This study compared process- and product-related variables between winning, drawing and losing teams in CONMEBOL and UEFA club competitions. The sample comprised 13,427 matches from the 2017/2018 to 2021/2022 seasons. Performance metrics were extracted using the InStat Scout® web platform, assessing 28 offensive and defensive performance variables from CONMEBOL and UEFA leagues. A Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted. The results revealed that the Passes and Accurate Passes variables of UEFA winning teams differed significantly from those of CONMEBOL winning teams. UEFA winning teams also excelled in key passes, accurate key passes, shots, shots on target and counter-attacking effectiveness. Similarly, CONMEBOL winning teams outperformed losing teams in accurate key passes and shots on target. In the leagues of UEFA and CONMEBOL, crossing was associated with defeat, as losing teams executed more crosses than both winning and drawing teams. Furthermore, drawing teams in both confederations recorded higher metrics for accurate key passes and shots on target than losing teams. These findings highlight distinct playing styles, with UEFA focussing on structured passing and dynamic attack, while CONMEBOL teams rely more on product-related actions for success.
CarlingC. Interpreting physical performance in professional soccer match-play: should we be more pragmatic in our approach?Sports Med2013; 43: 655–663.
2.
CastellanoJ. Relación entre indicadores de rendimiento y el éxito en el fútbol profesional. Rev Iberoam Psicol Ejerc Deporte2018; 13(1): 41–49.
3.
PraçaGMJacintoALBPinheiroGdS, et al. What are the key performance indicators related to winning matches in the German Bundesliga?Int J Perf Anal Sport2023; 23: 284–295.
4.
Ramos PérezDCastellanoJHernández-MendoA. Relationship between procedure and result indicators during a football season in the five major European leagues. Rev Cien Deporte2021; 17(1): 59–72.
5.
AugustoDde-OliveiraLAAquinoR, et al. Within-subject variation of technical performance in elite Brazilian professional soccer players: the environmental stress, match location, and opposition’s ranking influences. Int J Perf Anal Sport2022; 22: 583–593.
6.
KubayiAToriolaA. Differentiating African Teams from European Teams: identifying the key performance indicators in the FIFA world cup 2018. J Hum Kinet2020; 73: 203–208.
7.
ZhouCZhangSLorenzo CalvoA, et al. Chinese soccer association super league, 2012–2017: key performance indicators in balance games. Int J Perf Anal Sport2018; 18: 645–656.
8.
LiCZhaoY. Comparison of goal scoring patterns in “the big five” European Football Leagues. Front Psychol2021; 11: 619304.
9.
AkaHAktuğZBKılıçF. Estimating the England Premier League ranking with artificial neural network. Appl Artif Intell2021; 35: 393–402.
10.
BaşkayaG. Bundesliga season example article in ROL Spor Bilimleri Dergisi October 2023 ROL Spor Bilimleri Dergisi. J ROL Sports Sci Cilt2023; Special Issue(1): 184–199.
11.
JamilMLiuHPhatakA, et al. An investigation identifying which key performance indicators influence the chances of promotion to the elite leagues in professional European football. Int J Perf Anal Sport2021; 21: 641–650.
12.
ModricTVersicSJelicicM. Monitoring technical performance in the UEFA champions league: differences between successful and unsuccessful teams. Monten J Sports Sci Med2022; 11: 3–11.
13.
PraçaGMBrandãoLHAde Oliveira AbreuC, et al. Novel tactical insights from Men’s 2022 FIFA World Cup: which performance indicators explain the teams’ goal difference?Proc IMechE, Part P J Sports Engineering and Technology. Epub ahead of print 8 September 2023. DOI: 10.1177/17543371231194291.
14.
SgroFBarresiMLipomaM. The analysis of discriminant factors related to team match performances in European football Championship 2012. J Phys Educ Sport2015; 15: 460–465.
15.
OberstoneJ. Differentiating the top English Premier League Football Clubs from the rest of the pack: identifying the keys to success. J Quant Anal Sports2009; 5: 10.
16.
Lago-PeñasCLago-BallesterosJReyE. Differences in performance indicators between winning and losing teams in the UEFA Champions League. J Hum Kinet2011; 27: 135–146.
17.
Lago-PeñasCDellalA. Ball possession strategies in elite soccer according to the evolution of the match-score: the influence of situational variables. J Hum Kinet2010; 25: 93–100.
18.
JacintoALBMoreira PraçaGDe Sousa PinheiroG, et al. Identification of indicators that predict victory in the five main CONMEBOL and UEFA leagues. Int J Sports Sci Coach2024; 19: 2078–2089.
19.
IFFHS. IFFHS ranking the world’s strongest national league 2001 - 2020, p. 1. https://wwwiffhscom/posts/1030 (2021, accessed 5 January 2025).
20.
IFFHS. IFFHS continental strongest national leagues of the decade 2011-2020, p. 1. https://wwwiffhscom/posts/1021 (2021, accessed 5 January 2025).
21.
RumpfMCSilvaJRHertzogM, et al. Technical and physical analysis of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil: Winners vs. losers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness2017; 57: 1338–1343.
22.
BlandJMAltmanDG. Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ1995; 310: 170.
23.
KubayiALarkinP. Match-related statistics differentiating winning and losing teams at the 2019 Africa cup of nations soccer championship. Front Sports Act Living2022; 4: 807198.
24.
BilekGUlasE. Predicting match outcome according to the quality of opponent in the English premier league using situational variables and team performance indicators. Int J Perf Anal Sport2019; 19: 930–941.
25.
SeckinNPollakdR. Home advantage in Turkish professional soccer. Percept Mot Skills2008; 107: 51–54.
26.
Lago-PeñasCGómez-RuanoMMegías-NavarroD, et al. Home advantage in football: examining the effect of scoring first on match outcome in the five major European leagues. Int J Perf Anal Sport2016; 16: 411–421.
27.
PollardRGómezMA. Components of home advantage in 157 national soccer leagues worldwide. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol2014; 12: 218–233.
28.
PollardRPrietoJGómezMÁ. Global differences in home advantage by country, sport and sex. Int J Perf Anal Sport2017; 17: 586–599.
29.
CoutoBPSayersMGL. Crowd social pressure in the Brazilian soccer league: testing home advantage and referees’ bias during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol2023; 21: 673–688.
30.
RibeiroLdCFonsecaFdSCostaGDCT, et al. Did the absence of crowd support during the covid-19 pandemic affect the home advantage in Brazilian elite soccer?J Hum Kinet2022; 81: 251–258.
31.
TuckerWMellalieuDSJamesN, et al. Game location effects in professional soccer: a case study. Int J Perf Anal Sport2005; 5: 23–35.
32.
NobleWS. How does multiple testing correction work?Nat Biotechnol2009; 27: 1135–1137.
33.
O’DonoghueP. Statistics for sport and exercise studies. 1 ed.London: Routledge, 2012, pp. 1–416.
34.
PierceCABlockRAAguinisH. Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educ Psychol Meas2004; 64: 916–924.
35.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998.
36.
BradleyPSLago-PeñasCReyE, et al. The influence of situational variables on ball possession in the English Premier League. J Sports Sci2014; 32: 1867–1873.
37.
AquinoRManechiniJPVBedoBLS, et al. Effects of match situational variables on possession: the case of England Premier League season 2015/16. Motriz2017; 23: 695–705.
38.
ParzialeEYatesP. Keep the ball! The value of ball possession in soccer. Reinvention2013; 6: 1–24.
39.
RampininiECouttsAJCastagnaC, et al. Variation in top level soccer match performance. Int J Sports Med2007; 28: 1018–1024.
40.
LongoUGSofiFCandelaV, et al. Performance activities and match outcomes of professional soccer teams during the 2016/2017 serie a season. Medicina2019; 55: 469.
41.
Lago-PeñasCLago-BallesterosJDellalA, et al. Game-related statistics that discriminated winning, drawing and losing teams from the Spanish Soccer League. J Sports Sci Med2010; 9(2): 288–293.
42.
CasalCALosadaJLBarreiraD, et al. Multivariate exploratory comparative analysis of Laliga teams: principal component analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18: 1–18.
43.
ArmatasVZaggelidisASkoufasD, et al. Differences in offensive actions between top and last teams in Greek first soccer division. A retrospective study. J Phys Educ Sport2009; 23: 1–5.
44.
WuLDanielsonAHuX, et al. A contextual analysis of crossing the ball in soccer. J Quant Anal Sports2021; 17: 57–66.
45.
TengaAHolmeIRonglanLT, et al. Effect of playing tactics on achieving score-box possessions in a random series of team possessions from Norwegian professional soccer matches. J Sports Sci2010; 28: 245–255.
46.
WrightCAtkinsSPolmanR, et al. Factors associated with goals and goal scoring opportunities in professional soccer. Int J Perf Anal Sport2011; 11: 439–449.
47.
KubayiAToriolaA. Match performance indicators that discriminated between winning, drawing and losing teams in the 2017 AFCON soccer championship. J Hum Kinet2020; 72: 215–221.
48.
CastellanoJCasamichanaDLagoC. The use of match statistics that discriminate between successful and unsuccessful soccer teams. J Hum Kinet2012; 31: 139–147.
49.
LepschyHWäscheHWollA. Success factors in football: an analysis of the German Bundesliga. Int J Perf Anal Sport2020; 20: 150–164.
50.
SarmentoH.FigueiredoA.Lago-PeñasC., et al. Influence of tactical and situational variables on offensive sequences during elite football matches. J Strength Cond Res2018; 32(8): 2331–2339.
51.
CsatóLMolontayRPintérJ. Tournament schedules and incentives in a double round-robin tournament with four teams. Int Trans Oper Res2024; 31: 1486–1514.
