Stock market reaction to affiliated sports teams’ performance: evidence from China
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
Purpose Drawing on the affect transfer and stakeholder theories, this study aims to examine how the performance of a sports team that a firm owns or sponsors may affect the firm’s market value. It explicates that a sports team wins (loses) in the field raises the public’s positive (negative) affect, which can spill over to the associated firm. Design/methodology/approach Based on a sample of publicly listed firms in Chinese stock exchanges that are owners or sponsors of soccer teams that competed in the National soccer league of China during 2004–2017, the authors find good support for the hypotheses. Findings The findings reveal that a firm’s cumulative abnormal return is positively related to its soccer team’s winning and negatively related to the team’s losing, and these relationships are moderated by both firm and match characteristics. By showing a relationship between sports team’s performance and associated firm’s market value, executives need cautions when their firms want to own or sponsor sports team. However, owned sports team’s winning could be a good strategy to improve a firm’s market value. Originality/value This study enriches the spillover literature and deepens the understanding of spillover effect. It provides evidence for the concept of affect transfer and broadens its application scope.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it