Skip to main content
Home
plus.maths.org

Secondary menu

  • My list
  • About Plus
  • Sponsors
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Log in
  • Main navigation

  • Home
  • Articles
  • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Maths in a minute
  • Puzzles
  • Videos
  • Topics and tags
  • For

    • cat icon
      Curiosity
    • newspaper icon
      Media
    • graduation icon
      Education
    • briefcase icon
      Policy

    Popular topics and tags

    Shapes

    • Geometry
    • Vectors and matrices
    • Topology
    • Networks and graph theory
    • Fractals

    Numbers

    • Number theory
    • Arithmetic
    • Prime numbers
    • Fermat's last theorem
    • Cryptography

    Computing and information

    • Quantum computing
    • Complexity
    • Information theory
    • Artificial intelligence and machine learning
    • Algorithm

    Data and probability

    • Statistics
    • Probability and uncertainty
    • Randomness

    Abstract structures

    • Symmetry
    • Algebra and group theory
    • Vectors and matrices

    Physics

    • Fluid dynamics
    • Quantum physics
    • General relativity, gravity and black holes
    • Entropy and thermodynamics
    • String theory and quantum gravity

    Arts, humanities and sport

    • History and philosophy of mathematics
    • Art and Music
    • Language
    • Sport

    Logic, proof and strategy

    • Logic
    • Proof
    • Game theory

    Calculus and analysis

    • Differential equations
    • Calculus

    Towards applications

    • Mathematical modelling
    • Dynamical systems and Chaos

    Applications

    • Medicine and health
    • Epidemiology
    • Biology
    • Economics and finance
    • Engineering and architecture
    • Weather forecasting
    • Climate change

    Understanding of mathematics

    • Public understanding of mathematics
    • Education

    Get your maths quickly

    • Maths in a minute

    Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
  • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Maths in a minute
  • Puzzles
  • Videos
  • Topics and tags
  • Audiences

    • cat icon
      Curiosity
    • newspaper icon
      Media
    • graduation icon
      Education
    • briefcase icon
      Policy

    Secondary menu

  • My list
  • About Plus
  • Sponsors
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Log in
  • Football sweepstakes: Levelling the playing field

    by
    Salim Neil Khan
    12 February, 2020
    2 comments
    Football

    Will you be doing a sweepstake for Euro 2020?

    Not long to wait now! In just a few months' time people throughout Europe (and beyond) will don their football shirts and cheer on their favourite team to win the UEFA European Championships. Many workplaces will join in the fun by organising a sweepstake. People pay a nominal entry fee, are then randomly allocated one of the competing teams, and at the end of the competition the participant with the winning team wins all the money.

    But you know what it's like. At the last FIFA World Cup I paid my £3 to enter the sweepstake and, with great anticipation, drew my allotted team. It was Panama, complete outsiders. My enthusiasm immediately disappeared, and I thought "Oh well, I'll have another go in four years' time". I am guessing that most of the other sweepstake participants went through similar feelings as soon as they realised that their team had no chance.

    However, it doesn't have to be this way. I am proposing an alternative system, which should increase the fairness and excitement of the sweepstake.

    Traditional team sweepstake

    The sweepstake format traditionally used is that each participant is randomly assigned a team. However, the team which wins is invariably one of the favourites. Taking the World Cup as an example, we see that in the last ten tournaments the winner has been one of the top five teams (where the ranking is according to bookmakers' odds at the beginning of the tournament).

    YearWinnerRankingRunner upRanking
    1982Italy5W Germany2
    1986Argentina2W Germany6
    1990W Germany4Argentina5
    1994Brazil1Italy3
    1998France2Brazil1
    2002Brazil4Germany6
    2006Italy5France6
    2010Spain1Netherlands4
    2014Germany3Argentina2
    2018France4Croatia12

    Thus the majority of the sweepstake participants, upon being allocated an unfancied team, will immediately lose interest. Furthermore, as the tournament progresses, and teams become eliminated, the overall engagement continues to drop.

    Shirt number sweepstake

    I am proposing a sweepstake based on shirt numbers. Basically, each participant is randomly allocated a shirt number for the tournament, and you get points every time that number scores. In the World Cup, the squads are numbered 1 to 23. For ease, I suggest just considering the last digit of the shirt number. For example, if you are allocated number 7, you get points every time a number 7 or 17 scores (thus there will be ten sweepstake participants). Consequently, in every game, you will almost certainly be invested in several players, and will be cheering for both teams! This should hopefully maintain interest and excitement for all the participants throughout the tournament.

    Clearly, participants who are allocated numbers 1, 2 or 3 will get three possible squad numbers each whereas the other participants would only get two. However, as the goalkeepers' numbers tend to end in 1, 2 or 3, this possible edge is mostly mitigated.

    Now, the question is, how many points should be awarded for each goal? If we look at the number of goals scored by the last digit of each shirt number for the last five World Cups we can see that numbers 9, 0, and 1 scored the most.

    Goals scored versus last digit of shirt number

    Last digit of shirt numbers for goalscorers in the World Cup from 2002 to 2018

    This is not surprising as the forwards tend to wear shirt numbers 9, 10, and 11. Thus if we awarded 1 point for every goal, clearly this would not be fair for all the numbers. The sweepstake would be much more equitable if the lower scoring numbers received more points per goal.

    The table below shows the mean (average) number of goals scored per tournament for each possible last digit of a shirt number. The last column of the table gives the highest mean (30.6 for the number 9) divided by the mean for the current row. We can see that number 9 scored 1.275 times as many goals as number 0, and 1.28571 times as many goals as number 1 and so on.

    Last digit of 
    shirt number
    Mean number 
    of goals
    Ratio compared to 
    highest mean
    0241.275
    123.81.28571
    293.4
    3122.55
    4122.55
    58.63.55814
    68.63.55814
    717.81.7191
    8122.55
    930.61

    So if 1 point was awarded for every goal scored by number 9, 2.55 points awarded for every goal scored by number 8, 1.7191 points awarded for every goal scored by number 7 and so on, we would expect the total points for each number, i.e. for each sweepstake participant, to be the same value of 30.6 on average. This should hopefully lead to relatively fair sweepstakes where different shirt numbers would win at different tournaments.

    However, carrying out awkward calculations such as adding 1.7191 when there is a goal scored may not be most people's idea of fun. The sweepstake would be much more user-friendly if these ratios were rounded. In the table below, the ratios have been rounded to the nearest 0.5, and doubled to make them integers, giving us the proposed points system for the sweepstake.

    Last digit of shirt number0123456789
    Points per goal3375577352

    Illustrating this using the 2018 World Cup Final game between France and Croatia; player numbers 4, 6, 10 and 7 each scored 1 goal, and player number 17 scored 2 goals. In the sweepstake this would translate to 3 points for number 0, 5 points for number 4, 7 points for number 6, and 9 points for number 7.

    So how fair does this points system turn out in practice? Applying it to the last five World Cup tournaments gives the following:

    YearWinning numberPointsRunner upPoints
    20021932 and 691
    2006181465
    20104750 and 169
    20143115890
    2018291090

    We can see that there are four different winners (numbers 1, 4, 3 and 2), and if we included a runner up prize this brings a further three sweepstake numbers into the picture (0, 6 and 8). This implies that the sweepstake system proposed is relatively fair in that many of the participants can expect a reasonable chance of obtaining a prize. Furthermore when comparing the points scores between the winner and runner up, it can be seen that they are generally very close, suggesting an exciting sweepstake.

    Messi celebrating a goal

    Number 10s score highly: Lionel Messi celebrating a goal in a match against Ecuador. Photo: Agencia de Noticias ANDES, CC BY-SA 2.0.

    One drawback to this points system is that it appears to slightly favour the lower goalscoring shirts. We saw earlier that number 9 scores 30.6 goals on average in a tournament, so would obtain 30.6 x 2 = 61.2 points on average. Number 4 would obtain 12 x 5 = 60 points on average. So both numbers expect roughly the same points score on average. However, because number 4 receives points less often but of a higher value for each goal, the points total it obtains each tournament will vary more. This means that it (and other low-scoring numbers) is more likely to obtain extreme values, which means it is more likely to win the sweepstake.

    A possible way of adjusting for this is to include penalty shoot-outs. For example, all goals in a penalty shoot-out could be worth 2 points each for all shirt numbers. This would increase the relative points for the higher goalscoring shirts, as they are more likely to be taking penalties. Plus, it would have the added bonus of further extending the appeal of the sweepstake by incorporating the action beyond the in-game play.


    Slim Khan

     

    About the author

    Slim Khan is a Teaching Fellow at Warwick University, and is particularly interested in mathematics and statistics related to games and sports.

    • Log in or register to post comments

    Comments

    Nimit halai

    7 June 2021

    Permalink

    Hey bud

    This seems an interesting way of playing.

    I have a list of 24 as im running a traditional sweepstake but thinking to split the the pot and run this too

    What do you think is the best way to run this as there are 24 qplayers involved

    • Log in or register to post comments

    Richard Geeves

    13 June 2024

    Permalink

    Where did you get your statistics from please?

    • Log in or register to post comments

    Read more about...

    mathematics in sport
    statistics
    sweepstake
    football

    Our Podcast: Maths on the Move

    Our Maths on the Move podcast brings you the latest news from the world of maths, plus interviews and discussions with leading mathematicians and scientists about the maths that is changing our lives.

    Apple Podcasts
    Spotify
    Podbean

    Plus delivered to you

    Keep up to date with Plus by subscribing to our newsletter or following Plus on X or Bluesky.

    University of Cambridge logo

    Plus is part of the family of activities in the Millennium Mathematics Project.
    Copyright © 1997 - 2025. University of Cambridge. All rights reserved.

    Terms