Broadcasting Revenues and Sporting Success in European Football: Evidence from the Big Five Leagues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the association between broadcasting revenues and sporting success in Europe’s Big Five football leagues (England, Italy, Spain, Germany, and France), and in particular how the distribution and allocation of broadcasting revenues in Europe’s elite leagues are associated with the clubs’ domestic and international sporting success. The study makes use of a large hand-collected dataset comprising 8244 observations from 160 different clubs playing in one of these five leagues during the seven seasons from 2010 to 2017. The results indicate that the use of a uniform broadcasting revenue distribution model, which gives all clubs a relatively similar share of the pie, may increase domestic league competition, which in turn makes it tougher for one or two teams to dominate the rest. At the same time, there are some indications that a uniform broadcasting model is negatively associated with the clubs’ international sporting success. The use of a more top-heavy revenue distribution model, which leaves a smaller share for the worst-performing clubs, seems to enable the top clubs to retain both domestic and international sporting success.
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) | 0.000 | 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".