Sports and Economics

Liverpool have won their opening three games in the English Premier League. That's right folks, three 1-0 victories for the Reds. Three Daniel Sturridge goals, three Liverpool wins. Three clean sheets, which is perhaps more impressive. Granted, the first two wins came against Stoke City and Aston Villa, two fixtures Liverpool would expect to win. But the most recent victory came against Manchester United, the defending Premier League champions.

The win at home against United was indicative of the Red's previous victories - press high up the pitch, create chances from turnovers, and soak up pressure while leading. The fourth minute goal was a result of Liverpool's high pressure. Glen Johnson took Ashley Young on 1v1 down the right sideline, but his touch was heavy, allowing Vitic to find Carrick on the edge of the penalty area. He played square to Young, who was immediately put under pressure by Henderson, and gave the ball away. Sturridge recovered in the penalty area, driving to his left. His shot was blocked, and Liverpool scored from the resulting corner kick. As the game drew on, United were able to break Liverpool's press, but did not create many clear chances. Lucas and Skrtel had much to do with that. Lucas has played every minute of the campaign thus far, and is finally regaining the form which has eluded him in recent injury-plagued years. He was a constant nuisance in defensive midfield, closing down passing lanes and committing timely challenges. Skrtel enjoyed a positive outing as well, bottling up Van Persie and Danny Welbeck throughout the fixture. The back four looked confident throughout, including Andre Wisdom's appearance as a substitute.

Clint Dempsey is leaving the EPL. Spurs agreed to terms with the Seattle Sounders on Saturday for about £6 million, similar to what Tottenham paid to acquire his services last summer. The move will leave Jozy Altidore, Geoff Cameron, and Tim Howard as the major American players in the English Premier league.

My initial question is a simple one - why? Clint has made it clear that he wants to play at the highest level. He has spoken at length about his desire to experience Champions League football. If Spurs manage to hold on to Gareth Bale, they stand a good chance of qualifying for the competition next season. But Dempsey is 30, and by the time this campaign is over and the next begins, he'll be turning 32. Perhaps he believes that he missed his window. Another angle to consider is the 2014 World Cup. There are two ways to view the move in regards to international competition. The first, which I've heard loudly voiced, is that the quality of play in the MLS is far inferior to that of the EPL, and thus Dempsey will be at a disadvantage come the World Cup. The second is that Tottenham played a huge number of games in the 2012-2013 season. They competed in 4 competitions - the Premier League, the League Cup (Capital One Cup), the FA Cup, and the UEFA Europa League.

Their season ran from August to May, with many meaningful games in the spring as the Europa League knockout stages began and the race for 4th place in the EPL heated up. Dempsey featured in 32 matches for the Spurs.The table above shows the various competitions and their dates.

Dempsey competed in a significant number of other matches. He played 17 games for the United States national team. Clint did not get much of a break after the season ended for the Spurs, as he reported to the USMNT's training camp in mid May. Those international competitions have only recently come to a close, but the EPL is set to start up in only a few short weeks.

I don't claim have any unique insight into the thoughts of Clint Dempsey. His reasons for moving might be more personal - a desire to be in America, a need to spend more time with family, a calling to promote the game at home, or perhaps he's simply fatigued. Perhaps as Clint conducts interviews and press releases more will become clear.

The MLS All-Star game is a silly, silly thing. The whole concept of an All-Star game is inherently flawed. The supposed best players of the league come together to compete against a club from another country (typically Europe). Who the best players are is up for debate, and are decided somewhat arbitrarily. They are voted on by fans, MLS players as well as Peter Vermes (this year's All-Star coach) and Commissioner Don Garber. The system is that fans vote for a certain amount of players, usually 8, from which the coach chooses when selecting the starting XI and 7 subs. The other players are selected by MLS players voting, the Commissioner, and the coach. This year, to add to the silliness, a player was selecting using the video game Fifa 13. Don't ask me how that works, but it lends insight as to how seriously we ought to take this game. There are obvious problems with the All-Star game aside from player selection, namely that the players have little time to actually play with one another. They only have about 1 or 2 training sessions before the game to get accustomed to one another. Further, the game takes place mid season, so players and coaches are rightfully mindful of injuries and fatigue. With those caveats in mind, what can this year's All-Star matchup with Roma tell us about the state of the United State's domestic league? 

First, this game shows the difference between club teams and everyone else (All-Star teams, national teams, etc.). Clubs have the luxury of playing together on a regular basis, with (hopefully) consistent coaching and strategy. Roma's obvious confidence stemmed from the fact that they play with each other daily. But wait, you say, Roma has a new coach, and this lineup features a ton of new players. True, but two quick counterpoints. One, Roma has already been training for at least a month to prepare for their domestic league. That might not sound like much, but it certainly beats the All-Star's 1 or 2 training sessions. Second, the core of Roma's team has played a lot of minutes together. defender Leandro Castan started 30 games for Roma last season, Federico Balzaretti 28, Michael Bradley 29, Miralem Pjanic 22, Alessandro Florenzi 28...you get the picture. And that's without mentioning the timeless Francesco Totti, stalwart of Roma for some twenty seasons. These guys have played quite a bit together, and it shows. Roma's fluidity was evident throughout the match, something that would have been difficult for the MLS players to match, simply given their respective time constraints. 

Second, this game showed both how far American soccer has come and how far it needs to go. On the positive side, the MLS players were in fine form and fitness, which should be expected from the top players in the league. They tried to play a passing game, mostly trying to keep the ball on the floor and open Roma's defense with ball movement and short passes. Their defensive effort could not be questioned, although their execution was at times suspect. Overall, it's good to see a hotly contested match, which is something you don't see often from All-Star games in other American sports. On the flip side, it was evident that the player's for Roma outclassed the MLS players in terms of skill and technique. Aside from Totti's wonderfully accurate and threatening long balls, it was their comfort in tight spaces that impressed me most. The MLS players did their best to pressure the ball high and make life difficult for Roma's defense. And at times it appeared that Roma was ripe to give the ball away in a dangerous spot. Yet time and time again Roma's back four and midfield played out of pressure with quick, one and two touch passing. They seemed untroubled with the pressure being applied to them and were content to move the ball until pressure was relieved (save for a moment in the 66th minute when a Roma defender had the ball stripped, leading to a chance which should have been scored). Roma was also happy to move the ball in the attacking third, making smart runs in behind the MLS defense that was playing a dangerously high line. This was showcased in a slick passing move leading to the third goal in the 68th minute. It also seemed like the Roma players did all of the so called "little things" right. Their passes always lead their target correctly; their first touches brought them into open space. It's not to say all that they did was perfect. There were still misplaced passes and poor touches, but overall they were far sharper and more consistent than the All-Stars. 

Earlier in the week NY Mag published an interesting article concerning the long term growth prospects for the US economy. There are two main schools of thought revolving around these projections. One is headed by economist Robert Gordon of Northwestern. He believes that the first and second industrial revolutions set in motion a series of events that allowed humans to consecutively increase their standard of living until the present day. Now, he argues, our standard of living has flat lined, as this generation will not be better of than their parents. In order to resume the progress of previous days, we would need another jump forward, on the order of magnitude of the first industrial revolution. In short, Gordon is highly skeptical that this can happen.

The second camp does not dispute that our betterment has paused, but is much more optimistic about its resumption. They believe that the information age will usher its own sort of technological revolution, allowing for rates of growth to resume. They point out that it takes time for people to understand and make use of new technology and information at their disposal. We've all seen the tremendous growth and outpouring of technology in recent years, so it seems fair to me that we might need a bit of time to figure out what to do with it all.

There's something that both camps overlook, which the article fails to make note of. Both sides agree that the current generation (yay millenials!) won't be better off than the previous generation. The primary measures of this are generally education and health. Perhaps earning potential deserves to be thrown in there as well, but I'm uncertain what those predictions currently are. So everyone is saying that we are less educated and healthy than our parents. But here's the question no one is asking: What is the upper bound for these two measures of well- being?

I'm not going to spend much time considering that there is no upper bound. The human body has its limits, and I think in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality rate, our standings are fairly impressive. According to the government's Social Security website, a man turning 65 today can expect to live, on average, to the age of 84. A 65 year old woman can expect, on average, to live till 86. In the US, there are 5.9 infant deaths per 1000 live births according to the CIA world fact-book. Changes must be made to achieve a comparable level to a country like Japan, which averages just 2.17 deaths per 1000 live births. I am not a doctor, so I'm not sure how much improvement can be made on either front. But I don't think it's useful to consider a situation where there is no upper bound on health or education. Perhaps education is an easier though experiment. Does this mean that all workers have a high school degree? A college degree? A masters? A doctorate? I'm not certain it would be useful or beneficial to have all workers obtain a collegiate degree, much less a doctorate.

ESPN reported yesterday that the boxing match between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Saul Alvarez sold out in less than 24 hours, generating a minimum of $18.670,000 in ticket sales. This broke the all-time live gate record for a boxing match, which was set in 2007 in the title fight between Mayweather and Oscar De La Hoya. The national closed circuit, which allows restaurants and bars to televise the fight, guarantees another $4 million. Not to mention the revenue from pay-per-view sales, which won't be available till after the fight. Just evaluating the guaranteed money, the event is set to generate upwards of $22 million. The gate receipts from this single event equals nearly half the gate receipts from the Oakland Raiders entire season. The Raiders brought in $40 million in gate receipts from the 2012 season. Mayweather and Alvarez are bringing in $18 million in a single night. Yes, I know, it's the Raiders. But c'mon, the black hole! That still exists, right? Right? ...okay, but still. It's a lot of money. Which leads me to ask the question, what does this mean for boxing?

Photo Credit: Getty Images, zap2it.com

Personally, I always regarded boxing is a fringe sport, far removed from the mainstream relevance in the days of Ali and Frazier. The public outcry about safety issues (particularly head injuries) in the NFL has been stirring. It's telling that there is no such discussion surrounding a sport like boxing, at least that I've been aware of. The lack of discussion doesn't mean that people don't care, quite the contrary. The public came to the conclusion long ago that boxing is dangerous and not really worth the risk. One reason the sport doesn't dominate mainstream consciousness or headlines is because people understand the risks involved with boxing. Young people don't engage in boxing the way they engage with the NFL or NBA. They don't go to the gym and learn to box. Floyd Mayweather Jr., for all his money and supremacy at the sport, does not command the same attention that athletes like Lebron James or RG3 do. Boxing just doesn't command the same relevance that other American sports do.

On Thursday, the House rejected the latest edition of the Farm Bill. This version would have cut $2 billion annually from food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It also would have allowed states to administer new work requirements on the program's participants. Republicans opposed the bill because the cuts were not deep enough, while Democrats were opposed because such cuts could remove some 2 million recipients from the rolls.

The Farm Bill is flawed in numerous ways, most notably by disproportionately aiding large farms over small ones. Hopefully some future post will be dedicated exclusively to that topic. But this edition of the Farm Bill failed primarily because the GOP seeks much deeper cuts to the $74 billion SNAP program. Attempts at cuts to the SNAP program is a short-sighted initiative to reduce the deficit and scale back the role of government. Now, before you launch into a smug, self-aggrandizing monologue about how you pulled yourself up from your own boot straps and made America what it is today, let's look at a very simple graph.

The vertical axis designates average number of participants enrolled in SNAP, in thousands. The horizontal axis records the year, starting in 1969. If you want to check the numbers, all data was found on the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service website. There are many interesting things happening on this graph, but let's key in on probably the most relevant piece of information. The trend becomes nearly vertical around 2008/2009. Average enrollment had been increasing steadily since 2000, and actually decreased slightly from 2006/2007. Then came the Great Recession, people started hurting, and enrollment swelled. Between 2008 and 2012, participation increased 65%. About 46,609,000 enrolled in SNAP in 2012.

Spain's performance in last night's match against Uruguay was nothing short of dominant. The 2-1 score line does not reflect the nature of the contest. The outcome was never in doubt, Suarez's consolation goal in the 88th minute a thing of beauty, but of no real significance.

This was Spain at its best. They were simply operating on a different level. When this team plays with urgency, they are truly a pleasure to watch. Every player is comfortable on the ball, which seems silly to mention in regards to the quality of the players on the field. Of course they're comfortable on the ball, they're professional soccer players. But the Spanish players are more than that. They're not just comfortable in their abilities, they're also poised and confident. The Spanish team never looked phased, even when pressured high up the pitch by their opponent. They trusted in each other, believing they could pass their way out of any situation. And pass they did, maintaining 75 percent of possession for the match. Roberto Soldado thrived in a more traditional number 9 role for Spain, maintaining possession with his back to goal and allowing the rest of the side to join in the attack. His clever play and ability to find space for himself flowed seamlessly with the likes of Fabrigas, Iniesta, Pedro, and others. The second goal for Spain typified the team's performance. Fabrigas collected a square ball from the right side on the cusp of the attacking third, about ten or fifteen yards from the midfield circle. He turns, with time, and draws the Uruguayan defense out with a shot fake. Instead, he slips the ball to Soldado, who crept to the edge of the penalty area while (correctly) staying onside. Soldado calmly turned and beat the keeper with a beautifully placed curling effort.

Tuesday night's game in Seattle marked the midpoint for the USMNT's World Cup qualifying campaign. After five games in the Hexagonal, the national team is sitting pretty in first place on ten points (3-1-1). So qualifying is basically in the bag, right? Right! At least according to the almighty Soccer Power Index's calculations. They give the US a 98.5% chance of making it to Brazil. I'm a huge fan of essentially anything Nate Silver touches, so I'm a believer. SPI is a neat system. It's not perfect, but it's still awesome and very much interesting. But the bigger, more exciting point, is that the USMNT is playing some winning football (at the moment). So what exactly has been so successful in their past 3 games (wins against Germany, Jamaica, and Panama)?

It's nice to see that perhaps, finally, Jurgy is finally settling into a lineup he is comfortable with. After more than twenty different games of twenty different starting XIs, these past three games have featured much more continuity. Did Jurgy field the exact same starters each game? No, but suspensions and injuries forced his hand for the Panama game. And, to his credit, the adjustments he made reaped dividends. Eddie Johnson is reminding us of those magical moments in 2004 when the then 20 year old was scoring goals hand-over fist for the USMNT. Then came the injuries, and that all that young promise seemed ephemeral. He has played for the Seattle Sounders since 2012, notching 18 goals in 35 appearances. His goal against Panama was excellent - his control and finish was technically difficult, yet he made it look all too easy. Which is exactly what a good goal-scorer should do. It's probably too early to declare that the Eddie Johnson of old is back, but reserved optimism is more than appropriate. It looks like the players are much more comfortable playing together than they were just a few weeks ago. Simply having time to play and train with one another is making the team look much more cohesive. Jozy Alitidore is enjoying a great run of form, providing the answer to the ever-pesky question of "where are the goals going to come from?" The Michael Bradley and Jermaine Jones pairing in midfield seems solid. When called upon, Geoff Cameron filled in nicely against Panama. The back four have their fair share of gaffes and mental lapses. This is concerning, but at least Jurgy has found suitable outside backs in Evans and Beasley. I have criticized Beasley (and the entire back line) in previous posts, and I'm not entirely sold. But they've shown improvement, and hopefully their play will continue to refute my misgivings .