The inability to fill stadia with fans has had a terrible economic impact on football clubs of all sizes. However, the lack of fans may have had another effect, too. This season there is less of a divide between how the top teams are doing at, well, the top, and how the rest of the pack is faring.
Lowly Burnley ended Liverpool鈥檚 68-match unbeaten home run (pictured) and bottom-placed Sheffield United beat title-challenging Manchester United at Old Trafford.
These performances, together with transformations like Manchester City player John Stones鈥 metamorphosis from an erratic, often-criticised performer to being, arguably, the best English centre-back in the league raise the question: is the lack of a jeering opposition crowd boosting some players鈥 performance?
We doknow, from a famous behavioural economics experiment, that . Tobias Moskowitz and Jon Wertheim in their book Scorecasting, look at common behavioural biases that affect the outcome of sports games.
The authors prove statistically that referees make different decisions depending on the crowd.
鈥淲hat we鈥檝e found is that officials are biased, confirming years of fans鈥 conspiracy theories. But they鈥檙e biased not against louts screaming unprintable epithets at them. They鈥檙e biased for them, and the bigger the crowd, the worse the bias. In fact, officials鈥 bias is the most significant contributor to home field advantage.鈥
In the current lockdown are we seeing the effect of the missing crowds on how teams play?
What if top clubs pay big bucks to top-flight players mainly because they are better at dealing with the stress of a hostile crowd or the pressure of expectations from the home crowd and not because they are actually more skilful?
It is obviously very intimidating to face a top team鈥檚 loyal fans if you are on the opposing team. Or the jeers of a misstep from your home crowd. A bit like a talented team member in the office who has to face constant banter or micro-aggressions for being different.
If you eliminate this unnecessary pressure, you allow talent and skill to rise. You enable everyone to contribute.
This is why when the workplace has a culture of belonging for everyone, not just a single cultural fit, you get better decisions, better work and better talent.
When I was interviewing people for our new book, one top creative told me that for much of her career she has felt embattled: 鈥淯sually a battle against white masculine privilege. When can I breathe out?鈥
Another top ad exec told me that when they joined the industry they felt that they had gone back in time to a culture more prevalent in the last century.
We can change our sector. We can make the workplace kinder and, by doing so, we will make it better. Of course, this takes active effort, as we explain in our book , the key to transforming and maintaining diversity, inclusion and equality at work. Active effort to antidote micro-aggressions with micro-affirmations. And active efforts from everyone in leadership to eliminate banter and unfairness. The new "" industry census launched by the Advertising Association is crucial to building a better, more inclusive workplace.
This kind of environment does not toughen people up. It reduces the ability for people to grow their skills and talent.
Let鈥檚 take a learning from the current culture experiment on the football field and allow creativity to rise.
Sue Unerman is chief transformation officer at MediaCom
@SueU
Image: Getty Images/Clive Brunskill