The Economics of Sport
  • Sports Economics
  • About
  • Workshop
  • Selected Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • A Primer on Gaelic Games
  • Upcoming Events
  • Media
  • Education
  • Resources & Links
  • Data

Agent Scoppa, Soccer Players and Students

17/6/2022

 
By John Considine
Picture
It is results season in many universities.  If you listen carefully then you will hear lecturers taking umbrage with any effort by a student to shift the blame for a poor grade to the lecturer.  “I graded the work that was presented”, is a standard line.  I have also heard lecturers use the same line in staff meetings when explaining their grades.  They may go further and say “they did not engage with the material”, “they did not turn up to class”, or “there was a poor dynamic in the class”.  The message is clear.  The primary responsibility for the grade lies with the student.
 
It is hard to imagine a lecturer bias.  The grades of individual lecturers may exhibit a bias based on attendance, attractiveness, or identity, but it is hard to imagine a bias that is present in lecturers as a group.  Yet, some of those same lecturers, when conducting research, will claim that other groups are biased in their assessments.  Sports economists like to claim that sports referees are biased in favour of the home team.  Those of the rational choice persuasion will claim that the referees consciously make these biased decisions; those of the behavioural economics persuasion will claim that the decisions are unconscious.  Regardless of the decision making mode, it would be like researchers claiming that lecturers display a bias towards attendance, attractiveness, or identity.
 
A recent paper in Economic Inquiry by James Reade, Dominik Schreyer, and Carl Singleton uses data to show differences in outcomes in soccer games played with and without spectators.  They then go on to claim that this shows that the referee is the primary channel through which social psychology works.  A recent article in Frontier in Psychology is not convinced (and the authors do cite an earlier version of Reade et al).  Let me borrow three sentences from Yannick Hill and Nico Van Yperen to illustrate their argument.
 
“Additionally, it should be noted that studies on the home field advantage typically lack actual behavioral indicators that are needed to test whether refereeing decisions are actually biased or not. Hence, in future studies, these behavioral indicators should be collected to test whether the “referee bias” actually represents biased decisions by referees ... An imbalance in the proportion of fouls or yellow and red cards does not necessarily represent biased decisions toward either the home or the away team, but accurate decisions to different behaviors displayed by the teams.”
 
A recent paper in the Journal of Economic Psychology threads a more nuanced line.  The title of the paper uses the word “agents” – “Social pressure in the stadiums: Do agents change behavior without crowd support?”  The author is Vincenzo Scoppa.  Scoppa’s agents are players/team and referees.  His measures include indicators of team performance and referee decisions.  The paper shows that the measures, of both sets of agents, changed during the pandemic years.
 
One of my favourite papers on home bias is co-written by Scoppa.  It is published in the Journal of Sports Economics and formed the basis of a previous post on this blog (here).  This week I decided to investigate the author via Google Scholar.  I discovered that Scoppa also conducts research on the Economics of Education.  In fact, he has a 2022 paper titled “Online teaching, procrastination, and students’ achievements: evidence from COVID-19 induced remote learning”.  The emphasis is clearly on the students (players).  That is not to say that Scoppa et al do not consider the possibility of a lecturer (referee) bias.  In the literature review they note of a previous paper “They also show that instructor-specific factors, such as leniency in grading due to a more compassionate approach towards students in response to the difficulties caused by the pandemic, play an important role and might lead to erroneously conclude that online teaching is better than face-to-face teaching.”  But Scoppa’s paper clearly puts the emphasis on the students’ actions.  Maybe sports economists should place more emphasis on the players.


Comments are closed.

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013

    About

    This website was founded in July 2013.

    RSS Feed

    Categories

    All
    American Football
    Athletics
    Baseball
    Basketball
    Behavioural Economics
    Boxing
    Broadcasting
    Competitive Balance
    Cricket
    Cycling
    Darts
    David Butler
    Declan Jordan
    Drugs
    Ed Valentine
    Epl
    Esports
    Expenditure
    F1
    Fifa World Cup
    Finances
    Funding
    Gaa
    Gaelic Games
    Gambling
    Game Theory
    Gary Burns
    Geography
    Golf
    Greyhound Racing
    Guest Posts
    Horse Racing
    Impact Studies
    John Considine
    John Eakins
    League Of Ireland
    Location
    Media
    Mls
    Mma
    Olympics
    Participation
    Paul O'Sullivan
    Premier League
    Regulation
    Research
    Robbie Butler
    Rugby
    Simpsonomics
    Snooker
    Soccer
    Spatial Analysis
    Sporting Bodies
    Stephen Brosnan
    Swimming
    Taxation
    Teaching
    Technology
    Tennis
    Transfers
    Uefa
    Ufc
    World Cup
    Wwe

Related

The website is not formally affiliated to any institution and all of the entries represent the personal views and opinions of an individual contributor. The website operates on a not-for-profit basis. For this reason we decline all advertisement opportunities. 

Contact

To contact us email sportseconomics2013@gmail.com or find us on Twitter @SportEcon.