Risk of Collusion: Will Groups of 3 Ruin the FIFA World Cup?

Julien Guyon
{"title":"Risk of Collusion: Will Groups of 3 Ruin the FIFA World Cup?","authors":"Julien Guyon","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3190779","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2026, the FIFA World Cup will for the first time gather 48 men’s national teams. It will consist of a group stage made of 16 groups of three, with the best two teams in each group advancing to the knockout stage. Using groups of three raises several fairness issues, including the risk of match fixing and schedule imbalance. In this article we examine the risk of collusion. The two teams who play the last game in the group know exactly what results will let them advance to the knockout stage. Risk of match fixing occurs when a result qualifies both of them at the expense of the third team of the group, and can seriously tarnish the tournament. We quantify how often this is expected to happen and explain how to build the match schedule so as to minimize the risk of collusion. We also quantify how the risk of collusion depends on competitive balance. Moreover, we show that forbidding draws during the group stage (a rule considered by FIFA) does not eliminate the risk of match fixing, and that, surprisingly, the 3-2-1-0 point system does not do a better job at decreasing the risk of collusion than the 3-0 point system. Finally we describe alternate formats for a 48-team World Cup that would eliminate or strongly decrease the risk of collusion.","PeriodicalId":393761,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Game Theory & Bargaining Theory (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"29","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Other Game Theory & Bargaining Theory (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3190779","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

Abstract

In 2026, the FIFA World Cup will for the first time gather 48 men’s national teams. It will consist of a group stage made of 16 groups of three, with the best two teams in each group advancing to the knockout stage. Using groups of three raises several fairness issues, including the risk of match fixing and schedule imbalance. In this article we examine the risk of collusion. The two teams who play the last game in the group know exactly what results will let them advance to the knockout stage. Risk of match fixing occurs when a result qualifies both of them at the expense of the third team of the group, and can seriously tarnish the tournament. We quantify how often this is expected to happen and explain how to build the match schedule so as to minimize the risk of collusion. We also quantify how the risk of collusion depends on competitive balance. Moreover, we show that forbidding draws during the group stage (a rule considered by FIFA) does not eliminate the risk of match fixing, and that, surprisingly, the 3-2-1-0 point system does not do a better job at decreasing the risk of collusion than the 3-0 point system. Finally we describe alternate formats for a 48-team World Cup that would eliminate or strongly decrease the risk of collusion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
共谋的风险:3人组会毁了世界杯吗?
2026年,国际足联世界杯将首次聚集48支男子国家队。小组赛将由16个小组组成,每组三支,每组最好的两支球队进入淘汰赛阶段。使用三人一组会引发一些公平问题,包括假球和赛程不平衡的风险。在本文中,我们将研究共谋的风险。小组赛最后一场比赛的两支球队清楚地知道什么结果会让他们进入淘汰赛阶段。假球的风险发生在两队都获得参赛资格的情况下,这将损害小组第三队的利益,并可能严重损害比赛的声誉。我们量化了这种情况发生的频率,并解释了如何制定比赛时间表,以最大限度地降低串通的风险。我们还量化了合谋的风险如何取决于竞争平衡。此外,我们表明,禁止在小组赛阶段平局(国际足联考虑的规则)并不能消除假球的风险,而且,令人惊讶的是,3-2-3 -1-0记分制在降低共谋风险方面并不比3-0记分制做得更好。最后,我们描述了48支球队的世界杯的替代形式,这将消除或大大降低串通的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Stability and Substitutability in Dynamic Matching Markets Evidence Games: Lying Aversion and Commitment On a Competitive Selection Problem The Implications of Strategic Inventory for Short-Term vs. Long-Term Supply Contracts in Non-Exclusive Reselling Environments Avoiding the Cost of your Conscience: Belief Dependent Preferences and Information Acquisition
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1