# Point Score Systems and Cooperative Incentives: The 3-1-0 Curse

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. A Simple Game Model

- N: Play normally
- A: Make an agreement sharing two victories—a home win for each

- $\mathcal{W}$: ⇒ $\omega $ points
- $\mathcal{D}$: ⇒ $\delta $ points
- $\mathcal{L}$: ⇒ 0 points

- A,A
- If both teams choose the A-action, they share the total amount of points after one win each. Hence, $\omega $ to both players.
- N,N
- Without any agreement (choosing N), both teams plays as usual, and by being perfect clones, will have a probability of $\frac{1}{3}$ for each outcome $\mathcal{W},\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{L}$. Hence, $2\xb7\frac{1}{3}\left(\right)open="("\; close=")">\omega +\delta $ to both players (Recall 2 games are played).
- A,N
- (or N,A). Now, our model is a bit too simplified. We overlook the obvious inherent sequentiality here; one team may observe that the other deviates, and hence punish back. Furthermore, there may very well be some effects of incomplete information as well, making it even more complex. Anyway, what we can establish is that the remaining pay-offs must be located within the following interval:$$\left(\right)$$

**not**collapse to a non-gaming situation.

## 3. Theoretical Discussion and Conclusions

## 4. Empirical Analysis

## 5. Discussion, Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A. Alternative Derivation of the ω = 2δ Result

**not**OK, as $3\ne 2\xb71$. However, the former point score system in football – (2-1-0) is OK as $2=2\xb71$.

## Appendix B. Empirical Analysis, Definitions and Results

#### Appendix B.1. Definitions

- ${\delta}_{ij}$: Number of drawn matches played by team i in league j
- ${N}_{j}$: Number of teams playing in league j
- ${\rho}_{L}^{j}$: Calculated measure for uncertainty of outcome in league j
- $A{P}_{ij}$: Actual point score for team i in league j
- $LC{P}_{ij}$: Least competitive point score for team i in league j
- $MC{P}_{J}$: Maximally competitive point score for team i in league j

#### Appendix B.2. Calculations

#### Appendix B.3. Data

#### Appendix B.4. Empirical Analysis

## References

- Wilson, J. The Question: Is Three Points for a Win Good for Football? The Guardian. 5 February 2009. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2009/feb/05/question-jonathan-wilson-three-points (accessed on 30 September 2018).
- Wikipedia. Three Points for a Win. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_points_for_a_win (accessed on 28 August 2017).
- EastMidlands. Current and Old Football League Tables. Available online: http://www.emfootball.co.uk/oldleaguetables.html (accessed on 24 August 2017).
- Haugen, K.K.; Heen, K.P. The Competitive Evolution of European Top Football—Signs of Danger. Available online: http://www.ejss-journal.com/index.php/the-competitive-evolution-of-european-top-football-signs-of-danger (accessed on 30 September 2018).
- Kerr, S. On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Acad. Manag. J.
**1975**, 18, 769–783. [Google Scholar] - Garciano, L.; Palacios-Huerta, I. Sabotage in tournaments: Making the beautiful. In Beautiful Game Theory: How Soccer Can Help Economics; Palacios-Huerta, I., Ed.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2014; Chapter 8. [Google Scholar]
- Shepotylo, O. Three-Point-for-Win in Soccer Rule: Are There Incentives for Match Fixing? Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.755264 (accessed on 30 September 2018).
- Haugen, K.K. Always Change a Winning Team; Tapir Academic Publishers: Trondheim, Norway, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Haugen, K.K. Point score systems and football coaching secrecy. Math. Appl.
**2016**, 5, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Haugen, K.K. Point score systems and competitive balance in professional soccer. J. Sports Econ.
**2008**, 9, 191–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fernandez-Cantelli, E.; Meeden, G. An improved award system for soccer. Chance Mag.
**2003**, 16, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Haugen, K.K. An improved award system for soccer: A (game theoretic comment). Chance Mag.
**2007**, 20, 22–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Brochas, I.; Carillo, J.D. Do the “three-point victory” and “golden-goal” rules make soccer more exciting? J. Sports Econ.
**2004**, 5, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hon, L.Y.; Parinduri, R.A. Does the three-point rule make soccer more exciting? Evidence from a regression discontinuity design. J. Sports Econ.
**2014**, 17, 377–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moschini, C. Incentives and outcomes in a strategic setting: The 3-points-for-a-win system in soccer. Econ. Inq.
**2010**, 48, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery; Hutchinson & CO.: London, UK, 1959. [Google Scholar]
- Carnap, R. The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy; Open Court Publishing: Chicago, IL, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Duggan, M.; Levitt, S.D. Winning isn’t everything: Corruption in sumo wrestling. Am. Econ. Rev.
**2002**, 92, 1594–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Scima, E. Scoring Systems in Chess Tournaments. Available online: https://www.thespruce.com/tournament-scoring-systems-611116 (accessed on 15 February 2017).

**Table 1.**Estimated uncertainty of outcome $\left(\right)$, and draw ratio $\left(\right)$ for some European leagues—2017.

2017 | ${\mathit{\rho}}_{\mathit{L}}^{\mathit{j}}$ | ${\mathit{\delta}}_{\mathit{j}}$ |
---|---|---|

ALBANIA | 28.0% | 32.8% |

AUSTRIA | 34.2% | 18.9% |

BELARUS | 15.1% | 25.8% |

BOSNIA & HERC. | 19.5% | 28.8% |

CROATIA | 10.1% | 23.9% |

CZECH REP. | 25.2% | 28.8% |

ENGLAND | 21.0% | 22.1% |

FINLAND | 30.3% | 27.8% |

FRANCE | 27.9% | 25.0% |

GERMANY | 30.9% | 24.2% |

GREECE | 21.4% | 27.5% |

HOLLAND | 24.8% | 23.9% |

HUNGARY | 40.3% | 27.3% |

ICELAND | 35.1% | 27.3% |

IRELAND | 25.9% | 23.2% |

ITALY | 16.4% | 22.2% |

LUXEMBOURG | 26.8% | 19.8% |

MACEDONIA | 25.6% | 31.7% |

NORWAY | 38.8% | 24.6% |

PORTUGAL | 23.6% | 26.1% |

SPAIN | 16.4% | 23.4% |

SWEDEN | 28.0% | 28.8% |

SLOVENIA | 29.6% | 30.6% |

SWITZERLAND | 28.9% | 21.1% |

TURKEY | 26.6% | 21.9% |

**Table 2.**Regression with draw ratio ($\delta $) as dependent variable and uncertainty of outcome $\left(\right)$ as independent variable.

Coefficient | Estimate | t-Value |
---|---|---|

$Constant$ | 24.35107 *** | 8.653 |

${\rho}_{L}$ | 0.04416 | 0.423 |

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Haugen, K.K.; Heen, K.P.
Point Score Systems and Cooperative Incentives: The 3-1-0 Curse. *Sports* **2018**, *6*, 110.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sports6040110

**AMA Style**

Haugen KK, Heen KP.
Point Score Systems and Cooperative Incentives: The 3-1-0 Curse. *Sports*. 2018; 6(4):110.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sports6040110

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Haugen, Kjetil K., and Knut P. Heen.
2018. "Point Score Systems and Cooperative Incentives: The 3-1-0 Curse" *Sports* 6, no. 4: 110.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sports6040110