Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Golf, the International Language?
The LPGA announced today that starting in 2009 it would be requiring the players on its tour to be able to speak English. LPGA State Farm Tournament Director Kate Peters justifies this discrimination against non-English speakers by noting, "This is an American tour. It is important for sponsors to be able to interact with players and have a positive experience."
This decision bring up several interesting issues. First of all, the sports economics literature is full of papers testing for discrimination on the part of consumers. A classic 2001 paper by Kanazawa and Funk about the NBA found that black players were paid less than comparable white players but that teams with white players, even bench warmers, drew better Neilsen Ratings. As a back of the envelope calculation, the higher ratings could explain the higher salaries for white players. So, can one ethically justify employer discrimination that is done to accomodate customer discrimination? The U.S. Supreme Court generally says no, but what about this case? Obviously, the main difference is that English can be learned while skin color cannot, and the LPGA has stated that it intends to help those needing special tutoring to attain English proficiency.
Second, it is interesting that this is in issue in the LPGA but not other major sports leagues. Can you imagine the NBA banning Yao Ming until he passes an English proficiency test or Man. U. benching Cristiano Ronaldo until his fluency increased? (Of course, most Brits speak barely understandable English, but that's another story.) Apparently the NBA thinks its fans rather like Yao Ming's 22.0 points per game despite his somewhat limited English language abilities. Are LPGA fans less interested in watching the world's best female golfers (16 out of the top 20 of whom are non-native English speakers), and more interested in hearing their post-round press conferences?
This decision bring up several interesting issues. First of all, the sports economics literature is full of papers testing for discrimination on the part of consumers. A classic 2001 paper by Kanazawa and Funk about the NBA found that black players were paid less than comparable white players but that teams with white players, even bench warmers, drew better Neilsen Ratings. As a back of the envelope calculation, the higher ratings could explain the higher salaries for white players. So, can one ethically justify employer discrimination that is done to accomodate customer discrimination? The U.S. Supreme Court generally says no, but what about this case? Obviously, the main difference is that English can be learned while skin color cannot, and the LPGA has stated that it intends to help those needing special tutoring to attain English proficiency.
Second, it is interesting that this is in issue in the LPGA but not other major sports leagues. Can you imagine the NBA banning Yao Ming until he passes an English proficiency test or Man. U. benching Cristiano Ronaldo until his fluency increased? (Of course, most Brits speak barely understandable English, but that's another story.) Apparently the NBA thinks its fans rather like Yao Ming's 22.0 points per game despite his somewhat limited English language abilities. Are LPGA fans less interested in watching the world's best female golfers (16 out of the top 20 of whom are non-native English speakers), and more interested in hearing their post-round press conferences?
Labels: discrimination, golf
Monday, August 25, 2008
Trials Hangover for U.S. Track?
USA Track & Field to Conduct Comprehensive Review of all Programs (Reuters wire story via ESPN.com:
While I have heard many musings about selection or training of relay teams, housing and training of athletes, and even too much pampering of runners, I have not heard any discussion of maybe the most influential force on U.S. track performance at the Olympics -- the U.S. Trials system. As a fan, I love the trials, in some ways more than the Olympics themselves. They are near sacrosanct both because of the popularity and because of the equity of the qualification based on performance system. Yet, any "comprehensive" discussion of ways to improve U.S. that does not genuinely include the Trials falls short.
There are tradeoffs to the Trials, very important tradeoffs. Athletes with slight injuries or an "off day" lose out. So, for instance, the American trio in the 200m in Beijing excluded both Tyson Gay and Xavier Carter, who held the second and third fastest times in history coming into the Olympics with times earned in the last two seasons. American mile record holder, Alan Webb, did not qualify in the 1500m, while the two runners other than Lagat did not qualify for the 1500 final. (Webb is an enigma, likely not well suited to multi-heat meets like the Trials or Olympics). In 2000, Michael Johnson, the fastest 200m runner on the planet at the time, missed out on the 200m because of an injury.
The cases of Gay and Lagat highlight an insidious problem with the Trials -- injury. A multi-heat, high-intensity Trials setup along the lines of the Olympic meet schedule places tremendous physical stresses on athletes only 6 weeks to 2 months before the Olympics. Both Gay and Lagat sustained injuries during the Trials. Even though they may have healed by the Olympics, those injuries dramatically altered training with both athletes missing key tune-up races in Europe. Besides injury, there is the "peaking" problem. This may not influence an athlete way ahead of the pack (e.g. swimmer Michael Phelps). In in highly competitive events, runners must reach peak racing fitness well in advance of the Olympics. Felix and Richards may have suffered from this problem.
Realistically, the Trials are not going away, so what might be some reasonable adjustments? A no-heats, single race system would vastly diminish the strain while retaining the drama and competition. How many times does a guy like Tyson Gay need to show that he is the fastest? Limit the 100m, 110m hurdles, 200m, 400m, and 400m hurdles in the Trials to the 8 or 9 top runners based on times in the last year (or so). The top dozen or so 1500m runners and so on. Does it really diminish the trials to eliminate guys whose best times are not under 10.0? The Trials already uses such a single race system for the 10,000m for the very reason I'm forwarding.
(As a side note: While I like the Trials, I do not find the "equity" argument compelling. One can just as easily make a fairness case for a 2007 World Champion, such as Gay in the 200m, or someone performing well in a series of meets over the past year than someone sort of winning the lottery in the Trials.)
The United States will conduct a post-mortem into a disappointing Olympic athletics performance that has seen U.S. sprinters eclipsed by their Jamaican rivals, the chief executive officer of USA Track & Field said. "Once the Games are complete we will be conducting a comprehensive review of all our programs," Doug Logan said in a statement.Numerous stories of this sort have appeared on the Web and in print recently. Usain Bolt's jaw-dropping excellence notwithstanding, many of America's top track stars performed below expectations. In the case of Tyson Gay (100m) and Bernard Lagat (1500m & 5000m) injuries played a part, at least in diminishing training. In the cases of Alyson Felix (200m) and Sanya Richards (400m), they were at a loss to explain their losses. Then, the baton-dropping 4x100 relay teams placed a nice upside-down cherry on the meet for the U.S.
While I have heard many musings about selection or training of relay teams, housing and training of athletes, and even too much pampering of runners, I have not heard any discussion of maybe the most influential force on U.S. track performance at the Olympics -- the U.S. Trials system. As a fan, I love the trials, in some ways more than the Olympics themselves. They are near sacrosanct both because of the popularity and because of the equity of the qualification based on performance system. Yet, any "comprehensive" discussion of ways to improve U.S. that does not genuinely include the Trials falls short.
There are tradeoffs to the Trials, very important tradeoffs. Athletes with slight injuries or an "off day" lose out. So, for instance, the American trio in the 200m in Beijing excluded both Tyson Gay and Xavier Carter, who held the second and third fastest times in history coming into the Olympics with times earned in the last two seasons. American mile record holder, Alan Webb, did not qualify in the 1500m, while the two runners other than Lagat did not qualify for the 1500 final. (Webb is an enigma, likely not well suited to multi-heat meets like the Trials or Olympics). In 2000, Michael Johnson, the fastest 200m runner on the planet at the time, missed out on the 200m because of an injury.
The cases of Gay and Lagat highlight an insidious problem with the Trials -- injury. A multi-heat, high-intensity Trials setup along the lines of the Olympic meet schedule places tremendous physical stresses on athletes only 6 weeks to 2 months before the Olympics. Both Gay and Lagat sustained injuries during the Trials. Even though they may have healed by the Olympics, those injuries dramatically altered training with both athletes missing key tune-up races in Europe. Besides injury, there is the "peaking" problem. This may not influence an athlete way ahead of the pack (e.g. swimmer Michael Phelps). In in highly competitive events, runners must reach peak racing fitness well in advance of the Olympics. Felix and Richards may have suffered from this problem.
Realistically, the Trials are not going away, so what might be some reasonable adjustments? A no-heats, single race system would vastly diminish the strain while retaining the drama and competition. How many times does a guy like Tyson Gay need to show that he is the fastest? Limit the 100m, 110m hurdles, 200m, 400m, and 400m hurdles in the Trials to the 8 or 9 top runners based on times in the last year (or so). The top dozen or so 1500m runners and so on. Does it really diminish the trials to eliminate guys whose best times are not under 10.0? The Trials already uses such a single race system for the 10,000m for the very reason I'm forwarding.
(As a side note: While I like the Trials, I do not find the "equity" argument compelling. One can just as easily make a fairness case for a 2007 World Champion, such as Gay in the 200m, or someone performing well in a series of meets over the past year than someone sort of winning the lottery in the Trials.)
Friday, August 22, 2008
The Price of Success in Sports
Mizzou heads into the upcoming football season with national championship aspirations. They return 10 of 11 starters on defense, a Heisman finalist at QB, a prolific tight end, and an All-American at wide receiver. A consensus top-10 team doesn't come cheap for fans, who have a higher demand for all things Tiger...
Not just to Babcock, MU’s senior associate athletic director in charge of external operations. Changes to the way reserved parking spaces have been allocated for the upcoming football season - the very thing Babcock was discussing - have led hundreds of Tiger Scholarship Fund donors to contact the athletic department this week looking for an explanation.
What has so many people riled up is that, for the first time, Missouri is charging donors a $100 fee on top of their donation and season-ticket costs for a parking space in any of its reserved lots. In the past, those spaces had always been complimentary.
Damned if Mizzou does. Damned if Mizzou doesn't. Babcock could have said something like "We've got unprecedented demand for season tickets, parking spaces, single game tickets, etc. and we've got to divvy up a relatively scarce amount of resources. We could have used other ways to allocate valuable resources (first come-first serve for parking, for example, which means some people who would come from, say, St. Louis might not be able to find a parking space after they've made the 2-hour jaunt to Columbia). Or we could have given them to our friends and political contacts. That way of allocating resources will also upset some people. We thought that the most efficient way was to charge higher prices so that those with the highest willingness to pay get first crack through us.
"We realize that we'll never be able to make everyone happy. But at least the higher prices allow us to generate more revenue which we can use to invest in our athletic programs."
Cross posted at Market Power
Labels: college football, pricing
Thursday, August 21, 2008
"The Bob Stoops Economy"
Exhibit 1 in "Why College Football Coaches are Paid so Much Money." This is the fifth story in a ten part, all you can eat, series on Stoops at the Oklahoman.
If you are interested in what the chairman of the board directors of the NCAA has to say about NCAA policy & potential reform, check out this Q&A from The State's Paul Strelow. As Jim Barker is my boss as president of Clemson University, I'd be a fool to throw smack at him in a blog, but trust me, he's a serious man who takes bold initiatives and knows how to get things done. Particularly notable is his comment on "the price of admission" to Division I athletics and academic accountability.
If you are interested in what the chairman of the board directors of the NCAA has to say about NCAA policy & potential reform, check out this Q&A from The State's Paul Strelow. As Jim Barker is my boss as president of Clemson University, I'd be a fool to throw smack at him in a blog, but trust me, he's a serious man who takes bold initiatives and knows how to get things done. Particularly notable is his comment on "the price of admission" to Division I athletics and academic accountability.
Labels: coaching salaries, college football, NCAA
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Production Value of Brett Favre
Former students Andy Weinbach (now teaching at Coastal Carolina) and Mark Wilson (St. Bonaventure) were discussing this with me. Their assessment, derived from market prices: pretty small. Here's their take:
How valuable is Brett Favre to the New York Jets?Obviously, one additional expected win at this stage might represent a significant boost to a team's playoff chances. That would be another calculation worth making. If you know or can quickly determine the answer, do leave it in the comments.
The Jets acquired Brett Favre, believing their team would be improved, but what do the markets reveal about this move? For proposition bettors wagering on the number of regular season wins by the Jets, the move seems to be an improvement.
Betting markets can provide insight into how much the Jets have improved, but the answer is unfortunately not straightforward. Many books temporarily took the Jets regular season wins proposition off the board in reaction to the Favre acquisition. Bodog sports currently offers the Jets at 8 wins (-155o),(+125u). If this is assumed to be an unbiased forecast, (which is a reasonable, but not necessarily accurate assumption), using some statistical wrangling, and ignoring pushes, assuming all money will be refunded in the case of a tie, this translates to a roughly 57.8% chance that the Jets will win more than 8 games and a 42.2% chance that they will win fewer (Again, this assumes ties are not possible. While ties are indeed possible, they should be revenue neutral for bettors).
Unfortunately, we don’t have the Bodog price from July. However, a reliable source tells me that a local shop had the Jets priced at 7 wins (-150o),(+120u) on July 22nd, when Pennington was still the expected starter. As of August 10, that same shop offered the Jets at 8 ½ wins (-115o),(-115u). If we ignore the possibility of a tie, the July 22 price at this shop would suggest a 56.9% chance of winning more than 7 wins, and a 43.1% chance of winning fewer. The current price suggests a 50% chance of 9 or more wins, and 50% chance of 8 or fewer.
While these figures are not directly comparable, a loose and perhaps fair interpretation might be that the acquisition of Brett Favre is expected to return one additional win for the Jets this season.
Meanwhile, in the NFL.com fantasy league, www.nfl.com/fantasy/rankings/wr current rankings indicate a recent increase in value for Jets receivers Laveranues Coles and Jerricho Cotchery, suggesting fantasy players believe Favre will have a positive impact on the two wide receivers.
The same reliable source reports that the local shop has priced in slightly lowered expectations for Miami (Pennington’s new team) since July. In July, the price was 5.5 wins (-125u) and (-105o), but has now moved to 5.5 wins (-130u) and even.
Labels: gambling, marginal revenue product, NFL
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
About that economic impact...
Shocking news in a front page article in today's Washington Post: There aren't many tourists in Beijing this month.
In addition, despite "selling every ticket" the venues aren't full, and the organizers are scratching their heads. When I point out that things like this happen, people call me an idiot. When Victor Matheson publishes a paper that shows no economic impact from mega sports events, non-economists say he is clearly wrong, because millions of tickets are sold to these events, and that must generate economic impact. This outcome is consistent with a lot of empirical evidence from Sydney and Athens that suggests little tangible direct economic impact was generated by those games.
"Business is worse than at this time last year," said a receptionist at a 22-room hotel in Beijing's Chongwen district, where rooms cost $28 a night. "It's the season for traveling and last year the hotel was full. The Olympics should have brought business to Beijing, but the reality is too far from the expectation."
In addition, despite "selling every ticket" the venues aren't full, and the organizers are scratching their heads. When I point out that things like this happen, people call me an idiot. When Victor Matheson publishes a paper that shows no economic impact from mega sports events, non-economists say he is clearly wrong, because millions of tickets are sold to these events, and that must generate economic impact. This outcome is consistent with a lot of empirical evidence from Sydney and Athens that suggests little tangible direct economic impact was generated by those games.
Labels: economic impact, I told you so, Olympics
Demand for season tickets
The New York Jets and the New York Giants are raising ticket prices, they say to cover the $1.6 billion cost of the new stadium in the Meadowlands. Jets prices have not yet been announced.
The Giants are charging between $1000 and $20,000 per seat in PSLs, depending on the location of the seats in the stadium. The New York Post reports people taking out home equity loans to pay the PSLs and setting up limited liability partnerships to manage them as an investment. That may be the best approach. The PSL is a one time fee, but it is required for purchase of a season ticket package. However, apparently the PSLs can be resold by the fans rather than reverting to the team.
Some single game tickets to the Giants' games are rising from $100 to $700. That's right, a 600% increase. And people are planning to pay these prices.
The Giants think this sort of price increase won't be a problem because the waiting list for season tickets is 130,000 people long. The Jets have not yet announced their ticket or PSL prices, but one would expect them to be somewhat more modest than the Giants. Afterall, the Jets' season ticket waiting list is only 10,000 people long.
Thanks to Ryan Sharrow of the Baltimore Business Journal for calling this story to my attention.
The Giants are charging between $1000 and $20,000 per seat in PSLs, depending on the location of the seats in the stadium. The New York Post reports people taking out home equity loans to pay the PSLs and setting up limited liability partnerships to manage them as an investment. That may be the best approach. The PSL is a one time fee, but it is required for purchase of a season ticket package. However, apparently the PSLs can be resold by the fans rather than reverting to the team.
Some single game tickets to the Giants' games are rising from $100 to $700. That's right, a 600% increase. And people are planning to pay these prices.
The Giants think this sort of price increase won't be a problem because the waiting list for season tickets is 130,000 people long. The Jets have not yet announced their ticket or PSL prices, but one would expect them to be somewhat more modest than the Giants. Afterall, the Jets' season ticket waiting list is only 10,000 people long.
Thanks to Ryan Sharrow of the Baltimore Business Journal for calling this story to my attention.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Beijing Olympic Games Open
The opening ceremonies of the Beijing Summer Olympic games are today. I wrote a short article for the July/August issue of Foreign Policy on some of the financial aspects of the Olympic Games. Among the highlights ...
- the IOC took in over $4.2 billion in the Salt Lake/Athens cycle, mostly from broadcast rights and sponsorship, and keeps an increasing share of the revenues;
- you really have to pay to play the Olympic hosting game: unsuccessful bids to host the games typically cost from $22 million to almost $50 million;
- the cost over-runs in host countries are huge; and
- although it didn't make it into the article, the IOC is a bloated bureaucracy with no oversight. As recently as 1964, the IOC employed 5 full time staff; in 2000 there were 113.
Labels: Olympics
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Fun and Games in Edmonton
I thought I had seen it all in the stadium subsidy game: bogus "economic impact" studies, threats to leave, mud-slinging, etc. But yesterday's news out of Edmonton, where the Oilers want a new publicly financed hockey arena to replace Rexall Place, adds a new wrinkle to the bag of tricks that subsidy hounds use to tap the public purse.
The Edmonton chapter of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation used a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to obtain documents related to the (until now) behind-closed-doors deliberations about the plans for a new downtown arena. The CTF staffers compared the final report (City Shaping) issued by the Mayor's hand-picked "Leadership Committee for a New Sports/Entertainment Facility" in Edmonton to earlier edited drafts and noticed that
In their recent book Public Dollars, Private Stadiums
, Kevin Delaney and Rick Eckstein document how stadium subsidy seekers manipulate the public debate to marginalize academic research on the lack of economic impact from these projects and other negative information about sports facilities. In Edmonton this week, we got a peek behind the curtain and gained a bit of insight into how the public debate on sports facility subsidies gets manipulated.
The Edmonton chapter of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation used a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to obtain documents related to the (until now) behind-closed-doors deliberations about the plans for a new downtown arena. The CTF staffers compared the final report (City Shaping) issued by the Mayor's hand-picked "Leadership Committee for a New Sports/Entertainment Facility" in Edmonton to earlier edited drafts and noticed that
- all of the information about other privately financed hockey arenas in Canada had been removed, making it look like all recently built arenas were publicly financed;
- all references to new taxes to pay for the arena had been removed;
- an example from Ottawa, where a new arena did not generate much commercial and residential development near the arena was deleted; and
- the statement that the preferred contribution from the Oilers was 60% was changed to "a minimum equity contribution of 30%".
In their recent book Public Dollars, Private Stadiums
, Kevin Delaney and Rick Eckstein document how stadium subsidy seekers manipulate the public debate to marginalize academic research on the lack of economic impact from these projects and other negative information about sports facilities. In Edmonton this week, we got a peek behind the curtain and gained a bit of insight into how the public debate on sports facility subsidies gets manipulated.Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Favrenomics
Since every other writer out there in sports media and blogdom has chimed in on the Brett Favre saga, why not somebody from the SE? Why not me! Of course, the whole thing may be settled by the time I post, but as of my writing, word on the street (or, Yahoo Sports) is that the Bucs or Jets have resurfaced as the likely landing pads for the semi-retired QB.
As an economist, the game theoretic backdrop caught my eye. The Minneapolis Star Tribune (and many other outlets) have dubbed it a "game of chicken" -- essentially a battle of egos between Favre and the Packer GM. I don't think that's really the case. Chicken is a simultaneous game. No doubt, there have been some standoffs in this situation, but the parties have moved in a sequenced series of steps.
Favre's retirement and re-commitment to it led the Packers to commit to Aaron Rodgers. (If Favre were 10 years younger, this commitment would mean little, but at 39, they have to move on some day -- so why not now.) Whether Favre exhibited the flighty whims of his inner17-year old, felt unwanted by the Pack, or schemed long term to jump to a new team all along, who knows. In any case, Favre could see that the Packers held the contractual cards. When the game is stacked against you, change the game. His "strategic move"in this regard? Make it one with the media involved rather than just him, his agent, and GB.
Favre's media gambit(s) placed the Packers GM in something of a prisoner's dilemma -- damned whatever he chooses. To appease Favre-loving Pack faithful, they could bring him back and throw Rodgers under the bus, but, again, Favre's 39. Thirty-nine year old QBs are not difference makers. (Check out Advanced NFL Stats article). Furthermore, Favre might pull the same thing each year until he's 50. After all, this wasn't the first retirement merry-go-round with Brett. At this point in the game, I thought, "why doesn't GB just ship him to just any team outside the division willing to give up a 3rd rounder. " I thought this more so after the $20 million "don't play offer." (I think I'll see if I can get that sort of deal from my department head.)
Brett complained through ESPN's Chris Mortensen that GB asked teams for a "king's ransom" in return, stalling trade efforts. As events transpired, however, it became clearer that Favre was the one making such a trade difficult and using the media as an extra player in the game. As quoted in the Star-Tribune article, Favre said:
The Packers GM has come under heavy criticism from the media and some of my friends. However, as I asked them, what would you have done differently as GM? Let Favre play for the Vikings with all of the problems that would cause among Packer fans? Would you just jettison Rodgers to reinstate a 39 year-old Favre after all of his maneuvering?
Beyond the game tactics and on a normative level, the whole episode has caused me to lose respect for Favre. I don't begrudge someone for trying to pursue objectives they desire, but in doing so, he's the one who has thrown Aaron Rodgers under the bus. As Michael Silver's article outlines. Silver quotes a 6 year old at practice shouting:
As an economist, the game theoretic backdrop caught my eye. The Minneapolis Star Tribune (and many other outlets) have dubbed it a "game of chicken" -- essentially a battle of egos between Favre and the Packer GM. I don't think that's really the case. Chicken is a simultaneous game. No doubt, there have been some standoffs in this situation, but the parties have moved in a sequenced series of steps.
Favre's retirement and re-commitment to it led the Packers to commit to Aaron Rodgers. (If Favre were 10 years younger, this commitment would mean little, but at 39, they have to move on some day -- so why not now.) Whether Favre exhibited the flighty whims of his inner17-year old, felt unwanted by the Pack, or schemed long term to jump to a new team all along, who knows. In any case, Favre could see that the Packers held the contractual cards. When the game is stacked against you, change the game. His "strategic move"in this regard? Make it one with the media involved rather than just him, his agent, and GB.
Favre's media gambit(s) placed the Packers GM in something of a prisoner's dilemma -- damned whatever he chooses. To appease Favre-loving Pack faithful, they could bring him back and throw Rodgers under the bus, but, again, Favre's 39. Thirty-nine year old QBs are not difference makers. (Check out Advanced NFL Stats article). Furthermore, Favre might pull the same thing each year until he's 50. After all, this wasn't the first retirement merry-go-round with Brett. At this point in the game, I thought, "why doesn't GB just ship him to just any team outside the division willing to give up a 3rd rounder. " I thought this more so after the $20 million "don't play offer." (I think I'll see if I can get that sort of deal from my department head.)
Brett complained through ESPN's Chris Mortensen that GB asked teams for a "king's ransom" in return, stalling trade efforts. As events transpired, however, it became clearer that Favre was the one making such a trade difficult and using the media as an extra player in the game. As quoted in the Star-Tribune article, Favre said:
"They say no, so I still want to play in this division for obvious reasons, which I made clear to management. If they won't let me play in Green Bay, let me play against you. That's where I am."In other words, here's where I'll play ... Minnesota. If you don't play me, then I'll just show up in camp and that will really put you in the middle of the media circus. The Packers decided they could handle the brinksmanship and said, ok, we'll play your game. They then pulled a little strategic game shift of their own, with head coach Mike McCarthy being willing to tell the media that after a conversation, he didn't think Favre was really in a frame of mind to play for the Packers. As a result, Favre now appears willing to reconsider the Jets or Bucs.
The Packers GM has come under heavy criticism from the media and some of my friends. However, as I asked them, what would you have done differently as GM? Let Favre play for the Vikings with all of the problems that would cause among Packer fans? Would you just jettison Rodgers to reinstate a 39 year-old Favre after all of his maneuvering?
Beyond the game tactics and on a normative level, the whole episode has caused me to lose respect for Favre. I don't begrudge someone for trying to pursue objectives they desire, but in doing so, he's the one who has thrown Aaron Rodgers under the bus. As Michael Silver's article outlines. Silver quotes a 6 year old at practice shouting:
"We don’t love you,” the kid said. “You suck.”
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Olympic-sized crowds?
Less than one week away from the opening ceremonies of the world's largest sporting event, the Beijing tourism bureau predicts that the city will attract nearly half a million visitors this month. This is a a huge number, no doubt, packing a gigantic economic wallop. In fact, tourist numbers in Beijing haven't been this large since, well,... last August.
According to USA Today, "(security) restrictions on those attending the Games — or at least concerns about them — appear to have virtually eliminated any boost in tourism here from the Olympics. Beijing's tourism bureau predicts up to 450,000 visitors in the city this month — about the same as last August."
Combine this with the fact that China is temporarily shutting down hundreds of factories and curtailing automobile use during the Games, and it is hard to see how China will not end up losing a huge amount of money on its $40 billion investment.
(Thanks to Ron Gecan for forwarding the USA Today article.)
According to USA Today, "(security) restrictions on those attending the Games — or at least concerns about them — appear to have virtually eliminated any boost in tourism here from the Olympics. Beijing's tourism bureau predicts up to 450,000 visitors in the city this month — about the same as last August."
Combine this with the fact that China is temporarily shutting down hundreds of factories and curtailing automobile use during the Games, and it is hard to see how China will not end up losing a huge amount of money on its $40 billion investment.
(Thanks to Ron Gecan for forwarding the USA Today article.)
Labels: economic impact, Olympics
Monday, July 28, 2008
Aggressive & Passive Responses to Doping
A Yahoo! Sports headline and associated summary regarding the Tour on Monday headline reads, Sastre Wins Doping-Scarred Tour de France. Setting aside moral philosophy, I wonder whether the Tour's (and related governing bodies) aggressive testing and enforcement regarding banned substances, itself, diminishes fan interest. The Tour appears to be generating its own scrutiny. We didn't read about a "doping-scarred" season in MLB last year or a tainted Red Sox championship in spite of all the hullaballoo surrounding Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens personally. MLB's very passive "ignore-minimize-forgive" strategy over the last decade seems to have paid dividends versus the "zero tolerance" strategy of cycling in recent years. (Of course, I'm taking the Caminiti-Canseco figures of 50% and above use of illicit substances in MLB as my guide so that the difference between cycling and MLB (at their highest levels of use) are not the difference -- rather it has been the degree of testing and enforcement.) Even though MLB has generated some mean glares from legislators and legal and public opinion problems of specific players have come under intense scrutiny, baseball itself seems to have escaped much fan response.
On the other hand, maybe the nature of the sports (indivdiual v. team oriented) or differences in fan base (American v. European) suggests different optimal strategies.
On the other hand, maybe the nature of the sports (indivdiual v. team oriented) or differences in fan base (American v. European) suggests different optimal strategies.
Labels: cycling, MLB, steroids, Tour de France
