Home Advantage In The London 2012 Olympic Games

The London 2012 Olympic Games has been coined the most successful Olympic Games for Great Britain in a century (Huffington Post, 2012) with Team GB placing third overall. A definition of home advantage describes it as a phenomenon in which the home teams in sport win over 50% of games played under a balanced home and away schedule (Courneya & Carron, 1992). The existence of home advantage in team orientated sports has been established in baseball (Adams & Kupper, 1994), American football (Pollard, 1986; Nevill et al., 1996) Ice Hockey (Agnew & Carron, 1994) and basketball (Varca, 1980; Moore & Brylinsky, 1993). Schwartz and Barsky (1977) provided research on the phenomenon and demonstrated that advantage is most evident in indoor events such as Basketball and Ice Hockey and the least in Baseball and American Football suggesting location may have an impact on how much advantage a team has.



Percentages can vary dramatically depending on the quality of the teams, for example advantages as weak as 53% and as strong as 72% have been observed in professional baseball, American football, basketball, ice hockey, soccer and cricket (Courneya & Carron, 1992). Based on 13,686 matches in Basketball, a winning percentage of 64.4% was found (Nevill & Holder, 1999). The researchers also found a winning percentage of 68.3% over 40,493 matches (Nevill & Holder, 1999). The majority of research has been conducted involving team sports in major league tables due to the vast amount of games and the regularity of these games. However home advantage in the Olympic Games has also been explored. This has allowed examination and comparison of home advantage between team and individual events relying on differing judging systems like subjective and objective scoring. Research on home advantage in the Winter Olympic Games (Balmer et al, 2001) has shown home advantage to vary between events, with a significantly greater advantage in sports that rely on subjective decision making of officials. It is suggested that officials in such sports may be scoring home competitors disproportionately highly (Balmer, Nevill & Williams, 2003). Clarke (2000) examined home advantage in the Summer Olympic Games across all events at a nation level. The home nations were found to win approximately three times more medals in home Olympics compared with away venues. An interesting finding was that approximately two times more medals in Olympic Games either side of their ‘Home’ Olympics (Clarke, 2000).  displayed in Figure 1. Figure 2 below displays medals tables from Beijing 2008 in comparison to London 2012 supporting the finding of Clarke (2000). 

​

This article aims to address common factors influencing the phenomenon of home advantage with relation to literature and the 2012 Olympic Games considering crowd effects, physiological/psychological changes in competitors, travel, location and influences on officiating. 

​

Crowd 



A large proportion of research associated with home advantage has examined the crowd as causality. This research has taken several differing routes into how crowd may affect the game directly or indirectly and has had findings showing home advantage as a result of officiating influences from the crowd (Nevill, Balmer & Williams, 2002; Dohmen, 2008; Agnew & Carron, 1994) influences on the players (Thirer & Rampey, 1979) and also how the crowd is presented (Nevill, Newell & Gale, 1996; Dohmen, 2008; Zeller & Jerkovac, 1988; Schwartz & Barsky, 1977) has effects of the outcome of the game.



Agnew & Carron (1994) found that the only significant predictor of game outcome was crowd density. It was indicated that as crowd density increases, home advantage increases.  Nevill, Newell & Gale (1996) observed significant home advantage with larger crowds in football. The largest home advantage however was found in the English first division compared to advantage in the premier league. This involved the percentages of wins, away players being sent off and home penalties scored. Interestingly the English first division have considerably less crowd sizes but more advantage, suggesting that once the crowd has reached a certain size or density, a peak in the home advantage is observed. Schwartz & Barskys (1977) research found that the advantage in Major League Baseball increased with crowd density, increasing from 48% in relatively empty (less than 20% capacity) stadiums to 55% when the stadium was between 20-40% capacity and increasing further to 57% when the crowd density was greater than 40% capacity. 



It has been suggested that the crowd may influence officials in subconsciously favouring the home team (Nevill & Holder, 1999). Dohmen (2008) concluded a study on the decision making of German professional referees by stating that referees tend to make home biased decisions when the home crowd has a stronger interest in decisions that favour their team, eg. When the margin is close and their team is behind in score. Dohmen (2008) however, also found that home bias is mitigated when the fraction of supporters of visiting teams rises. This provides further support for social forces having effects on individuals’ decision making. Nevill, Balmer & Williams (2002) assessed whether decisions of qualified referees could be influenced by the noise of the crowd and discovered that the presence of crowd noise did have a dramatic effect on the decisions made by the qualified referees with further investigation into this effect finding crowd noise did not actually have an effect on penalising away players more; but rather penalising home players less. It was also found that when you silence crowd noise, home advantage is virtually eliminated, again suggesting that social factors play a part in influencing decision making of officials. Similar social forces were observed in the Dohmen (2008) study whereby referees displayed bias in stoppage time decisions and make fewer correct penalty kick decisions if the match is played in a stadium without a running track separating the stands from the pitch. This indicates that social pressure is more intense when the crowd is closer to the referee like Gymnastics, Diving, Boxing and Judo therefore creating a possibility of home advantage through subjective judging and crowd influences.

The effect of the crowd may also extend to affecting the players/ athletes behaviour in their particular event. Thirer & Rampey (1979) discovered that during normal crowd behaviour the visiting teams committed more infractions, however during crowd antisocial behaviour the home teams committed more infractions. The authors concluded that “anti-social behaviour from the crowd had a detrimental effect on the home team”. Greer (1983) observed that during normal crowd behaviour, home teams scored more points, turnovers, turnovers and had fewer violations and during instances where the crowd was booing for more than 15 seconds, the home teams’ superiority increased further. The result was speculated to be an effect of decrement in away teams’ performance or to referee bias as a result of imitation from the crowd. Dohmen (2008) provided evidence that crowd characteristics such as crowd composition and distance to the football field impaired referees decisions in a way that is consistent with the social pressure hypothesis in that social forces influence individual behaviour.



The facility in which the crowds and game is held may also have effects on players and officials judging or refereeing the game/ event. Zeller & Jurkovac (1988) analysed more than 35,000 Major League baseball games between 1969 and 1986 and reported that teams playing in a domed stadia won 10.5% more games at home than on the road. This was comparable to teams playing in open-air stadium which was 7.2%. The researchers attributed this difference to the effect of crowd support inside an enclosed stadium. They stated that “ Teams perform better and win more games when they receive more enthusiastic crowd support. Since the domed stadium holds the noise in the stadium, teams that play under domes win more games” (Zeller & Jurkovac, 1988, p.20). This observed effect has a distinct similarity to the stadium running track findings (Dohmen, 2008) and suggest that the architectural features of a home venue play a part in effecting game outcomes and decision making.



The influences of home crowd effects in London 2012 are at the upmost of relevance when discussing home advantage. Although many supporters travel other countries to see the Olympics, the crowd of the London games would be predominantly British Nationals. Therefore athletes (although unfamiliar with the stadium compared to their training facility) will have a perceived home advantage from the atmosphere of support that the home crowd gives. In line with the research from (Zeller & Jurkovac, 1988), this perceived support may vary dependant on the architectural features of the building in which differing sports athletes compete. An example of this would be the open air athletics stadium in comparison to the boxing or gymnastics venue. Support perceived by athletes and subconsciously noticed by officials may affect the outcome of the result due to the home crowd noise in said enclosed venues particularly if the stadium is close to capacity or even full, resulting in higher crowd density. 



Subjective vs Objective Scoring



With a clear display of social factors affecting the decision making of officials (Dohmen,2008; Nevill, Balmer & Williams, 2002; Nevill & Holder, 1999) questions arise of how home athletes may benefit in the Olympic Games from favourable judging. These biased effects will not be seen throughout every sport included in the Olympic Games, as events such as swimming and weightlifting are objectively judged (using exact times and weights) and therefore cannot be affected by home bias. However in events that are subjectively judged, this home bias may serve as an advantage for athletes competing on ‘home territory’. Subjective judging allows for an individuals’ feelings, influences or opinions to be reflected upon the score they may assign to an athletes’ performance. As discussed, Nevill, Balmer & Williams (2002) provided experimental evidence in soccer referees being influenced by crowd noise with 15.5% fewer fouls against the home team when audio (crowd noise) was present. Since referees have to judge a situation based on a split second decision having very little time for deliberation; their decision making may be heavily influenced by cues picked up from influences such as the environment, atmosphere in the stadium or own opinions . Therefore events such as Gymnastics, Diving and Boxing amongst others, may actually be influenced by this home advantage phenomenon. Nationalistic and political bias has been Observed in subjectively judged sports such as Olympic Skating (Seltzer & Glass, 1991) gymnastics (Ansorge & Scheer, 1988; Whissell, Lyons, Wilkinson, & Whissell, 1993) and Olympic diving (Park & Werthner, 1977) whilst substantial evidence for home advantage within objectively judged sports have not been found (Balmer, Nevill & Williams, 2003). 



Reviewing performance of Team GB and medals attained at London 2012 in comparison to Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, there appears to be dramatic differences in the said subjectively judged sports. In boxing, the 2008 Olympic Games placed Team GB 6th with 1 gold and 2 bronze medals. However in the London 2012 games, team GB boxing placed 1st with 3 gold medals (Nicola Adams, Luke Campbell and Anthony Joshua), 1 silver (Freddie Evans) and 1 bronze medal (Anthony Ogogo). The same pattern can be found in Gymnastics, another subjectively judged sport. The Beijing 2008 games saw Team GB Gymnastics (Artistic) placing 13th overall with 1 bronze medal from Louis Smith. London 2012 however, Team GB Gymnastics placed 11th in 2012 with 4 medals; Louis Smith attaining 1 silver and 1 team bronze medal ( along with Sam Oldham, Daniel Purvis, Kristian Thomas and Max Whitlock), Max Whitlock attaining a bronze Medal and Elizabeth Tweddle also attaining a bronze medal. The 2008 Olympic Games was also dramatically different than London 2012 for Diving with no medals gained in Beijing and a bronze for Tom Daley in 2012 therefore placing Team GB Diving 7th overall. Additionally, these events that are subjectively scored also place the judges and officials close to the crowd in an enclosed environment, giving way to Dohmens (2008) proximity to the crowd finding and also Zeller & Jurkovacs (1988) perceived crowd support through the amount of noise within an enclosed stadium. Combined, these observations and research may explain how home advantage in such subjectively scored sports plays a role.

​

​

Familiarity 



Familiarity with the location and facilities also plays an important part in home advantage. Pollard (2002) found that the home advantage was decreased for professional athletic teams who relocated to a new home venue. Approximately 72% of National Hockey League (NHL), National Basketball League (NBA) and Major League Baseball (MLB) teams that relocated experienced a decrease in their win/loss ratio at home (Pollard, 2002). Although crowd noise or judging may not be applicable for home advantage in Athletics due to it being objectively scored, familiarity with the facilities may be the splitting factor for athletes competing on home soil. Certain measures were in place for ensuring that athletes that need to be familiar with the facilities had the opportunity to do so. It was reported that replicas of the stadium running track were laid at two Team GB national performance centres (Lee Valley and Loughborough).  Lee Valley director Dan Pfaff stated that “They will be the only training centres in the world with this track, giving our athletes considerable advantage”. “ It is super-fast and is of particular benefit to structured running events such as sprints, hurdles and all horizontal and vertical jumps”(BBC Sport, 2010). As stated, this provides a major advantage to become accustomed to the facility prior to the games and gives Team GB athletes that ‘edge’ over other competitors on the day. The psychological effect of familiarity alone may even give competitors the ability to reduce the anxiety of their specific event, therefore allowing them to focus on more intricate aspects of their skill. Bray, Jones and Owen (2002) found that athletes had significantly higher pre-game self-confidence and self-efficacy for games played in the home venue, a finding that was replicated in Thuot, Kavouras and Kenefik (1998) basketball location and self-efficacy study. Other psychological advantages have also been associated with performing in a home venue. Terry, Walrond and Carrons (1998) findings of male rugby players displayed higher states of vigour and self-confidence and lower scores on tension, depression, anger, fatigue, confusion, cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety when competing at home (Based on CSAI-2 and POMS self-rating scales), therefore providing further evidence for this ‘psychological edge’. 



Psychological Effects of home advantage



This ‘Psychological Edge’ of athletes competing at home has also been displayed through higher pre-game self-confidence and self-efficacy (Bray, Joney & Owen, 2002). It was also found that athletes have significantly higher pre game somatic and cognitive anxiety when playing in their opponents’ venue. It has been stated that males will display territorial behaviour during competition (Carre, Muir, Belanger & Putnam, 2006). This territorial behaviour has been associated with an increase in overt aggression as well as a rise in testosterone. Neave and Wolfson (2003) looked at pre-game testosterone levels of soccer players and found that athletes had significantly higher pre-game testosterone when playing in their home venue compared to playing in their opponents venue. This was said to be an important finding as it suggests humans may express higher levels of testosterone when defending their home territory. Higher testosterone levels have also been associated with dominant and assertive behaviour (Mazur & Booth, 1998) and vigour (Dabbs, Stong & Milun, 1997) that are essential for high standard competition. These higher levels of testosterone, vigour, dominant and assertive behaviour would appear to serve as a home advantage for the Team GB athletes competing on home territory, however further research into this effect on behaviour is needed to draw appropriate conclusions.



Travel

​

Australia were shown to have their worst Olympic Games at London 2012 for 20 years (BBC Sport, 2012). The Australian team of athletes placed an overall 10th place and failed to achieve their usual standards in swimming; attaining only 10 medals including 1 gold, 6 silvers and 3 bronze . This compared to an overall placing of 6th at Beijing 2008 Olympic Games attaining 46 medals, 20 of which in swimming with 6 golds, 6 silvers and 7 bronze medals. The evidence would suggest that travel may have an impact on performance, therefore giving teams that travelled less distance (Team GB) an advantage. The research however suggests different, with Pollard (1986) finding no difference in home advantage percentages when comparing professional English football teams travelling less than or more than 200 miles. Courneya and Carron (1991) also revealed similar results, stating that “Travel is not a major contributing factor to the home advantage” ( Courneya & Carron, 1991, p. 48). The same effect was also not found in other countries performance that had travelled long distances like China and U.S.A that still dominated the 2012 medals table; this however may have been a factor of team quality and the ability to dominate away from home due to the sheer amount of athletes. For the U.S.A this was evident in the amount of medals attained in swimming (31 total: 16 golds, 9 silvers and 6 bronze) and athletics (29 total: 9 golds, 13 silvers and 7 bronze). For China this was evident in Diving (10 Medals: 6 Gold), Artistic Gymnastics (8 Medals: 4 Golds) and Swimming (10 Medals: 5 Golds).



To conclude, it would appear that the London 2012 Olympic Games did serve as a home advantage for Team GB. Firstly, the medals table show that it was Britain’s most successful games for over a century (Huffington Post, 2012). A review of the literature on home advantage with reference to the achievements of Team GB athletes, has shown that a home crowd may have been the most influential factor on players and also officials, particularly in subjectively judged sports. Travel however did not play a part in aiding this advantage but competing on home territory may have given the Team GB athletes a much needed psychological edge, reflecting upon a more competitive mind set. As we look towards Rio 2016, it will be interesting to see if the same pattern of success continues, using London 2012 as a spring-board to success.

Figure 1. Medal Totals In Olympic Games Years Surrounding The Home Olympic Games