Research shows why penalty shootouts in football are unfair

John Terry of Chelsea misses a penalty during the UEFA Champions League Final between Manchester United and Chelsea at the Luzhniki Stadium on May 21, 2008 in Moscow.

According to a study conducted by the London School of Economics, penalty shootouts in football are unfair as it gives an advantage to the team that shoots first.

Professor Ignacio Palacios-Huerta and co-author Jose Apesteguia reached the conclusion after going through almost 3000 penalty kicks in shoot-outs in national and international competitions over a 38 year period between 1970 and 2008.

Palacios-Huerta claimed that the coin toss to decide which team gets to take the first penalty almost always decides the outcome.

“The coin gives a 20 per cent advantage to the team that shoots first. The psychological pressure of “lagging behind” clearly affects the performance of the team that kicks second.”

They also conducted interviews with 240 amateur and professional coaches and players and an overwhelming 96% of the respondents preferred to take the first kick with the sole aim of putting pressure on the opponents kicking second.

Palacios-Huerta also suggested that in order to avoid deciding finals of big tournaments with a “60-40 flip of the coin”, the penalty shoout-out should be conducted in a neutral manner.

He gives the example of a tie-breaker in tennis. Player A serves first after which Player B serves twice and then Player A serves twice and so on.

Similarly, a player from Team A takes the first kick after which two players from Team B take their kicks and so on.

The resulting pattern would be A BB AA BB AA B instead of AB AB AB AB AB.

“This pattern of penalty taking would greatly reduce the unfair “first mover” advantage since the second team is not always trying to play “catch up” and the problem of leading or lagging would be compensated for,” said Palacios-Huerta

“Not only would it be more fair, but it would also be much more entertaining for neutral fans’.