Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Xu Nick wp1
Xu Nick wp1
Nick Xu
Writing 2
Valentina Fahler
Having connections with various academic disciplines, soccer is one of the most
popular sports in the world. “No Better Moment to Score a Goal Than Just Before Half
Time? A Soccer Myth Statistically Tested” by Stijin Baert and Simon Amez shows the
application of statistics while “Accounting for soccer players: capitalization paradigm vs.
economics in the modern soccer world. These two articles from the disciplines of statistics
and economics have distinct characteristics. After conducting a careful analysis of these two
articles, it is evident that the differences are their objective, their way of dealing with
First, for the disparity in their goals, Baert and Amez’ looked to find a right or wrong
answer in their article while Oprean and Oprisor discussed an open-ended topic. By closely
examining the two articles’ theses, it is clear that they have different objectives. The statistics
article’s thesis is about testing whether scoring a goal before half time will impact the final
match outcome (Baert & Amez, 2018). The thesis’s content is the same as a science
experiment’s hypothesis, which usually proves a topic’s truthfulness. True or False will be
the only outcome of the experiment in the statistics article. This feature demonstrates that the
article is a science research paper and follows that statistics is under the broader academic
category of science. In contrast, Oprean and Oprisor (2014) stated in their article’s thesis that
“we will take into consideration the impact of the financial statements on the licensing
process from the football governing body.” The answer to this thesis is open-ended and
explanatory. This characteristic conforms to the fact that economics belongs to the broader
knowledge of social science. As for their intentions, the authors of the article wanted to assist
the audience in understanding how accounting is applied to modern professional soccer. They
also intended to help the audience to realize difficulties when it comes to doing so. After
finding out the authors’ purposes of writing their article, it is apparent that their goals are
3
distinct from testing a hypothesis. The two articles’ different objectives require disparate
ways of answers, leading to their differences in analysis approach, paragraph structure, and
discourse community.
Second, the statistics article’s authors gathered data as evidence and employed a
scientific approach to process their data. By contrast, the economics article’s authors used
literature as evidence and explained their evidence by words. In section 2.1 (Data) of the
statistics article, Baert and Amez (2018) stated that “our first source of data was reports of
games in the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Europa League.” The authors’
description demonstrates that match data is their primary evidence. On the other hand,
Oprean and Oprisor incorporated written documents like Flamholtz’s “Human Resource
Accounting” in their article to tell the audience how accounting participates in soccer. For
evidence processing, Baert and Amez entered their data collected from UEFA matches into a
sophisticated linear regression model consisting of six independent variables. The results
generated by the regression model are strong and direct evidence to evaluate the effect of
scoring a goal before half time on a match’s final result. For the economics article, Oprean
and Oprisor described and analyzed other scholars’ papers about soccer human resource
accounting and UEFA regulations by words. By doing so, they aimed to introduce the
authors of the statistics article gathered numerical evidence and conducted their experiment
independently. In contrast, the authors of the economics article partly relied on other writers’
literary works.
Third, Baert and Amez wrote all sections progressively and gave suggestions for future
experiments. By contrast, Oprean and Oprisor put down their second and third sections
parallel and did not suggest further research. According to “Academic Arguments” by
Lunsford and others (2004), “How does the article report its results and findings?” and “does
4
the article use charts and graphs or other visuals to report data?” are important questions
defining an article’s organization. By examining its organization closely, the statistics article
is divided into four sections: the introduction, method, discussion, and conclusion. Baert and
Amez first introduced the context and thesis. They then explained the data sources, the
regression model used to calculate the data, and the result. In the third section, they discussed
reasons that may lead to the result. Lastly, they made a summary and suggested ways that can
improve future research. Each section has a progressive relationship—the latter section based
on the content of the previous section. Dissimilarly, Oprean and Oprisor split their article’s
structure into introduction, literature review, the reporting framework in the football industry,
and conclusion remarks. The relationship between the second and third sections are parallel
in the economics article. The second section talks about different theories regarding the
player’s valuation method, and the third section discusses the current accounting regulations
in soccer. The content of these two sections is independent rather than progressive. As for the
conclusion, the economics article’s authors finished up by giving a summary but had no
suggestions for further research. The reason behind the difference in two articles’ paragraph
structuring is that the statistics article is a science research paper, while the economics article
is expository. Baert and Amez conducted their experiment step by step. Plus, a research paper
must be rigorous. Therefore, in the statistics article, the previous section closely progressed to
the latter section. Contrastingly, the Oprean and Oprisor focus on introducing and explaining
soccer accounting’s current situation. Having a parallel section can enable the economics
article’s author to share new topics on different aspects with their audience. For future
suggestions, the statistics article authors incorporate them because scholars are always eager
to do more research for more exploration. Moreover, due to the fact that an experiment has
numerous controlling factors, there are always rooms for an experiment to improve.
Furthermore, by pointing out ways to improve their research, Baert and Amez can make their
5
audience view them as humble and objective people, enhancing their credibility in their
audience’s mind.
Last, there is enough evidence to prove that the statistics and economics articles belong
to different discourse communities from the analysis in the previous paragraphs. Dan Melzer
(2020) defined that discourse community describes “a community of people who share the
same goals, the same methods of communicating, the same genres, and the same lexis.”
According to the previous analysis, the two articles are different in all the Melzer’s criteria.
Therefore, they are not in the same discourse community. For his purpose of writing the
article, “Understanding Discourse Community,” Melzer told his student to think about the
discourse community before writing. Interestingly, by analyzing the two articles I chose, I
learned Melzer’s idea again in the opposite direction. The two article’s difference in
discourse communities shows their authors’ careful consideration of their intended discourse
communities before writing. Thus, the two articles are great examples demonstrating the
Though statistics and economics have a close relation, articles under these two
disciplines are inherently different because they belong to the broader academic knowledge
of science and social science. Overall, through analyzing the two representatives from the
two disciplines, it is safe to conclude that articles from statistics and economics are different
in their thesis, evidence’s processing, organization, and discourse community. Baert and
Amez’s work has a definite answer, a reliance on numerical evidence, and a progressive
structure. On the other hand, Oprean and Oprisor’s work has an open-ended thesis discussed
References
Baert, S., & Amez, S. (2018). No better moment to score a goal than just before half time? A
Oprean, V., & Oprisor, T. (2014). Accounting for Soccer Players: Capitalization Paradigm