Does Matthew Benham think data is more important than talent when it comes to winning football Trophies?

No. Just like I don’t think technology will ever be more important than underwriters, he says data is only part of the package. But he clearly believes that in football, like insurance, it’s awfully helpful to have the right data accessible in the right place when you need it. And there can never be too much of it, he says.

Benham comes from our side of the barrier. He amassed a fortune as a hedge fund manager, derivatives trader, and bank VP before getting into the betting business. He worked at Premier Bet for Tony Bloom (who later bought Brighton & Hove Albion), then doubled down by purchasing FC Midtjylland in 2014. The following year, that team of players – some selected by Benham based largely on the data – won the Danish Superligaen.

Benham had already tested his data-driven approach to football, which worked so well in the state of Demark, on the pitch at Brentford FC, which he’s owned since 2012. As the New Statesman said, “The football club that data built… couldn’t outspend their Premier League rivals, so they decided to out-think them.”

Notwithstanding Benham’s fundraising efforts for his team, his data-first approach has propelled Brentford into the top ranks for the first time since 1947. “By instilling a reverence for data analysis and other statistical wonkery,” the New Statesman cooed, “Benham took Brentford from the muddy lowlands of the Football League to the shiny echelons of the Premier League.” 

Nice one, Benham. But what does all this have to do with insurance?

A few headlines from the week illustrate.

“Zurich collaborates with Marsh to enhance shared Multinational customer experience.”

This comes from a news release that explains how the insurer and the broker have linked their systems via API to share data about major customers. In an ideal world, all markets and distribution would be connected in this way. It’s like having the scouts, the coach, the manager, and the players all telling each other about rival teams’ players’ strengths and weaknesses in real time. It’s a no brainer.

Another headline: “Half of insurers are already in the process of modernization, while the other half are still in the planning or consideration phase.”

So says a survey by Adacta. Insurers navel-gaze at their cost. Whilst Premier League competitors rely on money (because money equals talent), modernising Brentwood – with at least one eye on data – climbs closer and closer. When Benham has the money, he’ll be unstoppable (as in Denmark), leaving the big boys playing catch up.

“London market divided when it comes to adopting AI.”

I love this headline, which was recycled this week from an LMA survey conducted last autumn. It implies a binary nature to AI which simply does not exist. AI is neither good nor bad, neither central nor unnecessary. It is a tool with many applications, and which comes in many varieties. Far more interesting would be to ask if London-market players are in favour of using data in underwriting.

That question is akin to asking the governing bodies of multiple sports (say, football, tennis, ice hockey, cricket, and baseball) if they are in favour of using data to support referees’ decisions. When asked, they were divided at first. The ones that arrived late (football) have suffered more wrong decisions than those that went early (tennis). But asking yea or nay to AI is to focus just on the tool. It’s like ignoring Goal Control, and asking if governing bodies plan to implement HawkEye.

The simple fact is this: by ensuring underwriters have the right data in the right place at the right time, they will make better decisions, no matter how talented they are. It’s not a case of one or the other.

In today’s world, deploying data efficiently is the only way to get to the top of the league. Ignore data, and face relegation.