Thursday, June 26, 2008

From Berlin: the fan zone 

Tonight I will experience a new phenomenon for me: watching a big game (Russia vs. Spain) in a "fan zone," one of the public viewing areas set up in Germany for the 2006 World Cup. They were wildly popular then, and Germany has rolled them out for the semi-finals and final of Euro 2008.

Now, hold on to your hat while you digest these statistics. European stadia are small by American standards, the semi-final tonight will see 53,000 in Vienna's Ernst-Happel Stadion. But last night, for the Germany-Turkey semi-final, an estimated half million fans turned up in Berlin:
Germany is home to about 2.7 million people of Turkish origin around 500,000 of whom are German citizens. In the run up the match, the first time the two countries have met in a major tournament since the 1950s, Turkish and German flags (more...) have been flying together from car windows and balconies in a nation gripped by football frenzy.

In downtown Berlin, an estimated 500,000 fans packed into the "fan mile" public viewing area next to the historic Brandenburg Gate, with access shut off a full hour before the game even kicked off after the organizers declared it full. The winning goal by the Germans saw the huge crowd erupt into a frenzy of football celebration.
Yowza! What does this mean for the future of spectator sport? We all know that broadcast media have changed the commercial landscape, but the ability of huge screens and large public areas to host masses of people could have new implications. I may know more after tonight.

Update: There are four enormous screens in a line at the "Coca Cola Fan Mile," and you can see the game quite well. The main screen at the Brandenburg Gate sports something akin to a mosh pit, which tonight was a sea of Russian and Spanish Flags. The screen is positioned higher there, to allow people to see the game above the waving flags. Only two screens were live tonight, but you can bet the fan zone will be extended for the full mile on Sunday when Germany plays tonight's victors, Spain. The fan zone appeared to me to be a gathering spot for relatively young fans who want to cheer their team in public or be with their countrymen, not aficionados. More women than you might expect, I would say. Far more Carlsberg was sold than Coca Cola, but Coke will know if the concept, which seems to be thriving in several places in Europe, will work in the U.S.

It was a peaceful night as far as I saw, with a large security operation coming into, leaving, and throughout the fan zone. I avoided the odd pack of scowling blokes in England shirts. I watched the second half at a big screen in a hotel bar. Smaller numbers, but with most seats taken, and that's where the money was tonight.

Labels: , ,

St. Petersburg and the Rays' Stadium 

Today's St. Petersburg Times confirms earlier reports that the Tampa Bay Rays were putting on hold their attempt to get a new waterfront stadium built in St. Petersburg.

A key issue cited by the Rays is the lack of time between now and a November referendum on the use of Al Lang Field, a waterfront ball park that has been the Rays' spring training home, as the site for the new stadium. It appears the decision has earned the team a good deal of goodwill as groups across the area have signed on in support of a broad search for a suitable site for a new facility.

It is interesting that the decision comes shortly after MLB Commissioner Bud Selig stated in an interview that the Rays need a new stadium, ridiculing Tropicana Field, and promising an All-Star game to the city when a new stadium is available. Selig's efforts were not necessarily appreciated as indicated by the editorial Baseball chief needs to butt out.

For lots of details about the process and prospects in St. Pete, check out this website from the St. Petersburg Times.


Thanks to Skip for informing me of this last website and to Phil Porter who connected me with WUSF, a public radio station, for a panel discussion of the Rays' stadium issue on their program Florida Matters. Broadcast of the panel was canceled when the stadium plan was stopped.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Two good reads 

Gregg Bell on the Sonics trial. The Sonics are making the argument that Seattle pols have been playing dirty pool, which would not be surprising. As I've said before, there are no angels in the stadium game.

Andrew Leigh, an Australian economist, opines on the economics of sports. He links a paper by Goodall, Kahn, and Oswald, which studies the impact of coaching changes in the NBA. Leigh's commentary:
They find a large positive impact: if a team replaces a coach who never played NBA basketball with one who played many years of NBA All-Star basketball, it can expect to move six places up the ladder.

One possible explanation is that a coach cannot push top players to their limit unless he has competed at their level. Or perhaps effective NBA coaching involves a considerable degree of ego-management, and only a former champion can win the players’ respect. Either way, the results have important implications for any high-performance workplace where the CEO must manage a large number of experts. From law to technology to universities, could it be that the best boss is a former all-star?
The paper seems worth putting in your stack of things to read. Leigh has a blog too, which looks interesting.

Labels: , ,

Monday, June 23, 2008

Is the NBA - NCAA market division in jeopardy? 

Basketball is the one uniquely American game. (Our baseball and football were adaptations of English games). It would be ironic if increasing appreciation of basketball in Europe chips away at the cartelized, market division arrangement that works so well for the NBA and NCAA. The things is, Europe pays more than the NCAA, and they don't have any problem with luring teenagers to emigrate for the purpose of sport. William Rhoden reports:
Brandon Jennings smiled Sunday afternoon when someone suggested that he might be considered a trendsetter.

If he makes good on a threat to go from high school to professional basketball in Europe, Jennings will become the first high school player to spurn college to go overseas and play professionally.

Trendsetting.

This is the latest — and most brilliant — plan yet to combat the three-tiered maneuver by the N.C.A.A., the N.B.A. and the players union to prevent talented high school players from going directly to the N.B.A.

The N.B.A. instituted an age limit of 19, and required that a player be at least a year removed from high school, as part of its collective bargaining agreement with the union. The N.C.A.A. didn’t protest, and why would it?

Under this arrangement, the great high school players have little choice but to do time in college for a season at a high-profile college. Kevin Love wound up at U.C.L.A., Michael Beasley at Kansas State, Derrick Rose at Memphis and O. J. Mayo at Southern California. All entered this week’s N.B.A. draft after one season in college.

Jennings, an 18-year-old from Los Angeles who played the last two seasons at Oak Hill Academy in Virginia, signed a letter of intent to play at Arizona.

Jennings was pushed into action by the N.C.A.A. After doing poorly on his first standardized test, he did well on the second, but because of the difference in the scores, the testing service asked him to take the test a third time. He relented, but at that point Jennings decided that he was through with the N.C.A.A. Why jump through hoops to go to Arizona, endure the charade of an academic regimen, then switch into N.B.A. mode the instant the season is over?
A little European experience might be more beneficial than sitting in Astronomy 101 for these cats, no?

Labels: , ,

Friday, June 20, 2008

Seattle Supersonics Trial - Do economists' opinions vary? 

I apologize for the length of this post at the outset. Given the interpretations and spins put on the testimony of Andy Zimbalist and Brad Humphreys regarding the economic impact of the Supersonics by the lawyers and the press, I feel it necessary to be clear on a few issues.

From comment #141037 we get this: "Overall, I'm thinking the economist's testimony is gonna get tossed out the window since they all contradict one another."

Here is Paul Lawrence, lead attorney for the city of Seattle responding to a question about the case in the Seattle Times being a battle of economists:
Lawrence: I think the reality is because there are so many varying opinions, that actually supports the city opinion that it's difficult to measure to the degree of certainty that you need to award damages, what the value to the community is of the Sonics playing in Seattle. The fact that you've got a wide range of opinions among economists just tells us it's a hard number to measure which is a fact that supports specific performance.
(italics added)

Below I insert large segments of the transcripts from both Andy and Brad. I have done very little editing to the exchanges between the lawyers and the witnesses. The transcripts are available on the Seattle Times website.

Here is Andy's statement on tangible benefits:
Q In general, what's the conclusion you come to about the
tangible benefits to a community from the presence of a pro
sports franchises, if it can be summarized?

A Yes. I come to the same conclusion that I think every
economist that has studied the issue comes to. That is, that
a community that is trying to attract professional sports
team or contemplating building a new sports facility, from
either of those that community cannot anticipate a positive
economic development benefit from that activity.
Here's Brad's answer:
Q Well, based on your work over the years and your studies
of various towns, have you reached any conclusions about
whether the departure of a pro sports franchises has any
economic impact on a city?
A Yes. I have reached a conclusion on that.
Q Tell us about that.
What did you conclude?
A I concluded that the departure of a professional sports
franchise from a city will have no detectible economic impact
on the economy in that city.
Q Wait a second. Sonics have a payroll of $60-odd million.
That payroll the will go to Oklahoma City.
Won't there be a $60 million hole in the economy?
A Well, it's important to recognize the difference between
economic activity that the Sonics generate. The Sonics
clearly generate economic activity. You can't go outside
KeyArena on game night and not conclude that Sonics are
generating economic activity.
But the question is, do the Sonics generate new economic
activity in the Seattle economy? And the answer is, no, they
don't. The Sonics are an entertainment business like many,
many other entertainment businesses in the Seattle area. And
so consumers spend their entertainment dollars on whatever
entertainment options they have that makes them happy.
And for Sonics fans that is spending it on the Sonics.
But when the team leaves, they don't take that consumer
spending with them. That spending remains in the local
economy. It simply gets spent on other entertainment
activities by whatever those consumers want to spend it on
all over the metropolitan area.
Those answers are not at all at odds with one another. It is not a matter of a divergence of opinion among economists. The divergence comes in the spin put on the testimony by the stakeholders.

But what about intangible benefits?

Andy Zimbalist:
Q How does the fact that this is a lame-duck team, with all that that implies, affect your analysis of the intangible
benefits?
A Well, basically, Counsel, my analysis is that even under
much more stable circumstances and knowable circumstances the
results that have come out of the existing scholarship that
tries to estimate the tangible benefits are highly variable.
All of those results agree upon one thing. That one thing is
that there are very significant substantial intangible
benefits that accrue to a community from a professional
sports team. They agree about that. But the magnitude of
those benefits is highly variable. So that when you throw in
some other variables, like the lame-duck status and the other
things that I mentioned, it becomes yet more problematic to
make that kind of an estimate.
Brad Humphreys:
Q And you would agree that it is difficult to put a money
value on those intangible benefits, would you not?
A People have done it. I mean in the research literature
people have done it. There are many such examples of --
Q Can you -- Sorry. Go ahead, finish your answer.
A -- putting dollar values on intangible benefits like that.
Q Can we see Page 68 of your deposition? Starting at Line 5
I asked you: "Would you agree that the -- trying to place a
money value on those intangible benefits is difficult?" And
you answered: "Difficult but not impossible."
Another key issue is the distribution of impact across the metropolitan area. First from Andy's testimony:
Q That general opinion about tangible benefits that you've
just expressed relates to an MSA, a larger --
A Correct.
Q -- geographic area?
A Yes.
Q Do you have any reason to believe the general conclusion
you just talked about, that the situation presented here
presents some differences from the general conclusion you
talked about?
A Insofar as we're interested in this case, or one is
interested in this case about the City proper of Seattle,
rather than the MSA of Seattle, then yes, there could be a
difference. Because insofar as there is relocation of
economic activity within the MSA towards the downtown area,
that is, to say if people travel from the suburb of Bellevue
or other suburbs into downtown Seattle to watch a Sonics
game, then that could bring new economic activity into the
City proper. But it's just relocating activity within the
broader MSA.
From Brad:
Q And your theory is that dollars -- if I have a
discretionary dollar to spend on the Sonics I will spend it
somewhere else?
A Yes.
Q And when you look at as big an area as King, Snohomish and
Pierce County there is a lot of places I can spend my dollars
if I don't spend it in Seattle and still have a net zero,
correct?
A But there is -- there are other transactions going on.
Q Is that -- Sorry. Go ahead.
A There is all sorts of -- there is quite a bit of spatial
complexity in economic transactions. I mean, people are
going across these political borders and buying stuff, goods
and services. It is impossible. We don't have the data to
answer that question. I don't know. You can make
assumptions. You certainly can. I don't think they would be
justified.
See also the latter portion of Brad's answer to the question of the existence of tangible benefits above.

Mr. Lawrence asserts there is a wide range of opinion among economists. However, there does not appear to be an attempt to rebut Brad's testimony on this precise point.
Q When you say it's an unusual consensus among economists,
what does that mean?
A Well, I think that economists typically have a -- the
general public has the perception that economists can't agree
on very much at all. Ask two different economists their
opinion on some issue, and you'll get three different answers
to that.
But in this case it's pretty clear, and there is a pretty
strong consensus among the academic researchers that work in
this area about this lack of economic impact from a departure
of a pro sports franchise.
Finally, there is also an issue of the impact study done for the city and an issue it raises about who is and who is not an economist.

Here's what Brad had to say about the RIMS model results presented by the city:
Q Let me ask you another question.
Among trained economists, is there a view one way or the
other about the reliability of these RIMS studies?
A I will say this: RIMS studies are never published in
peer-reviewed economics journals.
Q They never make the cut?
A No, they don't make the cut.
Q Why not?
A Because the methodology is flawed, is the consensus among
research economists. They're not -- they wouldn't be able to
get through the cut to make peer-reviewed journals because of
these methodological problems, which are well recognized. I
mean there are papers about the methodological problems in
regional input/output models.
The person describing the RIMS results is called an economist, an issue discussed by commenters on the Seattle Post Intelligencer blog. Reading the comments on the blog is interesting and both heartening and disheartening.

Comment #140770:
Was that "huh" sarcastic? Because he most definitely does not have a PhD in economics nor hold the title of economist. Typically, trial experts have advanced degrees in the field they claim to be an expert in. (italics in original identifying the comment of another person)

Show me where you have to have a PhD in economics to be considered an economist? From Wikipedia:

"While a lawyer, for example, may be generally defined as a person possessing a law degree and state license to practice law, there is not a legally-required educational requirement or license for economists. In some job settings, the possession of a Bachelor's or Master's degree in economics is considered the minimum credential for being an economist."

"A professional working inside of one of many fields of economics or having an academic degree in this subject is widely considered to be an economist, and any person within any of these fields can claim to be one[citation needed].
With this response in comment #140841:
Well I guess that makes me an economist too, since I have a bachelor's degree in economics, master's in business, and work in an applied economics field (real estate). In fact my training was specifically in urban economics and feasibility. I don't know anything about this guy's study except what I read of his testimony in the blog, but I did read portions of Beyers' study. One fatal flaw that both make is "crediting" half of the players' salaries as flowing back through the local economy. Beyers defended this assumption on the basis that half of the players have a permanent residence in the area. Even so, I sincerely doubt that more than a much smaller fraction gets spent here. Whether Gary Payton had a residence here or not, where is his $85 million? It's mostly with him, where it will provide for his retirement and family. Shawn Kemp's millions are in Peru (OK, cheap shot). The point is, the millions of dollars spent on player salaries doesn't "spend" the same way normal salaries do.

If Hatamiya said that dollars not spent on Sonics would disappear or be saved in a tin can in the backyard, he has an eccentric view that's not supported by any other professional economist I know of. The standard theory is that they will be spent on other leisure time activities.

No academic economist has ever, to my knowledge, shown any significant increase in regional wealth from pro sports. There's an army of these guys who can produce reports on demand showing robust economic benefits from a sports team, or a WalMart, or whatever "investment" some powerful business or political group wants to make. People can buy the study they want.
Concluding it all, what do we get? 1) Tangible benefits from a franchise are likely to be small or non-existent, possibly even negative. 2) The effects are dispersed over a wide area so changes with regard to sports franchises are likely to provide benefits to some areas in a region while imposing costs on other areas in that region. 3) Intangible benefits are difficult to measure, and there is little consensus on their size. 4) Regional input output models are generally not good tools for determining the net effects of changes in the sports environment.

From the testimony of Brad and Andy, the consensus among economists on those issues seems quite clear despite the assertions of the lawyers, bloggers, and others to the contrary.

Labels: ,

Is congress ready to regulate racing? 

I've followed the decline of horse racing for years, and it is clear to me that a poor system of governance is part of the problem. The sport has a dim future and competing factions with sharply opposed short term interests. This limits the potential for self-generated governance. But it is not clear what the solution is. A national regulatory authority was proposed at yesterday's Congressional hearing on horse racing. But patchwork state regulation has also been an enormous burden on the industry, literally choking the life out of it and short circuiting the potential for adaptation and change.

This is a tough problem. But it's one with plenty of talking points, so I expect yesterday's hearing won't be the last.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

How much is Tiger's knee worth? 

Unless you are a competitor, Tiger Woods' impending season-ending knee surgery is a major blow to the sport of golf. Reader Shane Lorimer asks: "In your estimation, what is the economic impact that the PGA and all other invested parties will suffer in regards to Tiger Woods being out for the rest of the season?"

Here's my wild guess: Tiger represents a significant chunk of TV ratings, that is for sure. But most of those contracts are already set. Late sales of ads by networks carrying the Open Championship, PGA, the Tour Championship, & Ryder Cup will require price adjustment. Losses to advertisers that have "overpaid" must also be included.

Tiger earns an estimated $100m a year from endorsements. If what he generates for television itself is about equal to that, then missing 1/2 the season would result in a $50m loss to TV & "non-Tiger" advertisers who benefit from his presence on the course (and our eyes on the tube). The consumer surplus of fans who attend the tournaments will fall appreciably too. That value is also quite large & relevant. So $50m in economic impact might not be enough.

Tiger's knee could thus be worth a couple hundred million bucks in present value. Doc had better do a good job!

Update: CNBC's Darren Rovell asks a sports marketing pro the question. The answer focuses on the loss of exposure while out on the course. Nike loses "$65 to $75 million." Add a few million more from Buick & Gatorade. I wonder how those contracts read?

Labels: , ,

Sonics trial blog 

Seattle PI reporter Gary Washburn is covering the Sonics trial with a blog. It was there that I first noticed that Andy Zimbalist was serving as an expert for the city of Seattle. Various reports have him receiving a "rough welcome" or being "crossed up" by the Sonics' attorney. From the sound of it, this might have made good theater. But all the hubbub stemmed from Zimbalist's use of boilerplate in this report and another one he had written for the L.A. Angels.

Curiously, the most informative description of the testimony comes in a comment (#139847) on Washburn's blog. This refers to testimony on the intangible value (apart from direct and indirect economic impact) that a popular sports team can have on a town.
3:09 p.m. - After going through his background a little more, questioning begins about the intangible benefits of a pro sports teams, which Zimbalist says includes cultural enrichment, a sense of community, bridging economic gaps (he uses an example of a taxi driver, a doctor, a lawyer can all be in an elevator and have...

3:15 p.m. - Zimbalist goes through three types of intangibles: 1. Consumer surplus - when a person buys a product for less than they're willing to pay. He uses the example of getting a Sonics ticket for $30 when you'd be willing to pay $50. 2. Externality -- Someone goes to a game but you don't, but the person that went tells you what happened. 3. Public good - Zimbalist says a sports team is something everyone can share in and it's not exclusive to anyone.
I have no idea where the commenter gets this, and a google search links back only to Washburn's blog. But it might as well have come from one of Zimbalist's books -- that is the sense in which boilerplate can have its place in these settings.

Up next: Brad Humphreys.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Economic impact of Euro 2008 

Hosting Euro 2008 is holding down crowds at the venerable Vienna Opera, "the oldest theatrical institution with an unbroken record of performing in the German-speaking world."
At Monday's performance of Verdi's "La forza del destino" (The Force of Destiny), only 71 percent of seats were filled, a near-disastrous showing for a house that regularly sells up to 99 percent of its seats on most evenings.

Indeed, the opera house said it had even decided to cancel a ballet performance (La Bayadere) scheduled for June 29, the day of the Euro 2008 final in Vienna.


...In the run-up to the Euro 2008 soccer championships being held in Switzerland and Austria, the State Opera had predicted that performances were unlikely to be affected, since opera-goers were not interested in football.
Lesson learned? Substitution of economic activity takes place on many margins.

To be sure, the city is teeming with soccer fans, so many that one hotel declared itself to be "Euro free," with signs in the lobby requesting that visitors not talk about the soccer championship.

Hat tip: Frank Stephenson at Division of Labor, who has commentary.

Labels: , ,

Dominating the Country Club 

Competitive balance in sports is among the most commonly discussed topics among sports economists. Three of the four most cited articles at the Journal of Sports Economics, for example, directly address the topic while the fourth is also related. The discussion, however, seems to have focused primarily on team sports rather than indiviudal sports.

In his ESPN Magazine article this month, Bill Simmons essentially suggests that nowadays golf is great because Tiger dominates while tennis is awful because Federer dominates. I'm not sure whether the data actually backs up his claims (although the "Tiger" effect certainly seems to be real), but his column poses several excellent unanswered questions for sports economists: how does competitive balance affect demand for individual sports, does competitive balance affect different individual sports in different ways and if so, why is this the case, and does competitive balance affect teams sports differently than individual sports?

Let the debate and, more importantly, the research begin.

Seattle vs. the Sonics 

The lawsuit brought by the city of Seattle against the Sonics began yesterday. The city is seeking to force the Sonics to play at KeyArena through the remaining two years of the contract. The Sonics want to merely pay the required rent, and get out of town to new and better digs. Three main issues in the case are (1) the ability of the city to demand "specific performance" rather than the monetary payment alone; (2) whether through KeyArena the city would provide an economically viable venue during the next two years, as required by the contract; and (3) whether both parties acted in good faith when negotiating over a new Seattle-based home for the Sonics, a negotiation that was ultimately abandoned when the Sonics decided to move to Oklahoma City.

Coverage from the Seattle Times on yesterday's hearing is here, and there is good commentary on the issues at the Sports Law Blog. The weakest part of Seattle's case rests on the economic impact of the Sonics leaving town. I expect our man Humphreys to carry the day on that point. But intangible values loom large, and I give the city a decent shot on points two and three above, as a means of keeping the Sonics around (in a contractual sense, at least) for another two years. What ultimately happens if the city wins the case is anyone's guess. Maybe they'll get a nice pot of money in a settlement and bribe the Kings to come to the Emerald (nee Queen) City ;) There are no angels in The Stadium Game.

Labels: , ,

Friday, June 13, 2008

Tiger, Jack, & "The Field" 

With the U.S. Open going on, I've got golf on my mind, so here's another golf-related post. A Google search quickly reveals how much buzz the question of who is better, Jack or Tiger, generates. One issue that emerges is the level of competition. An article in Slate.com, Tiger v. Nobody, echoes the views of Nicklaus himself as quoted in this LA Times story:
"The problem is it's hard to compare eras," Nicklaus said. "It's a different game today, and a lot of guys from before, like even Hogan and Player, would have had a hard time today because of the distance you need to drive it. That's just a fact of what the game is. "I don't know if we had as many good players, but the great players we had all were multiple major winners, so when I slipped up, there was somebody else on their 'A' game. "There are great players now, but they might not have won a lot of majors, except for Tiger. Phil [Mickelson] could be close. Ernie [Els] approached it, Vijay [Singh] approached it. But that's about it. And that's a fact of life today."
Jack seems right on both counts. The idea that fields are deeper with more good players is hard to criticize. Population growth along with rising incomes offer easy explanation. From Jack's entry into playing majors (1960 as an amateur) through his 1986 Masters title, a collection of legends-but-below-Jack won 35 majors between them (Ballestoros -4, Floyd-4, Palmer-5, Player-8, Trevino-6, Watson-8). Moreover, in Jack's 19 second place finishes in Majors, this group of players accounts for 11 "head-to-head" victories over Jack. (It's not just who you beat, but who beats you).

My interest in this is not centered on "who is the best" but why the drop off in legends below the level of Jack and Tiger? (See Tom Watson, Where Are You? ). Where are the Watsons and Trevinos -- guys who aren't as good as Jack or Tiger over the long haul but are good enough to beat them on multiple times even when they are "on their game." If overall field quality provides the answer, why doesn't this influence Tiger as well? I have offered rising income and reduced effort as an explanation. Here is an alternative explanation based on the increasing depth of the field coupled with a learning effect.
  • Suppose that winning a major not only signals your ability as a player but enhances your ability to do it again (or maybe it takes a couple of times). You learn to deal with the pressures, courses, ... The increasing depth of the field reduces the likelihood of breaking through to that second or third major victory, thereby reducing the "learning effect" and the likelihood of reaching the 6th or 7th major. Tiger's is good enough relative to "the field" for his performance record not to be affected.
U.S. Open Side Note: The Golf Channel's Frank Nobilo made a great statement last night, "there are no favorites in U.S. Opens." No doubt, Tiger and Phil bring in viewers and readers, but unlike the other majors, I would just as soon take the field versus not only Tiger but Tiger and Phil if wagering on the U.S. Open. They have 31 U.S. Open starts over 18 years (including as amateurs) between them with only 2 victories.

Labels: , ,

Tiger in the House 

In a recent paper, Jennifer Brown of Cal-Berkeley finds that when Tiger is player, the average score in tournaments increases by almost a stroke (0.8) for the field and slightly (0.2) for even the higher-skill golfers. See "Quitters Never Win: The (Adverse) Incentive Effects of Competing with Superstars."

The result, especially for the field as a whole, lines up with Sherwin Rosen's tournament theory work. It is demotivating to be forced into competition with someone out of your league. My main criticism of Brown's paper is that, like many studies on golf, course difficulty is not taken into account as well as it might be. When the variable of interest is score, using finer-tuned estimates of course difficulty matters a lot. Given the existence of slope ratings and course ratings, improving the estimates in this regard would not be all that difficult

Labels: ,

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Defining Game "Fixing" 

ESPN's Marc Stein offers a stinging critique of the NBA in his NBA Has No Quick Fix for Donaghy Charges. Stein doesn't really buy the outright fixing allegations, noting that David Stern's company critic, Mark Cuban can't even go along:
"There's no way on God's green Earth that David Stern has ever done anything to influence the outcome of a game."
Nonetheless, Stein points out how the NBA's practices have led to a reality-perception problem:

The nightmarish reality that hangs over what was supposed to be Stern's dream Finals is that public confidence in NBA officiating is maybe even lower now than it was when Donaghy's betting on games and association with known gamblers were first revealed last summer. With no clear-cut way to raise it.After the Lakers lost Game 2 of these Finals in Boston, shooting only 10 free throws to the Celtics' 38? After the Lakers took a must-win Game 3 at home to slice the series deficit to 2-1 and save their season, shooting 20 of the evening's first 24 free throws and with Kobe Bryant going to the line 18 times?

He later adds:

This is the only sports league in America in which it's a routine reaction by folks on the inside as well as the outside to respond to bitter defeat with charges of biased refereeing or outright game-rigging. It's a massive problem magnified by the fact that no one I've encountered in 15 years of covering the league is overflowing with suggestions for how to stop such perceptions from mushrooming any further, let alone for how to put a halt to them.

Like Stein, my inclinations are not to buy the allegations that charge (or very nearly charge) outright game fixing. Yet, manipulating outcomes is more complex than a stark black and white, fix-no fix. The NBA's public perception stems from their practice of leaning too much toward the manipulation end. See my post from April 2007. As I noted there, The Jordan Rules, published way back in 1993 drew attention to the practice of picking refs in playoff series on a game-by-game basis. The author and players in the book didn't see this as "picking the winner" but as raising the likelihood of extending the series by selecting refs whose tendencies worked in one or the other team's favor. That kind of charge is certainly backed up by Donaghy's allegations as well as Stein's criticisms. While not as damning as the strongest "fixing" charge, they do point toward a long term denial of the underlying problem by the NBA.

Labels:

Monday, June 09, 2008

Keeping the ball, & the horse in play 

Henry Waxman is a master at milking sports for publicity:
“It’s clear that some of the information Major League Baseball and the players union gave the committee in 2005 was inaccurate,” Waxman said in a written statement. “It isn’t clear whether this was intentional or just reflects confusion over the testing program for 2003 and 2004. In any case, the misinformation is unacceptable.”

Manfred, speaking for the commissioner’s office, said that he and Selig had testified truthfully.

“The testimony of Major League Baseball officials was completely accurate, and we are happy to address any concerns that Congressman Waxman may have,” Manfred said.

Michael Weiner, the union’s general counsel, said in reference to Fehr: “Don’s statements at the March 2005 hearing were accurate. If Congressman Waxman has any questions, we would be happy to respond.”
Vis a vis the horse, various commentators have stated that Big Brown's loss in the Belmont might be the last time we see him on the racetrack. NY Times columnist Joe Drape uses a bit of economic logic to suggest otherwise:
Before the Preakness, Three Chimneys Farm in Midway, Ky., purchased a percentage of Big Brown’s stallion rights in a deal valued at $60 million.

If he had become the first to sweep the series since Affirmed in 1978, Big Brown would have been expected to stand for at least $200,000 a mating and, as the only living Triple Crown champion, would have been worth up to $120 million.

Instead, I.E.A.H. and Big Brown’s other co-owners are going to be hard pressed to restore the colt’s stallion market to perhaps half of that $60 million level. Big Brown does not have a particularly fashionable pedigree: his sire, Boundary, stood for $10,000 for 11 seasons before being pensioned, and he produced a modest 16 stakes winners, mostly sprinters.

Big Brown is pointed to run in the Travers at Saratoga in August, and the Breeders’ Cup Classic in October at Santa Anita, where he is likely to meet Curlin, the reigning horse of the year.

“It puts a little more pressure on us to win those races,” Iavarone said. “I know a lot of people say we haven’t beaten anyone, and we needed to take on older horses.”

So for now, Big Brown’s future is pretty straightforward.
If he can stay healthy, he will run again. As for the poor performance Saturday, it might be the case of a bunch of little things all adding up to a dull performance. The best explanation I've seen so far comes from veterinarian Sid Gustafson in his post at The Rail.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 05, 2008

The Title IX Grim Reaper 

A follow-up to Phil Miller's May 13 post, Arizona State Eliminates Three Sports. When I saw this, I wondered what lay behind the decision. Past investigation and observation suggested three possible explanations:

1) The university decision makers are in a budget pinch. They overestimate the savings from dropping a sport by using budgetary "costs" that include fixed (often sunk) costs that won't change if the sport is dropped.

2) The decision makers understand #1 but are using this strategically to make athletics appear as if it is "sharing the pain" of budget cuts more than it is. This might come about at the top administrative level or because of transfer prices to the athletic departments are set in a way which creates the incentive to reflect budget "costs" rather than actual costs savings.

3) Title IX goals are creating the incentive to cut men's sports.

I have seen #1 in action at my institution many years ago, and possibly #2 in action just recently in the dropping of men's soccer (although it maybe #3). I was not inclined to suspect #3 in the Arizona State because much of the Title IX reshuffling at schools like ASU already took place in the 1990s. A column, however, in the Arizona Republic (Title IX Headlock -- pointer from Saving Sports blog) pulls no punches:
Yes, the decision to eliminate men's wrestling, swimming and tennis is a reflection of the state's free-falling revenues. Facing a $3.4 million deficit, eliminating the three programs will save ASU $350,000. Budget cuts, of course, are necessary for all enterprises that must meet a bottom line, and the programs headed by Lisa Love, the ASU athletic director, are no different. But the choices that left ASU with eight men's programs and 12 for women were forced on the university as much by federal requirements regarding proportional resource allocation for men and women - Title IX, in other words - as by the need to cut spending. Given the extraordinary impact - both good and bad, by the way - that Title IX has had on college sports, it is irresponsible to pretend that elephant isn't there.
As part of the story, it does come out that ASU is engaging in some of #2. By the schools statement in Phil's post, they would save $1.1 million. By the Republic's figuring, this is more like $350,000, which lines up with studies of athletic accounting that I have done. For goodness sakes, the school is not filling in the pool or building a new structure on the tennis courts. The wrestling mats and facility -- well, they will be continue to rented to a local group.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

$27,028: no sign of recession here! 

If you've got a few stacks of bills lying around and an appetite for the NBA Finals, this story in the LA Times reports that twenty seven grand will get you a ticket to game five at the Staples Center. It's apparently right behind the Lakers' bench, but still....

Other interesting stats: NBA merchandise sales are up 80% since the playoffs began, TV ratings are up 20-40%, and website visits to NBA.com are 1.2 billion this season, a 60% increase from last year.

I have the Lakers winning in six.

Labels: ,

The NHL: Totals, Averages, and Marginals 

From an article in the Trono Star,
A secret NHL report detailing the ticket revenues of its 30 teams reveals [that]... The six Canadian teams account for 31 per cent of the $1.1 billion (U.S.) in league ticket revenue, and have gone through league-leading double-digit increases over last season, according to the internal NHL report.

Overall, the league has seen its ticket revenue rise almost 10 per cent, but 11 of the 24 U.S.-based clubs were either revenue-flat or lost ticket income.
Twenty percent of the teams account for 31% of the ticket revenue, which doesn't seem all that surprising to me — some markets are more lucrative than others.

Nevertheless, some people are using these data to argue that there should be more Canadian teams in the NHL. From the same source,
"This really makes the case for another team in Canada, whether it's Hamilton, Winnipeg or Quebec City," says former Vancouver Canucks owner Arthur Griffiths.

"I think Hamilton has the best facility, but obviously faces challenges in what it would have to pay Toronto and Buffalo. Winnipeg is a good possibility, but the market there has shown a resistance to paying top dollar for tickets, and you wouldn't want to add a team that was going to be in the middle-of-the-pack for revenue, while Quebec City needs a huge infusion of investment for a new facility."...

NHLPA executive director Paul Kelly has reviewed the document and said it highlights the importance of placing more franchises in Canada, instead of potential expansion cities such as Las Vegas, Houston or Kansas City.

"I think it would be a huge error not to relocate one of the existing franchises to Hamilton or Winnipeg," Kelly said.
It might very well be the case that an NHL franchise in Hamilton, Winnipeg, or Quebec City or even Halifax would do better, in terms of ticket sales, than, say, the Phoenix Coyotes, who lost something like $30m last season. But the appropriate comparison is franchise-to-potential-franchise, and the fact that, on average, Canadian franchises brought in more ticket revenue than US franchises is entirely irrelevant.

Remember how, just a few years ago, many sports writers and others were decrying the state of hockey in Canada and worrying that perhaps only three or four franchises could survive in Canada? Remember how NHL teams left Winnipeg and Quebec City, not just because they received better offers from other cities but also because of the comparatively low fan turn-out in those cities? In fact the Canadian average revenue is so high for two big reasons:
  1. The largest revenue generator in the league is the Toronto Maple Leafs [despite their relatively poor performances of late] with Montreal a close second. Still from the same source,
    Atop the list of income winners is the Maple Leafs, who nudged out the Montreal Canadiens to lead the league this past season with $1.9 million worth of ticket revenue per game. Based on 41 home games, that's $77.9 million a year – not counting revenue from pre-season games. A year ago, the Leafs generated $1.5 million a game, according the report obtained by the Star from several league sources.

  2. And keep in mind that these figures are all in terms of US dollars. The appreciation of the Canuck Buck during the past few years has played a major role in the rise in Canadian ticket-sale revenues. Even with no increase in Canadian dollar revenues, the Canadian teams would, cet. par., be reporting 20 - 30% more revenues in US dollars.
    The increase in the value of the Canadian dollar may be responsible for as much as half of the league's revenue gains since the NHL went through the lockout of 2004-05, say several sources familiar with NHL finances.

    "If you take out the Canadian teams, which have done so well since the lockout largely because of the Canadian dollar, the league's revenues are actually only growing at a 2 per cent clip per year," says an executive with a U.S.-based NHL team, who requested anonymity.
Given these points, and given the potentially weak markets in possible 7th hockey cities in Canada, it is difficult to see how the fact that Canadian teams earn 31% of the NHL ticket revenue would support having another NHL franchise in Canada.

I, personally, would be thrilled to see a franchise in Hamilton or in Kitchener-Waterloo. And it might well be the case that even considering the losses that would inevitably be suffered by the Toronto Maple Leafs (and quite likely the Buffalo Sabres) if a team were to locate in one of these cities, a franchise in Hamilton or in K-W would do better than the franchises currently located in, say, Phoenix or Atlanta or Columbus or....

But if so, that has nothing to do with comparisons of average revenue per game in Canada vs. the US.

Cross-posted at EclectEcon

Labels:

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Fantasies & Externalities 

The Supreme Court refused to take up MLB's and MLBPA's challenge to the use of players' names on a fantasy site. Here is the AP Summary via Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The District and 8th Circuit Court had found in favor of the fantasy provider based on first amendment rights. The 8th circuit offered a split decision (Opinion Link). The decision turned on the balancing of first amendment rights against copyright law. The majority wrote:
the information used in CBC's fantasy baseball games is all readily
available in the public domain, and it would be strange law that a person would not have a first amendment right to use information that is available to everyone.
These kinds of intellectual property rights questions raise difficult tradeoffs. Regardless of the legal tradeoffs and decisions, the case draws attention to the uncompensated benefit generated by sports teams and leagues and their attempts to recoup some of this value. The actual revenues of fantasy sports (put at $1.5 billion in the article) is the value that MLB (and other sports producers) could seek as a basis for compensation in court. That amount, however, vastly understates the total value to fantasy sports consumers of the data generated by sports leagues for their use. The value of the time spent by fantasy players in thinking about their teams swamps the value of the money spent.

I want to be clear here -- after all, I'm not suicidal. I'm not saying that these large uncompensated values (positive externalities) justify all sorts of stadium subsidies. I am saying that sports economists and sports analysts do need to consider just how large these values are. Sports is relatively unique in the ratio of the amount of total revenue generated relative to the amount of time spent thinking, talking, reading about it with the latter being much greater than the former than in a typical market, say, breakfast cereal. The interest in a blog like this is evidence in itself.

Monday, June 02, 2008

Racing's handicap 

Big Brown has racing afficionados buzzing from coast to coast. But economic factors surrounding this exceptional racehorse, and the sport in general, mean that the ride will be over almost before it gets started. I make one modest proposal for reform in this piece, at The American.


Image by The Bergman Group/Darren Wamboldt.

Labels:

A new ballpark for the Rays? 

The newly competitive Rays of Major League Baseball are attempting to move from Tropicana Field - an outdated facility, to put it mildly - to the waterfront on Tampa Bay. The distance is only twelve blocks, but getting there will take some time and effort, and perhaps a little luck. As always seems to be the case, stadium deals and franchise re-location, even over a short distance (see Brooklyn in the 1950s), are complicated and nettlesome.

Tom Nickens of the St. Petersburg Times looks back on the city's initial approach to wooing a team to the area:
On a hot afternoon in July 1986, the St. Petersburg City Council placed a big bet that would be unimaginable today.

"It was billed as a once-in-a-lifetime chance," I wrote as a young City Hall reporter for the front page of the next day's St. Petersburg Times. "Thursday, St. Petersburg's City Council took it. The council voted 6-3 to build a domed stadium downtown that is promoted as the cornerstone of a new beginning for the city."

Downtown St. Petersburg became a more vibrant place over the years, and it eventually got a baseball franchise after the dome marked time hosting its share of flea markets, monster truck rallies and rock concerts. Now the city finds itself in the midst of another stadium debate. The Tampa Bay Rays are making a pitch for an iconic downtown waterfront stadium that would open the door for redevelopment on the Tropicana Field site that city leaders a generation ago would have instantly embraced.

...Fast-forward 22 years.

The Rays are in their 11th season, hold a long-term lease and own one of the best records in baseball after years of having one of the worst. The relatively new team owners have spent millions to refurbish the Trop, and they have followed through on promises to invest in the franchise. They are not publicly threatening to leave, but they want a new $450-million stadium to boost attendance that ranks at the bottom of the major leagues. They promise to invest $150-million and are seeking no tax increases or new public money to pay for it, only the extension of about $11-million a year in city tax dollars and county resort taxes being spent on the dome now. It would be a public-private partnership, and St. Petersburg would get an enormous redevelopment project as well.
Nickens seems to buy the redevelopment myth. This seems odd given the fact that the Trop as a development stimulus must surely be considered a failure. Many cities have made advances in the past quarter century without ballparks surrounded by empty lots, as the picture accompanying Nickens' story depicts:


But now the Rays are showing the effects of new (and clever) ownership on the field of play - first place, in June !! - and their stadium proposal must be considered state of the art in every dimension, including the magnitude of the requested subsidy. An important vote will be held this week at the City Council, to initiate the process which would put a stadium referendum on the ballot in November.

Coverage of the issue in the St. Petersburg Times has been excellent, and balanced, the best I've seen. Their recent poll indicates that the public are not yet on board with the plan (but see this interpretation from a thoughtful stadium supporter). Last month the paper asked Matheson, de Mause, Rosentraub, and Zimbalist for detailed commentary (rather than a selective quote or two) on the stadium financing plan. Reporter Aaron Sharockman has been put on the stadium beat full time. His blog Ballpark Frankness has links and commentary on the numerous stories on the issue over the last six weeks.

The team's new digs would certainly be in a nice spot, the site of Al Lang Stadium, where spring training has been held since 1916.

The new home plate would be where right field of the old ballpark currently resides.

Labels: ,

Sunday, June 01, 2008

US & EU labor rules drifting further apart 

Millions of pounds change hands when promising teenagers move from feeder clubs to the giants of European football. Cristiano Ronaldo (£12m at age 18, to Man Utd) and Theo Walcott (£12m at age 16, to Arsenal) are prime examples. In the U.S., young players enter the league through the draft. In the NFL draft, the monetary terms are limited by the league's collective bargaining agreement, keeping a lid on signing bonuses and compensation. In MLB, where the players union has been stronger historically, there are no limits. At least not yet.

As the WSJ reports, in last year's draft, the Detroit Tigers took a risk that the 26 teams choosing before them would not: they paid the $10 million asking price for the most talented pitcher in the draft, Ryan Porcello. Porcello is thriving, which may be a bad thing for the players who follow him in the coming years. All the teams who had a chance to choose before the Tigers wish that the price was lower. MLB will now seek "fundamental change to the compensation system for drafted players -- a scale that limits how much drafted players can make depending on where they are picked." This possibility, of course, exists in North America due to the single entity, closed league system of MLB and the NFL. A compensation scale, let alone a draft, could not get off the ground in European football without agreement between the Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, and the Bundesliga, not to mention the lawyers in Brussels. Ain't gonna happen.

Under pressure from Brussels, the strength of European player contracts has been significantly weakened in the past year. The philosophy behind the change is the EU's intent to treat sportsmen like other workers, which in a practical sense means increasing the freedom of players to choose their employer. The first player to "walk out on contract" has now done so, with the court defining the damages of the breach to be the wages previously agreed between the player and the club. Hence, the "Webster rule:" sign for a new club at higher wages, and use a portion of those wages to pay off the club you are leaving. This rule would never fly on the west side of the Atlantic, since in the closed league system, MLB forces the Yankees to honor contracts held by the Red Sox. Arsenal's Arsene Wenger (trained as an economist) worries that the logic of the Webster ruling will lead to further unraveling of the durability of player contracts, and it is hard to disagree. The implications of Webster on the structure of contracts is worth significant attention.

The economist Edward Gramlich observed many years ago that in contrast to their economic systems, the system of sport in Europe was much more decentralized and capitalist than the monopolized democracies within the closed systems of the US. The gap seems to be increasing.

Labels: ,