Banning Controversial Sponsors: Understanding Equilibrium Outcomes When Sports Sponsorships Are Viewed as Two-Sided Matches
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article applies a two-sided matching model to investigate the consequences of banning controversial sponsors. Using a data set containing the shirt sponsorships from 43 English football clubs between 1990 and 2010, the authors' estimates suggest assortative matching between a club's attendance and a sponsor's revenue. In addition, sponsorships become less valuable as the distance between the club and the sponsor's head office grows, particularly for low-performing clubs and smaller domestic sponsors. The authors use these estimates to simulate the consequences of banning alcohol and gambling sponsors. Their estimates of counterfactual outcomes suggest that such bans may not have the largest impact on the clubs (particularly the relatively successful clubs) that currently have alcohol and gambling sponsors. Instead, clubs with low attendance and clubs in low-income areas will be most affected by a ban. More generally, the results demonstrate that when marketing relationships are viewed as the result of a matching process, actions that affect only some marketers may have substantial indirect effects on a variety of players in the market.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it