Introduction

Why should one cooperate with non-relatives when it imposes a personal cost and benefits others? The benefits mutually gained by cooperators, immediately or in the future, are considered the ultimate explanation for why cooperation evolved among non-relatives [1,2]. Particularly in intergroup competition, the cultural or biological traits that underlie cooperative behaviour within a group that provide a competitive edge over another should be favoured by selection in humans [3,4,5,6]. A study of 625 historical battles between 1600–1973 found numerically larger armies were more likely to be victorious over smaller ones [7], yet they can be harder to coordinate [8]. Forming a larger group than an opponent however, is not the only cooperative behaviour that can provide a competitive advantage during intergroup competition.

There are three main pathways whereby individuals within a group, or as a collective unit, can cooperate to gain a competitive advantage during intergroup competition: (i) greater networking, (ii) contributing more effort and (iii) task specialisation to create effective division of labour within a group. Networking is the maintenance of non-random cooperative interactions between individuals within a group whereby established pathways between critical partners may improve the speed or quality of tasks important to group success. For example, collaboration with particular key individuals has been associated with publication success in academia [9,10] and winning competitive soccer matches [11]. An individual’s contributed effort represents the magnitude of their actions performed for the group and incurs a personal cost, whereby greater contributions by a group should increase the opportunities to successfully complete important tasks. For example in a study on forest commons management in Ethiopia, groups containing individuals that contributed more time to costly forest patrols yielded higher potential crop returns than those that contributed less [12]. Finally, if there are a range of actions required to gain a mutual benefit, division of labour among the individual members within a group is expected to improve proficiency in the chain of multiple tasks [13,14,15]. Division of labour is a well studied cooperative behaviour associated with hunting success in humans and other animals [13,14,15]. Although cooperative behaviours have been associated with group success, our understanding of how cooperation provides a competitive edge during intergroup competition is less clear.

The mechanism whereby cooperation provides a competitive advantage for a group is expected to occur via increases in the success and efficiency in those tasks critical to gaining the shared mutual benefit [13,14,15]. Despite the logic of this idea, empirical tests of this prediction using real-world cases are virtually absent [16,17,18], yet it is an assumption underlying that intergroup competition played a pivotal role in the evolution of human cooperation [3,4,5,6]. Based on this idea we expect that during intergroup competition, successful groups should have greater levels of cooperative behaviours that are associated with higher proficiencies in those tasks critical to gaining the mutually shared benefit. Although this theory has been formulated in the context of the evolution of human cooperation, the logic should equally apply to intergroup competitions that occur within the more artificial construct of human sporting competitions. To empirically test this expectation, we used data derived from six international soccer tournaments (FIFA World Cup 2010 and 2014, Copa América 2011, UEFA Euro Cup 2012, CAF Africa Cup of Nations 2012 and FIFA Confederations Cup 2013) and six professional leagues in the 2013/14 season (Australian A-League, English Premier League, Dutch Eredivisie, Italian Serie-A, Russian Premier League and Spanish La Liga) to explore how different cooperative behaviours affect success during intergroup competition. Firstly, a detailed dataset derived from the FIFA World Cup 2010 was used to test that: 1) greater levels of cooperative behaviour were associated with winners, and 2) the three forms of cooperation (networking, contributing effort and division of labour) differed in relative importance for winning matches. Since the outcome of soccer matches is based upon goal difference, cooperative behaviour can only contribute indirectly to group success via shooting at goal. Therefore, we then collected data on networking behaviour from 5 other international tournaments and 6 professional leagues to test that: 3) competition and tournament-type effected the levels of cooperation and shooting proficiency in matches, and 4) greater levels of networking behaviour were associated with increased proficiency in the most critical task linked with winning success—shooting at goal.

Methods

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee at the University of Queensland, whereby the need for informed consent was waived. To test the first two predictions, detailed statistical information from matches that resulted in a win/loss in the FIFA World Cup 2010 was published and collected online (www.fifa.com). This dataset contained 48 matches involving 32 teams, and consisted of performance data relating to the skilled execution of tasks involving the ball (clearing, passing, receiving, shooting and tackling) and physical contributions (sprints and kilometres covered), for both individuals and teams (sum total of individuals in a team) in each match. For each skilled performance task (clearing, passing, shooting and tackling), three measures were used; success (number of successfully executed actions), activity (number of attempted actions) and efficiency (successes per action). Note that in the shooting task, a successfully executed action occurred if a shot was made on target but did not necessarily result in a scored goal. For the receiving task, there were only data available for successes. Performance data for individuals were standardised to minutes played. Any individual with less than 30 minutes total participation in a single match (less than 1/3^rd of the match) were excluded from the dataset for that specific match because their higher rates of success and activity can exaggerate their contributions relative to other individuals.

To test the third and fourth predictions, a larger sample size was required for the analyses. In addition to the FIFA World Cup 2010 dataset, data on team shooting and passing performance in matches that resulted in a win/loss were collected online from five other international tournaments and six professional leagues for a total of 1564 matches: Copa América 2011 (N = 15) (www.ca2011.com), UEFA Euro Cup 2012 (N = 24) and CAF Africa Cup of Nations 2012 (N = 27) (FourFourTwo STATS ZONE application), FIFA Confederations Cup 2013 (N = 13) and FIFA World Cup 2014 (N = 50) (www.fifa.com), Australian A-League 2013/14 (N = 104) (www.a-league.com.au), whereas English Premier League 2013/14 (N = 302), Dutch Eredivisie 2013/14 (N = 221), Italian Serie-A 2013/14 (N = 290), Russian Premier League 2013/14 (N = 177) and Spanish La Liga 2013/14 (N = 293) were sourced from an alternative website (www.whoscored.com). A match is 90 minutes long, therefore for any match that went into extra time (an additional 30 minutes = 120 minutes total) data were corrected by multiplying by 0.75 so that these matches would not over-contribute to analyses.

Results

Although higher shooting proficiency strongly contributed to winning in the FIFA World Cup 2010, only some cooperative behaviours were positively associated with winning (Table 1). Shooting proficiency was consistently greater in winning compared to losing teams (successful shots, winner = 7, loser = 4; total number of shots, winner = 16, loser = 13; shooting efficiency, winner = 0.4, loser = 0.3). Compared to those that lost, winning teams contained players with higher frequencies of networking interactions on average (winner = 71, loser = 60), but only slightly fewer passing partners. Unexpectedly teams with less division of labour were more likely to win matches, whereas the contribution of effort had no significant effect on winning. Therefore, the probability of winning a match in the FIFA World Cup 2010 was best predicted by higher shooting proficiency, more networking interactions and less division of labour.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Contribution of cooperative behaviours and shooting proficiency to the probability of winning matches in the FIFA World Cup 2010.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136503.t001

Competition and tournament-type affected the levels of networking behaviour and shooting proficiency in matches (Fig 1). Competition significantly affected team passing success (F = 10.34, P < 0.001) and there were more successful passes in international tournaments compared to professional leagues (successful passes: international = 382, professional = 347, t = 3.61, P < 0.001). Shooting proficiency varied significantly across competitions (shooting success, F = 7.75, P < 0.001; shooting activity, F = 2.62, P = 0.003; shooting efficiency, F = 14.17, P < 0.001). Whilst shooting success and efficiency were higher in international tournaments compared to professional leagues (successful shots: international = 6, professional = 5, t = 4.08, P < 0.001; shooting efficiency: international = 0.43, professional = 0.35, t = 6.01, P < 0.001), the total number of shots in a match did not differ.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Competition and tournament-type effects on networking behaviour and shooting proficiency.

Average level of (A) networking behaviour, based on total number of successful passes, (B) shooting success, (C) shooting activity and (D) shooting efficiency of teams within matches (N = 1564). Dark and light shaded bars denote international tournaments and professional leagues, respectively. Standard error bars are shown.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136503.g001

Greater levels of networking behaviour were consistently associated with increased proficiency in shooting at goal, which in turn was linked with winning success, however this pattern significantly varied across competitions (Fig 2). More successful passes were consistently associated with a decrease in the opposition’s number of networking interactions, a greater number of shooting attempts and (indirectly) winning success. In the Australian A-League however, the positive relationship between successful passes and number of shooting attempts is weaker relative to all other competitions. Successful passes were only positively associated with a greater number of shots on target in the EPL, international tournaments and when all the data were combined (Fig 2A, 2G and 2F). Overall, greater levels of networking behaviour were associated with increased proficiency in the most critical task linked with winning success—shooting at goal.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Relationship between cooperation, proficiency and victory in soccer competitions.

Structural equation models (SEM) illustrate the indirect association between a team’s level of cooperation and winning matches, via proficiencies in the critical task of shooting in: (A-F) professional leagues, (G) international tournaments combined and (H) all competitions combined. Coefficients presented are standardised estimates based on probit regression, whereby interpretation can only be made on sign and significance (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001). Dotted line denotes insignificant relationships. For SEMs, comparative fit index (CFI) values greater than 0.95 indicate good model fit [22]: CFI (A-F) = 0.96, 1.00, 0.95, 0.91, 0.98, 0.99, 0.86 and 0.96 (note model G has a low CFI and should be interpreted with caution).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136503.g002

Discussion

Success in professional soccer tournaments was associated with greater levels of networking by increasing proficiency in the critical task of shooting, empirically supporting the idea that cooperative behaviour can improve the chance of a shared beneficial gain for cooperators [1,2]. Greater frequencies of cooperative interactions through passing, but fewer networking partners, were associated with winning success which supports that interactions with certain key players may be more influential than others within a team [11]. Some individuals contribute more than others to their group’s success which may be associated with the opposition quality, positional roles, personal capacities, injury or motivation [9,11]. Not all cooperative behaviours increased the probability of winning soccer matches highlighting that particular forms of cooperation may be more important for gaining the mutual shared benefit than others [9].

Greater frequencies of cooperative interactions were associated with winning matches in professional soccer tournaments by increasing proficiency in shooting—the most critical task linked with group success. This result suggests that greater levels of networking interactions by winning teams compared to their losing opponents create more opportunities for players to shoot, and in some competitions enhance shooting success. The winning teams could also possess higher-quality shooters, more skilled players, better timing of executed actions, superior defence or a combination of all these factors. Understanding how these factors vary across teams and competitions, and in turn contribute to the relationship between cooperative interactions and proficiency in shooting, would be an interesting avenue for future studies.

Teams that contributed more effort than their opposition did not win more matches. As such, executing a greater level of behaviour than needed to gain the disputed resource may impose extra energetic costs and risk of injury to players in sport, or may unnecessarily increase the chance of death for soldiers in the case of warfare. This result highlights that focusing on the quality of collective actions of a group, rather than just mere quantity, may be more beneficial for success in intergroup competition.

When individuals within a group perform only one specific task which is complementary to others that contribute to a common goal, enhanced effectiveness is expected through the division of labour [13,14,15]. We found no evidence that greater division of labour contributed to winning soccer matches, but rather a negative association was evident. As such, our study does not empirically support the theoretical prediction that greater division of labour increases the likelihood of a beneficial gain [13,14]. Instead, the probability of winning increased as division of labour decreased suggesting that soccer teams may benefit when all players perform most tasks as this may improve scoring opportunities and reduce predictability of play. Within a soccer team however, players take on positional roles which may lead to certain individuals performing most of their team’s actions in a particular skilled task relative to others. For example, a higher proportion of a team’s shooting attempts may be performed by forwards compared to individuals in other positional roles. Such positional roles were not reflected in our measure of division of labour, and in turn may increase the predictability of a player’s actions. In future work, taking into account how often an individual performs a particular task relative to others in their group, rather than the strict measure of does or does not perform, may be a more informative in studies investigating the division of labour. Furthermore, this study demonstrated that greater division of labour may not be beneficial during intergroup competition.

The negative relationship between the competing teams’ level of networking could be largely explained by there being only one soccer-ball, of which a team must be in possession to carry out the behaviour. The maintenance of cooperation during intergroup competition may therefore reflect reduced opportunity to express cooperative behaviour imposed by the abilities of the competing group, rather than players within a team choosing to be uncooperative. This is important when considering the vast literature investigating the problem of free-riders in human cooperation [23]; the propensity of unrelated individuals to cooperate within a group may also be associated with opportunity or personal abilities rather than just an active choice to be uncooperative.

Our work has two important outcomes for the management of soccer teams in professional leagues and international tournaments. First, greater activity in physical tasks does not translate into greater team success. A greater number of sprints by individuals in a team, amount of ball-related activities, or distance covered had no association with the probability of winning matches. This does not mean that these traits are unimportant but it does mean that they do not separate the winning from the losing teams. Each team is likely to require a certain amount of physical effort to be competitive within a game but this does not determine the probability of winning. Rather, more passing interactions between particular players are likely to create better scoring opportunities to win matches than simply performing any action as often as possible. Secondly, the probability of winning increased as division of labour decreased suggesting that soccer teams may benefit when all players perform most tasks–empirically supporting the influential tactical theory “Total Football” posed by the Dutch football club Ajax. In competitive soccer therefore, less division of labour may be particularly important as it could decrease a team’s predictability of play and may allow any player to take advantage of opportunistic scoring situations.

In this study of professional soccer tournaments, we provide empirical support that increased cooperation among non-relatives is associated with the improved chances of gaining a mutually shared benefit during intergroup competition by enhancing proficiency in a critical task [4,14]. This study empirically shows that greater levels of certain cooperative behaviours within a group can provide a competitive edge in intergroup competition, and thereby supports the idea that inter-group conflict most likely played an important role in favouring cooperation among non-relatives during human evolution [3,4,5,6].

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Catriona Condon for guidance in the analysis of this paper. This work was supported by the Australian Postgraduate Award and the University of Queensland Graduate School International Travel Award.