1. Lig — Card Stats
Turkey · 2026/27
Yellow Cards — Match Total
| # | Team | MP | O 1.5 | O 2.5 | O 3.5 | O 4.5 | O 5.5 | O 6.5 | Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11 | 100% | 91% | 82% | 55% | 36% | 27% | 5.2 | |
| 2 | 13 | 100% | 92% | 85% | 62% | 46% | 31% | 5.2 | |
| 3 | 13 | 100% | 92% | 77% | 54% | 38% | 15% | 4.9 | |
| 4 | 11 | 100% | 91% | 82% | 45% | 18% | 18% | 4.8 | |
| 5 | 12 | 100% | 92% | 75% | 67% | 33% | 8% | 4.8 | |
| 6 | 12 | 92% | 83% | 75% | 58% | 25% | 25% | 4.8 | |
| 7 | 11 | 91% | 73% | 64% | 64% | 55% | 18% | 4.7 | |
| 8 | 12 | 100% | 92% | 67% | 58% | 33% | 17% | 4.7 | |
| 9 | 12 | 100% | 83% | 75% | 58% | 25% | 17% | 4.7 | |
| 10 | 13 | 100% | 92% | 85% | 46% | 31% | 8% | 4.6 | |
| 11 | 11 | 100% | 91% | 73% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 4.4 | |
| 12 | 11 | 100% | 82% | 45% | 36% | 27% | 27% | 4.4 | |
| 13 | 13 | 85% | 85% | 69% | 38% | 23% | 15% | 4.3 | |
| 14 | 11 | 82% | 64% | 55% | 45% | 36% | 18% | 4.1 | |
| 15 | 13 | 85% | 85% | 69% | 46% | 15% | 8% | 4.1 | |
| 16 | 13 | 92% | 85% | 62% | 46% | 8% | 8% | 4.0 | |
| 17 | 12 | 75% | 58% | 50% | 50% | 33% | 25% | 3.9 | |
| 18 | 13 | 100% | 77% | 62% | 23% | 15% | 15% | 3.9 | |
| 19 | 12 | 83% | 67% | 58% | 42% | 25% | 17% | 3.8 | |
| 20 | 11 | 100% | 73% | 36% | 18% | 18% | 9% | 3.5 |
Yellow Cards — Match Total
League avg
4.43
Most carded
5.2
Fewest carded
3.5
Yellow Cards per Match in 1. Lig 2026
Bursaspor leads 1. Lig with an average of 5.18 yellow cards per match across 11 fixtures — placing them at the top of the discipline table.
Esenler Erokspor (5.15) and Keçiörengücü (4.92) follow closely, with the trio averaging 5.08 combined. Their games consistently generate elevated card activity.
At the other end, Ümraniyespor averages just 3.55 yellow cards per match — the lowest figure in the competition across 11 matches.
Disciplinary Market Insights
The 1. Lig averages 4.43 yellow cards per match as a league-wide baseline — a key reference for disciplinary betting markets.
The most active trio (Bursaspor, Esenler Erokspor, Keçiörengücü) averages 5.08 collectively, sitting 0.65 above the league mean. Fixtures involving these sides provide a structural edge in over-threshold card markets.
Yellow Cards For
| # | Team | MP | O 0.5 | O 1.5 | O 2.5 | O 3.5 | O 4.5 | Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13 | 92% | 85% | 62% | 31% | 23% | 2.9 | |
| 2 | 13 | 100% | 92% | 46% | 15% | 8% | 2.7 | |
| 3 | 12 | 100% | 67% | 58% | 25% | 8% | 2.6 | |
| 4 | 11 | 100% | 91% | 36% | 18% | 9% | 2.5 | |
| 5 | 12 | 92% | 83% | 50% | 17% | 8% | 2.5 | |
| 6 | 11 | 73% | 73% | 55% | 36% | 9% | 2.5 | |
| 7 | 11 | 82% | 64% | 45% | 36% | 9% | 2.4 | |
| 8 | 12 | 100% | 75% | 33% | 17% | 8% | 2.3 | |
| 9 | 12 | 83% | 67% | 50% | 25% | 8% | 2.3 | |
| 10 | 12 | 92% | 67% | 42% | 25% | 8% | 2.3 | |
| 11 | 13 | 85% | 69% | 38% | 23% | 8% | 2.2 | |
| 12 | 13 | 100% | 85% | 15% | 8% | 8% | 2.1 | |
| 13 | 11 | 100% | 73% | 27% | 9% | 0% | 2.1 | |
| 14 | 11 | 100% | 64% | 27% | 9% | 9% | 2.1 | |
| 15 | 12 | 83% | 50% | 42% | 25% | 8% | 2.1 | |
| 16 | 13 | 85% | 54% | 31% | 8% | 8% | 1.9 | |
| 17 | 11 | 91% | 64% | 27% | 0% | 0% | 1.8 | |
| 18 | 13 | 92% | 46% | 23% | 15% | 0% | 1.8 | |
| 19 | 13 | 92% | 46% | 15% | 8% | 0% | 1.6 | |
| 20 | 11 | 82% | 55% | 18% | 0% | 0% | 1.6 |
Yellow Cards For
League avg
2.21
Most carded
2.9
Fewest carded
1.6
Yellow Cards For — 1. Lig 2026
Esenler Erokspor leads 1. Lig with an average of 2.92 yellow cards per match across 13 fixtures — placing them at the top of the discipline table.
Keçiörengücü (2.69) and Muğlaspor (2.58) follow closely, with the trio averaging 2.73 combined. Their games consistently generate elevated card activity.
At the other end, Ümraniyespor averages just 1.55 yellow cards per match — the lowest figure in the competition across 11 matches.
Disciplinary Market Insights
The 1. Lig averages 2.21 yellow cards per match as a league-wide baseline — a key reference for disciplinary betting markets.
The most active trio (Esenler Erokspor, Keçiörengücü, Muğlaspor) averages 2.73 collectively, sitting 0.52 above the league mean. Fixtures involving these sides provide a structural edge in over-threshold card markets.
Yellow Cards Against
| # | Team | MP | O 0.5 | O 1.5 | O 2.5 | O 3.5 | O 4.5 | Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11 | 91% | 91% | 73% | 36% | 9% | 3.1 | |
| 2 | 11 | 100% | 73% | 27% | 27% | 27% | 2.5 | |
| 3 | 13 | 100% | 77% | 38% | 23% | 8% | 2.5 | |
| 4 | 13 | 92% | 77% | 38% | 23% | 8% | 2.4 | |
| 5 | 11 | 100% | 73% | 36% | 18% | 9% | 2.4 | |
| 6 | 12 | 100% | 75% | 33% | 17% | 8% | 2.3 | |
| 7 | 12 | 100% | 58% | 33% | 25% | 17% | 2.3 | |
| 8 | 13 | 92% | 77% | 38% | 15% | 8% | 2.3 | |
| 9 | 11 | 91% | 73% | 45% | 9% | 9% | 2.3 | |
| 10 | 11 | 100% | 73% | 36% | 18% | 0% | 2.3 | |
| 11 | 12 | 100% | 67% | 25% | 25% | 8% | 2.3 | |
| 12 | 13 | 85% | 77% | 31% | 23% | 8% | 2.2 | |
| 13 | 13 | 85% | 77% | 54% | 8% | 0% | 2.2 | |
| 14 | 12 | 92% | 58% | 42% | 17% | 8% | 2.2 | |
| 15 | 13 | 92% | 54% | 31% | 23% | 8% | 2.1 | |
| 16 | 13 | 100% | 62% | 38% | 8% | 0% | 2.1 | |
| 17 | 11 | 100% | 64% | 27% | 9% | 0% | 2.0 | |
| 18 | 12 | 75% | 58% | 25% | 17% | 8% | 1.8 | |
| 19 | 11 | 73% | 55% | 27% | 9% | 0% | 1.6 | |
| 20 | 12 | 58% | 50% | 42% | 0% | 0% | 1.5 |
Yellow Cards Against
League avg
2.22
Most carded
3.1
Fewest carded
1.5
Yellow Cards Against — 1. Lig 2026
Bursaspor leads 1. Lig with an average of 3.09 yellow cards conceded per match across 11 fixtures — placing them at the top of the discipline table.
Vanspor FK (2.55) and Sivasspor (2.46) follow closely, with the trio averaging 2.70 combined. Their games consistently generate elevated card activity.
At the other end, İstanbulspor averages just 1.50 yellow cards conceded per match — the lowest figure in the competition across 12 matches.
Disciplinary Market Insights
The 1. Lig averages 2.22 yellow cards conceded per match as a league-wide baseline — a key reference for disciplinary betting markets.
The most active trio (Bursaspor, Vanspor FK, Sivasspor) averages 2.70 collectively, sitting 0.48 above the league mean. Fixtures involving these sides provide a structural edge in over-threshold card markets.