By Chris Court
March 13th 2008 @ 7:46am
Get a Roar profile
A red shirt is the key to sporting success
The success of football teams wearing red shirts – including Manchester United, Liverpool, and Arsenal – is no coincidence according to academics.
Their findings suggest that simply wearing a red shirt has given football teams an advantage – thanks to our deep-rooted biological response to the colour.
The research, by the University of Plymouth and Durham University, has been published in the Journal of Sports Sciences.
Researchers analysed data on English football league results since the Second World War – concentrating on how teams have performed at home when they nearly always wear their main signature kit colour.
They found teams wearing red across the whole of the top 68 clubs winning more often at home. Teams wearing yellow or orange shirts had the worst record.
But the researchers found no difference at all in performance away from home, when teams typically wear a range of colours that often change over the years.
In nature, red is often associated with male aggression and display – and in the sporting arena research by Durham scientists demonstrated that competitors wearing red had increased success in Olympic combat sports.
Professor Robert Barton, from Durham University, said: “We see a couple of possible explanations.
“Firstly, over time supporters may have been subconsciously more attracted to a club wearing red, so the club has developed an increasing resource base within its community.
“Secondly, there may be a positive psychological boost from wearing red, or being associated with a red team, that is reflected on the field of play. Competing against a team in red could also impair performance.”
Dr Russell Hill, also from Durham University, said: “It is certainly true that the influx of wealthy foreign owners has changed the resources available to some teams and this should result in increased success, regardless of their shirt colour.
“Nevertheless, in close matches where teams are evenly balanced, we still predict that wearing red could tip the balance between success and failure and the red advantage will still persist.”
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(16)
Mark said | March 13th 2008 @ 9:15am | Report comment
This definitely explains why the Paddo Woollahra RSL rugby league team I played with back in the 80s was so hopeless (their strip was yellow). It doesn’t explain why the Reds are doing so badly in the super 14.
There’s no question though that the way a team feels has an impact on their performance on the paddock. I guess colour plays a role in this.
Spiro Zavos said | March 13th 2008 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Perhaps the Queensland Reds would be playing even worse than they are now (is this possible?) if they wore another colour, say, yellow. Perhaps the Wallabies should ditch their gold jersey for away games and play in a green top with red shorts, to improve on their poor away record.
This matter of the colour of a team’s jersey and their success is a fascinating business. I believe that the research and the implications drawn out from the research are valid. A similar research project was done some years ago in the USA with the colour black. The research showed that teams playing predominantly in black in the professional sports, gridiron, ice hockey, and basketball (where contact was an integral part of the game) were penalised more frequently than teams playing in other less oppressive colours.
However, the up-side for the teams in black is that they are perceived by opponents are tougher, more frightening and intimidating than teams playing in more subdued colours. This perception, according to the researchers, more than compensated for the bias shown to them by the referees and umpires. Teams in black tended to have better winning results than teams not playing in black.
For rugby people this research tends to explain, or should explain in part at least, why the NZ All Blacks have the best winning record of any test side but invariably loses the penalty count, even when it records extremely large victories.
Do fellow Roarers agree with this analysis?
The issue of colours and their impact on peformance has been raised by the sports historian Richard Cashman in his solidly-researched and interesting book on the rise of organised sport in Australia, called ‘Paradise of Sport.’
Cashman has down pioneering research work on the history of Australia’s national colours, green (for gum trees) and gold (to represent the wattle).
According to Cashman teams representing Australia before 1900 ‘wore many different colours, in fact they were a pretty motley mob.’ When the national colours came to be standardised, red, white and blue were out because these were oclours worn by England teams and were the colours on the Union Jack. So green was chosen.
Why green? Because of the dying processes being developed in the late 19th century as a by-product of the coal industry, green was a relatively new colour. None of the club football teams in the late 19th century had green in their oclours.
Green and gold was first worn by an Australian cricket team in 1902. These colours, with a dark myrtle green (the Randwick colours which came from the Federation colour of the trams shooting through to Bondi Beach) were first worn by Australian athletes at the 1908 Olympic Games in London.
Should green and gold be retained as Australia’s colours? Should a red colour, based on the outback red, which is being used on the vestments of the Catholic hierarchy for the World Youth celebrations be a more appropriate colour.
Hugh Dillon said | March 13th 2008 @ 11:11am | Report comment
I certainly agree that the teams in black look intimidating — I can still remember my first sight of the All Blacks running out onto a football field in 1962 and thinking how awesome they looked. Curiously enough, however, NSW, who looked smaller and lighter in their sky blue, won the game. This is probably explained by home ground advantage which in those days included a home town referee. If the All Blacks copped extra because they were in black, and the ref was against them anyway, NSW had a big head start in a game won on kicks.
As to teams in red, is it a coincidence that Arsenal and Man U are two of the richest clubs in the world? How come Rangers (Blue) and Celtic (Green & White) almost always win the Scottish League? How come Munster doesn’t always win the Irish Rugby Provincial championship? How come Wales were also rans for many years? I think that there may be something in th colour theory but not much difference when it comes to red.
Jerry said | March 13th 2008 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
“It doesn’t explain why the Reds are doing so badly in the super 14.”
It does if you note that they actually wear maroon jerseys, rather than red. The Crusaders combine the primal red with the intimidating black and have the best record in the comp, I also note.
Andrew B said | March 13th 2008 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Jerry, the Reds are back in red this year – they’ve dropped the RL maroon colour.
onside said | March 13th 2008 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
To understand why most Rugby Union and Rugby League clubs are equally
familiar with the power of the colour red, have a look at their bank statements.
sheek said | March 13th 2008 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
Spiro,
What was your bikini analogy? What this study reveals is interesting, but what it hides is vital?
So for argument sake, if 80% of all teams in a competition have red as part or whole of their colour, & they win 70% of competitions, you could argue against the study.
Personally, I don’t put too much store in this study. It seems to me, every second EPL team wears red. Flags? Perhaps you can count on one hand the number of european countries that DON”T have red as part of their flag.
Sydney premeir rugby? The only club with red to win the premiership since Norths 1975, has been Manly 1997, & Easts (Shute Shield 2006?).
As Hugh Dillon suggests, it might be co-incidence. Man Utd & Arsenal are also two of the G14 super football clubs. BTW, 13 is one of my lucky numbers, so I’m not going to be intimidated by colour bogies.
Photon said | March 14th 2008 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
I don’t know about that
The Lions and Reds are the worst sides in Super 14 , as for Canterbury, there are exceptions to every rule
Phil Coorey said | March 16th 2008 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
Don’t forget Red Sox – they rule
Stoffy said | March 16th 2008 @ 7:20pm | Report comment
Interesting fact in regard to colors, the bottom three teams in the Barclays Premier league all wear white, and three out of the top four red. If Fulham get relegated I’ll put it down to that reason
Dublin Dave said | June 25th 2008 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
If you look at the soccer world cup (and this study was originally done on soccer teams) you would find that this theory has a few flaws in it. That tournament is dominated, traditionally by four countries: Brazil, Argentina, Italy and Germany.
Of these, the most successful is Brazil, who usually wear the supposedly unlucky yellow. Italy (the Azzurri) normally wear blue, Germany normally wear white and the Argentinians wear both (blue and white stripes).
I think what this shows is that if you are called Pele or Ronaldinho or Rivaldo you can wear any bloody colour you like and you’ll still run rings around everybody.
Here (from memory alone) are the results of soccers world cup finals based on the colour of shirts of the protagonists, in reverse order starting from Italy v France in 2006
Winners Losers
Blue White
Yellow White
Blue Yellow
Yellow Blue
White* Blue & White * with a little bit of yellow trim
Blue & White Green
Blue White
Blue & White Orange
White Orange
Yellow Blue
Red White
Yellow White
Not sure because film was in black and white in 1958 but I think Blue beat Yellow that year
White Red
Blue White
Assuming that before the war Italy and Uruguay (who won the three tournaments in the 1930s) wore their traditional colours that would be three more “Blue” victories.
Interestingly there have only been two occasions since the war (that I know of) when a team wore red in the final. In 1966 England wore their “away” strip of Red when they beat West Germany, even though the match was played in Wembley, London. Twelve years previously in one of the great upsets of all time, West Germany wearing white beat the Magical Magyars of Hungary who wore red.
antony said | August 12th 2008 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
Pretty pathetic research. You’ d hope English people, particularly people researching the subject, would know something about the history of their football clubs. Most of the early English football(soccer) clubs were formed by worker’ s organisations, for example; Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal. They didn’ t play in red to display male aggression, it was a political statement
Footbal Person said | December 29th 2009 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
Yet another reason Brisbane must become the clarrit and orange, instead of orange and clarrit.
Footbal Person said | December 29th 2009 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
and use a darker shade of clarrit………it looks horrible at the moment.
Jerry said | December 29th 2009 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
More research needs to be done into the effects of wearing a red shirt when on an away mission to an unknown planet alongside Captain James T Kirk, Mr Spock and Dr Bones McCoy.
bever fever said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
Yes yes, red is more, KFC, Red Rooster are primarily red, Hungry jacks and Maccas all have big splurges of red in them.
Yes yes red is the answer, any new franchise must have red in it.