Friday, May 30, 2008
Fifa votes for 6+5
Blatter wins the internal vote to limit foreign players on the soccer pitch. The EU shows Blatter a "red card." This issue looks headed for litigation, and I can't see Fifa winning.
Labels: fifa; soccer
Coates on TV
Reason.tv, that is, on stadium subsidies. Via Club for Growth.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Six grand a seat
D.C. is in the stadium subsidy discussion business again. This time it's for Major League Soccer's D.C. United: a 150 million dollar public subsidy, for a 25,000 seat stadium.
Lets break out the pencil. $150,000,000 / 25,000 = $6,000 per seat. Hmmm... Is a seat at a soccer stadium worth $6,000 to the taxpayers of D.C.? Columnist Marc Fisher, who's displayed a curious and perhaps studious approach to stadium subsidies in the past, doesn't think so.
Lets break out the pencil. $150,000,000 / 25,000 = $6,000 per seat. Hmmm... Is a seat at a soccer stadium worth $6,000 to the taxpayers of D.C.? Columnist Marc Fisher, who's displayed a curious and perhaps studious approach to stadium subsidies in the past, doesn't think so.
Labels: mls, new stadium, stadium subsidies
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Break out the calculators
The Buffalo Bisons are hosting Economic Stimulus Night!
In light of the recent surge of gasoline and food prices, the Buffalo Bisons today announced that they will hold "Economic Stimulus Night" on Wednesday, June 4 against the Rochester Red Wings (7:05 p.m.).... To help fans stretch their dollars further, any fan that comes to the game will be handed a certificate for a Free Ticket to an upcoming game during the 2008 season (excluding special events).Like Frank Stephenson at Division of Labor, I'm a fan of cheeky minor league promotions. Spread the news, and the concept, and let's get that economy rolling! ;)
...Once inside Dunn Tire Park, fans will presented with several other special offers. In the concession stands, fans can purchase Buy-One, Get-One FREE Russer Hot Dogs, $1.00 Coca-Cola Soft Drinks, $1 Popcorn, $1 Perry's Ice Cream Sandwiches and $2 Cotton Candy.
Labels: economic impact; marketing
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Fifa as Cartel Organizer
The Fifa president Sepp Blatter is confident that his controversial 'six-plus-five' rule will be in place by the 2012-13 season after the plans received the backing of key members of Europe's football hierarchy.Apart from supressing wages of top players by limiting foreign demand, the six plus five rule would limit (as intended) the progress being made by the top clubs. Competitive balance would improve. But the root of this problem lies in the rule which confines leagues to countries (see Scotland and the old firm).
Blatter, in Sydney for Fifa's annual congress, said rules restricting the number of foreign players that each club can field could be in place from the start of the 2010-11 season, beginning with a maximum quota of seven foreign players. He expects it to grow to six plus five by 2012-13 and claims the plan has the backing of European delegates to Fifa's executive committee.
Blatter pointed to the Premier League's dominance in this season's Champions League as a reason why his organisation must implement the idea, despite legal concerns from the EU and Uefa president Michel Platini.
Stressing that Fifa would proceed "within the limits of the law", Blatter said: "It is to make sure that there is better balance in the competitions and not only three or four teams in a league of 18 or 20 are fighting to be the champion and all the others are just there to not be relegated.
It is possible that soccer clubs would simply comply with the six plus five rule and keep on as they are. But lawsuits are sure to be filed by players who end up returning to a low-paying domestic league (think Irish, French, and Americans; this rule would also retard the development of players from the USA). And the big clubs may just tell Fifa & Uefa to kiss off, and form an "outlaw" international super-league, since that is where the money is. They will not be pleased with a rule which drags them towards the middle of their domestic league, when the prospects for a super-league are so lucrative.
Source
Labels: fifa; soccer
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Is Steroid Use in Baseball a Positive-Sum Game?
I don't like pitchers' duels in baseball. I like to see high-scoring games. Low-scoring games remind me too much of all the things I didn't like about pre-2005 hockey games and the old pre-free-guard-zone curling bonspiels and still don't much like about soccer.
I realize that many sports fans will disagree with me on this, but overall I suspect that most fans and potential fans share my views that low-scoring games are pretty boring no matter how artistic or professional or whatever a well-pitched and well-defenced game might be. Curling changed its rules to generate more scoring (and more fan interest). Baseball made several moves to increase scoring after the doldrums of the 1960s. Basketball added the 3-point shot. And baseball entered its revival phase as players started hitting more home runs and as teams began to score more runs.
But the past two years have been different, as Tom Boswell pointed out in last Friday's Washington Post.
Typically when sports economists talk about steroid use, they/we present it as a negative-sum game: each player is made stronger, but since all players are made stronger, the benefit to each player is near zero but those on steroids must then bear the later health costs that come from using steroids. Following this logic, many of us have been puzzled that players' associations have been so reluctant to support bans on steroid use. And while this scenario seems plausible, I'm not so convinced by it any more.
So let's make some assumptions:
And maybe, just maybe, that is why professional sports teams and players' associations did NOT rush to ban the use of steroids, especially in baseball. I am less persuaded that steroid use was a positive-sum game in the NFL, which also might help explain why it was banned so much earlier in the NFL than in MLB.
[cross-posted to EclectEcon]
I realize that many sports fans will disagree with me on this, but overall I suspect that most fans and potential fans share my views that low-scoring games are pretty boring no matter how artistic or professional or whatever a well-pitched and well-defenced game might be. Curling changed its rules to generate more scoring (and more fan interest). Baseball made several moves to increase scoring after the doldrums of the 1960s. Basketball added the 3-point shot. And baseball entered its revival phase as players started hitting more home runs and as teams began to score more runs.
But the past two years have been different, as Tom Boswell pointed out in last Friday's Washington Post.
This spring, for the second straight year, home run totals... have shrunk dramatically. Last season's 8 percent drop in home runs was welcomed, but with caution. ... [H]ome runs have fallen this spring by another 10.4 percent.Every sportswriter or sportscaster I am aware of has attributed this reduction in runs scored and decline in home runs to the reduced use of steroids in professional baseball. Some, like Boswell, might argue that this is "a good thing", but I am not so sure.
Suddenly, a sport that produced 5,386 home runs in 2006 is on pace for 4,442 this year — a 17.5 percent drop, or a loss of almost 1,000 home runs in just two seasons. ...
This season, major league teams have scored 8.98 runs per game. Since 1871, there have been 1,750,230 runs in the majors, an average of 9.11 per game. Warm weather, when fly balls carry farther, might bring the game almost exactly back to its long-term scoring trend.
Typically when sports economists talk about steroid use, they/we present it as a negative-sum game: each player is made stronger, but since all players are made stronger, the benefit to each player is near zero but those on steroids must then bear the later health costs that come from using steroids. Following this logic, many of us have been puzzled that players' associations have been so reluctant to support bans on steroid use. And while this scenario seems plausible, I'm not so convinced by it any more.
So let's make some assumptions:
- In general, ceteris paribus, fans prefer more home runs to fewer. Again, quoting Boswell,
"From a personal and aesthetic point of view, I like this kind of baseball better," MacPhail said. "I like a well-played game more than a slugfest. But plenty of fans like runs." [Emphasis added]. One test of this assumption will be to see what happens overall to MLB attendance.
- Conditional on the first assumption, (and again, cet. par.) the marginal revenue of runs is positive, the marginal revenue of home runs is positive, and the marginal revenue product of slugging is positive; i.e. for a given winning percentage, etc., if fans expect more runs and more home runs, they'll shell out more to attend games and buy team merchandise. There is an implication in the Boswell piece that general managers on the whole are relieved to see the home run totals decline since they anticipate not having to pay so much for the big-bopper-type players.
- The health costs of steroid use (assuming there are any) are borne by the player-users themselves; there are no negative externalities from steroid use.
And maybe, just maybe, that is why professional sports teams and players' associations did NOT rush to ban the use of steroids, especially in baseball. I am less persuaded that steroid use was a positive-sum game in the NFL, which also might help explain why it was banned so much earlier in the NFL than in MLB.
[cross-posted to EclectEcon]
Labels: game theory, steroids
Friday, May 23, 2008
Playing for a draw in the final
Bob Speed sends me an email from Australia with the following observation:
Although the mechanism may not be obvious in this case, there is no doubt that incentives affect strategic choices made by managers. A change in incentives in the NHL clearly led to an increase in tied scores after three periods. Jeff Klein at the NYT's Slap Shot blog gets into the details, with some observations from yours truly.
Since penalties were introduced into the European Cup/Champions League, 10 finals have gone to extra time. Nine of those games have proceeded to shoot-outs, with 1 goal being collectively scored in those 10 extra times (of 30 minutes each). That's 300 minutes (the equivalent of 3.33 games) of soccer with 1 goal being scored. Small sample size I know, but eye-opening.The strategic equilibrium, I think, is to sit back and defend while pouncing on any mistake your opponents make. The Italian game follows this script more than any other, and the 0-0 draw between Milan & Juventus in the 2003 final -- a pitch loaded with wasted skill!! -- epitomizes the problem. What is not clear to me is why moving from replays to penalty kicks increases the tendency to play for a draw. For equally matched teams, both methods are a coin flip. In the case of replays from yesteryear, it may be that the players wanted to finish the job on the night in order to start their vacations. This could break down strategic discipline, particularly in light of the fact that fully compensating players for replays would distort incentives.
Before penalty shoot-outs were introduced into the competition, 4 final games went to extra time. Three of those produced a result. The one that did not was replayed (as was the rule back then).
Although the mechanism may not be obvious in this case, there is no doubt that incentives affect strategic choices made by managers. A change in incentives in the NHL clearly led to an increase in tied scores after three periods. Jeff Klein at the NYT's Slap Shot blog gets into the details, with some observations from yours truly.
Labels: soccer; strategy; nhl
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Racing & breeding 101
Sadly, Big Brown be retired from racing before the end of 2008. The reason is simple: he can generate far more revenue at significantly lower cost by performing stallion duties, as Alex Brown explains:
Based on Smarty Jones’s [ed: another early retiree] numbers of 2006, each year Big Brown will earn $100,000 x 112, $11.2 million. ... From an investment standpoint — and Big Brown’s owners are investors — to keep Big Brown in racing beyond his 3-year-old career, he would need to earn more than $11.2 million a year plus the additional costs of insurance as a racehorse versus insurance as a stallion. Obviously the economic decision has to be to retire Big Brown.Go on over to The Rail to see the basis for this calculation.
Labels: horse racing
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
And In Other Sports News ...
The decline of the Indy 500's popularity and hopes for renewal are the subject of Dean McNulty's column in the London Free Press:
The 500 has fallen to near obscurity. In this year's starting grid, I could recognize only eight names, and half of those were based on recognizable family names. Looking back on Wikipedia to starting lists from the early 1980s, I recognized half or more of the field. My office neighbor, an Indiana native and racing fan (mainly NASCAR now), could identify 20 or so in the current field versus the entire grid from the 1980s.
Given NASCAR's rise, Indy racing will likely not regain its glory days. Nonetheless, the 500 could fuel a tremendous amount of interest by openly courting key NASCAR racers back into the field. Former Indy racers like Montoya, Hornish, and Franchitti are obvious candidates, as is Tony Stewart who did the Indy-NASCAR double a couple of times. If the 500 could lure Stewart and Jeff Gordon into the race, those two names alone would draw a ton of fans back to the race. Moving the race to Saturday (with a Monday race in case of rain-out) would be one option to avoid the conflict with NASCAR. That, however, would require both a big change in tradition along with a major helping of humble pie for Tony George -- something not likely to happen.
The feud in Indy racing is well documented, and while it's likely not the sole cause of the 500s decline, it didn't help.Back in the day when gasoline was 40 cents a litre and the big auto manufacturers were selling SUVs faster than Ben Johnson in a 100-metre dash, the Indianapolis 500 was top dog in motorsports. Everyone in the racing world, including Formula One and NASCAR, were also-rans in the television ratings on motorsports' biggest weekend of the year.
But more than a decade after Indianapolis Motor Speedway boss Tony George on one side and a bunch of billionaire team owners on the other began a self-destructive civil war, the "Greatest Spectacle in Racing" will rely on three kids next Sunday to lead them out of the subsequent ruins. Gone are 13 years of Indy 500 history where the winner got his drink of milk but little else as crowds at the track shrank from a high of nearly 400,000 in 1995 to about 250,000 in 2007.
The 500 has fallen to near obscurity. In this year's starting grid, I could recognize only eight names, and half of those were based on recognizable family names. Looking back on Wikipedia to starting lists from the early 1980s, I recognized half or more of the field. My office neighbor, an Indiana native and racing fan (mainly NASCAR now), could identify 20 or so in the current field versus the entire grid from the 1980s.
Given NASCAR's rise, Indy racing will likely not regain its glory days. Nonetheless, the 500 could fuel a tremendous amount of interest by openly courting key NASCAR racers back into the field. Former Indy racers like Montoya, Hornish, and Franchitti are obvious candidates, as is Tony Stewart who did the Indy-NASCAR double a couple of times. If the 500 could lure Stewart and Jeff Gordon into the race, those two names alone would draw a ton of fans back to the race. Moving the race to Saturday (with a Monday race in case of rain-out) would be one option to avoid the conflict with NASCAR. That, however, would require both a big change in tradition along with a major helping of humble pie for Tony George -- something not likely to happen.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Oscar Pistorius CAS decision
The fellows over at The Science of Sport have been quick to bring us a link to the CAS ruling in the case of 'blade runner' Oscar Pistorius, as well as some scientific commentary on the decision. The fellows over at the Sports Law Blog have also got up some early commentary on the legal approach to the matter.
How about the economic side of the matter?
Oscar Pistorius is yet to qualify for the olympics and good luck to him. But if he does, will this lead to fellow amputees crowding out the normally legged athlete?
One of the interesting conundrums posed by an anon blogger at the Sports Law Blog is that Pistorius has had an incentive to tank so as to underrepresent the 'advantage' gained by his spring blades; for the greater the revealed advantage, the less likely it would have been that CAS would rule in his favour. That's a particularly odd way of looking at this, but this is a particularly odd matter all round.
How about the economic side of the matter?
Oscar Pistorius is yet to qualify for the olympics and good luck to him. But if he does, will this lead to fellow amputees crowding out the normally legged athlete?
One of the interesting conundrums posed by an anon blogger at the Sports Law Blog is that Pistorius has had an incentive to tank so as to underrepresent the 'advantage' gained by his spring blades; for the greater the revealed advantage, the less likely it would have been that CAS would rule in his favour. That's a particularly odd way of looking at this, but this is a particularly odd matter all round.
Labels: Performance Enhancement
Monday, May 19, 2008
Does soccer training build basketball skills?
Probably more so than blocking and tackling. Billy Witz has the story in the New York Times:
[W]ith the league continuing to gain a more international flavor, fans do not have to know the difference between a free throw and a free kick to see soccer’s influence on basketball.There's much more in the story, and it does make sense.
"When you grow up playing soccer, you obviously carry that over to other sports," said Lakers guard Kobe Bryant, who lived in Italy from age 6 through 13. "I think it has helped me tremendously."
Labels: basketball; soccer, NBA
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Views on Big Brown
Although I'm the resident horse racing buff here, I've been silent during the Triple Crown season. With the exception of Big Brown, the prep season gave us little to get excited about. Big Brown's victories in the Kentucky Derby and Preakness have changed that dramatically. Big Brown has shown that he's something special. Ordinary horses don't circle the field in the Derby, take a breather on the far turn, and sprint away from the best of their generation. He validated this view in the Preakness, navigating a poor start and tight quarters early, on the way to the easiest of triumphs.
While Big Brown is beating a modest group of challengers, he's doing so with an authority which suggests he could be the best three year old since Spectacular Bid. The Bid was an aggressive alpha male who threw a catch-me-if-you can gauntlet at his rivals and ground them into bits. Big Brown is different. He cruises along with a lengthy, seemingly effortless stride. He is responsive to his rider and can make a move at will, and then find another gear when asked to leave the competition behind. Combine this tractability with speed and stamina and you have a special racehorse. But even Spectacular Bid failed to win the Belmont Stakes.
What can we expect from Big Brown in three week's time? Here are the views of two trainers who have been around the triple crown trail for decades, courtesy of Ray Paulick at ESPN. First, Wayne Lukas:
While Big Brown is beating a modest group of challengers, he's doing so with an authority which suggests he could be the best three year old since Spectacular Bid. The Bid was an aggressive alpha male who threw a catch-me-if-you can gauntlet at his rivals and ground them into bits. Big Brown is different. He cruises along with a lengthy, seemingly effortless stride. He is responsive to his rider and can make a move at will, and then find another gear when asked to leave the competition behind. Combine this tractability with speed and stamina and you have a special racehorse. But even Spectacular Bid failed to win the Belmont Stakes.
What can we expect from Big Brown in three week's time? Here are the views of two trainers who have been around the triple crown trail for decades, courtesy of Ray Paulick at ESPN. First, Wayne Lukas:
"A dominating Derby winner ran a dominating race today," Lukas said. "But those other dominating horses end up having to do it again in three weeks, and I've always said it's not just a Triple Crown -- it's a demanding five-race series, because you almost always have to have two good ones in front of it just to get in the Derby itself. Big Brown is lightly raced, and he's got that in his favor. Frankly, I think he will win it, but it's not a given."Next, a more sanguine Bob Baffert, whose Silver Charm and Real Quiet were nailed deep in the Belmont stretch (as was the unbeaten Smarty Jones) to ruin their triple crown hopes:
... Big Brown's trainer, Rick Dutrow, said after the Preakness he intends to give the colt one timed workout before the Belmont. He has been careful not to work the colt too hard because of problems he's had with quarter cracks in his feet, which have been aided by glue-on shoes that have a protective padding.
"Rick hasn't made any mistakes so far," Lukas said, "but he's in uncharted waters now. There are no preparations for going a mile and a half. So he's got to read his horse very carefully and evaluate his strengths going into this final leg."
"This is the horse we've all been waiting for," Baffert said of Big Brown. "We all want a horse like this.Although both are clearly impressed by the horse, I lean more towards the optimistic view of Baffert than the guarded Lukas. Nevertheless, Casino Drive was impressive in winning the Peter Pan Stakes, and he is clearly fast. He has a "grind-it-out" style, which suits the Belmont's mile and a half distance. He seems capable of making Big Brown work to win the Belmont, which makes the race one to anticipate. As Andrew Beyer points out, Big Brown must beat quality horses in order to claim the mantle of greatness. The Belmont Stakes will provide his chance.
"When he wins, he doesn't turn a hair. He doesn't get excited. He knows he is so good. In the paddock before the Preakness, it was like nothing for him. And then, when he came back after the race, that horse didn't look like he even took a deep breath."
Baffert then paid Big Brown the ultimate compliment: "This is the best horse I've seen since I've been in the business."
There are only two obstacles between Big Brown and a Triple Crown victory, according to Baffert: the quarter cracks that plagued him earlier this year and the Japanese horse Casino Drive, who made an impressive U.S. debut, winning the May 10 Peter Pan Stakes at Belmont Park in only his second career start. Casino Drive was produced from Better Than Honour, the dam of the past two Belmont winners: Jazil and Rags to Riches.
"If the Japanese horse wasn't in there, it would be a gimme," Baffert said. "He's the only horse I see that has the quality even close to Big Brown."
What advice, if any, does Baffert have for Dutrow over the next few weeks?
"Just keep those shoes on him, babe. That's all you need to do."
Labels: horse racing
Celebrity misbehavior
My colleague Todd Kendall's paper, "Celebrity Misbehavior in the NBA" (link to abstract) appears in the June issue of the Journal of Sports Economics. Kevin Lewis discusses Todd's paper in today's Ideas section of the Boston Globe:
The author found that having a high salary compared with other players on the team, or in the league generally, was associated with unsportsmanlike conduct. Strikingly, the highest-paid players on a team egage in 7 percent more unsportsmanlike conduct than the second-highest-paid players. Although there are many possible explanations for this pattern, the author concludes that the evidence is consistent with top-paid players having their team and fans over a barrel. A top-paid player is supposedly more exceptional and therefore cannot be replaced easily, so the team and fans give the player more latitude.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Enhanced Human Performance
There has been quite a bit of discussion about drug taking, gene doping and what we mean by 'artificial' enhancements to human performance at The Sports Economist in the past year.
Here are two examples of opening pandora's box and finding a can of worms.
Of greatest significance is the ruling fom the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), allowing South African 400m sprinter Oscar Pistorius attempt to qualify for the 2008 olympics. Oscar has been dealt some harsh cards in his life as a double amputee below his knees, but he has developed an impressive athletics career with the assistance of 'cheetah' racing blade prosthetic devices.
After being initially denied the right to qualify and compete at Beijing by the IAAF, the CAS ruling provides Pistorius with the opportunity to qualify.
Some South African sports scientists have a pretty interesting blog The Science of Sports that covers this matter and others quite well (as some of us blogging here at TSE have noted of late, some of these issues require the input of scientists, lest we economists end up talking through our hats). Plus, here are a couple of links to print news from USA Today and Fox Sports Australia and video on the US ABC News website to bring you up to speed on the history of the matter. The CAS website press release section has temporarily gone haywire and won't work.
From The Age (Melbourne) - Sydney Swans player Nick Malceski returns to the Australian Football League today:
Here are two examples of opening pandora's box and finding a can of worms.
Of greatest significance is the ruling fom the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), allowing South African 400m sprinter Oscar Pistorius attempt to qualify for the 2008 olympics. Oscar has been dealt some harsh cards in his life as a double amputee below his knees, but he has developed an impressive athletics career with the assistance of 'cheetah' racing blade prosthetic devices.
After being initially denied the right to qualify and compete at Beijing by the IAAF, the CAS ruling provides Pistorius with the opportunity to qualify.
Some South African sports scientists have a pretty interesting blog The Science of Sports that covers this matter and others quite well (as some of us blogging here at TSE have noted of late, some of these issues require the input of scientists, lest we economists end up talking through our hats). Plus, here are a couple of links to print news from USA Today and Fox Sports Australia and video on the US ABC News website to bring you up to speed on the history of the matter. The CAS website press release section has temporarily gone haywire and won't work.
From The Age (Melbourne) - Sydney Swans player Nick Malceski returns to the Australian Football League today:
Just 13 weeks after rupturing his anterior cruciate ligament, and only 86 days after undergoing surgery to correct what is normally a season-ending injury, Malceski will run onto ANZ Stadium [Sydney Olympic Stadium] and resume a season that not long ago appeared over. On February 22, Malceski underwent the revolutionary procedure of French surgeon JP Laboureau - conducted by Australian surgeon Danny Biggs - known as LARS (ligament augmentation and reconstruction system), to repair his torn ligament with a durable industrial-strength synthetic fibre.
Labels: doping, Performance Enhancement
Thursday, May 15, 2008
LA sports study
Yesterday's post referred to Kevin Modesti's tongue-in-cheek article on sports and economic impact in Los Angeles. On further investigation, it appears that Modesti's story may have been prompted by the release of a "real" economic impact study for sports in LA. The study is discussed here, with pdf slides from the study available here. It was produced out of the Anderson School of Business at UCLA, but no professor's name is attached to it. Ok, then.
Here are some choice quotes, with contrasting views:
Draw your own conclusions, but for me, this just makes Modesti's spoof that much funnier.
Here are some choice quotes, with contrasting views:
--"This is one of the strongest sports markets in the country, and the study shows what kind of an impact it has on the local economy," said David Simon, president of the L.A. Sports Council.The article notes that Majestic Realty is owned by Ed Roski, developer of the Staples Center, who is backing the current $800m "plan it and the NFL will come" football stadium in LA. The LA Sports Council paid for the study.
--That $2 billion industry employs about 3,385 people in full-time jobs, according to the study. That's less than the 4,500 employed by the county's mining industry, according to Jack Kyser, the chief economist of the Los Angeles Economic Development Commission.
--"I always chuckle when people say that sports have no economic benefit," said [John] Semcken [vice president of Majestic Realty]. "Before Staples, that neighborhood was full of run-down day hotels, and prostitution was the only local industry ... today it is one of the entertainment capitals of the country."
Draw your own conclusions, but for me, this just makes Modesti's spoof that much funnier.
Labels: economic impact
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Economic impact: the missing items
Selected items carelessly omitted in economic impact studies, from an LA centric Kevin Modesti:
$743,000 to auto-body shops for repairs made necessary by fender-benders at exits from Dodger Stadium parking lot.
$249 million to tattoo parlors and hair stylists from David Beckham.
$24.9 million to tattoo removers from parents whose kids emulate David Beckham.
$76,000 in co-payments to HMO urgent-care facilities from patients requiring extractions of four-inch splinters picked up from Coliseum seats.
$6 million for extra fuel for traffic helicopters reporting on congestion stemming from major events at the Rose Bowl.
$954,000 to lawyers to defend city and county against Al Davis lawsuits.
$160,000 from USC football office to print "alternate" promotional material omitting name of Reggie Bush.
$27,000 to cardiologists for treatment of palpitations brought on by watching Angels bullpen lately.
$29.95 to commission studies showing that sports contribute a lot to the economy.
Labels: economic impact, humor
Sport as a window on society
The Uefa Cup Final will be played today, between Glasgow Rangers and Zenit St. Petersburg, of Russia. The occasion reminds me of Frankin Foer's book, How Soccer Explains the World
.
I will root for Rangers, who could complete a remarkable season by winning three trophies in the next eleven days, with this year's CIS Cup already in the bag. But Rangers are emblematic of sectarian violence, as discussed by Foer, and I won't be singing along with chants against the pope tonight.
Zenit are favorites to win their first European trophy. A Zenit victory would symbolize the rise of the Russian economy, and the rise of Russian football as well. Zenit, as well as Russian football, are emerging from relative obscurity. How far can they - and the economy itself - go? There are some eye-opening facts about Zenit in this story from the BBC, including the fact that Zenit are owned by Gazprom, now the fourth largest company in the world. Gazprom has been pouring money into Zenit - making Zenit the Russian version of Chelsea, who are also lavishly funded by Russian oil wealth.
But the most amazing, and disturbing thing in the article is the following discussion about race. Zenit is an all-white team, by design according to their coach Dick Advocaat:
Ultimately, virulent discrimination is a limiting factor for any football club, indeed any economy. Perhaps Dick Advocaat should be channeling Bear Bryant, who learned that lesson long ago. Bryant integrated the Alabama football team after getting whipped on the field by black players from Southern Cal. Although some argue that he was late to the party, better late than never.
.I will root for Rangers, who could complete a remarkable season by winning three trophies in the next eleven days, with this year's CIS Cup already in the bag. But Rangers are emblematic of sectarian violence, as discussed by Foer, and I won't be singing along with chants against the pope tonight.
Zenit are favorites to win their first European trophy. A Zenit victory would symbolize the rise of the Russian economy, and the rise of Russian football as well. Zenit, as well as Russian football, are emerging from relative obscurity. How far can they - and the economy itself - go? There are some eye-opening facts about Zenit in this story from the BBC, including the fact that Zenit are owned by Gazprom, now the fourth largest company in the world. Gazprom has been pouring money into Zenit - making Zenit the Russian version of Chelsea, who are also lavishly funded by Russian oil wealth.
But the most amazing, and disturbing thing in the article is the following discussion about race. Zenit is an all-white team, by design according to their coach Dick Advocaat:
Unfortunately the club also have a hard core of racists among their supporters. Zenit are the only club in Russia never to have signed a black player, and their fans were accused of racist taunts during the Uefa Cup win over Marseille earlier this season.Customer discrimination is a concept that dates back to Gary Becker. The fans' behavior in this case is awful, but not without precedent in Europe (hence the kick racism out of football campaign). What is quite remarkable though, is the explicit policy statement of customer discrimination by Zenit's manager. I've not come across anything quite like it.
Marseille defender Ronald Zubar said: "They threw a banana at us and made monkey sounds."
Manager Dick Advocaat has even admitted that the fans' attitude has affected his transfer policy.
"The problem is our fans," he says. "I would be happy to sign anyone but the fans don't like black players.
"I don't understand how they could pay so much attention to skin colour. For me, there's no difference between white, black or red.
"But the fans are the most important thing Zenit have. That's why, in future, I have to ask them outright how they'll react if we sign a dark-skinned player.
"If the fans don't agree with me, I won't do it. I won't buy a player who won't be accepted by the fans."
Ultimately, virulent discrimination is a limiting factor for any football club, indeed any economy. Perhaps Dick Advocaat should be channeling Bear Bryant, who learned that lesson long ago. Bryant integrated the Alabama football team after getting whipped on the field by black players from Southern Cal. Although some argue that he was late to the party, better late than never.
Labels: discrimination, sports economics
A sober assessment from the Swiss
Euro 2008 takes place next month in Austria and Switzerland. It is the most significant soccer tournament among national teams, save the World Cup. At least one reporter is throwing cold water on the idea that hosting the tournament will stimulate the Swiss economy:
Hundreds of thousands of soccer fans will spend millions of francs on beer, bratwurst and beds at Euro 2008 next month.A fraction of the half million rooms might represent displaced visitors. But on net, if you own a hotel, an event like Euro 2008 should provide a significant revenue boost. Profits too, provided that the fans don't tear up the place.
The world's third-largest sports event will be no more than a drop in the ocean for the Swiss economy, however, and will not save the Alpine nation from following the rest of the world into slowdown.
"The economic effect is so small, it will be hard to detect in the statistics," said Urs Mueller, director of Switzerland's BAK Basel economics research institute.
Up to 1.4 million foreigner visitors will add business for hotels and restaurants and for retailers selling merchandise and food, and may create 7,500 jobs, though most of them will be temporary.
That could create an additional gross value added of up to 860 million Swiss francs ($813.6 million), a Swiss government study showed, making up less than 0.2 percent of the Swiss economy which has a size of some $420 billion.
..."The World Cup [Germany, 2006] has put millions in the coffers of FIFA and the German Football Association DFB but the economic impact of the sport event was very limited," concluded the German DIW research institute in a study last year.
Germany hosted four times more matches than Switzerland will, with 32 teams participating in the World Cup comparing to the 16 at Euro 2008.
Some sectors might get a boost from the world's third-biggest sports event after the World Cup and the Olympics.
Swiss hotels expect more than half a million additional overnight stays, coming on top of last year's record 36.4 million stays.
Labels: economic impact, mega-events
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Arizona State Eliminates Three Sports
A quick note: Arizona State has eliminated three sports.
Labels: college sports, NCAA, Title IX
Monday, May 12, 2008
Some data on Glendale's Super Bowl
Super Bowl wasn't a windfallWorth what to whom? There is no way in hell that the citizens of Glendale would view $27 million of broadcast spending as an investment with positive returns.
Glendale spent more on game than it made
Carrie Watters
The Arizona Republic
May. 12, 2008 12:00 AM
Glendale did not recoup what it spent to host Super Bowl XLII, according to a new study that showed out-of-towners here for the game added an estimated $1.2 million to the city's tax coffers.
The city laid out $3.4 million preparing for and hosting the Feb. 3 game.
Bottom line: The city spent $2.2 million more than its estimated take in connection with the game.
That deficit could be lessened by NFL spending or local visitors' spending, which were not part of the study by Scottsdale-based Elliott D. Pollack & Company.
City leaders have long said they did not anticipate that the city would immediately recoup its expenditures.
"You can look at it from getting the actual dollar back," Councilman David Goulet said. "But I think there is a bigger picture to look at than just the pure law of numbers."
He foresees a return on the investment over time as the game bolstered the city's image as a destination.
In two weeks leading up to the game, the city was mentioned in more than 5,000 broadcast stories, a publicity value that Cision, a media-monitoring company, pegs at nearly $27 million.
There's much more in the story, including economic impact projections which might, if true, be worth cheering about. But the comment section suggests there are plenty of skeptical readers.
Thanks to Brent Stoddard for the link.
Labels: economic impact, stadium subsidies
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Gene Doping - The New Frontier of Doping
This morning's Kansas City Star has an interesting piece on the new frontier of doping: gene doping. The whole article is worth a read, but here are the opening paragraphs.
Scientists have seen the future of sport. It involves mice that can lift three times the average, humans who can run 90-minute marathons, and ligament tears that can be fixed by injection.
It is genetic engineering, therapy and doping, and it is the arrival of the bionic athlete. At the extreme, this is either the advancement or end of the human race. At the minimum, it is the unavoidable change to the way our sports — baseball, football, the Olympics, you name it — are played.
One thing that the article mentions is that the genetic doping is a way for the human body to exceed its natural athletic capacity.
If confined to natural training, elite athletes are said to be now using 99 percent of their natural physical capacity, compared to just 75 percent in 1896, the year of the first modern Olympics. Given those parameters, academics say there would be no new world records after the year 2060.
But that’s in a world with no genetic engineering. Scientists think a series of gene-doping breakthroughs could boost endurance by up to 10 percent and, according to one study, allow a runner to complete a marathon in 90 minutes — more than a half-hour faster than the current world record.
In an absolute sense, doping should generate more interest from fans as athletes get bigger, stronger, and faster. But I wonder if there is diminishing marginal utility on the point of view of fans. "Wow, Brady Jones has hit his 500th home run that traveled more than 600 feet. Big deal!" Does the display of athletic talent get so extreme that fans are no longer all that excited (all else equal)?
Another interesting issue is what happens to the supply of athletic talent in team sports. Assuming a safe type of genetic doping is found that increases the human capacity to run, jump, etc., this should increase the supply of talent, leading to lower salaries "per unit of talent." And what of competitive balance? If the number of teams stays more or less constant, competition should become almost perfectly balanced, non?
Labels: doping
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
The NFL in Toronto
When readings Skip's post on the CFL this afternoon, I noticed this article listed as being one of the most popular over at the Toronto Globe and Mail. It describes the pricing of tickets to Buffalo Bills games being played in Toronto in the next few years:
Tickets for the Buffalo Bills' eight-game series in Toronto will average $183 per seat — more than triple the cost for the team's home games at Ralph Wilson Stadium this season.
The ticket prices, ranging from $55 to $295, were released Wednesday by the Toronto-based group hosting the series, which will have the Bills play five annual regular-season and three preseason games at the 54,000-seat Rogers Centre through 2012.
The prices are in Canadian money, which is currently near par with the U.S. dollar, and do not include a large bulk of VIP sideline and hospitality suite seats, which will raise the average even higher.
Despite the hefty price, organizers anticipate the games selling out after 180,000 ticket requests were registered on a Web site last month. About 30,000 tickets per game will be distributed in two weeks by lottery to Internet registrants as well as a limited number of Bills and CFL Toronto Argonauts season-ticket holders.
Compare those prices to the prices of Toronto Argonauts games. Single game tickets are not for sale yet for the 2008 season, but choice seats in their 3-game package go for $189 total and season tickets range from $300-$700 for a 9 game home season plus a few other other goodies.
Which brings me to one of Skip's thoughts about why government subsidies have been hard to come by for CFL teams:
It is possible that the CFL makes so little money and has such a small impact that the relocation threat is not operative. There is in fact relatively little demand for football stadiums, public or privately financed.
It's anecdotal, I realize, but there seems to be high demand for NFL football in Toronto. That may simply be due to the novelty of NFL football being played in Toronto. Or perhaps it's due to the value of the NFL brand name, a value the CFL may not have in it's country.
Labels: cfl, demand for football, NFL Buffalo Bills
Why has Canada not subsidized the CFL?
This article claims that the Canadian Football League is "could be on the verge of a construction boom."
Why the lack of public investment? The CFL, like other prominent North American leagues, is a closed set of teams that controls entry. The incentive to obtain a stadium subsidy that derives from the league structure and the relocation threat thus exists. The view of Canadian government as fairly liberal with the checkbook would imply public-private "cooperation" on stadium ventures.
The article suggests at one point that "local and provincial governments are wary about investing in pro sports facilities of any kind," but that doesn't wash with me. Brad knows all about the current subsidy issue over a hockey arena in Alberta, for instance ;)
I can see two possibilities.
It is possible that the CFL makes so little money and has such a small impact that the relocation threat is not operative. There is in fact relatively little demand for football stadiums, public or privately financed.
Second, the political distribution of power differs in Canada from the U.S. This renders the execution of a relocation threat pointless, since (by assumption) there is not a significant source of local public revenue. [bleg: Anyone know the facts?]
I lean towards the first. But the second is testable: hockey arenas should have a greater fraction of public funding south of the U.S. border, despite the fact that hockey is Canada's national sport.
Five CFL teams – the Montreal Alouettes, Winnipeg Blue Bombers, Hamilton Tiger-Cats, Saskatchewan Roughriders and the ownership of a conditional Ottawa franchise – are aggressively pushing plans to build new stadiums or drastically alter and refurbish old ones.It's the overdue question that intrigues me. The article notes that no stadium has been built for football since the 1960s, although some teams play in venues built for another purpose. Some are dilapidated.
Factor in the anticipated makeover of Vancouver's B.C. Place Stadium, which could add a retractable roof to the facility, and a potential redesign of Toronto's BMO Field to accommodate the Argonauts, and the CFL could be looking at well over a half-billion dollars invested in stadium infrastructure during the next five years.
Many would suggest it's long overdue.
Why the lack of public investment? The CFL, like other prominent North American leagues, is a closed set of teams that controls entry. The incentive to obtain a stadium subsidy that derives from the league structure and the relocation threat thus exists. The view of Canadian government as fairly liberal with the checkbook would imply public-private "cooperation" on stadium ventures.
The article suggests at one point that "local and provincial governments are wary about investing in pro sports facilities of any kind," but that doesn't wash with me. Brad knows all about the current subsidy issue over a hockey arena in Alberta, for instance ;)
I can see two possibilities.
It is possible that the CFL makes so little money and has such a small impact that the relocation threat is not operative. There is in fact relatively little demand for football stadiums, public or privately financed.
Second, the political distribution of power differs in Canada from the U.S. This renders the execution of a relocation threat pointless, since (by assumption) there is not a significant source of local public revenue. [bleg: Anyone know the facts?]
I lean towards the first. But the second is testable: hockey arenas should have a greater fraction of public funding south of the U.S. border, despite the fact that hockey is Canada's national sport.
Labels: cfl, nhl, stadium subsidies
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
NCAA Football Politics
Several years back, I thought that the process toward a playoff would have played out by now. The 1998 BCS agreement struck me as a key step toward a playoff in that it eliminated a major impediment -- the exclusive tie-in of the Pac-10 and Big Ten to the Rose Bowl. Now, ten years later, it appears that we are still at least six years away from another step as
Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! writes in his consideration of the failure semi-final/final proposal by the SEC Commissioner in Too Good to Go
Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! writes in his consideration of the failure semi-final/final proposal by the SEC Commissioner in Too Good to Go
The interests of the Pac-10 and Big Ten are transparent enough. Wetzel exposes the "lengthening the season concerns" and other such nonsense for just that in his piece. The behavior of the Big East and Big 12 is the real question. Are they just risk averse -- not knowing very well how they will fare in such a system and therefore reluctant? Concerns about the impact on the regular season seem to be at the core:In the end, according to interviews with people in the room, the decision to proceed or not probably came down to the Big East and Big 12.
The Big Ten and Pac-10, thanks to an economically advantageous relationship with the Rose Bowl until at least 2014, were going to oppose just about anything put on the table. The smaller conferences and Notre Dame were likely to support whatever the majority did as long as their access and revenue weren’t cut. The ACC was in favor of the SEC’s proposal.
That left two swing votes, the Big East and Big 12, who had they pushed for further discussion could have weakened the Big Ten and Pac-10’s silly obstruction talk – “they’ll have to pry a playoff system out of my cold dead hands,” the Ohio State president barked last year.
Best I can tell, after years of discussions with the people in power by me and my colleague Josh Peter, is that while there isn’t a single reason, the oft-cited “protection of the regular season” is a critical one.Increasing the value of some games without diminishing the value of others, is, indeed, tricky business. The current BCS system makes a lot of regular season games count. The downside is that it makes only one post-season game count. In addition, it can make winning a conference championship meaningless, even for a highly regarded conference because of too many losses for the champion. The old polling system to determine a national champion placed weights on a combination of regular season and bowl game results. A "plus-one" system as proposed might diminish the regular season's value more than a "6-plus-2" playoff involving six conferences winners (ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac 10, SEC) and two at-large teams. Such a system would value regular season games by putting a premium on winning one's conference, while also putting attention on the post season.
Labels: NCAA; college sports; football
Monday, May 05, 2008
Competitive Balance in European Soccer
It's the same old story again in Europe this year. Last weekend Real Madrid clinched the league title in La Liga, its 31st league title overall and its 25th in the past 50 years. Bayern Munich clinched the Bundesliga league title, its 20th title since the formation of the league in 1964. Lyon and Inter Milan, last year's champions in France and Italy, remained on top of the tables in their respective leagues with two games to go. In England next week's games will determine whether powerhouse Chelsea or powerhouse Man. U, the top two teams in the standings last season, will be crowned champion. Even in the smaller leagues, the traditional powers are on top. In Scotland, the next couple of weeks will tell whether Rangers can overtake Celtic for the lead. No other team outside the Glasgow pair has won the Scottish league since 1985, and only once in the past 13 years has another team even come in second place.
While the annual races for the championship are usually close, at times coming down to the the last minutes of the last game of the season, interseason competitive balance is notoriously absent in European Leagues using promotion and relegation systems.
Longtime American soccer columnist Paul Gardner sums up his thoughts about promotion and relegation thusly:
While the annual races for the championship are usually close, at times coming down to the the last minutes of the last game of the season, interseason competitive balance is notoriously absent in European Leagues using promotion and relegation systems.
Longtime American soccer columnist Paul Gardner sums up his thoughts about promotion and relegation thusly:
The purists keep telling me that soccer will never make it here until we adoptUs economists often have a soft spot for promotion and relegation, but Gardner makes some interesting observations about the costs in competitive balance.
promotion and relegation. I think they're dead wrong. I think it's much more
likely that the rest of the world, this damned, abominably commercial world,
will be forced to recognize the merits of the American franchise system.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Self-congratulations Part Deux
People interested in more of my rantings about stadium subsidies might like this.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Emerging scandals?
If the favorite, Big Brown, wins the Kentucky Derby, expect the tone of the news coverage to change. His trainer has a history of doping that the mainstream press is putting aside in the usual rose-colored pre-race stories. Journalist Paul Moran has the story though, at his blog. Oddly, the story comes via the New York Times top horse racing writer Joe Drape, whose blog "The Rail" gives outstanding coverage of the Triple Crown. This is my first stop for horseracing news these days.
As an aside, I think that doping and horses provides a good example of the social costs of doping in general. The Nash equilibrium is to dope, and it has been going on for decades. But doped, muscle-bound thoroughbreds are more likely to suffer a catastrophic injury than horses that run clean. (Granted, I think the links here are much stronger than with humans.) Drape has a good post on this issue as well, "The Last Winstrol Derby?", which discusses the possibility that American racing will ban & test for steroids in the near future. Winstrol has been used on horses long before it was injected - allegedly - into Roger Clemens' butt.
And now to the land of scandals, European soccer. This time we go off the beaten path, to Romania, and the run-in for the league championship. The story has everything: ethnic tension between the two protagonists, allegations of payments to referees, payments to opposing teams, and mafia-like sniping between the clubs.
As an aside, I think that doping and horses provides a good example of the social costs of doping in general. The Nash equilibrium is to dope, and it has been going on for decades. But doped, muscle-bound thoroughbreds are more likely to suffer a catastrophic injury than horses that run clean. (Granted, I think the links here are much stronger than with humans.) Drape has a good post on this issue as well, "The Last Winstrol Derby?", which discusses the possibility that American racing will ban & test for steroids in the near future. Winstrol has been used on horses long before it was injected - allegedly - into Roger Clemens' butt.
And now to the land of scandals, European soccer. This time we go off the beaten path, to Romania, and the run-in for the league championship. The story has everything: ethnic tension between the two protagonists, allegations of payments to referees, payments to opposing teams, and mafia-like sniping between the clubs.
Labels: horse racing, scandals, soccer
