Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Sports Economics Test Question 

Suppose that next season, Derrek will be worth $5,000,000 to the Mets and will be worth $3,000,000 to the Cubs. Suppose that negotiations between any of the parties is costless and that both teams maximize profits. Suppose that Derrek just finished playing under contract for the Cubs. Discuss the difference between negotiations under the following labor market structures: free agency and the reserve clause. Based on Rottenberg's Invariance Hypothesis, which of the two labor market structures results in the efficient outcome? Based on this hypothesis, which of the two structures would result in Derrek playing for the Mets? Describe the distribution of income under the two labor market structures.

Labels: , ,

"Spreading" the Wealth 

A number of articles have appeared about the "spread" offense over the past couple of years. One of the best I've seen showed up on a San Diego Times-Union site with the title: "Football's Big Equalizer: Gotta "Spread" the Wealth."
“It's all about matchups,” said Arizona State coach Dennis Erickson, whose history with the spread goes back to the 1970s. “You can get some little guys who are really quick and not heavily recruited and get them on linebackers and score points. It's almost like basketball: getting certain people on certain people.
Sometimes, innovations (or re-inventions) like this merely increase the variance of outcomes without changing the average. Nonetheless, because Wins/Losses determine performance and not average score, stretching out the outcomes can bring more wins to a team with lower average scores their opponents. In other cases, an innovation increases variance but also, for a time, increases the average outcome for the innovator. Paul Westhead's frenetic 3-point barrage at Loyola Marymount serves as an example. However, opponents quickly adjust and the mean-changing element wears off.

The spread in college football appears to be changing averages and not just variance. It reshapes player advantages/disadvantages essentially by using more of the field, such that a good QB and quick receivers/backs can put up a lot of points with fairly marginal linemen. Although in use in some ways since the 1970s, teams like Northwestern and Purdue radically changed their performance levels using it in the 1990s and drew lots of imitators. They might not stop the other team any better, but they gave themselves a chance to outscore the other team. The 2007 win by Appalachian State against Michigan marked the spread's finest hour. Now, it has shown up everywhere with points at the high school and college levels reflecting the change. Texas HS playoff scores now have basketball-like outcomes, 56-49.

Will defenses catch up? Many, including Mack Brown, think so:

Some theorize that better “cover” cornerbacks will help slow the spread. That's because such cornerbacks can neutralize two of the offense's five possible receivers, enabling more defenders (five or more) to rush the passer.Another theory is that if the spread becomes too prevalent, all the bigger-name programs with better recruits will use it too, rising to the top again and forcing the have-nots to come up with a different equalizer.Asked if defenses will catch up with it, Texas' Brown said, “I'm sure it will. In my 33 years, it always has. But we're not sure how yet.”
A precursor to the "spread," the run-and-shoot lost its mojo fairly quickly. Suffering from a lack of run threat, teams just pounded the QB. In contrast, although the spread puts great importance on QB decisions, variants of it have integrated option and single-wing running principles that keep teams from defending it by merely knocking the QB on his keister. It has succeeded with QB with great mobility and those with less running ability (Chase Daniel at Mizzou, for example).

The success of the system poses real dilemmas for some of the traditional powerhouses. Is it a dominant strategy regardless of depth/breadth of talent? Does it make as much sense at Michigan as at West Virginia? Clearly, particular personnel and coaching decisions matter, but, in general, the balance of mean versus variance matters. An Oklahoma has certainly turned into an offensive juggernaut using it, but lost to arguably less talented teams in scoring shootouts against the likes of Texas Tech last year or Boise State two years back. Does using it, or using it exclusively, play into the hands of these teams? Does it under-utilize the talents of an Adrian Peterson -- someone everyone knew was good but not how good because of the OU spread?

The Free Agent Market 

Has the free agent market seized up?
Since Nov. 14, when teams were permitted to discuss contract terms with free agents, only 2 of the 171 players who filed for free agency have signed: Jeremy Affeldt, who went to San Francisco, and Ryan Dempster, whose decision to re-sign with the Chicago Cubs hardly came as a surprise.

...A review of baseball’s transaction history since 2001 showed that the only period featuring fewer signings in the first 12 days of open bidding than this year came in the 2002-3 off-season, when Jesse Orosco was the only free agent who had signed. Each of the last five free-agent off-seasons included at least six signings by this stage, led by the 2006 bonanza when Alfonso Soriano, Juan Pierre, Nomar Garciaparra, Gary Matthews Jr., Aramis Ramírez and Frank Thomas signed before Thanksgiving.

There is a similarly attractive group of free agents available this year — C. C. Sabathia, Mark Teixeira, Manny Ramírez and Francisco Rodríguez, for starters — but teams seem to be proceeding cautiously and dispensing fewer offers than in years past.

Some baseball executives have suggested that many teams, unsure of how long it will take for the economy to rebound, are reluctant to offer expensive multiyear deals.
This will be interesting to follow between now and the new season. Increased uncertainty over market conditions and the market price for talent should delay contract formation as teams and players wait on more information to arrive. But given the rents involved and the value of pre-season training, one would expect the market to settle sometime before then - perhaps much closer to when players report to camp than in normal years. These conditions may induce more trading of players within the season as well.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

NFL Pro Bowl changes 

I just read "How to make the Pro Bowl relevant". My first reaction to the title was "relevant to what?". Apparently there is some discussion within the NFL of moving the Pro Bowl to the week before the Super Bowl, possibly even at the site of the Super Bowl.

Comments on the blog point out that doing so is problematic for players on Super Bowl teams who are Pro Bowlers. That could naturally be a fair number of players. Clearly there are bugs to be worked out or facts to which Peter King was not privy or unwilling to disclose. Nonetheless, the basic issue of relevant to whom or for what remains.

If, as the article suggests, the Pro Bowl is played the weekend before the Super Bowl in the host city of the Super Bowl, the change is surely relevant to sports economists. We will eventually have a new mega-event whose impact on the local economy will need to be assessed. I would place the likelihood of major impacts on the host city at slim to none, but that may just be me being a dismal scientist.

I suspect that Honolulu will find the change relevant as well. I doubt the impact of the Pro Bowl game on the Honolulu economy is all that impressive, but you can be sure Honolulans will lament the loss of the game and blame the mayor, governor, and the decrepit state of the stadium for the loss.

I don't go so far as one commentator on the article who says that all the all star games are irrelevant and should be canceled. Lots of people enjoy home run derbies and slam dunk contests. Many people enjoy watching all star games for the exhibitions that they are. Perhaps a way to make the Pro Bowl relevant is to embrace it as an exhibition. How about running an NFL combine type event for established players so someone can be anointed the NFL's fastest or strongest man each season? Maybe they could have a punt, pass, and kick competition for NFL players in the days before the game.

Honestly, to me, if the revenues, from tickets, broadcasting, and so on, cover the costs, and people derive consumer surplus from the events, that strikes me as all the relevance the Pro Bowl and all the other all star games really need.

ESPN vs. FOX Over BCS TV Rights 

What factors led cable giant ESPN to outbid FOX for the television rights to the post-season BCS games? In a word, they have different revenue streams; two-part pricing if you will. Richard Sandomir investigates:
ESPN cannot ignore the deep recession’s impact on advertising. But its subscriber revenue gives it an extraordinary cushion. ESPN charges cable and satellite operators an average of $3.65 a month per subscriber, the most in television, according to SNL Kagan, a research organization. Multiply that by 98 million subscribers, over 12 months a year, and ESPN’s financial armor adds up to $4.3 billion.

...Despite ESPN’s billions in subscriber fees, Skipper said that each deal must stand on its own. “It isn’t sitting in a pile in a drawer where I can reach in and use it,” he said.
Perhaps this is a sign of the "post-consumer economy." ;) If sports media is weaned off advertising revenue in the long run, would that not be a very good thing for those who enjoy the games?

Labels: ,

Amateur Baseball Players and International "Trade" 

The Japanese called it a gentlemen's agreement. It looks more like collusion to me, and it's good to see the competition for good amateurs from any country.

Many Japanese baseball officials are outraged that United States teams are courting Tazawa, a hard-throwing right-handed pitcher, because they insist it is long-established practice for amateurs like him to be strictly off limits to major league clubs. Even some American general managers, including the YankeesBrian Cashman, agree.

Major League Baseball officials maintain that the letter of their protocol agreement with their Japanese counterparts, Nippon Professional Baseball, does not forbid either league from courting amateur talent from the other’s nation. When one Japanese representative characterized the rule as a gentlemen’s agreement during a meeting in New York, he was angrily rebutted by a Major League Baseball official, according to two attendees.

The Tazawa dispute extends beyond one pitching phenom and an interpretation of honor. The Japanese major leagues have already seen established stars leave for American clubs, and amateurs following Tazawa’s path away from those leagues could further hurt the leagues’ long-term viability.

But sports talent is an increasingly free-flowing market — notably demonstrated this summer when Brandon Jennings, one of the United States’ top high school basketball players, signed to play professionally in Italy for $1.2 million rather than play at a college in the United States.

It also is an illustration of the problem with prisoner's dilemma-styled cartelization: the incentive to compete tears away at the fabric of collusion.

Via Al Roth of Market Design

Cross-posted at Market Power

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Reflections on field research while at the SEA meetings 

I am at the Southern Economic Association meetings in Washington this weekend. JC Bradbury put together five North American Association of Sports Economists sessions for these meetings the first of which was yesterday afternoon. Three more are on tap for today and one more, mine, is 8 am Sunday morning. I expect it to be lonely in my session.

Last night, Bernd Frick and I took the opportunity of being close to a professional sports venue to do some field research. We went to see the Washington Wizards play the Houston Rockets at the Verizon Center.

We bought nearly the cheapest tickets in the house, $48, and sat one row from the top of the building not quite directly behind one of the baskets. While at the ticket window I asked how much to sit behind the bench - $150. And for $300, the sales person indicated I could sit on the bench, and probably be as effective a player as the current Wizards. At the distance we were from the court, it's fortunate there is a big screen TV scoreboard hanging over center court or I may not have been able to tell Yao Ming from Chairman Mao. Before settling into our seats we stopped to get something to eat. A hot dog and a beer cost me $12.50. At half time I bought a bottle of water and a bag of peanuts - 8 bucks. How a family can afford this is beyond my understanding. How the hordes of teenagers that were there can afford this and use it to hang out as if it were a mall food court is even more baffling.

The Wizards started off well, and led by about 10 at the end of the first quarter. In fact, they led almost throughout the game until the final five minutes. Bernd remarked that it seemed the Rockets didn't get serious about the game until there were five minutes to go. I overheard someone say the Rockets outscored the Wizards by 24 points in the fourth quarter.

Attending this game reminded me of the last NBA basketball game I attended, one which pitted the Washington Bullets, playing at the Capital Center, back in about 1985. I left that game with the same feelings with which I left last night's game. How can the game I love most, played by some of the most gifted, athletic players in the world be made into a complete and utter bore? My answer is a laundry list of what some might call the ills of sports as a business. Too big a facility with fans far too distant from the action; timeouts that stretch interminably to allow television advertisements; glitz and distractions of all manner that take attention away from the game and place it on the side show.

I was struck by how the fans seemed most excited and into the experience as they cheered for the animated Dunkin donuts and coffee cup racing on the big screen tv. I am sure if there had been a volume meter in the Verizon Center last night, the crowd noise would have been far louder during that race than at any point during the game.

Bernd and I discussed the Wizards' cheerleaders. At one point they did a routine in which they bumped and grinded while unbuttoning their top and ultimately ripping it off revealing a bikini top that left little to the imagination. Clear family fun at its best. Fortunately we were far enough from the show that we couldn't reach out to put dollars in their shorts, but I am sure that at the best strip clubs in Washington we could not have seen a better act. Bernd commented during that disastrous fourth quarter for the Wizards that it seemed the naked girls went on the floor to cheer a lot more once the team was behind than they had while the team was ahead. I think he is right.

I am glad I went to the game. Bernd and I talked a great deal about sports and sports economics. I am so totally clueless about European sport that talking with Bernd and other sports economists from Europe always gives me better understanding about the sports world and how different it is in the US and elsewhere.

As for basketball games, I will see thirty or so live games over the next few months between high school and college games. The talent is not the same at those games as it was last night at the Verizon Center, but the excitement and the joy of watching the game is enormously greater. I'll probably tune in to a game or two when the NBA finals are on tv sometime in June 2009, but it will probably be another 23 years before I go to my next live NBA game.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Practice practice practice 

Chris Sprow interviews Malcom Gladwell, the author of Outliers: The Story of Success, at ESPN The Magazine. The context of the interview, of course, is sports. Here are some interesting pieces of it:
THE MAG: Based on this book, if I'm an owner, I should be the most patient one in sports, right? After all, the Beatles, as you write, played a ridiculous 1,200 gigs—a lifetime—before they became any good.
GLADWELL: It's interesting. Andy Reid has said that with the offense he runs in Philadelphia, it takes a receiver three years to be comfortable in it. A receiver! I don't think we take this into account. We create offenses of such stunning complexity in the NFL, that it's impossible to truly judge anyone in their rookie season. It's ludicrous. How can you, if you're Detroit, draft all these wide receivers and then give up on anything after a couple years, or call 'em busts, when it's far more about executing a system that takes years to master? You have to give them their work.

Or if the Lions offensive players were calc majors…
Yeah, you can't go into a math class and pronounce who the great students are after two weeks. No one can master calculus in two weeks. So we need to be consistent. If you hire a coach that has offensive schemes as complicated as calculus, then you better have the patience you'd have with those students. Let's stop and acknowledge that football is not a sport for dumb jocks. It's a highly complex cognitive activity.

...

That said, you were a distance runner. That's about pure endurance. Your book says success is often about circumstances. Do these ideas fly in the face of one another?
I was a middle and long-distance runner, and Alberto Salazar said something to me recently—he said, "Why is it that the Kenyans dominate long-distance running the way they do?" There's all kinds of theories on genetics, and endurance, and he says, "Look, they have a million teenage boys running 10-12 miles a day. How many boys here run 12 miles a day?" Maybe 5,000, if that. They have a million, and if you have all those kids doing that kind of mileage, you're not only going to develop all the talent that's there, you're not gonna' miss any great runners. You're exploiting 100% of the running potential.

And we see that elsewhere, like Canadian hockey players…
And you can say the same thing for Dominican infielders. There are certain cultures where we like to think they have some innate advantage, but growing up there, baseball is a really, really big deal, and everyone puts an enormous amount of effort into it, and as a result, they produce a hugely disproportionate number of athletes in that model. There's no mystery here: it's about numbers and it's about work.

Most people think genetic variation across countries accounts for disproportionate success rates in different sports. I've had a hard time convincing students, for example, that if Canadians quit playing hockey we'd see a bunch more players like Steve Nash in the NBA. Pistol Pete - an outlier to be sure - fits Gladwell's story in a number of dimensions. The sense in which Pete Maravich was an outlier had little to do with his physical makeup and loads to do with incessant practicing, combined with the favorable circumstances of his youth. Thinking along Gladwell's lines might be useful in addressing positional discrimination both within and across sports.

Labels: ,

Thursday, November 20, 2008

No Price Discrimination Here 

Despite their non-profit status*, university athletic departments price their tickets using strategies like the pros do. For one thing, they practice price discrimination. Students get cheaper tickets than the general public and alumni and they don't have to donate to the athletic departments. At some schools, students get poorer seats, so price discrimination isn't the only factor explaining the price differential. But at the University of Missouri, students get prime football seating in the east stands, right across from the alumni. So Mizzou's pricing strategy is largely price discriminatory.

But according to this article, the university is not using price discrimination in pricing tickets to the Big XII championship game, meaning student tickets will be priced at the same rate as the general public. An explanation for this is that because of the uniqueness of the event, students and the general public have the same demand, on average, for the game.

*Being non-profit does not mean that you don't have profits as an objective. All it does is restrict what you can do with earned profits, meaning that they can't be dispersed to shareholders. As I was told at a meeting when I jokingly brought up the fact that my university is a non-profit, I was told by an older gentleman at my table "Oh, we get plenty of profits. We just make sure we spend it all."

Cross-posted at Market Power

Labels: , ,

Czech that boondoggle 

The Czech Republic has apparently learned a lot about democracy in a short time. It seems that Czech lower house chairman Miloslav Vlcek may have used his position to get 35 million Czech crowns worth of funding for a soccer stadium in his hometown. See the full article here. At the current exchange rate that is only about 1.7 million dollars. On the other hand, there are only 3000 people in the town where the stadium was built. The facility is the only one in the country with artificial grass, it meets the standards for the top European football league matches, and has heated seats.

I wonder if the seats in Jerry Jones' Cowboys' palace will be heated.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Two tensions in modern American sport 

1) Athletics vs. academics on campus

The allocation of time spent by student-athletes between sport and study is a long running source of tension on America's campuses. This rather lengthy piece at USAToday focuses on a University of Minnesota task force that dealt with the issue. It should be clear that a school has a problem when degree programs are established or designed for the purpose of athletes (using funds meant for general education), although the article doesn't quite get to that point. Support programs which allow student athletes to compete with their peers in the classroom -- but not cheat, which was an issue at Minnesota -- are the right way to enable students to excel both off and on the field. I find the approach of the Minnesota wrestling coach on this point (to paraphrase, athletes can get an MA later if they are interested in a real degree) somewhat annoying.

Update: Via Glenn in the comments, I see that the story linked above is part of a spread at USAToday. The lead story is "Athletes guided toward 'beating the system'." Glenn points to a particularly interesting graphic, "Same team, same major." The graphic itself is a bit kludgy to use, but the data can be seen in Table form by clicking the "View List" button on the right. You can narrow the list by clicking on your favorite school and or sport in the "Show Results By" box. For Clemson Football, the major is "Parks, Recreation, and Tourism." But note that the stats are for teams with 25% or more of the athletes in the same major, and the figure for Clemson Football is 11 out of 33 players. Some sports have most of the team included, but for football the figures are uniformly low for most schools. The highest number of players listed in football is 59 at the Naval Academy, where 20 are majoring in ................. (drum roll) ................. Economics!


2) Retired vs. current NFL players

I missed this when it came out, but in case you haven't seen it, here is a snip from Alan Schwarz' report on a class action lawsuit between retirees and the Players Association:
Ending the three-week trial in United States District Court, the jury on Monday found that the union’s licensing subsidiary, Players Inc., had used the identities of thousands of retired players without compensating them. A key example was the union’s agreement with EA Sports, which generates at least $25 million a year for the use of player identities in the popular Madden video game series.

The majority of sports licensing revenue derives from the use of active players. The Madden game features more than 100 past teams, like the 1966 Green Bay Packers, and players on those teams argued that although their names and pictures had not been included, many of their individual characteristics — talent level, experience, height and so on — were. The players argued that the group licensing agreement they had signed with Players Inc. required that revenue from such deals be shared with them.

Herb Adderley, who played cornerback on the 1966 Packers, was the name plaintiff for the class that filed suit.

“They betrayed us,” Adderley said of the union in a telephone interview. “We put our trust and faith in them, and they betrayed us.”
Here is Schwarz' story in the NY Times, and here is a transcript of the closing arguments. Apparently, the NFLPA took an active role in "anonymizing" the former players in the Madden video game. It's not clear to me why this would be in the interest of EA Sports. If I were to "re-play" the Ice Bowl on Madden NFL, I'd want Herb Adderly, Don Meredith, Bart Starr et al. to be an explicit part of the experience. It is possible that "likenesses" for well known players and explicit anonymity for all was the optimal solution for EA Sports, but that doesn't negate the right to licensing revenue for the people who took part in the original performance.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Bay Area Stadiums 

The proposed stadiums for the A's, Earthquakes, and 49ers were to be financed with proceeds from real estate development. Oops!

Labels:

Monday, November 17, 2008

Weekend Wrapup 

Quite a weekend in sports economics...

Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Vegas

There was an interesting finish in the game between the Chargers and the Steelers. On the last play of the game, Steelers defensive back Troy Polamalu appeared to return a fumble for a touchdown that would have given the Steelers an 18-10 victory. However, the referees later ruled that an illegal forward pass occurred prior to the touchdown, resulting in a final score of 11-10. This was reportedly the first 11-10 final score in NFL history, an odd outcome since 10 is a common score and 11 can be generated a number of ways (3FG+Safety, the outcome in this game, TD+2 Point Conversion+FG, and the unlikely FG+4 safeties). The interesting angle on the game is that the Steelers were a 4 or 4.5 point favorite in the game. If Polamalu's TD counts, the Steelers cover; after the reversal, bets on the Chargers paid off. According to the betting volume data available on Sports Insights, 70% of the straight bets against the spread were on the Steelers, the home favorite, so the reversal put a lot of money into the pockets of Vegas sports books and bookies.

Mark Cuban and the SEC

Dallas Mavericks owner, and wanna be Cubs owner Mark Cuban has been charged with insider trading. According to reports, Cuban owned 6.3% of the shares in search engine Mamma.com in 2004, making him the largest individual stockholder. The SEC claims that Cuban dumped his 600,000 shares prior to a public offering of additional shares that he had inside knowledge of, thus avoiding $750,000 in losses.

In March of this year, Cuban's estimated net worth was $2.3 billion, which begs the question of why he was willing to break the law to avoid a piddly $750k loss. Recall that Martha Stewart did five months in a federal correctional facility for insider trading a few years ago. I wonder if Cuban will also wind up in the slammer?

Labels: , , ,

Active bidding for BCS TV rights 

The story is pitched as "first major sports event goes to cable," but for me the real information is in the size of the bids:
On Monday afternoon, current rights-holder Fox Sports notified the BCS Group that it wouldn't match an offer from ESPN for a rights package that will begin in 2011. Fox Sports is in the middle of a four-year deal for the BCS Championship as well as the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl and Fiesta Bowl.

ESPN had offered $500 million for four years, compared to Fox Sports' $400 million. Even Fox's offer is still up compared to the current rights deal, which pays $330 million.
That's a 51.5% increase folks. Perhaps it's a sign that we'll avoid economic armageddon after all.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Olympic bailouts 

The developers who are Vancouver's partners in the 2010 Winter Games reportedly have ... financial issues. UBC's Professor Somerville sums up the implications nicely, I think: "We’re looking at a very real potential here for some levels of government to pony up more money. The alternative would be the Olympic tent city." The bailout business continues to boom.

Meanwhile, the cost of the 2012 games in London has escalated from £3.4 billion when they were awarded the bid to £10.3 billion at present. Private financing has gone the other direction however, and half of the government's £1 billion contingency fund has already been tapped.

Financial headaches are doubtless behind this statement from Olympic Minister Tessa Jowell last week: "Had we known what we know now, would we have bid for the Olympics? Almost certainly not." Jowell has since "clarified" her statement, going Keynesian and all that. I'm sure the British people are as happy as a hog in a wallow over the obligation to spend lavishly on Olympic infrastructure.

One thing that both the Vancouver and London plans have in common is "legacy development." More specifically, the idea seems to be to avoid building the proverbial white elephants, and instead leave behind assets that have value to private developers. This is an intriguing possibility, but it could be very, very expensive in the end.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

NFLPA, retired players, and NFL owners 

Readers may recall postings on the Sports Economist about relations between retired NFL players and the NFL Players Association. One such posting is Compensation issues in the NFL from July 25, 2006. A new wrinkle has arisen. Retired players sued the NFLPA for failing to market them effectively. On Monday, a jury in San Francisco found for the plaintiffs and awarded 2056 retired players over $7 million in damages and another $21 million in punitive damages. More details on the story are here.

The NFLPA vows to appeal the decision, which it calls "a complete miscarriage of justice".

The interesting part of all this to me is that the NFLPA seems to fight very hard to avoid helping out its retired dues paying members, while at the same time being considered the weakest of the professional sports labor unions in terms of fighting the owners. Bryant Gumbel's remarks about the location of a leash is one case in point. I wonder how much of the differences between the NFLPA and the MLBPA stem from the backgrounds of the Executive Directors. This is particularly relevant now because the NFLPA is searching for a new director, and a background in football is not a requirement. Nonetheless, the main candidates seem to be retired players rather than union organizers/negotiators, as Marvin Miller who made the MLBPA so powerful and militant had been.

Post revised:11/14

I just ran across this providing more insight into the jury decision:

As fines go, nothing the NFL commissioner’s office has imposed can compare with the ruling a San Francisco jury recently slapped on the NFL Players Association for mishandling the licensing of retired NFL players’ images. (Which is a nice way of saying that late NFLPA Executive Director Gene Upshaw asked EA Sports to “scramble” retired players’ images in its ultra-lucrative Madden Football game) The jury ordered the union to pay retired players $7.1 million in compensatory damages and $21 million in punitive damages.

“The day after [former Packers cornerback Herb] Adderley filed the class-action suit in February 2007, Upshaw said that retired players, in general, were not marketable and did not deserve any licensing money,” the New York Times’ Alan Schwarz reports. “‘We could have the greatest dog food in the world,’ he said, ‘but if the dogs don’t like it, we can’t sell it. Put that at the top of the story.’ The lead lawyer for the players, Ronald S. Katz, referred to Upshaw’s dog food remark five times in his closing argument, and later said he believed the remark played a significant role in the jury’s award.”

As the NFLPA prepares to vote on a successor to the late Mr. Upshaw, Schwarz’s fellow Timesman William C. Rhoden sees an opportunity for the NFLPA to change course. “The major challenge for the next executive director is bridging the divide between past and present players,” Rhoden writes. “This bizarre and artificial division became more pronounced about three years ago after Upshaw declared that he answered to and was responsible for only active players. [But] there is no ‘us,’ there is no ‘them’ — just a universe of football players, old and young, who have given broken bones and blood to the growth of a multibillion-dollar industry that undervalues all of them.”


Seems like the NLFPA needs to do some additional scrambling...to clean up this mess among its members.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Trouble in Dallas? 

No, this post is not about PacMan. Looks like the credit market problems are starting to affect stadium construction projects. According to an article in the Sports Business Journal, the Cowboys are trying to borrow $350 million by December 1st to cover -- wait for it -- cost overruns in construction of their new stadium. The loan includes refinancing of a $126 million loan obtained last year plus money for those pesky cost overruns. The original cost estimate in 2004 was $650 million, to be financed with $76 million from the NFL, $350 million in public support, and the rest from the 'Boys. The cost overruns kicked in, and the Cowboys made the unfortunate choice of borrowing in the auction rate securities (ARS) market which melted down last February. That hiccup resulted in automatic interest rate increases that, in turn, led to the 'Boys recent attempt to raise new capital.

It's unclear if the Cowboys will be able to raise that kind of dough in the current credit market conditions. I wonder if they qualify for some of the Federal bailout money? Stay tuned.

Labels: ,

Friday, November 07, 2008

Moneyball: Normal v. Abnormal 

What are the limits of a "Moneyball" -- expected value of a particular position -- approach to personell decisions? A Sports Illustrated piece on Albert Haynesworth (A Titanic Force) made me think about this issue. A lot can be said for the idea. Even before Moneyball became a common term and Scott Pioli used it to build the Patriots, guys like former Titan GM, Floyd Reese, used an implicit version. He thought the supply of defensive tackes, for example, high relative to their team value so that paying more than, say, $2 million for one didn't make sense.

One difficulty -- a player whose skills are extreme. Now, it's not enough to know the average contribution of a player at a given position, but a GM needs information on the abnormal or "upper tail" of values. The complication -- the upper values differ by position in ways not necessarily reflected by averages. The relative supply and contributions of a cornerback may make him more valuable, on average, than a defensive tackle, but the once-a-decade DT with skills like Haynesworth creates havoc right in the middle of an offense on every play that even the most skilled cornerback cannot replicate. The Titans defensive coordintor, Jim Schwartz (btw, a user of statistical regression analysis) puts it this way:
In fact, the more times Haynesworth can collapse a pocket or disrupt a running play with his size, strength and speed, the better the Titans will be. "We try to funnel stuff back to him, to keep him alive on every single play," Schwartz says. "Albert's not a one-trick pony. He's not the guy who can't rush—the guy an offensive lineman can't move off the line of scrimmage, but he can't move off the line of scrimmage himself. Albert is a big man who can do a lot, and those guys are extremely valuable."
Ironically, Schwartz doesn't really seem to get the mean versus tails aspect of analyzing someone like Haynesworth:
Schwartz says he chuckles every spring when the media's mock draft boards are heavy on wide receivers and light on defensive linemen. "It should be the other way around," he says. "General managers, head coaches, position coaches, coordinators—we all know how important those guys are and how hard they are to find."
Typically, the media and guys like Floyd Reese are right -- DT of typical skill levels are not all that worthy of big expenditures, but that's not true of a Haynesworth. In the 1990s, the same could be said of Warren Sapp or of Joe Green in the 1970s and Bob Lilly in the 1960s.

Thursday, November 06, 2008

Hockey in the Great Depression 

Given all of the talk that sports are acyclical -- and indeed some pieces of evidence -- I found the following set of facts very interesting.
There's no question the NHL is now riding high, bolstered by increased co-operation among players and owners, which was cemented in the text of the CBA.

Revenues, profits, attendance and franchise values are all at record highs, says writer Kurt Badenhausen of Forbes business magazine, which issued its annual report on the NHL's economics last week.

The average value of an NHL team rose 10 per cent to $220 million US this year.

According to Forbes, the Toronto Maple Leafs are the league's most valuable franchise, worth $448 million US. The Montreal Canadiens are worth $334 million, while the Vancouver Canucks are at $236 million; the Ottawa Senators are at $207 million; the Calgary Flames are at $203 million and the Edmonton Oilers are valued at $175 million.

"Hockey is on a growth cycle in North America," says Oilers team president Patrick LaForge. "There's reason to be happy or excited about some of our larger markets."

It's worth nothing, however, that the NHL was also riding higher than ever in the 1920s before it faced its greatest contraction, when the league lost 40 per cent of its franchises in the period 1931 to 1942.

It's a widely held belief in the modern world of sports that professional leagues managed to thrive during the 1930s because folks needed an escape from the gloom and drudgery of their lives. While this was true of Major League Baseball, which lost not one franchise during the 1930s, it didn't work that way for the NHL.

In the mid-1920s, the NHL had moved from its small Canadian base of Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Hamilton to become an international league with new franchises in Boston, New York, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Detroit. It was a time of escalating franchise values. In 1920, an NHL franchise could be had for $5,000, but by 1926 the NHL decided that $50,000 was the new asking price, writes John Chi-Kit Wong, a University of Washington State sports business professor in The Lord of the Rinks: The Emergence of the NHL, 1875-1936.

In the years following the 1929 crash, four teams went into receivership: the Ottawa Senators, Pittsburgh Pirates, New York Americans and Detroit Red Wings. Only one of those teams, Detroit, found a new owner and survived.

One problem was that there was almost no revenue-sharing among NHL owners of that time. Teams got almost all of their revenue from game-day ticket sales, but just three per cent of the box office went to the visiting team.

...
Ottawa had to sell its top players. Its revenues dropped 36 per cent from 1927 to 1933. On average, NHL revenues dropped 31 per cent from 1929 to 1933, with the average box office take from an NHL game falling from $11,000 to $7,600.

In the end, Ottawa moved to St. Louis, while the failed Pittsburgh Pirates moved to Philadelphia, but the St. Louis Eagles and the Philadelphia Quakers survived only one year each.

The Montreal Maroons and the New York Americans also went under, leaving the NHL with just six teams.
Here's more, in a great story by David Staples in the Edmonton Journal. Staples argues that the NHL is currently better prepared for a serious downturn given the existence of long term contracts, and the increased sharing of gate revenue. Let's hope so!

Labels: ,

VividSeats -- NBA Tickets 


Finding cheap basketball tickets while still being able to choose your own seats can be difficult to do during NBA season. Try this source for discount sports tickets and game schedules. They’ve got a variety of tickets available this year including Chicago Bulls tickets and seating chart info, as well as Oklahoma City Thunder tickets – the NBA’s most recent team addition and replacement for the Seattle Supersonics.



The Sports Economist thanks VividSeats.com for their support.

Labels:

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

How sports agents earn their money 

I told Matt Lindsay this morning that I could hear the hammers at work building tax shelters overseas. Frank Stephenson at Division of Labor links to a piece which indicates that income shifting is likely to take place as well:
Obama's proposal would increase federal income tax on families earning more than $250,000 annually, money that would help finance a decrease for workers and families earning less than $200,000. It's also possible more income might be subject to the Social Security tax.

Next year's major league minimum is $400,000. Agent Scott Boras, negotiating eight- and possibly nine-figure deals for free agents Manny Ramirez and Mark Teixeira, already has thought about the possibility of asking for larger signing bonuses payable this year in some of his contracts.

"There's some consideration to be had with the impact of the election," he said.

Free agents can't start negotiating money with all teams until Nov. 14. Only a relatively small percentage of contracts are finalized before Jan. 1.

Still, for a big-money free agent earning $10 million in 2009, Obama's plan could increase his federal tax by more than $400,000.
Bang, bang, bang!

Labels: ,

Coaching buyouts 

Tennessee's Phillip Fulmer received a contract extension last summer and is out of his job before all of the leaves have turned. Cost to Tennessee: $6 million.

Clemson's Tommy Bowden got an extension last December after flirting with Arkansas and was out of his job before Halloween. Cost to Clemson: $3.5 million.

Auburn's Tommy Tuberville agreed to an extension last November after his name was mentioned with the Texas A&M and Arkansas openings. Cost to Auburn, if it makes a change: $6 million.

Cases can be made for or against removing these coaches. When losing persists to the point that it divides a fan base - or even worse, making them apathetic - universities are obligated to consider pulling the plug.

What's staggering is how quickly they're pulling the plug after the group hug.

... Athletics directors used to speak publicly to show support in difficult times. But words soon turned into dreaded votes of confidence.

So contract extensions and automatic rollovers became the next tools to show recruits their coach would stick around. It was quickly understood that extensions are never worth the paper they're written on.

Then came buyouts. Coaches initially had the upper hand, getting paid handsomely if they were fired and owing nothing if they left. Athletics directors wised up and made buyouts a two-way street, but at the cost of skyrocketing buyout prices both ways.

The reality is buyouts don't work to keep a coach at a school if he really wants to leave. And they don't work to keep a school from firing a coach if it really wants him to leave.
That's from Jon Solomon. Jon argues that Athletic Directors need to "find the discipline and political courage" to make a better bargain with their coaches. I think they buyouts are a form of deferred compensation, in part, and reflect long run marginal products. Bowden, Fulmer, and Tuberville all coached at their schools for a decade or more and each has had a significant measure of success. Not on the field in Clemson's case, but the program has never been as well stocked with talent and facilities, and Bowden is directly responsible for that. Bowden also had an explicit outside option -- the Arkansas job -- when his buyout was negotiated, and both Fulmer and Tuberville have significant earning potential elsewhere. Fulmer is reportedly interested in the Clemson opening, although the behavior of his players in recent years will be a liability with Clemson's administration.

The bottom line is that buyouts are a form of compensation that is market driven. I don't think they exist because Athletic Directors lack courage. The one policy change that would reduce their size would be to pay the players themselves, rather than the player-proxies that prowl the sidelines. But that ain't gonna happen folks.

Labels: ,

Monday, November 03, 2008

The Guardian on upcoming mega-events 

These are rants, but interesting ones. The first swing is at the 2010 Fifa World Cup in South Africa:
In my home city, Cape Town, for instance, we are putting up an enormous and ruinously expensive 68,000 seat German-designed super venue. The stadium already dwarfs the commonage and low-rise flatland of its well-to-do Green Point neighbourhood, and it's not even half-finished. At a current estimate of 4.5bn rand (£250m), it's already 50% over budget, but it's early days.

Not only is the stadium far too big for a city where even premier league matches struggle to attract 15,000 spectators, but most of those spectators live far away in the dusty townships of the Cape Flats.

...All in all, South Africans will be forking out for five brand new super-stadia as well as elaborate extensions and upgrades to five existing ones.

We're also spending money we don't have on bigger airports, new airports, more roads and a very expensive high-speed train which may or may not be ready in time to whisk visiting fans from Johannesburg's revamped or Tambo Airport to the swanky hotel and shopping district of Sandton.

And because our national electricity provider has unexpectedly run out of capacity, we are importing brand new diesel-fired back-up generators, and extra diesel, just to make sure the floodlights stay on.
Next up, Simon Jenkins on the 2012 Olympics in London:
First cut the crap. Stop talking about legacy, which never happens. Every Olympian knows that legacy is grass growing over defunct velodromes, cracked concourses and ghost villages. Not a penny of the £9bn is going on sport - that is extra - but on buildings, fees and salaries. The head of UK Sport, John Steele, has already declared that his own demand for money "is investment directed at delivering medal-winning performances". Whatever happened to just playing the game?

[Gordon] Brown was vociferous in attacking City bonuses. What about his Olympics gravy train? At the last count there were 200 officials in the Olympic Development Authority. The lowest-paid member of its management team is on £243,000, and the highest, David Higgins, £624,000.

They are apparently not up to the job and need a consultancy firm, CLM, with a further 300 staff, to help manage the project, at an astonishing fee of £400m over four years. This firm had the effrontery last year to charge (the taxpayer) a further £10m in staff bonuses on a project that has tripled in expense.

A quite separate body is the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, whose head is paid £557,000 and whose members get a reported £1,000 just for attending a meeting. How can Brown insult City bankers when allowing this sort of greed to continue?
These can't possibly be annual salaries, can they Nick? Regardless, Jenkins has more:
Simply managing the project is now budgeted to cost £647m, up from £16m in 2005 - more than will be spent on supporting any Olympic athletes.

As totem of this racket, 3,000 limousines are being obtained to ferry Olympics officials to Stratford up a special red-light free "Zil lane" on the Mile End Road. The lane will be banned even to athletes' cars. Yet these same officials demanded that London ratepayers build them a unique train service, the Javelin, from St Pancras, which they are now too grand to use. It is beyond satire.

The 2012 project has ballooned into a giant bureaucracy with a small sporting festival attached, and is beyond ministerial control. Tessa Jowell [the Olympics Minister(!)] can only chant her Olympic motto, that in this business she "spends to save".

The world's greatest white elephant, the "sustainable" £500m athletics stadium, should be stopped now. It will stand empty after the games since nobody wants it. As Building Design magazine said a year ago, "There is nothing sustainable about building an 80,000-seat stadium for less than two months' use" at the highest cost per seat in the world.
Funny how these fat cats can crawl on the "sustainable" train. Do read the whole thing.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, November 01, 2008

Who wants to be a millionaire? 

There is a game being played tonight in which the winning team will be paid $20 million and the losers paid nothing. This in itself is quite newsworthy for a sports economist, but the fact that the game in question is cricket surely tells us that change is in the air. Ten years ago a professional cricketer in England was paid around $30,000 per year, and a top professional might make as much as $100,000. Now the average salary is more like $100,000 while the big international stars make over $500,000. Why is this happening? Because cricket is finally catching up with the TV revolution. The escalation of player salaries in all sports has been driven by TV: first in baseball and golf, then football (footbaaaaall as my children like to say), basketball and tennis, then football (the other one) and rugby, and now, finally, cricket. Why is cricket the last to catch up? Because it never had a format that could sell on TV. The game was played either in the purist’s 3 to 5-day version (wonderful, but who has five days?) or a one-day version (an invention considered radical by the cricket authorities but still not enough to unlock big TV audiences outside of cricket-mad India). However, five years ago a new format was invented in England- Twenty20: a format allowing a game to be completed in 3 hours. Suddenly there was a version that most people could watch from beginning to end. This year has seen a major step forward in cricket’s earning power. Earlier this year India staged a new competition, the Indian Premier League, featuring American-style franchises and the world’s top players in a Twenty20 competition that paid top players $1 million for a six weeks' work ; it was an unbelievable success.

Which brings us to tonight’s extravaganza. The game is being staged by Texan billionaire Sir Allen Stanford (a Yankee with a knighthood!) who has been trying to revive cricket in the Caribbean where he now spends most of his time. The game is between the England team and an all-star Caribbean team. The obvious attraction is the tension of the players- drop that catch and you could lose your team mates a million dollars each, not to mention your own!