest Hour. I interview Kuper on the book below. First, a quick capsule review.

The book is not really a book about soccer, but a book about people in remarkable times viewed through a lens of soccer. I found the book engrossing for this reason. Almost everything you read about World War II is (understandably) about the war itself: the battles, the leaders, the Nazis, the Holocaust. But for most Europeans of the 1930s and 1940s -- most non-Jewish Europeans, Kuper tells us -- the War was taking place against the backdrop of normal life. Sport is a part of that backdrop. How the war influenced and often remarkably did not influence soccer (mainly in Holland, but Kuper also discusses Germany and the UK in some depth) provides a canvas on which Kuper has written a truly unique history.

One other aspect of Kuper's book stands out for me and that is the ephemeral nature of the material he works with. In an afterward Kuper lists many of those whom he interviewed who have since passed away. World War II is quickly fading into history, though legacies remain. Kuper has written a book that helps us keep touch with that history through some of the last voices left who can tell us what happened based on their actual experiences. Ajax, the Dutch, the War is highly recommended for those interested in history and people first, soccer second. That said, no understanding the history of modern European football will be complete without reading this book.

Now, on to my interview with Kuper.

RP: In your book you observe that the day that Germany invaded Russia, 90,000 people attended the German league final. You ask “What were they thinking?” You also observe “how little the game was disrupted” during the War in Great Britain. What do you take from the apparent resilience of soccer?

SK: The main thing I learned is that the war didn't occupy most of people's attention most of the time in most of Europe. Yes, if you were Jewish or otherwise in imminent danger, then your life was the war. But in most of western Europe, most people just didn't live like that from 1939-45. I was very struck by another story that I tell in the book: at a racecourse in England in June 1940, the announcer tells the crowd that France has just surrendered. It's pretty clear that the UK might be next; Germans could start arriving any day; much of the British army is trapped in France, at Hitler's mercy. But the racing just continues! What the book showed me was that the notion we have of people's states of minds in much of Europe in this period just isn't right. Many of them weren't living the war at all.

Of course the book is also a story about the power of soccer. In 1920, soccer was still a pretty small-time upper-class pastime in most of Europe. By 1940 it's a kind of essential of life.

RP: Elsewhere you write of Holland, “If people don’t stop playing sport when their country is occupied by Nazis during World War II, when do they?” Yet, sport is generally absent in our scholarly histories (and not just in WWII). What can we see looking at history through a lens of sport in society?

SK: What sport gave me was a kind of window onto ordinary life, away from high politics and great battles. Sport is what lots of people, particularly of course men, are doing and thinking about. It's a great banal activity. Walter Benjamin talks about this sort of thing: about how the observer should look in all directions, not just upwards towards high culture and politics. That's what I was trying to do in the book.

RP: Throughout you express considerable disappointment about the differences between the Dutch history as it is told and the somewhat less romantic reality -- in places you seem even angry. Is this a fair reading of your views? Was this disappointment developed as you researched the book? How have your views evolved since?

SK: Yes I was angry. It was while researching the book that I realized that a lot of the stuff I had been taught at school and through popular Dutch books and movies in the 1970s and 1980s, the whole story of a country where everyone was in the Resistance, was false. I had been lied to. That was shocking to me because I'd always had - and still have - a lot of faith in the Dutch system. I mean, this wasn't the USSR. In the intro to the US version I describe driving through California with a friend of mine who tells me I shouldn't be surprised, all countries lie about themselves. He's quite right and during the writing of the second, British version (the first version of the book was in Dutch) I came to terms with my anger to some degree and was able to write more dispassionately. But not totally dispassionately. This is a subject I feel emotionally involved in. It's my most personal book so far.

RP: You compare soccer in Holland before World War II to the status of ping pong today. Today, soccer has achieved something that politics or economics has not – a true European union. How did this happen and what does it tell us about both Holland and broader Europe?

SK: It's true that in Europe we play soccer against each other all the time, and some teams, like Chelsea or Manchester City, are positive European unions in miniature. And people all over Europe (and the world) support e.g. Barcelona and Man United. Even when European countries play against each other, in world cups or Euros, we accept the same set of rules, and mostly these matches now pass off in a friendly atmosphere; even Germany is no longer anyone's enemy. So I think soccer has done a little to create a shared European cultural sphere. Soccer is one of the new transnational communities that lots of people belong to: e.g. on Twitter people from all over the world will support a particular club, and will discuss together the latest incident in big soccer, e.g. the Clattenburg affair. So soccer - despite the nationalist carnival of the world cup - does help break down national boundaries.

Of course the European identity itself remains quite weak and isn't represented in soccer - there isn't and there never will be an EU team. I wrote in the FT on Saturday that "nobody ever ran out of the house drunk waving an EU flag". So it's not so much that soccer makes us all into EU citizens. Rather, it does something to break down national identities, to make them less significant. E.g. even at a world cup many Liverpool fans, say, might be more sympathetic to Luis Suarez than to Wayne Rooney.

Pictured above: English football squad giving Nazi salute in Berlin, May 14, 1938. English diplomats pressured the team to make the salute. Described in Kuper's book.

RP: You write that “World War II was becoming like the American Civil War” as it fades from sight and fewer and fewer from that era are still with us. Yet, an understanding of, say, US college football is incomplete without understanding the continuing legacy of the Civil War. Similarly, you make a case that legacies of the War still exist in Dutch football (and I presume, throughout Europe). Why is it important to continue to recognize these legacies?

SK: I think these legacies are now waning, as everyone forgets the war. For decades WWII shaped life in Europe. E.g. Germans had seen that inflation had contributed to the rise of Hitler, and so first the Bundesbank and later the European Central Bank (created in the Bundesbank's image) were very tough on inflation. The very EU project was an attempt by everyone including Germany to tie Germany into a united Europe to prevent a recurrence of world war. And because of memories of Auschwitz, overt racism wasn't tolerated in European political life until after 9/11/2001.

But now all that is lifting as the world war becomes ancient history. So I think those legacies of WWII in Europe are dying.

RP: What about scenes like have been reported from West Ham-Tottenham over the weekend or the bizarre attack of Tottenham fans in Rome?

SK: I think that in the antisemitic chanting at West Ham, or the attack on Spurs fans in Rome, the thugs are using Holocaust references chiefly to give colour, excitement, to a current soccer rivalry. I.e. they are much more interested in being anti-Spurs than in pursuing neo-Nazi policies. The talk of war/Holocaust makes today's match more thrilling, to these people. I think they seize on Holocaust rhetoric because that is the ultimate form of transgression in our society - it's the easiest way to be naughty, in other words. I don't think there's any genuine desire/plan there to have another Holocaust. It's horrendous behaviour but not actually dangerous, is my take.

RP: You write that “Foreigners know little about the Netherlands, and nothing about what is sung at its soccer matches.”  Today, what little Americans know about Dutch soccer might include that they play a rough game (whether accurate or not – many saw Nigel de Jong and his World Cup judo kick) and that Jozy Altidore plays for AZ Alkmaar. As more and more Americans become soccer literate, what should they know about Dutch soccer?

SK: The Dutch gave us the dominant mode in global soccer today: the Spanish passing game. It can be dated back to Cruijff's arrival to play for Barcelona in 1973. (I go into detail on this in the new Soccernomics, the one published earlier this year.) Barcelona and particularly Guardiola evolved Dutch total soccer of the 1970s, added modern pace and defensive nous; but as Guardiola says, 'Cruijff built the cathedral'. That was one of the ironies of the world cup final: Holland were beaten by their better selves, a Dutch-inspired Spain. It's something for us Dutch fans to be proud of: we don't play the best soccer today, but we helped create it.

Oh, there's a million more things I could say about Dutch soccer. I still love it. The only team I really support in soccer is Holland - except perhaps in that embarrassing world cup final.

Thanks Simon!

So You Fired the Coach, Now What?

So the University of Colorado did fire its football coach, despite academic research that shows that coaches don't matter. CU has faced a barrage of criticism for its firing of Jon Embree over the weekend, after just two years on the job.

Now comes the even harder part. What next?

The CU Athletic Director Mike Bohn (pictured above listening to Emree's post-firing press conference) has reaffirmed, if in a backhanded sort of way, the university's commitment to big-time athletics and a corresponding pursuit of excellence:

"If I say a 6-6 record is good enough at Colorado, what chance do we have? If I don't set the bar high, what coach is going to want to come here?"

Of course, a 6-6 record would have Embree still in his job and Bohn off the hot seat. Defending the firing, but perhaps also providing a warning about the future, the CU Chancellor provided a bit of understatement:

"It's not an exact science as far as hiring coaches"

Bohn expressed a similar sentiment:

"I can't give you a formula for success"

He'd probably better come up with one as the next coaching decision will likely cost the university many more millions of dollars. As a CU faculty member I'd feel more confident in the oversight of our football program if I had a sense that they know what they are doing. Unfortunately, I do not.

The Loneliness of the Investigative Sports Reporter

The exchange in the video clip above between Lance Armstrong and Paul Kimmage from a few years back  is a must see.

While it tells us something about Armstrong, more fundamentally, it says something about the broader sports media: Why was Kimmage (mostly) alone?

Hat tip to Joe Lindsey, see this nice blog post.

Emirates Expresses Skepticism about FIFA Reform

Emirates Airlines, based in the United Arab Emirates, has expressed disappointment in FIFA's reform efforts. The Washington Post reports:

Emirates airlines wants evidence FIFA is eradicating corruption and the scandal-hit organization’s public image is improving before renewing its sponsorship.

The Dubai-based carrier’s $195 million, eight-year sponsorship of world soccer’s governing body expires in 2014.Emirates senior vice president Boutros Boutros said Friday the airline has yet to see enough progress since FIFA President Sepp Blatter instigated a reform drive to prevent a repeat of scandals that have damaged the credibility of the organization in recent years.

“So far they talk a lot about them, but we are yet to see,” Boutros Boutros said. “They look serious about it and we are optimistic. We hope they will work on it and do what the public want ... we are waiting until after 2014 to evaluate.”Asked if Emirates will ensure FIFA is no longer perceived to be a tainted organization before agreeing on a new deal, Boutros responded: “Definitely."

It is not the first time that Emirates has expressed disappointment in FIFA governance. In May, 2011 on the occasion of FIFA's 61st Congress Emirates expressed similar sentiments, along with several other major sponsors of FIFA:

Visa Inc and Emirates Airlines were the latest of FIFA's most important sponsors, or Partners as the governing body calls them, to express disquiet at recent allegations of corruption.

"The current situation is clearly not good for the game and we ask that FIFA take all necessary steps to resolve the concerns that have been raised," Visa Europe said in a statement.

Emirates airline expressed its concern saying it was "disappointed with the issues that are currently surrounding the administration of the sport."

Earlier, Coca-Cola said the allegations were "distressing and bad for the sport." German sportswear maker Adidas also said the controversy had hurt soccer.

The other two members of the six-strong group of Partners, Sony and Hyundai-Kia, had made no comment on the recent claims of bribery in the presidential election campaign and in last year's World Cup vote. 

Despite the expressed concerns, the sponsors have exhibited minimal public pressure on FIFA. The general perception among those in sports marketing is that such expressions of concern are simply that -- for instance:

FIFA's major sponsors are talking tough over corruption allegations that are rocking soccer's governing body, but marketing experts doubt their words will translate into actions that could cost the organization lucrative deals.

"Based on history, one would not expect the sponsors to do much more than issue statements in favor of ethical behavior and opposed to unethical behavior," said Marc Ganis, president of consulting firm Sportscorp Ltd.

It would indeed be a major action if a FIFA sponsor walked away from sponsorship due to unhappiness with reform efforts. At this point it also seems highly unlikely.

More Thoughts on Firing the Coach

In the Boulder Daily Camera today, @BrianHowell33 has an in-depth look at college football programs who have struggled under the first two years of a coaching regime. The topic is of course on people's mind here in Boulder because the Colorado Buffaloes football team is suffering through its worst season ever and 7 seasons without a winning record. So a question faced by the University administration is what, if anything, to do about it?

Howell writes:

Today, Colorado (1-10, 1-7 Pac-12) will put an end to a miserable season when it hosts Utah (4-7, 2-6) at Folsom Field. If the Buffs lose, they'll finish with the worst record in school history. They are 0-5 at Folsom Field and face the prospect of losing every home game for the first time since 1891 -- CU's second season of football and a year that included just two home games. The current Buffs have been pounded week after week for the past two months.

Some CU fans are hopeful that second-year head coach Jon Embree, who is 4-20 since taking over in 2011, will be cleaning out his office before the two-year anniversary of his hire date, on Dec. 6.

Last week I discussed an academic paper that looked at the fortunes of college football programs that fired their coaches (ironically enough, with a lead author from Colorado). That paper -- Adler et al. --  suggested that programs that replace their coaches due to poor performance in general do not see improvements when a new coach is hired. Adler et al. conclude:

[A]t least with respect to on-field performance, coach replacement can be expected to be, at best, a break-even antidote.

Data provided by Howell supports the conclusions of Adler et al. but also suggests a slightly different take:

Since the 2000 season, 26 other [than Colorado's Embree] FBS coaches have won five games or less during their first two years on the job. Another 32 won fewer than nine games.

Among those 58 coaches, just eight were fired at the end of their second year. In most cases, schools gave their coaches several years to try to get it right.

That group of coaches includes several that never did -- or have yet to -- get their teams on a winning track. Duke's Ted Roof went 6-45 in four-plus seasons. Greg Robinson went 10-37 in four years at Syracuse. Stanford's Buddy Teevens was 10-23 in three years, Mississippi's Ed Orgeron was 10-25 in three years and Washington's Tyrone Willingham went 11-37 in four years.

That group also includes 18 coaches that eventually led their team to at least one bowl game (San Jose State's Mike MacIntyre will join that list this year).

Tommy West of Memphis (five bowls), Kentucky's Rich Brooks (four bowls), Kansas' Mark Mangino (four bowls), Arizona's Mike Stoops (three bowls), Ron Zook of Illinois (three bowls) and Ball State's Brady Hoke (two bowls) all led their teams to success after a poor first two seasons on the job.

Those 58 coaches represent just about half of all coaches replaced since 2000. If the other half won 9 games or more in their first two seasons, then we can conclude that "success" is indeed just about a break even proposition.

That said, the success stories are worth noting:

Of the 58 coaches since 2000 to win eight or fewer games through two years, just 18 (31 percent) of them eventually took their team to a bowl game. That includes Embree's predecessor, Dan Hawkins, whose tenure at CU would hardly be considered a success.

Of the 18, just 10 went to multiple bowl games, so clearly the odds are against Embree.

The good news for Embree and the Buffs, however, is that it can be done and when it is done, the taste of success is so sweet.

Within four years of Sports Illustrated profiling its retched program, Rutgers played in two bowl games, vaulted into the top 10 of the national rankings and gained a major victory in recruiting by beating traditional power Ohio State for tackle Anthony Davis, one of the top prep players in New Jersey. Davis was an All-American at Rutgers and became the No. 11 pick in the 2010 NFL Draft.

Vanderbilt's Bobby Johnson (4-20 through two years) led the Commodores to a bowl game in his seventh season. It was Vandy's first bowl appearance in 26 years.

So based on history, Colorado's Sean Embree has about a 17% chance of taking Colorado to multiple bowl games from this point in his career. At the same time, the record of coaching replacement presented by Howell gives about a 50% chance of 9 or more wins over the next 2 seasons, or about double what the Buffs have seen the past two seasons. Of course, given that the Buffs on-field performance can only improve, whatever decision that Colorado administrators make about the coaching staff, it will probably look like a good one for the next year or two.

More generally, are the experiences of Rutgers, Memphis, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. simply a consequence of the statistics of hindsight? Or is there actually an art to turning around football programs? If so, then Colorado might apply a bit more statistical insight into its coaching decision. The conclusion they should reach is not that the head coach doesn't matter (an implication of Adler et al.) but instead, picking the right coach makes all the difference. 

Why We Watch: Butler in Maui

Coaching Changes and the Limits of Social Science

A new paper has been published in Social Science Quarterly on the performance consequences of college football coaching head changes by a team of authors, including several from the University of Colorado (my university).

The paper, "Pushing “Reset”: The Conditional Effects of Coaching Replacements on College Football Performance" by Adler et al., concludes:

We find that for particularly poorly performing teams, coach replacements have little effect on team performance as measured against comparable teams that did not replace their coach. However, for teams with middling records—that is, teams where entry conditions for a new coach appear to be more favorable—replacing the head coach appears to result in worse performance over subsequent years than comparable teams who retained their coach.

They draw some practical conclusions from their study:

Our findings have important practical implications for the high stakes environment that is contemporary college football. When a college football team's performance is disappointing, the first and often only remedy administrators, fans, and sports writers turn to is firing the coach. This is usually an expensive approach to solving the problem.12 In fact, the concern of sky-rocketing head coaching salaries was the key finding in a 2009 Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics report based on interviews with 95 FBS university presidents (Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2009). Despite the fanfare that often accompanies the hiring of a new coach, our research demonstrates that at least with respect to on-field performance, coach replacement can be expected to be, at best, a break-even antidote. These findings, coupled with the significant costs universities typically incur by choosing to replace a head football coach, suggest that universities should be cautious in their decision to discharge their coach for performance reasons.

A big problem with this paper, which is endemic across social science research, is the making of a connection of a "Large N" study to particular policy contexts, that is, a single N. Let me explain.

The paper looked at 263 coaching changes form 1997 to 2010 and performed a range of statistical tests on the data, and concludes:

[T[he key findings are that coaching replacements, on average, appear to provide short-term benefits to teams that are performing extremely poorly. However, if anything, they have a deleterious effect on performance among teams where entry conditions are most favorable. Importantly, this dispels the common rationale used by university athletic directors when firing the head coach, namely, that replacing the incumbent coach is a necessary step to improve on-field performance. Our findings demonstrate that the actual effects of such replacements are generally the opposite of what is intended.

The key phrases here are "on average" and "generally." The data shows a distribution of outcomes, from a degradation of performance to an improvement.

When universities replace coaches, they are not making a "Large N" decisions, but a N=1 decision. The important policy question is not "what happens in general?" but "how do we arrive on the right side of the performance distribution?"

Individual coaches are not "unique trials" in a random statistical distribution, but living breathing humans with unique characteristics and skills. We know from other research that individual coaches can add value to a team's performance. The key is context -- what coaches in what settings with what resources?

Would anyone like to argue that Bill Snyder at KSU was not key two different times to improving Kansas State football performance? or Bill McCartney in the 1980s here at Colorado?

To be fair, Adler et al. do recognize this possibility in the paper, writing:

As with any statistical analysis, we cannot rule out the possibility that some specific instances of coaching replacements truly benefit a team. This is certainly a possibility and there is little doubt that many commentators, school administrators, and other observers believe that coaching changes are often responsible for turnarounds in team performance. However, it is important to bear in mind that the fact that a team’s performance improves following a coaching replacement does not necessarily mean that the coach should be given credit for the improvement.

However, the paper does not tell us from its analysis what factors are correlated or otherwise connected to performance improvement. What they have told us is that in aggregate, coaching changes don't work out. Fair enough.

However, that Large N finding tells us very little about particulars and is far from the sort of information that can help a particular struggling program decide whether a coaching change might be a key factor contributing to improved performance.

A Review of Domestic Anti-Doping Legislation

A recent study by Barrie Houlihan and Borja Garcia of the University of Loughborough in the UK has surveyed UNESCO countries for the presence of anti-doping legislation governing sport (or PEDS, performance enhancing drugs).

They explain their focus (here in PDF) as follows:

The intention was to obtain responses from those in government directly responsible for ensuring their country’s compliance with its commitments under the terms of the UNESCO Convention Against Doping in Sport.

They only received responses for 55 of 153 UNESCO countries, of which 51 were substantive enough for analysis. That leaves about 100 UNESCO countries unsurveyed by this paper. More than 200 countries participated in the 2012 London Olympics. A summary of their findings appears in the table below.

Only 18 countries have PEDS-specific legislation. An additional 25 have relevant, but not focused, legislation.

The US does not have PEDS-specific legislation, and the paper notes:

The United States, which has made considerable progress in tackling doping in sport in recent years, is a good example. PEDS trafficking falls under the remit of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), but ‘there is not a comprehensive set of PEDS chemicals included within the purview of the CSA; rather, only those PEDS which have additional characteristics of abuse potential or health risk are listed under CSA’. While anabolic steroids, for example, are covered and traffickers can receive a prison term ‘many substances of concern for PEDS are not addressed under CSA scheduling’ and are unlikely to be addressed as ‘the criteria for inclusion of any particular substance under CSA and scheduling purview are distinct from their impact on performance-enhancement, per se’

More generally, the paper concludes:

The research identified two broad approaches to tackling the issue of the production, movement, importation, distribution and supply of performance-enhancing drugs in sport. The first approach was to introduce laws specifically designed to address PEDS trafficking and the second was to utilise and/or amend existing legislation concerned with recreational drugs. Successful sporting countries were more likely to be found among the former group. More importantly countries which had introduced PEDS-specific legislation were more likely to have a NADO which is actively involved in the investigative process concerning PEDS trafficking. In addition, countries which had introduced PEDS-specific legislation appeared to be more likely to pursue cases through to conviction. However, two caveats are required, first, where PEDS-specific legislation is absent identifying PEDS cases from among the range of general drugs cases is not easy and second, much of the PEDS-specific legislation is relatively recent and there is often a time-lag between the introduction of new legislation and its incorporation into the routines of the police, the prosecution services and the courts.

Such reviews are incredibly important for mapping the policy terrain of sports governance, especially as greater integration and harmonization becomes important.

Reference: Barrie Houlihan and Borja García, 2012. The use of legislation in relation to controlling the production, movement, importation, distribution and supply of performance-enhancing drugs in sport (PEDS), Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. (PDF).

Why We Watch: Zlatan Edition

Has Switzerland Finally Woken Up?

Last week the Swiss Federal Council issued a report on match fixing and corruption in sport. A press release can be found here in English and full report here in French (PDF).  Play the Game offered a summary of the report:

Switzerland is a preferred place for sports organisations to be based due to a favourable legal framework, now the Swiss Council of States Science, Education and Culture Committee, under which sport is categorised, has requested a report from the Federal Council looking into how corruption and match-fixing in sport can be effectively combated.

The Federal Council, which constitutes the federal government in Switzerland, was asked to do an examination of the current measures and to consider possible new legislation on the area.
The report names five measures for the state to examine:

1. the strengthening of international cooperation
2. a tightening of the Swiss corruption legislation
3. making fraud in sport a criminal offence
4. making new criminal dispositions for companies
5. the adequacy of criminal procedures following offences

The Swiss Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports issued a press release characterizing the significance of the report, and suggested that it could be quite significant indeed:

The report concludes that anti-corruption measures currently taken by international sports associations are insufficient. Sport has to take more robust action against corruption in its own ranks. Harmonised and binding good governance systems are required at all levels of organised sport. At the same time, the government is also under pressure to act. What is at stake is not just sport's integrity but also Switzerland's reputation as the home to numerous international sports associations.

Switzerland is currently examining other measures such as making fraud in sport a criminal offence. The tightening of Swiss corruption legislation must be addressed as well. Here the issue of whether members of national and international sport associations based in Switzerland should be made subject to the Swiss criminal law on corruption must be examined.

An aim will also be to promote closer international cooperation, since these unfair practices have become global phenomena.

In a joint effort, the FDJP and DDPS will take a closer look at the potential solutions outlined in the Federal Council report. The Federal Council has requested both departments to draw up specific regulatory proposals.

Kier Radnedge offered an optimistic view on the significance of the report, suggesting that Swiss politicians have finally "woken up"::

This is a remarkable state of enlightenment after decades of virtually non-existent regulation suggested that Switzerland acquiesced in a sports authority culture which believed in encouraging interests (personal, financial) rather than guarding against their conflict.

In my recent analysis of the opportunities to hold FIFA accountable, currently in press, I identified Swiss law as one of the mechanisms through which FIFA could be held accountable. Most international sports associations are incorporated in Switzerland. But I also noted the long-standing reluctance of Swiss officials to exercise that authority.

With FIFA closing down its reform process with, arguably, only partial success, continued motivation for change will have to come from somewhere. Perhaps the Swiss government has indeed finally woken up.

FIFA Begins Closing Down its Reform Process

FIFA has begun ending its reform process. Last week FIFA announced that four committees that it had created as part of the reform process were done their work:

The four FIFA Task Forces which were created at the request of the FIFA Executive Committee in October 2011 have all concluded their mandate to propose reforms, as part of the process which was launched during the FIFA Congress in Zurich on 1 June 2011.

The proposals of the Task Force FIFA Ethics Committee and the Task Force Transparency and Compliance, in particular with regards to the creation of the two-chamber Ethics Committee and the creation of the Audit & Compliance Committee, in both cases with independent chairmen, were already approved by the FIFA Congress in Budapest on 25 May 2012. Additionally, the new FIFA Code of Conduct and the appointment of a woman for the first time in the FIFA Executive Committee were also approved that day.

FIFA says that the reform effort officially ends next May, according to Sepp Blatter:

"But our work does not end here. The reform process will continue, as planned, until the 2013 Congress."

How did they do?  Here is my earlier report card.

UCI's Legal Woes

The international body which governs cycling -- the Union Cycliste Internationale or UCI -- continues to face fallout from the Lance Armstrong affair. Today the WSJ reports that the UCI has been sued by a Swiss-based clothing company, Skins:

Sportswear group Skins International Trading AG is seeking damages from cycling's governing body in the wake of the Lance Armstrong doping scandal.

Skins, an official clothing supplier and sponsor to national federations including the U.S., Australia and New Zealand; and professional teams such as RabobankEuropcar and NetApp, sent a letter to the Union Cycliste Internationaleor UCI, Friday claiming its brand reputation has been harmed.

In a letter, Cedric Aguet, Swiss-based attorney for Skins claims that the way the UCI, former president Hein Verbruggen and current President Patrick McQuaid handled the case surrounding Mr. Armstrong was the main cause for the "total loss of confidence" in professional cycling and so harming Skins and other brands that support the sport.

The full letter from Skins to UCI can be found here in PDF.  Writing on his blog at the Skins website, CEO Jamie Fuller explains their actions as follows:

The events of the last several months or so have made it abundantly clear that world cycling has not been the sport the general public and the corporate partners thought it was. Consequently, as Chairman of a company that has made a significant financial and emotional investment, I am acting in order to send a message to the UCI and its senior office bearers that gross mis-management and betrayal of trust is completely unacceptable.

The recent report from the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) which blew the lid off Lance Armstrong’s systematic control of widespread doping, proved that the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and its two leading figures, President Pat McQuaid and Honorary President For Life, Hein Verbruggen, have failed to eradicate cheating within the sport. In fact, Mr. McQuaid and Mr. Verbruggen refused to even acknowledge that the problem was so entrenched until USADA forced them into submission. In short, we say that the UCI, Mr. McQuaid and Mr. Verbruggen have failed us, the sport and the public who love cycling. We also believe the USADA revelations of widespread doping activity have raised wider, cultural issues within the UCI relating to an apparent inability to rid the sport of doping over an extended period of time.

Consequently, it is now clear that Skins’ financial and emotional investment into cycling has been damaged and our legitimate commercial expectations have been betrayed. If the public no longer have confidence that cycling is ‘clean’ they may question those who support its existence.

The UCI’s decision to uphold the USADA report and strip Lance Armstrong of his 7 Tour de France titles, was proof of their acceptance that he cheated in order to be successful. As a sponsor and commercial partner in the sport, and as a company that produces high performance sports compression wear off the back of cycling’s supposedly clean, vibrant and healthy image, our trust in those at the top has been crushed. Our credibility as a company that promotes true competition, fitness and overall health and wellbeing has been affected by our own promotion of its ‘virtues’.

It is not clear what legal basis under Swiss law Skins is filing the lawsuit, however a successful judgment would have broad implications for all of sports governance.

The lawsuit follows one filed by a journalist, Paul Kimmage, against UCI by the same Swiss law firm. A press release described the suit as follows, as summarized by Play the Game:

According to the press release, Kimmage has sent a “criminal complaint and denunciation against Hein Verbruggen, Pat McQuaid and unknown persons against whom Paul Kimmage requests the opening of a criminal investigation for slander/defamation, denigration and for strong suspicions of fraud.”

The press release further states that Kimmage has initiated the proceedings in honour of the whistle-blowers, who have been “dismissed as ‘liars’, ‘cowards,’ or ‘scumbags’ by Hein Verbruggen and/or Pat McQuaid.”

The resolution of these lawsuits will bear watching.

Doping Era Climb Times for Alpe d'Huez

The graph above shows average winning climb times for the famous Alpe d'Huez ascent in the Tour de France (data comes from Wikipedia, note that not all years are represented). The degree of improvement in a short time period is evocative of East German swimmers of the 1970s.

It is routinely and correctly stated that performance improvements are not sufficient evidence of doping violations, but the Alpe d'Huez performance shown above sure should have raised some eyebrows. I have long wondered why the Tour did not publish a readily accessible time series of rider times. Perhaps this is why.

Thanks to @ReinerGrundmann for the inspiration and link to data for this post!

How Bloggers Busted Lance Armstrong

Writing in the NYT a few days ago David Carr explained the important role of bloggers in the Lance Armstrong affair:

This is a story of how a group of people at the low end of bicycle racing used the Web and social media to take back custody of their sport from powerful dopers and liars and their enablers in the media.

Carr writes:

For those of us who paid only casual attention, his abasement — he has been dropped by Nike and other sponsors and has stepped down as chairman of LiveStrong — came as a deep shock. Sure, there was a steady hum of suspicion along the way, but Armstrong had never failed a drug test, and his steadfast denials were always dutifully reported.

Besides, there was a heroic narrative to be nurtured, and mainstream reporters pretty much stuck to the script — either because they were invested in the legend or were worried about maintaining access to one of the most important figures in sports. There were early and vocal dissenters, including Paul Kimmage, an Irish journalist and veteran of cycling coverage, David Walsh, and Juliet Macur of The New York Times. But for the most part, the journalists who seemed to know the most about professional cycling told us the least. To doubt Armstrong was to doubt the American dream, to effectively be “for cancer,” as his legion of defenders would claim.

But amid the conspiracy of silence, often enforced by Armstrong or his lawyers, according to the report, a small group of dedicated cycling enthusiasts took to blogs and Twitter. His otherworldly accomplishments, they wrote, were a monument not to the power of human spirit, but to the remarkable effectiveness of EPO, an oxygen-enhancing hormone. On Twitter, critics behind handles like @TheRaceRadio, @UCI_Overlord and @FestinaGirl jabbed at Armstrong’s denials and the sport’s leadership.

More important, NYVelocity, a tiny hobby blog that mostly covered the New York bike racing scene, helped pull back the blankets on the Armstrong legend. The blog published a satirical comic, “As the Toto Turns,” to savage effect, and in a series of postings it made the case that pro cycling was corrupt and that Mr. Armstrong’s denials masked a wilderness of lies.

Many sports need the benefits of what elsewhere is called an "extended peer community" to ask hard questions and push for answers. Kudos to the extended peer community of cycling.

Meanwhile Back in the NCAA

While I've been paying attention to the various aspects of the Lance Armstrong affair, there have been some interesting commentaries published with respect to the NCAA.

Writing in the Atlantic, which seems to have taken up NCAA issues of late, attorney Stephen A. Miller makes the case that the NCAA needs help from an independent body to conduct investigations and enforce its rules.  Miller provides an overview of the shortfalls in NCAA enforcement and investigations, and offers some suggestions for improvement.  He concludes:

The NCAA draws much of its marketing power from its image as a custodian of the amateur ideal in America. To protect its own image, the NCAA needs to take enforcement of its regulations more seriously and promote a transparent and fair system that bolsters, rather than undercuts, that image. Otherwise, the NCAA may discover the extent to which its image has been devalued when it tries to negotiate future media contracts or when a group of frustrated member-institutions secede from the NCAA to create a new and improved organization to serve the same function.

SI provides an update on the status of O'Bannon vs. NCAA, an excerpt:

Former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon's class action lawsuit against the NCAA continues to set the table for radical changes to college sports. O'Bannon, who contends that former players should be compensated for the NCAA's use of their likeness and name, recently scored two pretrial victories.

First, a judge ordered ESPN, which is not a defendant, to hand over its television and licensing contracts for D-I men's basketball and football. ESPN unsuccessfully argued that these contracts are confidential and that O'Bannon's document requests are "ridiculously expansive and irrelevant." Armed with specific information as to how much the NCAA earns from its relationship with ESPN, O'Bannon can more effectively calculate the billions of dollars he and other plaintiffs purportedly should have earned.

Second, potentially damaging e-mails involving two other defendants—Collegiate Licensing Company (the NCAA's licensing partner) and Electronic Arts—have emerged. These e-mails portray CLC officials as worried about the legal impact of Electronic Arts's developing video-game characters using real college players' names and then removing those names before retail.

SI says that the trial remains more than a year away, giving me plenty of time to dive into the issues and incorporate them into a paper on the NCAA as a policy problem, which is on my to-do list for 2013.

Finally, at the By-Law Blog, John Infante responds to Brad Wolverton and makes the radical suggestion that students should be able to major in athletics:

The constant push has been to hold down athletics as an extracurricular activity, and increase the role of academics. But to change the game, we need to go in the other direction and meld athletics with academics by establishing majors in athletics for student-athletes.

The arguments for athletics majors have been made many times before, but here is a quick summary:

• Athletics has few or no significant differences from other artistic or entertainment pursuits.
• We see value in the study of artistic pursuits despite the long odds of making a living purely on talent in those fields.
• Increases in injuries, especially concussions, make the study of athletes more important than ever.
• Elite athletes need education in personal finance, agent and advisor selection, marketing, and interacting with the media.
• Youth sports need more professionally trained coaches who know both best practices in teaching a sport as well as first aid, CPR, and injury management training.

But athletics majors also address many of the problems identified in Wolverton’s article and make all of his suggestions significantly easier.

If coaches are professors for their athletes, they are integrated into the faculty without needing to find them something to teach. If the bulk of a coach’s teaching responsibilities involve coaching the varsity team, the coaching profession will likely be less resistant to the change. Hopefully as athletically-related majors grow, coaches end up teaching a greater and greater percentage of non-athletes.

Despite the likely negative reaction of many of my faculty peers, I find Infante's argument compelling and worth further discussion.

The Tangled Web that is US Cycling

Courtesy of @dimspace, writing at the Cyclismas blog is the incredible flowchart above showing the tangled web of people and companies that comprise the world of US cycling in the Lance Armstrong era. You can click on the image for a larger version, but for a PDF that is readable click here.

Here is an excerpt from the description that accompanies it:

Many questions have been asked recently; how, if Lance did dope, was it so effectively covered up, where did the funding come from, how is what’s written in the media shaped, and who has the most to lose?

This presentation is not an exhaustive list. There are many more relationships – both personal ones, and business ones – to be explored. The reach of the chart is not just restricted to U.S. Cycling, but worldwide. Some of the business relationships are current, some of them are in the past, but every name on the list has at some point influenced not just the way cycling is run, but also influenced our perceptions of it and what we believe to be true.

One point is clearly suggested by the chart -- Armstrong no doubt knows an awful lot about the doping program, who was involved and those who helped him along the way. Whether he chooses to keep all this incriminating information to himself of use it as currency remains to be seen.

As far as Armstrong's strategy going forward, who knows, but this quote from a 2003 profile in The Observer may provide a hint:

I don't like to lose. I just despise it. I mean, if I lost the Tour, I would be incredibly upset.

The US Congress and the Lance Armstrong Affair

The fallout from the Lance Armstrong affair continues. Today, Armstrong was dumped by several of his biggest sponsors, including Nike, RadioShack, Trek and Anheuser-Busch,. Nike alone paid him up to $12 million per year. Armstrong also stepped down from chairman of the board of the Livestrong Foundation, his cancer advocacy organization, a move characterized by the organization's CEO as a "leave of absence," perhaps reflecting an unjustifiable optimism that the storm will pass.

Here I discuss some of the curious actions of several members of the US Congress in a belated effort to protect or defend Armstrong against the accusations that have been leveled against him. There is clearly much, much more to this story than has yet been released publicly, and the whiff of a political scandal is not hard to detect.

Here is a concise run down of publicly available information, which is incomplete, no doubt.

Back in July, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Livestrong Foundation was engaged in lobbying on Capitol Hill on behalf of Armstrong's battle against the USADA, a potentially illegal activity for a non-profit organization:

A spokesman for U.S. Rep. José Serrano (D., N.Y.), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, said his office was visited by a registered lobbyist working on behalf of the foundation, which works to increase awareness of cancer.

The lobbyist's main purpose, the spokesman said, was to talk about the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, which enforces rules about performance-enhancing drugs in sports, and which has charged Mr. Armstrong and five others associated with his former cycling team with operating a doping conspiracy in an effort to dominate the Tour de France.

Why Rep. Serrano you might ask? The answer is that he is the Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, which includes in its portfolio the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), which has oversight over USADA. In short, Rep. Serrano is a bigwig, and arguably one of the four most important members (of 535) in the US Congress if your goal is to have some influence over USADA.

Not long after, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) sent a letter to the ONDCP expressing a vigorous defense of Armstrong, seemingly taken straight from the arguments advanced from Armstrong's legal team. Following the release of the USADA's "Reasoned Decision" the letter now makes Rep. Sensenbrenner look like - in generous terms - a gullible fool:

The United States Congress has no role in determining whether an individual athlete doped . . . 

[but] . . . USADA’s authority over Armstrong is strained at best. . . USADA has adopted a novel conspiracy theory . . .  Armstrong, however, has never failed a drug test despite having been tested over 500 times . . . Presumably, USADA has offered other athletes inducements to testify against Armstrong, but USADA has no obligation to disclose what those inducements were or whether it offered them.

In an impressive display of clairvoyance, Sensenbrenner even alluded to the fact that Armstrong might decline to participate in the USADA arbitration process:

If Armstrong submits to USADA’s arbitration, he will be in the unenviable position of carrying the burden to rebut testimony from witnesses he cannot even cross examine.

In response to Sensenbrenner's letter, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the ONDCP, provided a substantive and measured response, explaining the legislative basis for ONDCP and its oversight. He also cautioned that it would be "extraordinary and inappropriate" for the ONDCP to insert itself into an arbitration proceeding (response letter here in PDF), language which might also be applied to the efforts by a U.S. Congressman to influence the USADA process.

Now you may ask, why Rep. Sensenbrenner? The answer is that he is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over ONDCP. It is also worth noting that the district represented by Mr. Sensenbrenner is home to Trek Bicycles, the long-time Armstrong sponsor (which dumped him today).

In response to legislative pressure being directed on USADA by Rep, Sensenbrenner, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) voiced his support for the process:

While the charges are serious, and I expect the process to be fair, I fully support USADA and its right to undertake the investigation of, and bring charges against, Lance Armstrong. USADA is authorized by Congress and provides assurances to taxpayers, fans and competitors that sports in America are clean. USADA’s rules and processes, approved by America’s athletes, the United States Olympic Committee and all U.S. sport federations, apply to all athletes regardless of their public profile or success in sport. This process is the proper forum to decide matters concerning individual cases of alleged doping violations.

Then, just about one month ago, Rep. Sensenbrenner and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the Ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill in Congress to clamp down on the USADA.

Politico reported:

Rep. John Conyers, now the committee’s ranking member, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), on Friday introduced the “Athlete Due Process Protection Act of 2012,” designed to “strengthen the United States Anti-Doping Agency’s (USADA) ability to ensure a fair playing field in sports.”

Conyers said the legislation would “ensure that our American athletes — just like every other U.S. citizen – [are] accorded the full measure of due process constitutional protections when issues arise surrounding the important drug testing functions of USADA.”

The text of the proposed legislation can be found here in PDF.

Now that the USADA has released its "Reasoned Decision" all of these political machinations appear to be moot, as the cycling world has been turned upside down.  However, there are questions to be raised about the role of U.S. politicians who have sought to insert themselves into the process of sports governance on behalf of Lance Armstrong. Such as: Who? What? Why? When? How?

These are questions that might be asked and answered by investigative journalists or even aspiring politicians. If Mark McGuire can be called before the US Congress, so too can Lance Armstrong and Livestrong executives. Congressional hearings on this affair do not seem unlikely. Stay tuned.

Every indication suggests that there a seamy underside to sport and politics in the U.S. yet to be revealed.

Mohammed bin Hammam Requests a FIFA Investigation of Blatter

In the latest interesting twist to the ongoing battle between former FIFA official Mohammend bin Hammam and FIFA/Sepp Blatter, bin Hammam has written a letter to FIFA requesting that the organization open up an investigation of Blatter.

The Independent reports:

In the letter, which has been seen by the Press Association, Bin Hammam states: "Complaints have been made both against Mr Blatter and some of his colleagues which would seem to justify a full investigation.

"Whilst I am still suspended my rival in the 2011 presidential election remains in power and office.

"He is not under any investigation or suspension. This is so difficult for me to understand."

In August I observed that the initiation of an investigation was a key gap in the procedures of the new FIFA investigative functions under Michael Garcia, when I suggested that Garcia ought to clarify the following questions:

Do your investigations have a "terms of reference" or a "probable cause" statement that initiates action? If so, will you release them? If not, how do you avoid charges of ad hoc decision making?

Now bin Hammam is asking the same questions, which have been raised by others as well.

A few weeks ago I asked FIFA IGC member Michael J. Hershman a question about how the new FIFA ethics committee sets its investigative priorities, and here is how I characterized his response:

Garcia’s committee decides on priorities by majority vote. But because Garcia has plenty of experience in such matters as compared to other members of the committee, the committee seems willing to follow his lead. In response to my pressing him a bit on this point (as Garcia is the only independent member of that committee), Hershman emphasized that Garcia’s committee is not a FIFA committee, but an ethics committee which sets its own priorities.

Hershman further noted that a forthcoming "whistleblower's hotline" will allow allegations to be brought before the FIFA Ethics Committee which can decide if the allegations merit an investigation.

So members of the media with the ability to ask Garcia questions might add the following:

• Have you asked the full Ethics Committee to vote on opening an investigation of Sepp Blatter? If not, why not?
• If so, what was the resulting vote?

The Independent reports further details from the bin Hammam letter:

"I do appreciate that Mr Garcia has a job to do but... why should others not be suspended pending investigations in the same way that I have been?

"How can there ever have be a fair and open election in FIFA against an incumbent president? There are no rules and therefore no level playing field.

"Whilst my time to stand on a change agenda may have passed I would hope that others will follow.

"If they do so they should not be at risk of the fate that has occurred to me."

Bin Hammam, who was Asian Confederation President (AFC) and a FIFA executive committee member until his ban, said the allegations had been "a nightmare".

"I have now been kept out of football for nearly 16 months," he said in the letter. "Apart from my personal position, my family have endured the nightmare of one set of allegations after the other being made against me.

"I also have to witness the AFC, which I spent such a big part of my time and life putting into a secure financial position, beginning to crumble before my very eyes."

Setting aside issues of the possibility of ethical violations made by either bin Hammam or Blatter, FIFA has set itself up for legitimate claims of violations of due process, selective administration of its new ethics guidelines and arbitrariness in the use of its investigative resources.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport has already come down hard on FIFA once before for violating bin Hammam's due process rights. Now bin Hammam is setting FIFA up for a similar outcome.

Summary of Responses from FIFA IGC to my Interview Requests

Last month I emailed 5 (of the 12) members of the FIFA Independent Governance Committee to request an opportunity to conduct an on-the-record interview. Michael J. Hershman was the only member to agree to an interview, which I published here on October 1.

The results of my requests (which I followed up on several times over a period of weeks) for the other four members (chosen because I could easily find their email addresses) are as follows:

• Sunil Gulati -- Initial agreement to speak off record, then declined after seeing my questions.
• Peter H. Goldsmith -- Initial agreement to be interviewed via email, no response after receiving questions
• James M. Klotz -- Declined to be interview
• Alexandra Wrage -- No response to interview request

Now, I'm no one important or special, however the 20% response rate from the FIFA IGC does not lend me to conclude that the IGC is operating under a spirit of openness and transparency. I've not seen interviews with real members of the media of anyone on the IGC aside from Mark Pieth (and once Wrage), so perhaps I am not alone.

Looking into the Soul of Sport

Last week in my graduate seminar on science and technology studies we had a chance to sit down (virtually) with Brad Allenby and Dan Sarewitz, professors at Arizona State University and the authors of The Techno-Human Condition (MIT, 2011). In it they explore the consequences of the continuing integration of human beings and our technologies (a review here). Their book raises some difficult questions about what it means to be human in our modern, technological era. They argue that there is no sharp line distinguishing the human from the technological -- whether vaccines, eyeglasses, Google or any other technologies, humans and technologies are one.

Early on they invoke sport when they write:

The Tour de France has become as much a race that pits the latest doping techniques against the newest detection technologies as a contests amongst the cyclists.

In our class discussion last week Allenby raised the possibility (not the preference, I should note) that athletics might just do away with the fiction that top athletes today are anything other than techno-human hybrids, regardless where the rules draw imaginary lines.

Allenby is not alone with this suggestion. In the aftermath of the USADA report on Lance Armstrong's doping practices, Malcolm Gladwell offered a similar reaction:

"Here's my thing about Lance, and that is, our paradigm is wrong for biking. What if we thought about bicycling as just the equivalent of auto racing. It's Formula 1.

"What is Formula 1? It's the combination of a car, so an instrument. A driver, and the driver's skill. And science. So Formula 1 teams compete on these three levels simultaneously. We compete to see who has the fastest driver, we compete to see who has the best car, and we also compete in our ability to innovate within the rules, to use science to further the performance of our driver within those constraints.

"So, what if we thought about Lance and competitive cycling as auto racing. It's on three levels: you got a bike, you got a driver, and you got science. When you look at what Lance is alleged to have done, basically he was better than everyone else at using PEDs. He was the guy who sat down and was rigorous and focused and thoughtful and intelligent and cutting edge in how to use them, and apply them and make himself better. Like, I don't know, so is that a bad thing? He's being rewarded for being the best at his game. It was an element in the competition, and he used that element better than anyone else.

"Why don't we just make that a part of the definition of what it means to be a great bicyclist?"

Armstrong clearly violated the letter of the law insofar as the rules of USADA have been promulgated. But one has a harder case arguing that Armstrong violated the de facto norms of his sport. The contemporary institutional arrangements were obviously not up to the task of (publicly) identifying Armstrong's violations much less sanctioning them.

Further, Armstrong's violations of the formal rules has landed him a net worth of a reported $125 million and annual sponsorship deals worth more than $15 million. He has been handsomely rewarded for his violation of the formal rules and despite the evidence against him, his sponsors Nike, Radio Shack and Anheuser-Busch are all standing behind Armstrong. Nike explained, "Nike plans to continue to support Lance."

Armstrong's sponsors are operating under a different set of values and norms than those expressed by WADA. Professional cycling -- but also international federations, governments, sponsirs and the public -- remains of two minds on our techno-human condition. On the one hand the ideals of health, fairness and equality embodied in the WADA Code have been formally adopted by 127 international sporting federations and every country in the world. On the other hand, the case of Lance Armstrong shows that there is not a shared view in practice on the ideals set forth by WADA. The existence of rules absent shared norms is a recipe for a muddled mess.

Modern athletes are in fact techno-human hybrids. Absent bright lines between the human and the technological, if we are going to draw lines then we must draw them based on shared values and, yes, difficult political negotiations. If the formal guidelines come into conflict with the operating norms of sport, then situations like that of professional cycling will remain common. While much of the discussion of the Lance Armstrong case focuses, as it should, on the personalities involved, the issue should also prompt a deeper debate about the very soul of sport itself.