Economic competition and the production of winning in professional sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation includes three essays on the economics and management of professional sports with an emphasis on strategic management and quantitative methods. The first paper is a theoretical paper that provides an alternative perspective of professional sports team owners' incentive to invest in a level of talent. The second paper examines the relationship between the demand for watching games on television and attending games in person. The third paper is an application of microeconomic theory and econometrics that estimates different forms of the contest success function and develops a new empirical approach to measuring players' effectiveness. The chapter titled "Economic Competition and Player Investment in Sports Leagues" provides an alternative perspective of professional sports teams' incentives to invest in talent based on market and ownership structures. Since territorial rights limit fans' ability to trade off between the qualities of teams that are direct substitutes, the possibility exists that some fans will choose between indirect substitutes based on relative team qualities (e.g. winning). If this is the case, then both the market and ownership structures will affect the owner's incentive to invest in talent. The condition of cross-ownership decreases an owner's incentive to invest in talent compared to the duopoly. The chapter titled "A Comparison of Television and Gate Demand in the National Basketball League" estimates the demand for gate attendance and television audiences in the NBA and finds that the fans who attend games in person are inherently different from fans who watch games on television. Fans who watch the games on television are more responsive to winning and do not substitute for other professional sport leagues compared to fans who attend the games in person. The chapter titled "Contest Success Functions and Marginal Products of Talent" contributes to the literature by being one of the first papers to empirically estimate a contest success function. Although tournaments, conflicts, rent-seeking, and sporting events have been modeled with contest success functions, little empirical support exists. The contest success function is further used to determine the contribution to winning of the candidate players for the 2010 Canadian Men's Olympic Hockey Team.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".