Three points for a win

"Three points for a win" is supposed to encourage more attacking play than "two points for a win", as teams will not settle for a draw if the prospect of gaining two extra points (by playing for a late winning goal) outweighs the prospect of losing 1 point by conceding a late goal to lose the match. A second rationale is that it may prevent collusion amongst teams needing only a draw to advance in a tournament or avoid relegation. A commentator has stated that it has resulted in more "positive, attacking play". However, critics suggest teams with a one-goal lead late in a match become more defensive in order to defend a lead. In addition, the overall competitive balance decreases in favour of top teams. The average number of goals per match in Turkey's top football division has risen significantly since the change to three points for a win. The three-point system in ice hockey – in the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Russia, Switzerland and Sweden – had no effect on the number of goals scored. The same conclusion can be made for relative number of ties. ==Implications==

Changing the scoring system may (or may not) change how a game is played, and it may change the results in a tournament even if there is no change in the way the game is played. One key outcome is when an overall result is different under three points for a win (W3) compared to what it would have been under 2 points for a win (W2), for example in a four team round robin where the team who with 1W-1D-1L ranks higher than the team with three draws under W3, while the two teams are equal under W2. In the third round of games of a round robin with these potential outcomes, strategy will likely be different under W3 compared to if W2 was in place. FIFA World Cup groups stage examples For a four team round robin such as in the group stages of FIFA World Cups, with three points for a win (W3) there are 40 combinations e.g. 9-6-3-0 with each team being able to score from zero up to 9 points (with 8 the only score that cannot be scored), while in 2 points for a win (W2) there are 16 possible combinations of final standings points e.g. 6-4-2-0 with each team potentially able to score up to 6 points. Five of the 40 W3 combinations yield potentially different placings if the scoring system was W2. These are listed below, including the only 3 cases these combinations have occurred in FIFA World Cup group stages: • W3 6-5-4-1 would be W2 4-4-3-1. Looking at the top 2 teams, W3 1st (2 wins and 1 loss) ranks above W3 2nd (1 win & 2 draws). Under W2 these two teams are equal on 4 points and their rank is based on goal difference and other ranking criteria. In Group D of the 1998 FIFA World Cup Nigeria placed 1st with 6 points ahead of Paraguay with 5 points but Paraguay had the better goal difference, so the Group order of the two qualifying teams would have been reversed under W2. Both teams lost in their Round of 16 knockout games. • W3 4-4-4-3 would be W2 3-3-3-3. Under W3 the top 3 teams each had 1 win, 1 draw and 1 loss and ranked above W3 4th who had 3 draws (and therefore goal difference = 0). Under W2 all 4 teams have equal points and so would be ranked on goal difference and other ranking criteria. • W3 7-4-3-1 would be W2 5-3-3-1. Looking at the middle two teams, W3 2nd (1 win, 1 loss & 1 draw) rank above W3 3rd (3 draws and therefore had a goal difference = 0). Under W2 these two teams are equal on 3 points and their rank is based on goal difference and other ranking criteria. In Group D of the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup (the group of death of that tournament) Australia finished second and Sweden third in the group. Both teams had 4 goals for and 4 goals against and in their final group match drew 1–1 against each other. Therefore under W2 they would have been equal under all the ranking criteria, so their group standing would have been judged on drawing lots. Sweden still qualified as a third place team under W3 but lost to Germany 1–4 in the Round of 16, whereas Australia played Brazil and won 1–0, then in the quarter finals lost 0–1 to Japan, the eventual runner-up. • W3 5-4-3-2 would be W2 4-3-3-2. Exactly as the W3 7-4-3-1 case above, looking at the middle two teams, W3 2nd (1 win, 1 loss & 1 draw) rank above W3 3rd (3 draws and therefore had a goal difference = 0). Under W2 these two teams are equal on 3 points and their rank is based on goal difference and other ranking criteria. In Group F of the 2010 FIFA World Cup Slovakia finished 2nd with a -1 goal difference (their win causing 5th-ranked Italy's early World Cup exit), while New Zealand finished 3rd with 0 goal difference having played three draws. Therefore New Zealand would have advanced to the Round of 16 under W2 and so would have had their most successful World Cup (they have never advanced from the group stage). Instead, under W3, Slovakia advanced, losing to Netherlands 1–2 in the Round of 16. • W3 7-4-3-2 would be W2 5-3-2-2. Looking at the two bottom ranked teams, W3 3rd (1 win and two losses) ranks above W3 4th (2 draws and a loss). Under W2 these two teams are equal on 2 points and their rank would be based on goal difference and other ranking criteria. ==History==

The system was proposed for the English Football League (then known as The Football League) by Jimmy Hill. It was introduced in England in 1981, • 1983: New Zealand (NSL) • 1984: Iceland • 1986: Northern Ireland • 1987: Turkey, Hong Kong • 1988: Norway, Japan • 1990: Sweden, Georgia • 1991: Cyprus, Finland • 1992: Australia, Greece • 1993: Belgium (Div. 2), Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy (Serie C1 and Serie C2) • 1994: Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France (after a trial in 1988–89), Hungary, Italy (Serie A and Serie B), Iran, Iraq (after a trial in 1984–85), Kazakhstan, Malta, Moldova, Romania, Scotland, Slovakia, South Korea, Ukraine, AFC (1994–95 Asian Club Championship), FIFA (1994 FIFA World Cup) and UEFA (UEFA Euro 1996 qualifying) • 1995: Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium (Div. 1), Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Germany, Italy (Lega Nazionale Dilettanti), Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Uruguay, CONMEBOL (Copa América), CONMEBOL (Copa Libertadores) and UEFA (UEFA Champions League) • 1996: AFC (1996 AFC Asian Cup qualification), CAF (African Cup of Nations), UEFA (UEFA Euro 1996) and AFC (1996 AFC Asian Cup) Major League Soccer, based in the United States and Canada, has awarded three points for a win since its first season of 1996, but initially held a penalty shootout at the end of regulation draws, awarding 1 point to the winner of the shootout and none to the loser. Since 2000, it has allowed ties/draws to stand in the regular season, and follows the international standard of awarding 1 point for a draw.. Since 2023 The Leagues Cup between MLS and Liga MX uses 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for a shootout win, 1 point for a shootout loss, 0 for a regulation loss point system in the group stage. Ice hockey Many ice hockey leagues use the 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, 1 point for overtime/shootout loss, 0 points for a regulation loss as a way to incentivize teams to win in regulation thus causing more attacking play. Listed below are the years that ice hockey leagues and associations have adopted and abandoned a 3 points for a win system. • 1998: Germany (3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, 1 point for overtime/shootout loss, 0 points for a regulation loss) • 1999: Sweden (3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, 1 point for overtime/shootout loss, 0 points for a regulation loss), Russia men's (3 points for regulation win, 2 points for an overtime win, 1 point for a tie or overtime loss, 0 points for regulation loss) • 2000: Czechia, Slovakia (3 points for regulation win, 2 points for an overtime win, 1 point for a tie or overtime loss, 0 points for regulation loss), Russia women's (3 points for Win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for loss) • 2001: Slovakia (abandonment),Russia women's(3 points for regulation win, 2 points for an overtime win, 1 point for a tie or overtime loss, 0 points for regulation loss) • 2002: Slovakia (3 points for regulation win, 2 points for an overtime win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for any loss) • 2003 Japan/South Korea, • 2004: Slovakia (3 points for regulation win, 2 points for an overtime win, 1 point for a tie or overtime loss, 0 points for regulation loss), Finland (3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, 1 point for overtime/shootout loss, 0 points for a regulation loss) • 2006: Switzerland, Czechia (3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, 1 point for overtime/shootout loss, 0 points for a regulation loss), Slovakia (3 points for a regulation win,2 overtime/shootout win, 0 points for any loss) • 2007: IIHF,,Austria (3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, 1 point for overtime/shootout loss, 0 points for a regulation loss) • 2008: Slovakia (3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, 1 point for overtime/shootout loss, 0 points for a regulation loss) • 2009: CCHA (USA men's collegiate) (3 points for a regulation/overtime win, 2 points for a shootout win, 1 point for shootout loss, 0 points for a regulation/overtime loss) • 2015: France (3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, 1 point for overtime/shootout loss, 0 points for a regulation loss) • 2018: KHL (Russia men's) (abandonment). • 2020: Hockey Commissioners Association-affiliated conferences (most NCAA [USA collegiate]) • 2023: PWHL (North American women's) (3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, 1 point for overtime/shootout loss, 0 points for a regulation loss) Bandy The Russian Bandy Super League Started using 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss point system for the Preliminary round in 1995. In 1996 the 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss point system was adopted for all rounds. Field Hockey Since 1998 FIH has used the 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss point system. Water Polo The FINA Water Polo World League used the 3 points for a regulation win,1 point for tie, 0 points for a regulation loss point system in 2003 and 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for a Shootout win, 1 point for Shootout loss, 0 points for a regulation loss point system from 2004 to 2022.In 2023 FINA Water Polo World League was ended and both the men's and women's World cup adopted the 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for a Shootout win, 1 point for Shootout loss, 0 points for a regulation loss point system. The 2024 Olympics tournament used the same system. Camogie The All-Ireland Senior Camogie Championship adopted 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss point system in 2016. Ladies' Gaelic football Since 2020 The Ladies' Gaelic Football Association currently uses the 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss point system for all competitions. Volleyball In FIVB Summer Olympics & World Championship adopted the match point system of 3 points for winning in three or four sets, 2 points for winning in five sets, 1 point for losing in five sets, 0 points for losing in three or four sets in 2011. Since 2016 matches won has been the primary ranking method with the match point system being first tiebreaker. Floorball • 1999 Sweden (3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime win,1 point for overtime loss, 0 points for a regulation loss) • 2018: Finland (3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime win,1 point for overtime loss, 0 points for a regulation loss) ==Variants==

Some leagues have used shootout tiebreakers after drawn matches. Major League Soccer (1996–2000) used three points for a win, 1 point for a shootout win, no points for a loss in any fashion (including shootouts). The same system is adopted in the group stages of the 2016–17 EFL Trophy and 2016–17 Scottish League Cup onward (in both cases, no extra time will be played). The Iraqi Premier League has used two different variants of this system. The first was in the 1988–89 season, where 3 points were awarded for a win by two or more goals (after normal or extra time), 2 points were awarded for a one-goal win (after normal or extra time), 1 point was awarded for a penalty shootout win and zero points were awarded for penalty shootout defeats or defeats after normal or extra time. The second variant was used in the 1994–95 season, where 3 points were awarded for a one-goal or two-goal win, but four points were awarded for a win by three or more goals. In the National Hockey League in North America, a system described as "the three point win" was proposed in 2004, with three points for a win in regulation time, two for a win in overtime, and one for a tie. This proposal was put on hold by the 2004–05 NHL lock-out and subsequently rejected by team owners in February 2007. Instead the NHL awards 2 points for a win in regulation or overtime/shootout, 1 point for an overtime or shootout loss, and none for a regulation loss. International competitions run by the International Ice Hockey Federation award three points for a win in regulation time and zero points for a loss. Games in IIHF competitions are not allowed to end in ties; if a game is tied after regulation each team is awarded 1 point and a sudden-death overtime followed by a shootout (if necessary) is played, with the winner awarded an extra point (for a total of 2 points). In 2009, the Central Collegiate Hockey Association adopted a system of 3 points for a regulation or overtime win, two for a shootout win, one for a shootout loss, and none for a regulation or overtime loss. The IIHF uses a similar system for its competitions, awarding three points for a win in regulation, 2 points for a win in overtime or shootout, 1 point for a loss in overtime or shootout, and no points for a loss in regulation. ==See also==