The Effect of Sporting Success and Management Failure On Attendance Demand In The Bundesliga: A Revealed and Stated Preference Travel Cost Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the private consumption benefits of sports attendance using revealed and stated preference data from 28 Football Bundesliga teams across three divisions. Survey respondents were presented with positive (sporting success) and negative (management failure) scenarios and asked for the number of game trips if each scenario occurred. The results of random effects Poisson models show that travel costs have a negative effect on the number of game trips in all three leagues, while the effect of ticket price is mixed. The weighted consumer surplus per game trip includes travel costs and ticket prices; it is €418 for first division, €280 for second division, and €427 for third division clubs. Consumer surplus per game trip changes by €37 (league 1), €44 (league 2), and €69 (league 3) if the positive scenario occurred and by €8, €0.32, and €-35 if the negative scenario occurred. Key Words: Contingent behaviour method; Travel cost method; Attendance demand; Consumer surplus; Bundesliga; Soccer
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".