MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411049836 · doi:10.1016/j.serev.2025.100053

Foul Play: The impact of financial incentives on aggression in sports

2025· article· en· W4411049836 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Cisyk, Pascal Courty, Amin Kouhbor

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Economics Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsCarbon Engineering (Canada)University of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveAggressionBusinessPsychologyFinanceEconomicsSocial psychologyMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: We examine the impact of match-specific monetary incentives on match outcome and team behavior in the English Premier League. Our findings reveal that higher financial stakes increase the likelihood of a team winning a match while also encouraging more aggressive play: a £1M increase in the expected award from winning a game raises the probability of winning by 1.1 percentage points and results in an expected rise of 0.07 fouls per game. Teams adapt to financial incentives to maximize success in high-stakes games. These results help sports organizations understand the trade-offs in mitigating misconduct while preserving the competitive intensity of the game.

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports Economics ReviewSame topicSports Analytics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207