Does culture explain voting biases in association football awards? : The FIFA Ballon d Or 2013 award.

Transcription

1 Doe culture explain voting biae in aociation football award? : The FIFA Ballon d Or 2013 award. Author: Rutger Ruizendaal Univerity of Twente P.O. Box 217, 7500AE Enchede The Netherland r.ruizendaal@tudent.utwente.nl ABSTRACT, Thi bachelor thei aee whether voting biae can be explained by cultural imilaritie in the FIFA Ballon d Or 2013 award. The data for thi award i publicly available and the award ha been publicly accued of being biaed. After analyzing previou literature we find that a nationality bia eem to exit in the judging of certain Olympic port, while a cultural bia eem to exit in the Euroviion Song Contet. We calculate voting biae and ue Hoftede culture indexe to calculate cultural diverity between voter and player. We then perform a correlation and multiple regreion analyi to find whether cultural imilarity ignificantly affect voting bia. No evidence i found that cultural diverity ignificantly effect voting bia. However, we find evidence that a nationality bia exit in the FIFA Ballon d Or 2013 award. The reult alo imply that cultural voting bia only exit when voter can t vote for people from the ame nationality. Supervior: T. de Schryver & T. van der Burg Keyword Voting behavior, Football, Award, Bia, Culture, Hoftede, Expert Permiion to make digital or hard copie of all or part of thi work for peronal or claroom ue i granted without fee provided that copie are not made or ditributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copie bear thi notice and the full citation on the firt page. To copy otherwie, or republih, to pot on erver or to reditribute to lit, require prior pecific permiion and/or a fee. 3 rd IBA Bachelor Thei Conference, July 3 rd, 2014, Enchede, The Netherland. Copyright 2014, Univerity of Twente, Faculty of Management and Governance. 1

2 1. INTRODUCTION Thi bachelor thei focue on the effect of culture on voting behavior by tudying the FIFA Ballon d Or 2013 award. Thi award i granted to the bet football player of the year and i baed on a poitional voting ytem where the voter each have three vote, worth five point, three point and one point. The player with the highet accumulated amount of point win. Voter conit of coache and captain of national team and a journalit repreenting that country. In 2013, Critiano Ronaldo (28.03%), Mei (24.75%) and Ribéry (23.15%) finihed in the top three with the majority (75.93%) of vote (FIFA, 2014). During recent year there have been controverie urrounding the award. Vote were accued of being wrongly counted in Voter who voted for Xavi claimed their vote were regitered a vote for Xabi Alono (Totalbarca, 2011). In 2013, moving the voting deadline parked controvery. The voting data for 2013 i publicly available. The amount of voting data where both voter and who the voted for are known i limited, turning thi into a rare opportunity to tudy voting behavior. The original voting deadline wa 15 November However, on the 20 th of November 2013, the voting deadline wa extended to 29 November 2013 by FIFA and France Football. The reaon for the extenion wa receiving a repone of le than 50% from eligible voter before the original deadline. (ESPN FC, 2013). Voter who had already voted were alo able to change their vote to take into account recent performance. The extenion of the deadline ha caued controvery becaue it wa announced hortly after Critiano Ronaldo cored a pectacular hattrick againt Sweden (BBC, 2013). The deadline change to take into account recent performance i accued of being a ploy to let Critiano Ronaldo win. The FIFA Ballon d Or award ha alo been called biaed becaue voter eem to vote trategically or for player from their own country and culture. For example, Italian captain Buffon awarded hi five point to fellow Italian Pirlo, above Critiano Ronaldo and Mei. Dutch captain Robben awarded hi five point to fellow Dutchman Robin van Perie, above Critiano Ronaldo and Ibrahimovic. At firt glance, it eem that voter have a tendency to vote for player from their own country. Since the 23 nominated player are originative from only fifteen different countrie while voter are originative from 195 unique countrie, thi eem unlikely to explain all voting behavior. From the dataet we can alo ee that the captain of Uruguay gave hi firt and econd vote to national Suarez and Cavani, while awarding hi third vote to fellow South-American Mei. He rewarded all hi point to player from a imilar culture. (FIFA, 2014) Voting behavior in the FIFA Ballon d Or ha not been tudied before, but it ha been tudied in imilar context. Fenn et al. (2006) tudy voting behavior in the Euroviion ong contet and find that voting imilaritie are caued by not jut geographical proximity but by a common hitorical or cultural background intead. Ginburgh and Noury (2008) tudied the ame phenomenon and found trong evidence that cultural voting exit. Becaue of the compoition of the dataet and previou mentioned reearch thi thei will focu on the effect of culture on voting behavior. Thee tudie provide evidence that voter eem to poitively bia inger from imilar culture. Applying thi to the FIFA Ballon d Or would lead u to expect that voter poitively bia player from imilar culture. Therefore, the reearch quetion of thi bachelor thei i: Doe cultural imilarity lead to voting bia in the FIFA Ballon d Or 2013 award? To anwer thi reearch quetion information ha to be collected about the literature, FIFA Ballon d Or and the proper methodology. Therefore, the following ub quetion have been formulated. - What are the rule and pecific of the FIFA Ballon d Or 2013 award? - What doe the literature tell u about the phenomena of voting bia and culture? - What i the proper methodology to tet and analyze culture and voting bia? The etup of thi paper i a follow. Section 2 explain the rule and context of the award. Section 3 dicue earlier tudie dealing with voting bia in imilar context and outline the theoretical framework. In ection 4 the data and methodology are decribed. Section 5 dicue the reult. Section 6 conclude and ection 7 dicue the thei and give recommendation for future reearch. 2. THE FIFA BALLON D OR AWARD The FIFA Ballon d Or exit ince 2010 a a merger of the France Football Ballon d Or and the FIFA World Player of the Year award. The France Ballon d Or came into exitence in 1956 and wa originally preented to the bet player from a European nation, playing club football in a European league. In 1995 the rule were changed o that non-european player were eligible a long a they played for a European club. Another rule change in 2007 allowed any player in the world to be eligible, turning the Ballon d Or into an international award. Voting wa then done by 96 journalit from around the world who choe their top five player, intead of the 52 European baed journalit before (BBC, 2008) The FIFA world Player of the Year Award came into exitence in 1991 and had a imilar approach a the current FIFA Ballon d Or. The award wa preented to the player voted a bet player in the world by coache of international team. Initially, each coach had three vote, worth five point, three point and one point that they could give to the player of their deire. The winner i baed on the total number of point. Criticim from the media urrounding previou nomination let to a rule change in A preliminary lit of 35 nominee wa etablihed by FIFA. Captain of national team and repreentative from FIFpro (the worldwide repreentative organization for profeional player) alo became able to vote. (FIFA, 2004) (RSSSF, 2014) The FIFA Ballon d Or ha element of both. The award i preented to the male player who i conidered the bet player in the previou year. To arrive at the winner of the FIFA Ballon d Or the following proce i preceded. Firt, a hortlit of 23 male player i compiled by member of FIFA Football Committee and a group of expert from France Football. The lit for 2013 wa announced on 29 October Then, coache, captain and a journalit repreenting each country get to vote. The award ue a poitional voting ytem where the voter each have 3 vote, worth five point, three point and one point. Therefore, one country ha 3 voter that can allocate a maximum of 27 point. 1 In the end, all vote are ummed up and the player with the mot point win the award. The firt three FIFA Ballon d Or were won by Lionel Mei in 2010, 2011 and 2012 repectively. In 2013 Critiano Ronaldo won the award after placing econd in 2011 and (Independent, 2013) (FIFA, 2013, 2014) 1 However, not all voter from each country ent in their core. For example, there i no coach vote from Germany in

3 3. LITERATURE Specific reearch on voting bia in the FIFA Ballon d Or ha not been done before. However, reearch concerning voting bia ha been done in imilar context. We firt explore the port context. Campbell and Galbraith (1996) tudy voting bia in the judging of Olympic figure-kating event. They find trong evidence that there i a mall national bia that tay table over time. Thi national bia refer to judge favoring kater with the ame nationality. It i not clear whether thi bia i only caued by nationality or by tate for a particular tyle of kating. Zitzewitz (2006) alo tudie nationalitic biae in the judging of Olympic winter port; ki jumping and figure-kating. He how that the amount and type of bia i quite different for both port. Judge eem to compenate for each other nationalitic biae in ki jumping (mot athlete have a judge with the ame nationality in the panel) while figure-kating how ign of vote trading and bloc judging. Hi reult alo how that career concern play a part in the deciion of the judge. Popovic (2000) tudie bia in rhythmic gymnatic at the Sydney-2000 Olympic Game and reveal evidence to upport the exitence of a national bia in rhythmic gymnatic judging. Like Campbell and Galbraith, he find that judge eem to prefer athlete from the ame nationality. All thee tudie find evidence that biae, and in particular national biae, exit in the judgment of Olympic port. Beide the port context, voting biae have alo been broadly tudied in a context that reemble the FIFA Ballon d Or, the Euroviion Song Contet. Here, each country i repreented by a ong. The Euroviion Song Contet ue a preference voting procedure where each country get to award 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 point to different ong. The vote i determined by jurie and tele voting. A difference with the FIFA Ballon d Or i that voter cannot vote for their own country. The ong and country with the highet amount of accumulated point win. Spierdijk and Vellekoop (2009) preent trong evidence for voting bia in the Euroviion Song Contet (ESC) baed on geographical, cultural, linguitic, religiou and ethical factor. Charron (2013) build on thi reearch and find that voting bia in the ESC doe occur, although not all countrie engage in the ame level of bia. Thee reult are intereting, becaue they ugget that culture i a caue of voting bia. However, the interpretation ha to be done carefully becaue there are ome difference between the FIFA Ballon d Or and the Euroviion Song Contet, like not being able to vote for your own country. A econd difference i that for the FIFA Ballon d Or only expert are allowed to vote. Coache, captain and (port) media can be een a expert. Throughout the hitory of the ESC there have been change in the compoition of voter including expert and the public. Haan et al. (2005) tudying ESC voting data find that expert are better judge of quality and that the outcome of final judged by expert i le enitive to factor unrelated to quality. Thi lead to le inefficiencie according to them and hould in theory lead to le bia. Hence, we tudy voting behavior of expert and might be able to elaborate on thee finding. Yair (1995) tudie voting bloc uing voting data from the Euroviion Song Contet and find a three bloc-tructure. A Wetern, Northern and Mediterranean Bloc. According to Yair, the Northern and Mediterranean bloc are mainly caued by common cultural experience or code. Fenn et al. (2006) ue a framework of complex dynamical network to analyze voting behavior in the ESC. They confirm that unofficial clique of countrie exit. However, thee are not alway the expected one. Fenn et al. conclude that thee clique and oberved voting imilaritie are caued by cultural background or common hitory intead of jut geographical proximity. Similarly, Ginburgh and Noury (2008) how that vote are driven by quality of participant and linguitic and cultural proximitie between inger and voting countrie. They how that quality play the mot important role. They alo how that voting bloc or clique exit and that thee are baed on linguitic and cultural imilaritie. Spierdijk and Vellekoop (2009) alo mention that jurie have ignificantly higher biae toward ong in a related language and to ong coming from a imilar culture. Finally, García and Tanae (2013) ugget that there i a relation between cultural ditance and voting biae in the Euroviion Song Contet. Baed on thee two trand of literature we can conclude that voting bia and cultural voting eem to exit in thee type of competition. Here, Cultural voting refer to cultural imilarity cauing an increae in voting bia. Thi alo implie that cultural diverity lead to lower voting biae. Cultural diverity can be more accurately operationalized than cultural imilarity. Therefore, we preent the following hypothei: H1. Cultural diverity between voter and player ha a negative effect on voting bia. 4. METHODOLOGY FIFA uploaded the dataet containing the voter, name, country and the player they gave five, three and one point to. Thi dataet conit of 1623 vote from 541 voter. Thee voter conit of 184 captain, 184 coache and 173 journalit. The total amount of rewarded point i 4868 (541*9). The dataet ha been enriched with the nationality of voter to tudy their cultural background. For player, their nationality and data concerning the amount of goal, ait and matche played have been collected to preent the quality of player. Thi data come from econdary ource like Tranfermarkt.de. We ue econdary data in thi thei becaue the FIFA dataet wa made publicly, and it would be impoible to primarily collect all data required for the analyi. Table 1 preent the ditribution of captain, coache and media in the dataet. Vote have been received from 196 different countrie. Not all three voter from thee countrie ent in their vote, 184 captain, 184 coache and 173 journalit did. We can alo ee that the 23 nominated player originate from fifteen different countrie. Six of thee player are alo voter, becaue they are captain of their national team. Thee captain are: Critiano Ronaldo, Ibrahimovic, Lahm, Mei, Silva, and van Perie. None of thee captain voted for themelve. Table 1 Ditribution of captain, coache, media and repreented countrie in the dataet. Different Countrie Voter Player Captain Coache Media N Note. N = amount of participant 3

4 Hoftede culture core are taken from hi official webite. 2 Data for hi firt four dimenion ha been collected for 103 countrie. In the FIFA dataet, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wale all have eparate vote. Since Hoftede ue one core for the United Kingdom thi core ha been ued for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wale. In term of finding the nationality of each voter we can conclude that the captain of national team have the ame nationality a the team they play for. The ame aumption i made for the journalit repreenting their country. For the coache, each coach their nationality ha been individually collected. The amount of goal, ait and matche played ha been collected for the period of until the voting deadline of Club matche and international matche are ued in the analyi, friendly matche are not included. Thi data will be ued to calculate the amount of goal per match (GPM) and ait per match (APM). Background information and data for the 23 nominated player, like their age, club, and nationality can be found in Appendix A. Thi table alo repreent the amount of goal made, ait made and matche played. The value and calculation for GPM and APM are alo included. We ee that the top 2 player, Critiano Ronaldo and Mei have the highet GPM of all player with 1.20 and 1.00 repectively. The other top 3 player Ribéry core lower on GPM with 0.41, but ha the highet APM with Dependent variable: Bia The dicuion of cultural voting implie that there i a ytematic bia between certain voter and player. The definition and calculation of bia ued in thi thei build on the work of Spierdijk and Vellekoop (2009) and Charron (2013). Bia i here defined a favoritim; voting behavior that i not olely baed on the quality of player, but on other factor. Bia i not jut giving a high amount of point to a player, it i a relative phenomenon. Therefore, when tudying the bia for Vote Vij (from voter Vi to player Vj), we are intereted in thi vote compared to the average vote from all other voter to that player. To calculate thi Average vote other for each vote Vj, we have to ubtract the point given from voter Vi from the total amount of point the player received. Thi i alo called the average aggregate number of point from all other voter to player Vj. The firt formula how the formula for the normal Average vote and the econd formula how the Average vote other. Average vote Vj = Vaj a=1 Average vote other Vj = a=1 (a i) Vaj Where the Average vote other for player Vj i it total amount of point (minu point from voter Vi) multiplied by the number of voter a. The amount of voter i ubtracted by one, becaue thi vote i from Vi and i ruled out from the equation. Where j = 1 23 ince there are 23 player, and a = ince there are 541 voter. The formula alo implie that the Average vote other i dependent on the tudied vote. The bia i then (1) (2) calculated by comparing the Average vote other Vj to vote Vij and i defined a: Bia Vij = VoteVij Average vote other Vj (3) A an example, we provide the calculation of the biae given to Manuel Neuer. In total Neuer received four point, three from the French captain Hugo Llori and one from the Antiguan coach. From all other voter he received zero point. The calculation of hi Average vote other and bia received i a follow: Vote French captain = 3 Average vote other = Bia = 3 0,00185 = 2,99815 Vote Antiguan coach = 1 Average vote other = Bia = 1 0,00556 = 0,99444 (4.1) = 0,00185 (4.2) (4.3) (5.1) = 0,00556 (5.2) (5.3) From thee two voter, Neuer than received an average bia of: Average bia (received vote) 2, ,99444 = = 1,996 (6) Independent variable: Cultural diverity To meaure cultural diverity between voter and player we look at the core of their home country on Hoftede indexe. Hoftede theory (1980, 1991) view culture from a et of dimenion. Each dimenion ue an index from that i ued to compare culture. The original theory include four dimenion: Power Ditance, Individualim, Maculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance. In 2010, Pragmatim and Indulgence were added a the fifth and ixth dimenion. However, data for thee new dimenion i not available for all countrie. To include more countrie in our final analyi we only ue the firt four dimenion of Hoftede to calculate cultural difference. The firt four dimenion are defined a follow 3 : Power Ditance: The extent to which the le powerful member of organization and intitution accept and expect that power i ditributed unequally. Individualim: The degree to which individual are integrated into group. The oppoite of Individualim i Collectivim Taken from: 4

5 Maculinity: Refer to the ditribution of emotional role between the gender. The oppoite of Maculinity i Femininity. Uncertainty Avoidance: Deal with a ociety tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity. Firt, we collect the core for all four dimenion for player and voter. Then, the ditance on each dimenion are calculated and the abolute core are combined to form a core on cultural diverity. A low core implie cultural imilarity, while a high core implie cultural diverity between voter and player. In a formula it would like thi: CDpv = PDp PDv + INDp INDv + MSCp MSCv + UAp UAv Where CD = Cultural diverity, PDj = core on Power Ditance index, INDj = core on Individualim index, MSCj = core on Maculinity index, UAj = core on Uncertainty Avoidance index. And where j i p for the core of the player and v for the core of the voter. A an example we provide the core for Neuer and the French captain Hugo Llori in table 2. Table 2 Score on Hoftede culture dimenion for Manuel Neuer and Hugo Llori. Name Nationality PD IND MSC UA Manuel Neuer Hugo Llori German French Note. PD = Power Ditance, IND = Individualim, MSC = Maculinity, UA = Uncertainty Avoidance The cultural diverity between Neuer and Llori i than calculated a follow: CD = = Control Variable Control variable are included in the analyi to clarify the relationhip between cultural diverity and bia, our independent and dependent variable. Thee control variable are contant and unchanged throughout the analyi and might prove other explanation for the dependent variable than the independent variable. The firt variable we control for i function; whether the voter i a captain, coach or journalit. Since thi i a categorical variable with no ranking element we cannot imply aign core of captain = 1, coach = 2, journalit = 3. Creating three new variable like, captain = 0 or 1, coach = 0 or 1, journalit = 0 or 1 alo in t an option. Thi way, the variance in the third variable can be explained by the two other variable and perfect multicollinearity would exit. Perfoming a multiple regreion analyi with all three variable would then be impoible. For example, if a voter in t a captain or coach that voter mut be a (7) (8) journalit. Therefore, we create two dummy variable and take captain a the baeline or tarting point. The two dummy variable are than called Coach (0 for not a coach, 1 for coach) and Media (0 for not media, and 1 for media). Captain i taken a the baeline and i therefore alway 0 in all dummy variable. Since omeone can t be captain and coach at the ame time, only one dummy variable will be 1 for each vote. Another variable we have to control for i Nationality. Studie on the judging of Olympic port like figure-kating and rhythmic gymnatic find evidence that a nationality bia exit. That i, voter eem to poitively bia athlete from the ame nationality. In the Euroviion Song Contet, nationality biae can t be tudied becaue voter can t vote for the contetant from the ame nationality. To control for thi nationality bia we ue the variable Same nationality which i 0 if voter and player have a different nationality and 1 if they have the ame nationality. Quality i mentioned multiple time in the literature a a variable that influence voting behavior. In theory, the Average vote other could be een a the quality of a player (Charron, 2013). Becaue of the way we calculated the biae quality i already included and hould not be an explanation for thee biae. However, we want be ure of thi and will alo control for quality of the player. In thi cae, we meaure quality by the amount of goal a player made per match called Goal per match (GPM) and the amount of ait made per match called Ait per match (APM). 4.4 Statitical method Firt, the biae and cultural diverity core are calculated for each vote uing the mentioned formula. To undertand the relationhip between our variable a Pearon correlation analyi will be performed. Correlation refer to the (linear) coherence of two variable and i expreed by the correlation coefficient. Thi coefficient give a value between -1 and +1, where 1 i total poitive correlation, 0 i no correlation and -1 i total negative correlation. The Pearon correlation coefficient i widely ued in cience to meaure the degree of linear dependence between two variable. However, correlation cannot be ued to tet the cauality of the relationhip. To tet the effect of cultural diverity on bia a multiple regreion analyi will be performed. Quality hould in theory not be a predictor of the biae. However, we are intereted in the effect of including quality in the analyi. Therefore, we will perform two different multiple regreion analyi. The firt analyi will not include Goal per match and Ait per match, the econd analyi will include thee variable. Within the firt analyi we will firt tet a model with only the control variable, then cultural diverity will be added in the model. For the econd analyi the ame tructure i ued only quality i included in the control variable. In total, four model will be calculated. 5. RESULTS The biae are calculated for each individual vote. Every voter give three vote, therefore the dataet contain 1623 vote and 1623 calculated biae. Table 3 include ome tatitic and background information on the ditribution of bia per player. Since we calculated the biae for all vote were point were given, we how the Average bia (received vote), which i the average bia a player received from the voter he got point from. The table alo include the tandard deviation of thi average bia and the ignificance level of a t-tet that wa performed to tet whether the oberved biae are ignificantly different from zero. The next column include the average core of the player and hi average core on the average vote other. 5

6 Table 3 Statitic and background information on biae. Name Average Bia (received vote) Standa rd Deviat ion T-tet Sig. (2- tailed) Average core Average average vote other Total core Amount of Vote Silva Thiago Inieta André Pirlo Andrea Bale Gareth Múller Thoma Robben Arjen Özil Meut Perie van Robin Lahm Philipp Neymar Touré Yaya Suárez Lui Falcao Radamel Neuer Manuel Xavi Lewandowki Robert Schweinteiger Batian Cavani Edinon Ibrahimovic Zlatan Ribéry Franck Hazard Eden Mei Lionel Critiano Ronaldo All player (total) Table 4 Decriptive tatitic and correlation between variable. 1. Bia - 2. Coach.067** Media -.058** -.513* - 4. Same.208*.172* -.085* - Nationality 5. GPM -.330* * - 6. APM *.138* -.114* -.227* - 7. Cultural diverity -.109* -.140*.102* -.515*.153* Mean SD N Note: *p <.01; **p <.05. SD = Standard Deviation. N = amount of vote. 6

7 Becaue the average vote other depend on the amount of point given in the tudied vote and i thu different for each vote, we preent an average here. The final column include the amount of point a player received and from how many people they received thee point. At firt glance, there eem to be pattern between the amount of vote a player received and the average bia they received. Critiano Ronaldo, Mei and Ribéry their average bia (received vote) are all relatively low. 4 However, we alo oberve player who got a low amount of vote and a relatively low amount of bia. The t-tet how ignificant difference from zero for mot value, except for player who got a very low amount of vote. It i intereting that all player receive high biae and mot are ignificantly different from zero, even for the winner Critiano Ronaldo. The average vote other i really imilar to the average core, except it i a little lower. Becaue for each vote it i calculated for, the point given in that vote are left out. The final row how the average bia for all player which i 1.39 with a tandard deviation of 1.65 and ignificantly different from zero. It alo how the um of the other column. We can conclude that uing our operationalization of bia, voting bia exit in the FIFA Ballon d Or. 5.1 Correlation Decriptive tatitic and reult from the correlation analyi are preented in table 4. Hoftede core could be collected for 900 vote, therefore only thoe vote are ued in the analyi. For bia we find, μ = 1.39, σ = and for cultural diverity, μ = 89.26, σ = Even though we ue le vote the ditribution of biae eem the ame a in table 1 (μ = 1.39, σ = 1.65). The biae have a relatively high tandard deviation becaue they are very dependent on whether one, three or five point were given. We find that the correlation between bia and cultural difference ha a negative direction with, r = -.109, ig. (1-tailed) =.001. Thi mean that biae eem to increae when cultural diverity goe down. Thi accompanie our expectation that biae increae when culture between voter and player are more imilar. The chance that thi coherence i baed on coincidence i 0.1%. Oberving the control variable, coach and media eem to have no ignificant effect on bia. For ame nationality we find correlation with a poitive direction, r =.208, ig. (1-tailed) =.000. For the correlation between bia and goal and ait per match we find, r = -.330; -.036, ig. (1-tailed) =.000;.138. Goal per match ha a ignificant correlation coefficient with biae, while ait per match doe not. We oberve a moderately trong correlation between ame nationality and cultural difference, r = -.515, ig (1-tailed) =.000. And a moderately trong correlation between our dummy variable coach and media, r = -.513, ig (1-tailed) =.000. Thee correlation can be indicator for multicollinearity, which occur when two or more of the independent variable are moderately or highly correlated. Almot every multiple regreion analyi involve ome degree of multicollinearity, we jut have to make ure it doen t caue any problem in thi cae. A commonly ued meaure to detect multicollinearity and it everity, i the variance inflation factor (VIF). Thi number indicate how much larger the error variance for the unique predictor i, compared to a ituation with no multicollinearity. There are multiple interpretation for the VIF, but mot ugget that multicollinearity i high when the VIF i over five or ten. Some even ugget that mall problem might tart to arie when the VIF i over three. When there i abolutely no multicollinearity the VIF i one. We have calculated the variance inflation factor for our independent variable in all model and all VIF were under two. It eem afe to conclude that there i no problem of multicollinearity. The VIF can be found in Appendix B. 5.2 Multiple Regreion Analyi Reult from the multiple regreion analyi are preented in table 5. The analyi ha been performed in two way, firt without quality and then with quality included. In the model without quality the analyi ha firt been performed uing only control variable. The model produce an Adj. R2 =.042, F(3, 896) = , p <.001. When we include cultural diverity, the model produce an Adj. R2 =.041, F(4, 895) = , p <.001. The adjuted R2 mean that the independent variable only explain 4.2% and 4.1% of the variation in the biae. The intereting reult i that the adjuted R2 goe down when we include cultural diverity in the model. In thi cae, cultural diverity doe not explain variation in the biae. We do find that ame nationality ignificantly predicted biae in both model, β = 1.379; 1.384, p <.001; p <.001. The baeline model with quality produce an Adj. R2 =.134, F(5,894) = , p <.001. After introducing cultural diverity in the model it produce an Adj. R2 =.133, F(6, 893), p <.001. Thee model explain more of the variation in the biae, 13.4% and 13.3%. We alo ee that the adjuted R2 goe down after introducing cultural diverity in the model. Again, cultural diverity doe not predict variation in the biae. Same nationality ignificantly predicted variation in the biae in both model, β =.879;.897, p <.001; p <.001. Goal per match and ait per match alo ignificantly predicted variation in the biae. (Baeline model + quality: ; , p <.001; p <.01. Baeline model + quality with hypothei: β = ; , p <.001; p <.01.) Our dummy variable Coach and Media don t ignificantly predict biae in any model. We can conclude that function (captain, coach or media) doen t ignificantly predict biae. Baed on thee reult, we reject our hypothei: Cultural diverity between voter and player ha a negative effect on voting bia. Cultural diverity doe not ignificantly predict voting bia in our model with p=.971 and p= CONCLUSIONS Thi bachelor thei trie to explain voting biae in the FIFA Ballon d Or 2013 award by tudying cultural diverity between voter and player. Evidence i found that voting biae eem to exit in the FIFA Ballon d Or and are ignificantly different from zero. However, no ignificant evidence i found that cultural diverity caue voting bia in the FIFA Ballon d Or award, or that it could in other aociation football award. We do find ignificant correlation between cultural diverity and voting bia and between ame nationality and voting bia. We alo find a high correlation between cultural diverity and ame nationality. The reult imply that ame nationality i a predictor of voting biae, and that the biae that could be explained by cultural diverity are already explained by ame nationality. Even though there i a ignificant correlation between cultural difference and voting bia there i baically no effect when we add cultural diverity to the multiple regreion model. The decreae of the Adj. R2 alo implie that cultural diverity doe not add any explanation to the model. Which can alo be explained by 4 The average bia each player received from all voter, including that each voter technically gave zero point to the player he did not give one, three or five point to, i zero. 7

8 cultural diverity explaining the ame effect in biae a ame nationality doe. It eem like the link between cultural imilarity and voting bia in the Euroviion Song Contet only applie when countrie are not allowed to vote for people from the ame nationality. Voter are allowed to vote for player from the ame nationality in the FIFA Ballon d Or and we find no evidence that cultural voting exit. Our reult eem to imply the ame a the tudie that reearched the judging of Olympic port, a nationality bia eem to exit. We alo ran a eparate model including quality that produce the ame reult a the firt model. From thi model, it alo eem like the quality of player meaured a goal and ait per match i a predictor of voting biae. Thi might be caued by our operationalization of bia Table 5 Multiple regreion analyi to explain biae in voting behavior. Control Variable Baeline model Baeline Model with hypothei Baeline model + quality ß ß ß ß Coach Media Same nationality 1.379* 1.384*.879*.944* Goal per match * * Ait per match ** ** Baeline model + quality with hypothei Hypothei Cultural diverity Adj. R Df 3,896 4,895 5,894 6,893 F * * * * N Note. * p <.001; ** p <.01 ; *** p < DISCUSSION The reaon why there wa no cauation found between cultural diverity and voting bia eem to be explained by the ame nationality of voter and player. But it might alo be explained by other factor. Firt, the calculation of the biae that we ued might not be perfectly uited for a contet like the FIFA Ballon d Or. The FIFA Ballon d Or ha a lot more voter than the Euroviion Song Contet. Alo, thee voter only award one, three or five point while a country in the ESC award 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8, 10 or 12 point. Thi caue the biae in our calculation to be very dependent of the amount of point given. For mot player, receiving five point automatically lead to a high bia while receiving one point lead to a low bia. Another explanation might be the fact that only data from one year wa ued in thi analyi. Thi year might have been an exception compared to other year, and bia might be more accurately calculated over multiple year. Other explanation might alo be more accurately preented over multiple year. 7.1 Future reearch For future reearch, we ugget to look at the operationalization of biae. A different operationalization of biae might lead to a more robut analyi. Alo, the link between nationality and voting bia that we find i very intereting and could be reearched uing a bigger population. Furthermore, our reult eem to imply that cultural diverity only increae voting biae when voter can t vote for people from the ame nationality. Thi i a very intereting reult, but more reearch ha to be done on thi topic to draw real concluion about thi connection. 8. APPENDICES On the next page the table repreenting background information on the player and the GPM and APM calculation i preented in Appendix A. Appendix B preent the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). 8

9 Appendix A Background information of player and the GPM and APM calculation Name Nationalit y Ag e Bale Gareth Wale 24 Tottenham Hotpur Cavani Edinon Critiano Ronaldo Falcao Radamel Uruguay 27 SCC Neapel Portugal 29 Real Madrid Colombia 28 Atlético Madrid Team Poition C. matche Right wing C. goal C. ait I. matche I. goal I. ait GP M AP M ,69 0, ,70 0,15 Left wing ,20 0, ,60 0,03 Hazard Eden Belgium 23 FC Chelea Left wing ,29 0,25 Ibrahimovic Zlatan Inieta André Sweden 32 FC Pari Saint- Germain Spain 30 FC Barcelona Lahm Philipp Germany 30 FC Bayern Lewandowk i Robert Poland 25 Boruia Dortmond Mei Lionel Argentina 26 FC Barcelona Múller Thoma Neuer Manuel Germany 24 FC Bayern Germany 28 FC Bayern Central Midfield Right- Back Right Wing Goalkeep er ,79 0, ,06 0, ,00 0, ,64 0, ,00 0, ,55 0, ,00 0,00 Neymar Brazil 22 Santo FC Left Wing ,46 0,52 Özil Meut Germany 25 Real Madrid Pirlo Andrea Italy 35 Juventu FC Ribéry Franck Robben Arjen Schweinteig er Batian France 31 FC Bayern Netherlan d 30 FC Bayern Germany 29 FC Bayern Silva Thiago Brazil 29 FC Pari Saint- Germain Suárez Lui Uruguay 27 Liverpool FC Touré Yaya Perie van Robin Ivory Coat Netherlan d 31 Mancheter City 30 Mancheter United Xavi Spain 34 FC Barcelona Attacking midfield Central Midfield ,21 0, ,11 0,15 Left Wing ,41 0,53 Right Wing Central Midfield Back Central Midfield Central Midfield ,50 0, ,12 0, ,03 0, ,78 0, ,32 0, ,69 0, ,11 0,19 Note: C. matche, C. goal and C. ait refer to the amount of matche played, goal cored and ait given at the club the player played at. I. matche, I. goal, I. ait refer to the amount of matche played, goal cored and ait given during international game. The amount of goal per match (GPM) i calculated by a follow: per match (APM) i calculated a follow: (C.ait+I.ait) C.matche+I.matche. (C.goal+I.goal) C.matche+I.matche. The amount of ait 9

10 Appendix B Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for the independent variable. Independent variable Baeline model Baeline Model with hypothei Baeline model + quality Coach Media Same nationality Goal per match Ait per match Cultural difference Baeline model + quality with hypothei 9. REFERENCES 9.1 Lecture BBC. (2008, December 2). Ronaldo join legendary lit. Retrieved from BBC. (2013, November 20). Critiano Ronaldo: Portugal forward praied after fifth hat-trick. Retrieved from ESPN. Staff (2013, November 20). FIFA extend Ballon d Or voting deadline. Retrieved from FIFA. (2004, October 6). Thirty-five tar make Zurich hortlit. Retrieved from FIFA. (2014). The birth of the FIFA Ballon d Or. Retrieved from Jakoben. (2011, January 11). The Ballon d Or Controvery. Retrieved from Meneze, J. (2013, October 29). Fifa 2013 Ballon d Or hortlit the rundown of the 23 men nominated for the world player of the year award. Retrieved from Napit. (2013). FIFA World Player of the Year Award. Retrieved from RSSSF. (2013). World Player of the Year Winner. Retrieved from Literature Campbell, B., Galbraith, JW. (1996). Nonparametric tet of the unbiaedne of Olympic figurekating judgment.statitician 45: Charron, N. (2013). Impartiality, friendhip-network and voting behavior: Evidence from voting pattern in the Euroviion Song Contet. Social Network, 35: Fenn, D., Suleman, O., Eftathiou, J., Johnon, NF. (2006). How doe Europe make it mind up? Connection, clique and compatibility between countrie in the Euroviion Song Contet. Phy A 360: Garcia, D., Tanae, D. (2013). Meauring Cultural Dynamic through the Euroviion Song Contet. World Scientific Publihing Co. Pte Ltd Ginburgh, V., Noury, A. (2008). The Euroviion Song Contet: i voting political or cultural? European Journal of Political Economy 24 (1), Ginburgh, VA., VanOur, JC. (2003). Expert opinion and compenation: evidence from a muical competition. Am Econ Rev 93: Haan, MA.,, Dijktra, G., Dijktra, PT. (2005). Expert judgement veru public opinion evidence from the Euroviion Song Contet. J Cult Econ 29:59 78 Hoftede, G. (2000). Culture Conequence. Sage Beverly Hill, California. Hoftede, G. (1991). Culture and Organizaiton. McGraww-Hill, London. Popovic, R. (2000). International bia detected in judging rhythmic gymnatic competition at Sydney-2000 Olympic Game. Phy Educ Sport 11:1 3 Spierdijk, L., Vellekoop, M.l. (2009). The tructure of bia in peer voting ytem: leon from the Euroviion Song Contet. Empirical Economic 36, Yair, G. (1995). Unite Unite Europe. The political and cultural tructure of Europe a reflected in the Euroviion Song Contet. Soc Netwrk 17: Zitzewitz, E. (2006). Nationalim in winter port judging and it leon for organizational deciion making. J Econ Manage Strategy 15: