| Literature DB >> 33286825 |
David Alaminos1, Ignacio Esteban2, Manuel A Fernández-Gámez3.
Abstract
The financial performance of football clubs has become an essential element to ensure the solvency and viability of the club over time. For this, both the theory and the practical and regulatory evidence show the need to study financial factors, as well as sports and corporate factors to analyze the possible flow of income and for good management of the club's accounts, respectively. Through these factors, the present study analyzes the financial performance of European football clubs using neural networks as a methodology, where the popular multilayer perceptron and the novel quantum neural network are applied. The results show the financial performance of the club is determined by liquidity, leverage, and sporting performance. Additionally, the quantum network as the most accurate variant. These conclusions can be useful for football clubs and interest groups, as well as for regulatory bodies that try to make the best recommendations and conditions for the football industry.Entities:
Keywords: financial performance; football clubs; multilayer perceptron; neural networks; quantum neural network
Year: 2020 PMID: 33286825 PMCID: PMC7597129 DOI: 10.3390/e22091056
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Differences and advantages of this study regarding previous works.
| Differences | Advantages |
|---|---|
|
This study uses a data sample of more than 200 European football clubs, while most of the previous works are focused on a country club’s analysis. Additionally, it uses two perspectives of financial performance such as return on net worth and return on capital employed, to verify the profitability achieved with the club’s funds as well as the profitability of the club’s activity. Ratios of a different nature are used, such as sports, corporate governance, financial, and reputation, expanding the types of ratios normally used in previous literature. Two neural network methodologies are applied to model and analyze the financial performance of any club deeply and individually, while most of the previous literature applies multicriteria methodology where they perform financial performance rankings, our study creates a new model for analyzing the clubs individually. |
This study uses a larger sample geographically, which makes it possible to obtain a greater experience on the financial performance of football clubs. This study uses two neural network methodologies, which have had great results in finance. One of them is the popular multilayer perceptron, easy to implement, and the second variant is the quantum neural network, a novel technique that achieves great precision results. Thanks to this type of methodology and the construction of the sample, each club can be analyzed individually and thoroughly from our model. It is possible to identify financial performance weaknesses thanks to the inclusion in the model of different types of exploratory ratios. |
Independent variables.
| Attribute | Code | Variables | Expected Sign |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corporate Governance Factors | I1 | Institutional Ownership (binary) | − |
| I2 | Nº of Shareholders | + | |
| I3 | Nº of Members of the Board of Directors | + | |
| I4 | CEO Duality (binary) | − | |
| Corporate Reputation Factors | R1 | Facebook (number of followers) | + |
| R2 | Instagram (number of followers) | + | |
| R3 | Twitter (number of followers) | + | |
| Sporting Performance Factors | P1 | Main Club of the City (binary) | + |
| P2 | Population of the City | + | |
| P3 | Average Attendance at the Stadium | + | |
| P4 | Accumulated points | + | |
| P5 | Promotion/Relegation | + | |
| P6 | Division | − | |
| P7 | Performance Ratio (Szymanski Ranking 1) | + | |
| P8 | Wage Bill (in EUR million) | + | |
| Financial Factors | F1 | Current Liabilities/Current Assets | − |
| F2 | Total Debt/Total Assets | − | |
| F3 | Total Debt/Total Revenue | − | |
| F4 | Expenses on Players/Operating Revenue | − | |
| F5 | Working Capital/Total Assets | + | |
| F6 | Retained Earnings/Total Assets | + | |
| F7 | EBIT/Total Assets | + | |
| F8 | Sales/Total Assets | + | |
| F9 | Total Liabilities/Total Assets | − | |
| F10 | Total Liabilities/Equity | − | |
| F11 | Short-term Liabilities/Equity | − | |
| F12 | Fixed Assets/Equity | +/− | |
| F13 | Net Profit/Number of Shares | + | |
| F14 | Net Capital/Equity | + | |
| F15 | EBIT/Sales | + | |
| F16 | Net Income Growth | + | |
| F17 | Net Sale Growth | + | |
| F18 | Asset Growth | +/− | |
| F19 | Liabilities Growth | − | |
| F20 | Debt Coverage Ratio | + |
1 Szymanski Ranking = −ln(p/43 − p). The total of clubs that participate in the first and second division is 42, adding one more counting to the club with which you are working. The term “p” defines the final position the club achieved at the end of the season.
Descriptive statistics.
| Mean | SD | |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.104 | 0.092 |
|
| 0.023 | 0.037 |
|
| 0.417 | 0.489 |
|
| 6.509 | 9.18 |
|
| 18.516 | 11.683 |
|
| 0.5 | 0.575 |
|
| 3,114,528 | 82,693.391 |
|
| 1,835,685 | 57,959.198 |
|
| 974,404 | 26,942.458 |
|
| 0.575 | 0.494 |
|
| 927,451.696 | 2378.519 |
|
| 21,393.802 | 158.461 |
|
| 54.865 | 15.841 |
|
| −0.004 | 0.435 |
|
| 1.499 | 0.674 |
|
| 1.514 | 0.961 |
|
| 183.567 | 15.019 |
|
| 2.989 | 4.004 |
|
| 0.683 | 0.395 |
|
| 2.186 | 1.721 |
|
| 1.206 | 1.38 |
|
| 0.499 | 0.626 |
|
| −0.093 | 0.515 |
|
| −0.024 | 0.259 |
|
| 0.735 | 0.924 |
|
| 0.943 | 0.907 |
|
| 15.808 | 10.854 |
|
| 13.372 | 7.411 |
|
| 4.457 | 5.328 |
|
| 0.787 | 2.077 |
|
| 13.267 | 12.291 |
|
| −0.012 | 0.774 |
|
| −0.015 | 0.567 |
|
| 0.437 | 1.104 |
|
| 0.116 | 0.793 |
|
| 0.109 | 0.893 |
|
| 0.151 | 0.567 |
Results of accuracy evaluation: return on net worth (RONW).
| Sample | MLP | QNN | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | RMSE | MAPE | Accuracy (%) | RMSE | MAPE | |
| Training | 92.11 | 0.68 | 0.31 | 95.38 | 0.49 | 0.22 |
| Validation | 91.34 | 0.74 | 0.38 | 94.41 | 0.55 | 0.28 |
| Testing | 90.57 | 0.79 | 0.42 | 93.53 | 0.58 | 0.34 |
Results of accuracy evaluation: return on capital employed (ROCE).
| Sample | MLP | QNN | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | RMSE | MAPE | Accuracy (%) | RMSE | MAPE | |
| Training | 93.27 | 0.61 | 0.27 | 96.17 | 0.42 | 0.18 |
| Validation | 92.58 | 0.67 | 0.32 | 95.41 | 0.46 | 0.24 |
| Testing | 91.46 | 0.75 | 0.39 | 94.53 | 0.51 | 0.30 |
Figure 1Results of accuracy evaluation: classification (%).
Figure 2Results of accuracy evaluation: the root mean square error (RMSE).
Figure 3Results of accuracy evaluation: mean absolute percentage error (MAPE).
Results of accuracy evaluation: significant variables and normalized impact.
| MLP | QNN | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variable | Significant Variables | Normalized Impact (%) | Significant Variables | Normalized Impact (%) |
|
| I1 | 54 | I4 | 42 |
| R1 | 39 | R1 | 51 | |
| P1 | 76 | P2 | 64 | |
| P8 | 47 | P8 | 34 | |
| F1 | 42 | F1 | 38 | |
| F2 | 64 | F2 | 72 | |
| F4 | 52 | F5 | 63 | |
| F14 | 58 | F14 | 44 | |
|
| I4 | 62 | I4 | 51 |
| R1 | 47 | R2 | 60 | |
| P7 | 82 | P7 | 73 | |
| P8 | 38 | P8 | 42 | |
| F1 | 34 | F1 | 35 | |
| F3 | 73 | F3 | 63 | |
| F7 | 56 | F7 | 47 | |
| F14 | 63 | F12 | 57 | |
| F20 | 48 | F20 | 36 | |
Multiple-step ahead forecasts in forecast horizon = t+1 and t + 2.
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 88.32 | 0.95 | 0.56 | 91.85 | 0.87 | 0.59 | |
| 86.16 | 1.14 | 0.78 | 89.41 | 1.03 | 0.67 | |
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 89.67 | 0.84 | 0.49 | 92.38 | 0.80 | 0.52 | |
| 87.21 | 0.91 | 0.72 | 89.41 | 0.92 | 0.63 | |
Figure 4Multiple-step ahead forecasts in the forecast horizon: accuracy.
Figure 5Multiple-step ahead forecasts in the forecast horizon: RMSE.
Figure 6Multiple-step ahead forecasts in the forecast horizon: MAPE.
Clubs by National League.
| National League | Number |
|---|---|
| Belgium | 12 |
| Bulgaria | 3 |
| Croatia | 2 |
| Cyprus | 1 |
| Czech Republic | 2 |
| Denmark | 7 |
| England | 41 |
| France | 22 |
| Germany | 29 |
| Greece | 5 |
| Italy | 27 |
| Netherlands | 12 |
| Norway | 3 |
| Poland | 5 |
| Portugal | 7 |
| Romania | 2 |
| Russia | 1 |
| Scotland | 6 |
| Spain | 37 |
| Sweden | 2 |
| Switzerland | 1 |
| Turkey | 2 |
| Ukraine | 4 |