The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Teaching math through World Cup soccer
FIFA rules give you a good opportunity to explore combinatorics and logic puzzles.
Now that the U.S. has played England to a draw in the World Cup, it's a good opportunity to use FIFA rules to calculate how many games there have to be in a World Cup.
1. The group stage
First, we have a group stage, where the 32 qualifying teams are placed in 8 groups 4, and in each group, the 4 teams play each other round-robin (i.e., each team plays each other team); each team gets points that way (e.g., 3 for a win, 1 for a draw), and the two teams with the highest number of points in each group advance to the knockout stage. (Because teams can be tied on points, this relies on a number of tiebreaker rules.)
In a round-robin tournament, the number of ways of populating "X plays against Y" when there are n teams is n × (n–1), because you can put n teams in the first spot and n–1 teams in the second spot (because "England plays England" isn't a thing). But when you do that, you're double-counting, because "England plays the U.S." is counted differently than "The U.S. plays England". So we'll just divide by 2, and get n(n–1)/2.
In general, this is the combinatorics concept called "n choose k", where (n,k) = n!/[(n–k)!k!]; here, we're using "n choose 2", which is just equal to n(n–1)/2.
Anyway, that means each group of 4 has 4×3/2 = 6 games, and since there are 8 groups, that makes 8×6 = 48 games.
2. The knockout stage
Next, we have a knockout stage, where the 16 teams are reduced to 1. This is a single-elimination tournament, where the loser in any game is immediately eliminated. (Unlike in the group stage, you can't have ties in individual games, so this requires a way of producing a winner in each individual game, e.g., sudden death overtimes and penalty kicks.)
When the number of teams is a power of 2, then it's easy to produce brackets -- and it's easy to check that with 16 teams, you get a winner with 15 games (i.e., 8 games in the round of 16, plus 4 games in the quarter-final, plus 2 games in the semi-final, plus 1 final game, and 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 15). But you can always produce a bracket with a non-power of 2 by using some number of byes.
So, you can ask, how many games would you need in general in a single-elimination tournament if there are n games, where n isn't guaranteed to be a power of 2? You can try creating a sample bracket and counting up the number of games, but how do you know that's the best bracket design? Could you do better? Now what if I gave you a very large number of teams, like 693? Are you going to test out various brackets?
This has long been one of my father Vladimir's favorite logic puzzles. You can cut this particular Gordian knot by observing that, when you have n games, eliminating down to 1 necessarily requires eliminating n–1 participants, and in a single-elimination tournament, playing 1 game necessarily eliminates exactly 1 participant. So the number of games is exactly n–1. If you start with 693 teams, you'll always play exactly 692 games to get a winner.
(There might still be better and worse designs of brackets: for example, the design "A plays B, and then the winner of that game plays every single other team sequentially" is probably not the best design, because then you'll be expecting the best team to play 692 games while every other team only plays 1… and if the worst team happens to play on the last day while the best team is having a bad day, you might get a perverse result. Better to approximate the power-of-2-type brackets, where every team plays up to approximately the log-base-2 of the number of teams (rounding up), and nobody wins unless they've played approximately that number of games (rounding down). But still, as far as the total number of games is concerned… the best bracket and the worst bracket will have exactly the same number of games.)
Anyway, to eliminate 16 teams down to 1, just apply the n–1 rule, and you get 15 games.
3. The third-place contest
But wait a minute, we still have one more game to play. FIFA happens to have a "third-place playoff" game: while the winners of the two semifinal games advance to the final (and are defined as first-place and second-place), the losers of those two semifinal games play one additional game (and are defined as third-place and fourth-place).
Thus, in the 2018 World Cup (which was played in seven different Russian cities), the semifinals involved France vs. Belgium (won by France) and Croatia vs. England (won by Croatia). In the final, France played Croatia (France won), but before that game, Belgium played England (Belgium won).
Now, strictly speaking, this isn't really an accurate ranking, because how do we know that Croatia is #2 while Belgium is #3? What if France and Belgium were the top 2 teams, while Belgium and England would have been ranked #9 and #10 out of the 16 teams in the knockout stage (but the brackets were arranged in such a way that the good teams were all on top but the bad teams were all on the bottom)? There's a sloppiness in defining the final-loser as #2 and the winner-of-semifinal-losers as #3. But hey, everyone likes rankings, even if they're inaccurate.
4. Putting it together?
Putting it all together, we get 48 games in the group stage, plus 15 games in the knockout stage, plus an extra game to determine third place, which makes 64.
Why not just play round-robins, which irons out the effects of having bad days and gives you a more scientific estimate of who's the better team? (Neither system is perfect: single-elimination puts a lot of emphasis on not having bad days, while round-robin involves arbitrary win-to-draw point ratios, e.g., 3:1 for FIFA and 1:0.5 for chess.)
Turns out that, because the round-robin rule is n(n–1)/2, the number of round-robin games you'd have to play increases as the square of the number of teams. With 32 teams, you'd have 32×31/2 = 496 games. That's a lot more than 64!
If you have T = nk teams and you divide those teams into k groups of n, you get kn(n–1)/2 games, but since k = T/n, you can express that as T(n–1)/2 games. With T = 32 and n = 4, that's another way of getting to 32×3/2 = 48 games for the group stage. So, holding the number of teams constant, we're basically linear in the number-of-teams-per-group. We could minimize the number of games by making n = 2, i.e., 16 games (32 games total when you add in the knockout stage and third-place game), i.e., just making it single-elimination all the way back. Or we could maximize the number of games by making n = 32 and actually playing those 496 games.
FIFA has chosen an arbitrary number of groups and then an arbitrary place to start the knockout stage, which gives us 64, a nice compromise between 32 games and 496.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In 1982 there were two round -robin stages...
A double elimination tournament will give a similar number of games to this arrangement -- 2n-1 or 2n-2 games, versus 2n -- while giving a better sense of the third-best team and somewhat more robustness to a team having an off day.
Well, sort of. One of the two reasons why they have this many countries in the World Cup in the first place is because they wanted more games. So you could go back and play a World Cup with 12 countries, playing a round robin of 66 total matches. That way you'd still have more participating countries than there are plausible candidates to actually win the thing under either format.
Of course, there's also the global commercial angle...
The best angle there is!
FWIW I would support a parallel competition that was a single elimination tournament for all FIFA members, but with not all teams entering at the same stage, like the FA Cup. I would also favour no seeding for such a tournament as it makes it more fun.
Yes. Like in rugby and hockey, a certain amount of overall success in previous years should win a country access to the tournament without having to qualify. (Eg. continental champions and Europe/South America runners up automatically qualify, as do the best four from the last World Cup, etc.)
But of course FIFA wants the best countries to play more games, not fewer, since that is where the money is. So it's not going to happen.
2 US games, 2 Ties, I'm sorry "Draws", or more Ties/Draws than in the entire NFL this year, tell me again how Soccer, I'm sorry "Fooball" is taking over...
Frank "Nil Interest"
Football has already taken over pretty much everywhere. (And cricket is more widely played than any 'Murican sport - and there you can get draws after 5 days.)
But thanks for reminding us of good old American parochialism.
Cricket is doomed for much the same reason as Latin -- the mental effort required to remember what it means to bowl an outside wobbly narfer during the third outing distracts from productive endeavors like flossing the cat.
Wow. The paint’s dry. Be still my heart.
I don't really get the motivation behind people like you having to remind us at every instance that you don't like soccer. Could you explain?
Right until you're screwed by 'em.
In the regular season of my youth soccer team, we had exactly one loss, to a team that went undefeated. In the playoffs, we faced that team in the semi-finals, and tied them in regulation, held them to a tie in overtime, held even through the five-versus-five penalty kick phase, and lost in the sudden death penalty kick phase.
They went to the finals, and the team they destroyed in the finals -- in regulation time, and which both their team and our team had beaten soundly in the regular season -- got awarded a "second place" trophy.
I did not particularly care that we weren't in the official "final" of the bracket; we had a wonderful, dramatic, hard-fought game against the best, and took them to the wire. But that a team that was clearly inferior to mine was publicly declared "second place", that rankled.
Several years ago, my two alma mater’s (undergrad and grad schools) were neck and neck all year in NCAA Div I hockey all year. They met in the first round of the Frozen 4, and my undergrad school lost. Both handily won their final games. My undergrad alumni (fairly fanatical) hockey supporter friends, to this day, argue that they should have been a close second, and not third.
This doesn't involve using the metric system, does it?
I've encountered tournament formats that can arrive a best of N in less than N-1 matches. To the usual single elimination tournament requirements an additional requirement that victories be convincing is added. For anything less than a 'convincing' win some number of 'bad' points are awarded to the winner, accrue enough such bad points and you are out even if you have won all your matches.
Baseball is the sport to teach math with -- it's all statistics....
And it is an AMERICAN game...
More strategy in one typical at-bat than an entire Premier/Bundesliga season combined.
Actually, yes.
Baseball is a thinking person's game...
That's odd. A few comments above in this thread you were criticising cricket because it required too much thinking.
This World Cup is also teaching us about the vital mathematical concept of equality. Two completely different groups of men can occupy the same pitch, running completely different (and even opposing) patterns for 90 minutes or more, and yet at the end both of their scores can be exactly the same - often a non-negative integer less than 1.
It's actually teaching about corporate greed.
Advertise Budweiser but don't let it be sold...
Is it considered a binary sport what with the prevelance of zeros and ones in the scores?
The problem isn't the number of games, really. The organizers probably *like* having lots of games. The problem is more the number of rounds. In a 32 team round-robin, each team has to play 31 games. Being on World Cup for that many weeks would substantially interfere with national leagues. Compare the current format, where each team plays 3 in the group stage and up to 4 in the knockout stage, which is 7 games.
There would be nothing terribly wrong with a 128 team 7 round Swiss style tournament, which would be 448 games, but each team only plays 7.
(I assume you mean "the winner of A vs B plays C, then the winner of that game plays D, etc.", not "if B wins that first game, B proceeds to play every other team whether they win lose or draw those other games.")
No, I'd expect the best team to play 1 or 2 games. If you *do* use such a format, you'd seed the teams so the best ones play last. Having the worst teams play more games is not unheard of; look at the NCAA play-in games. It's usually not to this extreme, though. And, again, the problem is not the number of games; the problem is the number of rounds. If you have 693 teams then you're playing at least 692 games regardless, but this format would require 692 rounds instead of, say, 10. (It's also quite unfair to everyone.)
I have actually experienced this format in my life: when learning judo as a kid, the instructor once lined us up by height and had smallest go against second smallest, winner played next. The second smallest actually went through all of us before losing to the tallest in the last match, and got an instant belt promotion for that feat.
It's commie kickball. Who cares about it?
Unlike in the group stage, you can't have ties in individual games, so this requires a way of producing a winner in each individual game, e.g., sudden death overtimes and penalty kicks.
Soccer being soccer, overtime isn't sudden death -- they play two full 15 minute periods even if someone scores, which increases the likelihood that the outcome will be determined in the stupidest way possible, by penalty kicks. They should really reward scoring in actual game play by having overtime be sudden death.
Different leagues have tried sudden death at various times - they usually call it Golden Goal. It didn't result in more extra time goals, teams just played even more defensively. Still almost always ended up in PKs.
The two important points I'd like to make here are non-mathematical: 1. how and why were the four teams chosen to play each other first (random or political?) and 2. is there anything less interesting or important than professional sports?
1. It's a random draw, within 4 seeded groups of 8 teams each. So each of the 8 groups of four teams has one of the top 8 seeds, one of the second 8 seeds, etc. There are a few other considerations, but that's basically it.
2. Yes, lots of stuff. Reality TV shows and country music come to mind.