Want to be a winner? Forget the song because blue is not the colour. Red cards may spell disaster in football, but red kit is a different matter entirely. A study has found that teams in red are more successful than those whose home shirts are yellow, white or blue.

Research by scientists at Durham and Plymouth universities, published in the Journal of Sports Sciences, claims that deep-seated biological responses to colours affect teams' performances. English league results since the Second World War were analysed, looking at how teams did when they were at home, therefore wearing their first-choice shirts.

It was found that, of the top 68 sides, teams wearing red won more often at home, while sides in yellow or orange had the worst records. In away games, when teams tend to wear a variety of colours over the years, there was no difference in performance. Research also suggests that Olympic competitors wearing red are also more likely to enjoy success.

In nature, red is often associated with male aggression and display, suggesting high levels of testosterone. Male mandrills, for example, have red coloration on their faces, rumps and genitalia that they use to communicate their fighting ability to other males. So teams in red will subconsciously feel tougher, as well as intimidating the opposition.

“We see a couple of possible explanations,” Professor Robert Barton, of Durham University, said. “Firstly, over time supporters may have been subconsciously more attracted to a club wearing red, so the club has developed an increasing resource base within its community.

“Secondly, there may be a positive psychological boost from wearing red, or being associated with a red team, that is reflected on the field of play. Competing against a team in red could also impair performance.”

Three of the Barclays Premier League's top four - and the three most successful teams in English football - Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool, wear red. So do Bristol City and Stoke City, at the top of the Coca-Cola Championship, although teams in white are prevalent at the head of the Football League's bottom two divisions.

Over the years, there is no doubt that the red halves of Manchester, Bristol, Nottingham and Stoke - and the claret-and-blue part of Birmingham, for that matter - have outdone their city rivals. Not that Nottingham Forest fans, with their team presently in League One, would have much truck with the notion that their historical success was down to their choice of kit rather than the managerial genius of Brian Clough.

However, Sir Alex Ferguson would concur that kit colour is significant. In 1996, the United manager blamed his team's grey away kit for a 3-0 half-time deficit against Southampton. “The players couldn't pick each other out,” he said. The side switched to white tops at the break, lost 3-1 and the kit was consigned to history. Being unable to see each other is not an excuse that Chelsea's players can use when they are wearing their present luminous yellow change strip.

The researchers concede that the financial acumen of the likes of Roman Abramovich is more than adequate compensation for the disadvantage of Chelsea's blue kit. Dr Russell Hill, also from Durham University, said: “It is certainly true that the influx of wealthy foreign owners has changed the resources available to some teams and this should result in increased success, regardless of their shirt colour.

“Nevertheless, in close matches where teams are evenly balanced, we still predict that wearing red could tip the balance between success and failure and the red advantage will still persist.”

Explore Football

• Premier League

• Football League

• Scotland

• European Football

• International Football

• TheGame

• Live Match Tracker

• The Fink Tank

• Fantasy Football