MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396857353 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17050201

Globalisation of Professional Sport Finance

2024· article· en· W4396857353 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wladimir Andreff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobalizationClubRevenueFinanceGeography of financeMilestoneFootballBusinessEconomicsFinancial marketPolitical scienceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the present paper is to put a milestone on the roadmap toward a global economic system of professional sport, at least as regards its financial dimension, i.e., its model of finance, its ownership, and some new trends in global sport finance. Professional sport went through a radical change during the 1990s when switching from gate receipts to TV rights revenues as its major source of finance and from local/domestic to internationalised/globalised sources of revenue. This change was more marked in European soccer (football) before spreading throughout other professional sport disciplines. In fact, the whole distribution of sport financing was restructured as shown in this paper. Starting from this evidence of the first stage of sport finance globalisation, it appears that new transformations have been at work in sport finance more recently. In particular, soccer moved from globalisation of flows (revenues, finance) to asset globalisation in terms of club ownership. At last, this paper discusses the emergence of new trends in global sport finance such as treating professional (soccer) players as financial assets and crypto-assets penetrating the sports business.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207