Shared Stadiums: Do Ground-Sharing Clubs Lose Their Home Edge?
Ten shared stadiums, four charts, one question: does splitting a ground with a rival erode home advantage? The split shrinks a little, and the market prices it almost exactly.
Written by Declan MercerSoccer Predictions specialist
- Sport
- Football
- Question
- When two clubs share one stadium (San Siro, the Olimpico, the Ferraris, the Azteca and others), is either club's home advantage smaller than for clubs with a ground of their own?
- Survey
- Ten shared grounds in Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Mexico and the USA, 2000/01-2025/26 (other leagues 2012-2024); 35,107 priced matches with crowds
- 0.48ground-sharers: home minus away points per game
- 0.54single-tenant clubs: home minus away points per game
- +0.9 ptsground-sharers: home wins against the price
- 44.5%home wins in co-tenant derbies
Watching San Siro on a recording, you can't always tell whose home it is until you check which end the ultras occupy. That made me wonder whether sharing a ground quietly wears away home advantage. I took ten shared stadiums across Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Mexico and the USA, set them against 35,107 priced matches with crowds, and asked whether the co-tenant loses its edge.
The headline answer is only slightly, and not in a way the market misses. Ground-sharers split 0.48 points per game between home and away; single-tenant clubs split 0.54. The prices of a major bookmaker track both groups closely, so this is structural context for my daily soccer tips page rather than a betting angle on its own.
Ground 1Sharing a ground trims the home split only slightly
This chart takes the same clubs in the same seasons and subtracts away points per game from home points per game, which strips out squad quality. Ground-sharers earned 1.83 at home and 1.35 away, a split of 0.48. Single-tenant clubs in the same divisions went 1.63 and 1.09, for 0.54.
The spread between grounds is wider than the gap between the two groups. Estadio Azteca sits lowest at 0.25 and StubHub Center highest at 0.73, while San Siro's 0.42 and the Olimpico's 0.47 sit close to the shared average. The Ferraris, at 0.64, actually outpaces the single-tenant baseline.
View the data: points per game at home minus away
| Ground-sharing clubs v the rest; derbies between co-tenants excluded | |
|---|---|
| San Siro, Milan | 0.42 pts |
| Stadio Olimpico, Rome | 0.47 pts |
| Luigi Ferraris, Genoa | 0.64 pts |
| Bentegodi, Verona | 0.48 pts |
| Delle Alpi / Olimpico, Turin | 0.48 pts |
| Olympiastadion / Allianz, Munich | 0.49 pts |
| Letzigrund, Zรผrich | 0.3 pts |
| Tele2 Arena, Stockholm | 0.4 pts |
| Estadio Azteca, Mexico City | 0.25 pts |
| StubHub Center, Los Angeles | 0.73 pts |
| All ground-sharers | 0.48 pts |
| Single-tenant clubs | 0.54 pts |
What I take from it: a shared roof does not flatten the edge. Pitch familiarity, no travel and a settled routine survive whoever holds the lease, and the Mexico City and Los Angeles bars rest on short windows, so I don't build anything on either extreme.
Ground 2Bookmakers price ground-sharers at home almost exactly right
Each row compares the margin-free priced home win rate with what actually happened. Across 4,782 matches, ground-sharers won 52.6% against 51.7% priced, a gap of +0.9 points. Single-tenant hosts won 44.9% against 44.5% over 25,331 matches, a +0.4 gap.
The regional rows tell the same story with more noise. Italy's five grounds came in at 52.6% against 51.4% over 3,457 matches and Munich at 59.7% against 58.8%, while Zรผrich and Stockholm slipped under at 46.4% against 47.9%, inside a range of ยฑ4.1 points.
View the data: ground-sharers at home: priced vs won
| Priced | Won | 95% range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Italy (5 shared grounds) (3,457 matches) | 51.4% | 52.6% | ยฑ1.7 |
| Munich (544 matches) | 58.8% | 59.7% | ยฑ4.1 |
| Zรผrich and Stockholm (563 matches) | 47.9% | 46.4% | ยฑ4.1 |
| Mexico City and Los Angeles (218 matches) | 49.4% | 50.5% | ยฑ6.6 |
| All ground-sharers (4,782 matches) | 51.7% | 52.6% | ยฑ1.4 |
| Single-tenant clubs (25,331 matches) | 44.5% | 44.9% | ยฑ0.6 |
That is why flat-stake backing returned โ7.3% for ground-sharers and โ7.2% for single-tenant hosts. The margin swallows the small overshoot; there is no venue discount waiting to be collected.
Ground 3Leaving a shared ground did not reliably lift the edge
This is the most tempting table and the one I treat most carefully, because every move coincided with squad changes, so I read the gap to the price rather than raw win rates. Juventus went from 65.8% to 74.6% at home and their split rose from 0.38 to 0.47. Torino moved the other way, from 0.55 to 0.44, though their gap to the price improved from โ2.7 to 0.0.
Hellas Verona's split collapsed from 0.59 to 0.21 over 95 sole-tenant home matches. Bayern's fell from 0.56 to 0.30, with home wins swinging from +5.5 to โ2.3 against the price.
Four clubs, four different stories. If a ground of one's own reliably restored home advantage, these rows would point the same way, and they plainly don't.
Ground 4In co-tenant derbies the nominal host still wins more
In the 211 derbies between clubs sharing a ground, the nominal home side won 44.5%, drew 22.7% and lost 32.7%, against a priced home rate of 39.0%. Against other visitors, ground-sharers won 52.6%, drew 25.1% and lost 22.3%, while single-tenant matches finished 44.9%, 28.2% and 27.0%.
Where both sides know every blade of grass, I expected something close to a coin toss. Instead the designated host came out ahead more often than the market suggested, which hints that ticket allocation, dressing room and match-day ritual still count when the stadium is neutral in every physical sense.
View the data: derbies between clubs sharing a ground
| Home win | Draw | Away win | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Co-tenant derbies (211) | 44.5% | 22.7% | 32.7% |
| Ground-sharers v others (4,782) | 52.6% | 25.1% | 22.3% |
| Single-tenant matches (25,331) | 44.9% | 28.2% | 27.0% |
I stop short of calling it an edge: 211 matches is a small sample, and derby outcomes swing heavily on squad strength. It is enough, though, to stop me pricing these fixtures as genuinely neutral.
Where to look
- Don't discount shared hosts
Ground-sharers split 0.48 points per game against 0.54 for single-tenant clubs, so I treat a shared ground as a normal home fixture, not a weakened one.
- Respect the derby host
In 211 co-tenant derbies the nominal home side won 44.5% against 39.0% priced, so I won't reflexively lean towards the visitor or the draw.
- Judge moves against price
When a club leaves a shared ground, read the gap to the price rather than the raw win rate. Bayern went from +5.5 to โ2.3 against the price while their home win rate barely moved.
Questions bettors ask
Do teams that share a stadium have less home advantage?
Only slightly. Ground-sharing clubs split 0.48 points per game between home and away, against 0.54 for clubs with a ground of their own.
Is it profitable to back ground-sharing clubs at home?
Not at flat stakes. Backing them at the quoted price returned โ7.3%, almost identical to the โ7.2% for single-tenant hosts, because the price already reflects their 52.6% home win rate.
Who wins more often in a derby between clubs sharing a stadium?
The nominal home side won 44.5% of 211 co-tenant derbies, with 22.7% drawn and 32.7% away wins, against a priced home rate of 39.0%.
I'm Declan Mercer, based in Vancouver, and I cover the soccer tips at horse-racing.tips โ built on shape, transitions and squad rotation rather than where a club sits in the table.
View profile โ
