In US Major League Soccer, teams playing with home advantage win an astonishing 69.1% of their matches. This remarkable statistic isn't unique to soccer - NBA teams win 62.7% of their home games, while NHL teams secure 59% of their home victories.
The home field advantage is a well-documented phenomenon across all major sports, with the home crowd playing a crucial role in team performance. Scientific research has identified five main factors behind this effect: crowd influence, facility familiarity, travel fatigue, rules, and territoriality. Specifically, during the COVID-19 pandemic, when games were played without spectators, European soccer leagues experienced a significant drop in home advantage - reducing it by almost a third.
This article examines the scientific evidence behind home advantage in sports, exploring how crowd dynamics, psychological factors, and even referee decisions contribute to this persistent pattern in competitive athletics.
Statistical evidence reveals compelling patterns in home field advantage across professional sports. Research analyzing over [9,472 games] across nine team sports in Spain from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 confirmed significant home advantage effects in all sports examined [1]."The consistent finding that home teams in sport competitions win over 50% of games played under a balanced home and away schedule" Courneya & Carron, Researchers in sports psychology
A comprehensive analysis of major sports leagues demonstrates varying levels of home advantage. Baseball teams win approximately 54.3% of their home games [1], whereas American football teams secure 57.3% of victories on home turf [1]. Moreover, ice hockey teams demonstrate a more pronounced home advantage, winning 59.5% of their matches [1]. Basketball exhibits one of the strongest home court effects, with teams winning 64.4% of home games [1].
Soccer stands out with particularly robust home field advantages. Analysis of 40,493 matches shows teams winning 63.9% of games when playing at home [1]. Additionally, in international soccer competitions, home teams enjoy even greater success rates, ranging from 60% in Asia/Africa to 69.1% in US Major League Soccer [2].
Long-term analysis reveals fascinating patterns in home advantage evolution. In English football, home advantage has remained remarkably stable since the formation of the League in 1888 [3]. Nevertheless, research examining 81,185 games across France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal's professional leagues spanning over 70 years shows notable fluctuations [1].
In the early years of these leagues, home advantage was particularly pronounced, especially in Spain and Italy where teams won over 70% of home matches [1]. Subsequently, considerable variations occurred through the late 1970s, with Spain consistently maintaining the highest home advantage [1].
Furthermore, since the late 1990s, all countries have experienced their lowest-ever levels of home advantage, dropping to 60% or below in recent seasons [1]. This decline appears consistent across different tiers of professional football, suggesting fundamental changes in how home advantage manifests in modern sports [1].
Research indicates distinct patterns of home advantage across different sports. Rugby demonstrates the highest home advantage at 67.0%, significantly exceeding other team sports [1]. Conversely, volleyball (55.7%), water polo (56.2%), and roller hockey (58.3%) show comparatively lower home advantages [1].
The nature of the sport appears to influence home advantage magnitude. Studies suggest that rugby's high home advantage reflects the continuous, aggressive, and intense nature of the sport [1]. Baseball's relatively lower home advantage of 54.3% may be attributed to its longer season length, with individual games carrying less psychological weight [2].
A meta-analysis of 4,141 games from 2015-2019 seasons across NFL, NBA, and MLB provides additional insights. The research confirmed that home teams won 55.5% of games across all three sports combined [4]. Notably, when examining seasonal variations, basketball demonstrated a significantly higher home winning percentage (58.9%) compared to baseball (53.6%) [4].
These variations persist even when controlling for factors such as crowd size and travel fatigue. Indeed, analysis of 3,235 matches reveals that referee bias contributes to home advantage, albeit to varying degrees across different sports [5]. Additionally, research examining over 16,000 NBA games spanning thirteen seasons found that home teams consistently score at higher rates and maintain shorter time intervals between scores [4].
The psychological dynamics underlying home advantage in football reveal fascinating insights into human behavior under competitive pressure. Research examining professional soccer players demonstrates distinct physiological and psychological patterns between home and away performances.
Scientific studies have uncovered a remarkable biological basis for home advantage through hormonal responses. Soccer players exhibit significantly higher salivary testosterone levels before home games than away matches [6]. In one study analyzing professional soccer players, testosterone levels were 40% higher before matches against moderate rivals and increased by 67% when facing bitter rivals at home [7].
Goalkeepers display particularly pronounced hormonal variations - showing the lowest testosterone during training but the highest levels before home matches [7]. This dramatic shift underscores how territorial defense mechanisms activate powerful physiological responses.
Home and away venues create markedly different psychological states in players. Research indicates that athletes consistently report lower anxiety levels before home competitions [6]. A study of professional U-20 futsal players revealed that pre-competitive anxiety and autonomic responses varied significantly based on game location [6].
The relationship between venue and psychological state appears bidirectional. Players with higher testosterone levels generally demonstrate lower anxiety, although this pattern can vary between individual and team sports [6]. Home players also project greater confidence before games compared to when playing away [6].
The presence of supportive home crowds triggers complex psychological and physiological responses in athletes. Studies examining matches during the COVID-19 pandemic, when games were played without spectators, provided unprecedented insights into crowd effects. The absence of fans reduced home advantage by almost one-third across European soccer leagues [8].
The crowd's influence operates through multiple psychological mechanisms:
Social Facilitation: Supportive home crowds increase players' arousal and motivation levels, leading to optimal performance [2]
Energy Management: Crowd support proves particularly beneficial in the second half when players face mental and physical fatigue [2]
Territorial Response: Home crowds activate protective territorial behaviors in players, increasing aggressive and assertive play [7]
However, certain players may experience social inhibition, where large crowds impair performance through added pressure [2]. This effect appears more pronounced when lower-division teams face bigger opponents in cup competitions [2].
The psychological impact extends beyond just the players. Coaches set more challenging targets and choose more aggressive tactics when playing at home [3]. They also field more offensive players and express less satisfaction with draws at halftime during home games [3].
Intriguingly, research reveals that territoriality tendencies are significantly higher in players competing at home versus away [3]. This heightened territorial response manifests through both psychological states and measurable physiological changes, suggesting deep evolutionary roots to the home advantage phenomenon [7].
Beyond the psychological aspects, environmental factors play a crucial role in determining home advantage in sports. Research examining facility familiarity, climate variations, and travel-related impacts reveals fascinating patterns in team performance.
Studies investigating facility familiarity present mixed findings regarding its influence on home advantage. Research analyzing professional basketball, hockey, and soccer games (n=1,590) found that team quality significantly moderates the impact of facility familiarity. High-quality teams often struggle after relocating to new venues, yet lower-ranked teams frequently benefit from such changes [9].
Interestingly, teams moving to new stadiums demonstrate varying adaptability patterns. Analysis of European football teams revealed that despite a substantial 51.6% increase in attendance after relocation, there was negligible correlation between increased crowd size and home advantage [9].
Climate and altitude emerge as powerful contributors to home advantage, primarily through their physiological impact on visiting teams. At high altitudes, the air becomes notably thinner, reducing oxygen pressure and negatively affecting endurance activities [10].
A comprehensive study of the 2010 FIFA World Cup matches demonstrated that games played at altitudes above 1200m resulted in:
3.1% reduction in total distance covered by teams [3]
Decreased sprint times and altered ball flight patterns [3]
Significant impact on endurance despite football being an intermittent sport [3]
The altitude effect is particularly pronounced in South American competitions. Teams based in cities like La Paz (3,637m), Quito (2,734m), and Cusco (3,350m) enjoy substantial advantages over visiting teams from sea-level locations [4]. In fact, the oxygen concentration drops from 21% at sea level to between 14.8% and 13.2% once elevation surpasses 2,500m [4].
Travel fatigue manifests through multiple mechanisms that can impair visiting team performance. Studies indicate that crossing time zones significantly affects athletes' circadian rhythms, potentially disrupting sleep patterns and recovery [3].
Research examining NBA performance revealed that teams traveling eastward compared to westward demonstrated notably different outcomes. Teams moving east maintained a winning percentage of 44.51% versus 40.83% for westward travel [3]. This disparity stems primarily from circadian disruptions affecting peak performance timing [3].
The impact of travel appears most pronounced under specific conditions:
When teams traverse multiple time zones without adequate adaptation periods [3]
In competitions where teams frequently travel long distances [3]
During tournaments requiring rapid location changes [3]
Nevertheless, modern travel amenities have somewhat mitigated these effects. Analysis of winter Olympic competition showed minimal variance in home advantage explained by time zones traversed (R² = 0.4%), primarily because athletes typically arrive well in advance of competition [3].
Referee decisions emerge as a crucial factor in determining home advantage across professional sports. Research analyzing 5,244 English Premier League matches involving 50 referees reveals that individual officials demonstrate varying levels of home bias in their decision-making [11].
Analysis of Premier League matches demonstrates that referees award significantly more contentious decisions (69%) and incorrect/missed calls (71%) in favor of home teams [5]. This bias manifests through multiple officiating metrics - home teams receive fewer yellow cards and fouls compared to away teams [11].
A comprehensive study of 4,356 matches across 12 European leagues uncovered that referees penalized more fouls by home teams (+0.78) when matches were played without spectators, yet away teams' foul rates remained relatively unchanged (-0.05) [11]. Similarly, home teams received more yellow cards (+0.11) in empty stadiums, contrasting with away teams who saw fewer cautions (-0.34) [11].
The impact of crowd noise on referee decision-making is substantial. Experimental research examining 40 qualified referees revealed that those viewing challenges with background crowd noise demonstrated greater uncertainty and awarded 15.5% fewer fouls against home teams [11].
Crowd density rather than absolute size appears most influential - analysis of UEFA Champions League and Europa League matches showed that higher crowd densities correlated with a 25% increase in yellow cards issued to away teams [12]. Interestingly, referees with extensive experience display smaller error-related negativity (ERN) amplitudes when facing negative crowd feedback, suggesting experience helps officials resist crowd pressure [11].
The introduction of Video Assistant Referee (VAR) technology has initiated noteworthy changes in officiating patterns. Analysis of 1,838 Turkish Super League matches reveals that after VAR implementation, fouls decreased significantly for both home and away teams, with medium effect sizes (d = 0.56 and d = 0.69 respectively) [13].
Nonetheless, certain biases persist even with VAR. Research examining 2,448 games in Germany's Bundesliga found that:
Home teams still maintain advantages in points and goals
Away teams continue facing more referee bias regarding yellow cards and penalties
The overall home advantage effect remains statistically significant [14]
The pandemic-induced "ghost games" provided unique insights into VAR's effectiveness. Analysis of 9,799 matches demonstrated that during games without crowds, the difference between home and away fouls increased significantly [15]. This suggests that while VAR may enhance decision accuracy, the technology alone cannot entirely eliminate home advantage stemming from referee decisions.
Intriguingly, Premier League referees appear less susceptible to home advantage effects compared to officials in lower divisions, potentially due to:
Introduction of psychologists working with top-tier referees
Implementation of goal-line technology alongside VAR
Increased investment in professional referee training [16]
The relationship between crowd effects and referee decisions operates through multiple mechanisms. Under time constraints, officials tend to focus on the most salient cues, often influenced by crowd reactions [11]. This effect intensifies in professional football stadiums where reduced distance between fans and the playing field amplifies crowd pressure on officials [11].
Analyzing home advantage across different competitive formats reveals intriguing patterns in how venue effects manifest. Research examining balanced and unbalanced competitions provides crucial insights into this phenomenon's complexity.
In balanced competitions where teams play equal home and away matches, home advantage manifests consistently. Analysis of 133,560 Major League Baseball games demonstrated home teams winning 54.3% of matches [1]. Correspondingly, examination of 2,592 American football games showed home teams securing 57.3% of victories [1].
Yet measuring home advantage becomes more complex in unbalanced competitions. Studies indicate that when competitions lack equal home-away distribution, traditional metrics prove inadequate [1]. In these cases, researchers must account for team quality and participation rates to reach unbiased conclusions regarding venue effects.
Olympic Games data offers fascinating insights into home advantage in international competition. Analysis spanning from 1896-2016 revealed host nations enjoyed substantial performance boosts, primarily in events involving subjective officiating [1]. Interestingly, host countries demonstrated a two-percentage-point increase in both medals and finalist positions between 1988-2016 [1].
The Winter Olympics present even more pronounced effects for male athletes, with approximately 50% larger home advantage compared to Summer Games [1]. Curiously, female athletes showed no significant home advantage in Winter Olympics during this period [1].
A distinctive pattern emerges in two-legged knockout competitions. Research examining European football competitions across 51 years uncovered that teams playing the second leg at home possessed more than 50% probability of advancing, even after controlling for:
Extra time effects
Team ability differences
Historical performance [1]
This second-leg home advantage appears particularly potent in specific scenarios:
When matches require extra time
In situations where teams can prepare strategies based on first-leg results
During crucial matches where home teams mobilize substantial fan support [1]
Nonetheless, data suggests this advantage has diminished over recent decades [1]. Contemporary analysis of Spanish Copa del Rey matches between 1940-2014 (comprising 2,056 matches and 1,028 playoffs) confirmed significant differences between playing as hosts or visitors in first versus second matches [1].
The magnitude of second-leg advantage varies across competitions. Studies of European Cup football revealed home teams in second legs maintained above 50% qualification probability, irrespective of:
Match importance
Competition stage
Historical period examined [1]
Principally, research indicates that playing the decisive second match at home provides psychological benefits beyond traditional home advantage [1]. This effect manifests through enhanced crowd support during critical moments and improved strategic preparation based on first-leg outcomes [1].
The COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented natural experiment in professional football, offering researchers a unique opportunity to study home advantage without spectator influence. This large-scale analysis across multiple leagues provided compelling insights into the true impact of crowd support on match outcomes.
The absence of spectators fundamentally altered team performance metrics. In the German Bundesliga, home teams experienced a dramatic shift, with their winning percentage plummeting below 50% during matches played behind closed doors [7]. Likewise, across European leagues, home teams scored 31.37% more goals than away teams during crowdless matches, a substantial decrease from 73.84% in previous seasons with spectators [7].
Intriguingly, offensive performance statistics revealed telling patterns. Home teams generated fewer scoring opportunities, registering 0.7 fewer corners and 1.3 fewer shot attempts per match in empty stadiums [17]. Yet away teams showed minimal changes in their attacking patterns, with only slight increases of 0.10 more corners and 0.17 more shots [17].
The elimination of crowd pressure produced remarkable shifts in officiating patterns. Analysis of 6,481 matches across 17 countries revealed that referees issued significantly fewer yellow cards to away teams during behind-closed-doors games [6]. This reduction narrowed the traditional gap between home and away team punishments by approximately one-third [6].
A comprehensive study of European matches uncovered that:
Home teams received 11.7% more yellow cards during crowdless matches
Away teams saw a 5.5% decrease in yellow card bookings
The overall number of fouls called against home teams increased by 3.7% [7]
Most notably, these changes in referee behavior persisted regardless of the match situation. The increased booking rate for home teams remained consistent whether they were winning, losing, or drawing [18].
The pandemic-era matches provided definitive evidence regarding crowd influence on home advantage. Across four major European leagues, the traditional home advantage decreased by more than 50% during matches played without spectators [19]. This reduction manifested through multiple channels:
First, the psychological impact on players became evident through performance metrics. Home teams created significantly fewer attacking opportunities and demonstrated less territorial dominance without crowd support [6]. Second, referee decision-making showed marked changes, with officials displaying reduced bias toward home teams in the absence of crowd pressure [7].
The Brazilian league offered particularly insightful data, as the effect varied by competition level. In the top division, home advantage declined significantly during crowdless matches, primarily through reduced offensive performance [20]. In contrast, the second division showed no meaningful change, suggesting that lower attendance levels in these divisions typically generate less crowd influence [20].
Perhaps most revealing was the impact on specific match situations. Without crowds, home teams received more yellow cards across all game states - leading, trailing, or drawing - indicating that crowd presence typically influences referee decisions independently of match context [18]. This finding underscores how crowd support shapes officiating decisions even in seemingly neutral situations.
The natural experiment also highlighted geographical variations in crowd effects. German teams accustomed to larger crowds showed more dramatic reductions in home advantage compared to teams used to smaller attendances [6]. Consequently, leagues with traditionally higher attendance rates experienced greater disruption to home advantage during the pandemic period [7].
Scientific research definitively proves home advantage as a real phenomenon across professional sports, with win rates ranging from 54% in baseball to 69% in soccer. Multiple factors contribute to this advantage, creating a complex interplay between psychology, environment, and human behavior.
Teams playing at home benefit from heightened testosterone levels, reduced anxiety, and stronger territorial responses. Environmental factors like facility familiarity and altitude differences amplify these advantages. Referee decisions also favor home teams significantly, though VAR technology has somewhat reduced this bias.
The COVID-19 pandemic provided compelling evidence about crowd influence. Empty stadiums led to a dramatic decline in home advantage, with winning percentages dropping below 50% in some leagues. This natural experiment proved that spectator presence shapes both player performance and referee decisions.
Above all, home advantage emerges as a multifaceted phenomenon deeply rooted in human psychology and physiology. Understanding these dynamics helps teams optimize their performance while acknowledging the inherent challenges of playing away from home. This knowledge continues shaping how sports organizations approach venue selection, scheduling, and competition format decisions.
Q1. What exactly is home advantage in sports? Home advantage refers to the tendency for teams to perform better and win more frequently when competing in their home venue compared to playing away. This phenomenon is observed across various sports and is attributed to factors such as crowd support, familiarity with the playing environment, and reduced travel fatigue.
Q2. How significant is home field advantage in major sports leagues? Home field advantage varies across different sports but is generally substantial. For instance, in US Major League Soccer, home teams win an impressive 69.1% of their matches. NBA teams secure 62.7% of home victories, while NHL teams win 59% of their home games. These statistics highlight the considerable impact of playing at home across major sports leagues.
Q3. How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected home advantage in sports? The pandemic provided a unique opportunity to study home advantage without spectators. During this period, home advantage decreased significantly across many sports. For example, in some European soccer leagues, the traditional home advantage dropped by more than 50% when matches were played in empty stadiums, demonstrating the crucial role of crowd support in creating home field advantage.
Q4. Do referees contribute to home advantage in sports? Yes, research shows that referees can contribute to home advantage through biased decision-making. Studies have found that officials tend to award more contentious decisions and fewer penalties to home teams. However, the introduction of technologies like VAR (Video Assistant Referee) has somewhat reduced this bias, although it hasn't eliminated it entirely.
Q5. Are there psychological factors that influence home advantage? Absolutely. Psychological factors play a significant role in home advantage. Studies have shown that athletes playing at home often have higher testosterone levels, lower anxiety, and greater confidence compared to when playing away. The presence of a supportive home crowd can also increase players' motivation and arousal levels, potentially leading to improved performance.
[1] - Gómez, M. A., Pollard, R., & Luis-Pascual, J. C. (2011). Comparison of the home advantage in nine different professional team sports in Spain. Perceptual and motor skills, 113(1), 150–156. https://doi.org/10.2466/05.PMS.113.4.150-156
[2] - https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/football-is-still-everything-without-its-fans
[3] - Bilalić, M., Gula, B., & Vaci, N. (2024). Revising home advantage in sport – home advantage mediation (HAM) model. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2024.2358491
[4] - https://www.reddit.com/r/football/comments/1auokgt/why_doesnt_the_altitude_problem_seems_to_exist_in/
[5] - Lovell, G. P. , Newell, R. , & Parker, J. K. (2014). Referees’ Decision Making Behavior and the Sport Home Advantage Phenomenon. Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 2(1), 1-5.
[6] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176520304249
[7] - Almeida, C. H., & Leite, W. S. (2021). Professional football in times of COVID-19: did the home advantage effect disappear in European domestic leagues?. Biology of sport, 38(4), 693–701. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2021.104920
[8] - Wang, S., & Qin, Y. (2023). The impact of crowd effects on home advantage of football matches during the COVID-19 pandemic-A systematic review. PloS one, 18(11), e0289899. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289899
[9] - Loughead, T. M., Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Kim, A. J. (2003). Facility familiarity and the home advantage in professional sports. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(3), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2003.9671718
[10] - https://nigerianobservernews.com/science-of-football-using-altitude-as-home-ground-advantage/
[11] - Bilalić, M., Gula, B. & Vaci, N. Home advantage mediated (HAM) by referee bias and team performance during covid. Sci Rep 11, 21558 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00784-8
[12] - Sors, F., Tomé Lourido, D., Parisi, V., Santoro, I., Galmonte, A., Agostini, T., & Murgia, M. (2019). Pressing Crowd Noise Impairs the Ability of Anxious Basketball Referees to Discriminate Fouls. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 2380. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02380
[13] - Işın, A., & Yi, Q. (2024). Does video assistant referee technology change the magnitude and direction of home advantages and referee bias? A proof-of-concept study. BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 16(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-024-00813-9
[14] - Dufner, A. L., Schütz, L. M., & Hill, Y. (2023). The introduction of the Video Assistant Referee supports the fairness of the game - An analysis of the home advantage in the German Bundesliga. Psychology of sport and exercise, 66, 102386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2023.102386
[15] - https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/47871/1/1517768_Vaughan_Williams.pdf
[16] - https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/news/research-shows-crowds-hold-the-cards-in-referees-decisions
[17] - https://phys.org/news/2021-08-football-fans-reveals-effect-stadiums.html
[18] - Leitner, M. C., & Richlan, F. (2021). No Fans-No Pressure: Referees in Professional Football During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in sports and active living, 3, 720488. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.720488
[19] - Cross, J., & Uhrig, R. (2023). Do Fans Impact Sports Outcomes? A COVID-19 Natural Experiment∗. Journal of sports economics, 24(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/15270025221100204
[20] - Ribeiro, L. C., Fonseca, F. S., Costa, G. C. T., Castro, H. O., Santos, J. P. V. D. S., & Figueiredo, L. S. (2022). Did the Absence of Crowd Support During the Covid-19 Pandemic Affect the Home Advantage in Brazilian Elite Soccer?. Journal of human kinetics, 81, 251–258. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2022-0047
