MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401641238 · doi:10.1177/15270025241266845

Does the Dual Representation System of Player Agents in International Football Benefit Players? An Economic Analysis

2024· article· en· W4401641238 on OpenAlex
Duane W. Rockerbie

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sports Economics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalaryNegotiationCommissionEconomicsClubMicroeconomicsFootballProfit (economics)Dual (grammatical number)BusinessLabour economicsFinancePolitical scienceMarket economyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is common in international football for the same agent to be paid both commission fees by the purchasing club for negotiating a player salary and a transfer fee. This dual representation creates a potential conflict of interest for the agent. The agent may not negotiate the highest salary for the player if a higher salary reduces the likelihood of a successful transfer by lowering the resources available for the transfer fee. We construct a gamble model of the transfer process and simulate the ex-ante agent commissions rates, expected player salary, transfer fee and club profit under the assumption of dual representation where the buying club pays all agent commissions. The assumption that the quality of the agent increases with the commission rate is essential to the model. Both the player and the club are better off when the club pays both commissions, however the agent is worse off.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.231 · 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