By Robbie Butler

A number of weeks back we did a selection of sports economics and Simpsons pieces to coincide with the launch of Homer Economicus: The Simpsons and Economics. Last week’s Sunday Times report on the alleged corruption surrounding Qatar’s successful 2022 World Cup bid gives us more ammunition. The newspaper claims that large sums of money were passed between those behind the Qatar bid and FIFA representatives with voting privileges. At the centre of the allegations is former FIFA's executive committee member Mohamed bin Hammam. The Qatari national was supposedly a key figure in securing the 2022 World Cup. However, the Sunday Times reports that leaked email documents prove bin Hammam paid members of other nations' Football Associations prior to the 2022 FIFA World Cup bid. FIFA’s main sponsors (such as adidas and Sony) are now publically calling for an investigation into the matter. 

This corruption story comes hot on the heels of another. A recent international friendly between Scotland and Nigeria at Fulham’s Craven Cottage was supposedly targeted by match-fixers. These allegations of fraud in the “beautiful game’ were so serious that the Scottish Football Association contacted the National Crime Agency to investigate the matter.

In March of this year, Fox aired You Don't Have to Live Like a Referee¸ the 16th episode of the 25th season of The Simpsons. The plot goes as follows. Following Lisa’s success in a school ‘hero’ competition, a speech she gives during the event goes viral, the result of which is Homer being asked to referee games during the World Cup in Brazil by the Executive Vice President of the fictitious World Football Federation (WFF). The VP satirically says to Homer “Mr. Simpson, please help us. The rot is everywhere. In fact, I see that eh, I myself am about to be arrested for corruption”, before being led away in handcuffs.

Following an excellent refereeing performance in an opening round match between Brazil and Luxembourg, Homer becomes the target of match-fixers. He is greeted by men who offer him a briefcase full of cash. Homer refuses the bribe and vows to be an honest referee despite the protests of the match-fixers. However, upon hearing that he is in fact not Lisa’s ‘hero’, he becomes depressed and decides to drink his problems away. Devastated by Lisa’s ‘betrayal’ he decides to accept a bride on the World Cup final between Brazil and Germany. Homer is offered $1 million so that Brazil will win the World Cup. Upon overhearing this conversation Lisa begs Homer not to take the bribe.  

During the game, a Brazilian by the name of El Divo dribbles into the penalty area before diving. Homer true to his morals however, does not award the penalty. Germany go on to win the match 2-0 and lift the World Cup.

While most of us strongly doubt the actual World Cup final will be the victim of match fixing, this Simpsons episode is a timely reminder of the dangers posed by match-fixers. The buildup to Brazil has been marred by street protests, unfinished stadia and alleged corruption at the highest level of the game. Above all things let’s hope the football is clean. Afterall that’s why we watch.

By Robbie Butler

Our last instalment of the Simpsons and sports economics comes from Season 12 episode Hungry, Hungry Homer. First aired in the United States in March 2001, the storyline sees Homer go on hungry strike in an attempt to keep the “Springfield Isotopes” in Springfield. 

Following a disappointing Minor League Season, Lenny decides to look for a refund on his season ticket from Springfield Isotopes' owner Howard K. Duff VIII. Duff refuses forcing Homer to intervene. Homer confronts the owner in his office, and following a brief (unsuccessful) discussion, discovers merchandise in an adjoining room labelled “Albuquerque Isotopes”. Homer asserts that the owners plan to move the team to New Mexico, a claim that is flatly rejected. 

In more than 550 episodes of the Simpsons, this is one of the very few times where Homer’s intuition turns out to be correct. The storyline is a direct reference to the Albuquerque Dukes (now Albuquerque Isotopes), a Minor League Baseball team who won several Pacific Coast League (PCL) championships in the 1970s and 1980s before relocating to Portland, Oregon, and becoming the Portland Beavers in 2001.

The demand and supply of sporting franchises is central to this storyline.  As mentioned previously, the structure of American sports is very different to those in Western Europe. Franchises are sold to would-be owners and the decision  where to play is based on the owner's wishes. Because these franchises bestow honour and social capital on hosts, cities line up to ‘win’ the rights to host major teams.

It is simply impossible to consider this in European football or rugby. In fact, even relatively minor deviations from the status quo (by American standards) such as changing team colours (Cardiff City) or proposals to change a team name (Hull City to Hull Tigers) are met with fierce resistance by fans groups. 

Homer is successful in his quest. The Mayor of Albuquerque, the man who is behind the move to steal the Isotopes from Springfield, instead plans to purchase the Dallas Cowboys. When he is informed that they are a (American) football team he replys that he will force them to play baseball insisting "For I am the Mayor of Albuquerque!" A classic Simpsons’ quote.

By John Considine

This post is the latest in our week-long look at some sports economics in The Simpsons.  The posts are to mark the publication by Stanford University Press of Homer Economicus: The Simpsons and Economics.

In this post I'm going to look at some of the sports economics issues raised in Homer at Bat.  Not surprisingly, this brilliant episode has been named as the best sports episode by Bleacher Report.  It revolves around the idea of buying success in sport.

In a striking similarity to Robert Redford in The Natural, Homer makes himself a bat and helps lead the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant softball team to an undefeated season.  In the championship game they face Shelbyville Power Plant owned by Aristotle Amadopoulous.  Monty Burns bets Amadopoulous $1m that Springfield will be successful in their contest.  In an effort to increase his chances of winning, Burns hires a collection of Major League Baseball players and gives them jobs in the power plant.  Due to bad luck, and some strange behaviour on the part of Monty Burns, all but one of the MLB ringers are unable to take their place in the game.  The one exception is Darryl Strawberry - the player taking Homer's position.  With the score tied and bases loaded with two outs in the bottom of the ninth inning, Burns replaces Strawberry with Simpson.  Burns proceeds to confuse Homer with his signals.  The confused Homer is hit on the head with the pitch bringing about the winning run.

At the moment, from a European perspective, it is hard to recall the episode and not think about the UEFA Financial Fair Play rules.  These rules arose, at least in part, to stop wealthy owners from investing large sums of money buying up players and potentially destablising the game.  This week the media was awash with speculation that Manchester City and Paris Saint Germain were facing server penalties for breaching the rules (here).  However, what I want to focus here is the issue of buying success or the cost of buying success.

The issue of buying success forms one of the best chapters in an excellent book by Rodney Fort and Jason Winfree.  The book is 15 Sports Myths and Why They're Wrong and, like Homer Economicus, it is published by the good people at Stanford University Press.  The relevant chapter is called 'Owners and General Managers are Inept'.  Fort & Winfree do a good job dispelling the myth captured by the chapter title (and seemingly personified by Mr Burns).  Along the way a few people come in for some mild/harsh criticism.  Sportswriter and broadcasters do not come out of the chapter that well.  According to the authors, sportswriters and broadcasters implicitly accept and sell the idea that there are constant costs to winning.  Fort & Winfree explain how the costs are non-linear and how they do not start at zero.

A similar analysis is presented in a superb piece in the latest The Economist. - it can be accessed through their blog on sport called Game Theory.  The graph below is reproduced from the article (although I have imposed the solid black production function that is available in some versions).  One could apply the following few lines from Fort & Winfree, "Depending on the sport, it is usually easy to win a few games.  However, wins get harder and harder to come by for good teams".

The Economist finds that money matters.  It also finds that the manager matters but not as much as money.  Fort & Winfree do not concede that Owners and General Managers matter.  In their efforts to prove that the decision makers are not inept, they leave the reader with the impression that Owners and General Managers do not matter much.  As an example, they say that Billy Beane would be hard pressed to better the record of Brian Cashman (Yankees).

It would be fair to say that Fort & Winfree are not overly impressed by Michael Lewis and Moneyball.  When discussing the cost of winning they say "We can't resist pointing out that the Oakland A's are also a bit below this more reasonable line (they were just above the earlier less reasonable solid line representation)."  I'm guessing there is little between Billy Beane and Monty Burns.

This brings us back to Darryl Strawberry.  Burns brought Strawberry to the power plant to replace Homer in the softball team.  This is the same Strawberry that features so prominently in Moneyball (the book rather than the movie).  The book explains how the New York Mets had the first draft pick in 1980.  They were considering Beane and Strawberry.  It seems the Mets head coach wanted Beane but they selected Strawberry with their first pick because of influence from Sports Illustrated.  They ended up getting both.  Strawberry was their first pick and Beane was their second pick.  It seems Sports Illustrated got it right - but for the wrong reason.  Just like Burns got it right in replacing Strawberry with Simpson.

By David Butler - This entry is part 4 of a weeklong series to mark the release of Homer Economicus:The Simpsons and Economics.

Since the publication of Moneyball,  a book that documents the rise of the Oakland A’s under Billy Beane, the empirical study of sport has seen a notable rise in popularity. The statistical analysis of baseball, referred to as sabermetrics, was pioneered by Bill James and is a topic which the Simpsons writers dedicate an entire episode to in season 22. MoneyBart, written by Tim Long, see’s Lisa apply statistics and probability theory to engineer success for Bart’s struggling little league baseball team, the Springfield Isotot’s. 

For me, the episode not only highlights the use of sports statistics but gives a great insight into the lessons of behavioural economics. The central theme of MoneyBart is how intuition and gut reactions often mislead and result in predictions that differ from those produced by cold calculated reason.

The episode refers (perhaps unintentionally) to the psycho-fictitious drama of system 1 and system 2 thinking that behavioural economists use to theorise the brain in a simplied fashion. System 1 is deemed the automatic and quick system that helps us consider space, distance, recognise faces, act emotionally etc., while system 2 is the supervisory system that consistently helps us update our views, learn from experience and engage in conscious reasoning. These two metaphorical systems can often conflict, most often when decisions have consequences at different points in time, leading to time inconsistent preferences or self control problems.

With very little knowledge of baseball Lisa first turns to those expected to have an intuitive understanding of the game, the bar-stoolers in Moe’s. It is in the local tavarn however that she comes across professor Frink who introduces her to the statistical side of baseball and the powers of sabermetrics. Lisa instantly becomes hooked, engaging system 2 and using books such as ‘Schrodinger’s bat’ to devise a strategy for the Springfield Isotots that's based upon the laws of probability. As was the eventual case with Billy Beane's strategy with Oakland A's, Lisa's statistically inspired strategy pushes the team to the top of the league.   

It is here however where her system 2 thinking is overcome by the forces of system 1, a role unsurprisingly played by her brother Bart. Contrary to Lisa’s statistically grounded advice to play safe, Bart, believing Lisa is taking the fun out of baseball, smashes a homerun and wins the game for the team.Bart tells Lisa he was on a hot streak, but Lisa informs him that the hot hand  is a statistical illusion!  For not following the coaches orders Bart is removed from the team (despite his success), only later to be reinstated for the last play of the championship final. 

But once again Bart defies Lisa's cold logic (despite her protests) and he begins to steal bases. A furious Lisa tells Bart that it is statistically impossible to steal a home run but nevertheless Bart goes for it! On Bart’s last steal Lisa fury turns to joy as her emotions get the better of her and she falls in love with the thrills of baseball rather than the power of statistics. Bart fails in his endeavours, getting tagged out at the plate and as the commentator neatly surmises “it’s a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit”.  Lisa and Bart’s disagreements are however resolved.

The writers do a great job in presenting a balanced view of opinions on sport and stats. The power of statistical evidence in sport is weighed up against the benefits of taking sport for the emotional roller coaster that it is. Equally the statistical approach in sport is poked fun at as Proffesor Frink reveals the triviality of some statistics. As Homer suggested in an episode many years ago... “people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.”

By Robbie Butler - Part 3 of our entries to mark the release of Homer Economicus:The Simpsons and Economics.

In March of this year football legend David Beckham unveiled plans to build a $250 million privately-financed stadium in the port of Miami. Beckham’s decision to get involved in a US soccer franchise didn’t come as a surprise nor did the location of the potential team. What was surprising however was the announcement that any new stadium would be ‘privately’ funded. 

From an economic perspective, the treatment of stadium projects is one of the most noticeable differences between sports in the US when compared to those in the UK. Fort's Sports Economics (2nd Edition Chapter 11 - The Stadium Mess), Soccernomics and the aptly named Field of Schemes all address the issue at length. Since the early 1990's more than 100 sports arenas have been constructed in the US. The bulk of these projects have received public funding. Grant (2012) suggests that the average cost of new stadium projects to the public has risen by nearly 70% over the past decade, with the mean cost at just over $240 million. 

So why do cities queue up and offer to build such arenas? The logic is as follows: Major League franchises bestow prestige on American cities. Because demand for franchises consistently exceeds supply, cities are prepared to incentivise owners to move to their metropolises. Taxpayer’s money is used to fund a new stadium on the basis that jobs will be created and a subsequent windfall that will be incurred from hosting regular games. Atlanta currently faces this dilemma. Major League Baseball franchise the Atlanta Braves are set to leave their home (Turner Field) in 2017 and move to a newly constructed arena in Cobb County, 10 miles from downtown Atlanta. It is estimated the new stadium will cost a cool $672 million.

A similar storyline is played out in the 2008 Simpson’s Episode The Burns and the Bees. During a game of cards at a billionaires retreat, Mr Burns wins professional basketball team the Austin Celtics. Burn’s promptly moves the team to Springfield and renames them the Springfield Excitement. The franchise moves into a dilapidated stadium in a rundown part of town which boast the “World’s Smallest Jumbotron". 

Following a disastrous start to his ownership and an exodus of fans from the arena, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cubin ‘advises’ Mr. Burns to “build a new arena – state of the art”. A town meeting is arranged where Lisa Simpson objects to the new stadium plans on the grounds it will destroy a local bee sanctuary. Despite a successful pitch by Lisa, Mr. Burns convinces locals to use public money to build what Mayor Quimby calls “this decadent momentum to excess” after unveiling a new NBA player to town’s people. Construction duly commences with the stadium built in six weeks. 

The key line in the episode comes as Mr. Burns opens the newly constructed arena. Burns proclaims to an adoring crowd “Welcome to the American dream. A billionaire, using public funds, to construct a private  playground for the rich and powerful”. [Crowd cheers]. 

With the Federal budget already under pressure and cuts to many key sectors of the American economy over recent years, the value of building such stadiums using public monies, must surely now be called into question. Continued tax-breaks and subsidies for franchises may be doing more harm than good. Private companies should carry private costs. 

At least us Irish would never force the taxpayer to incur costs accumulated by privately owned companies…oh wait…

By David Butler - This entry is part 2 of a weeklong series to mark the release of Homer Economicus:The Simpsons and Economics.

A Relative Age Effect (RAE) in sport occurs when there is a selection bias towards those born earlier in a registration period. Due to physical, psychological and social advantages older children in a cohort are more likely to be identified as 'talented', with the upshot being a skewed birth distribution of elite performers in youth sports. In the case of soccer, as is with many other sports,  a higher proportion of children born in the first quarter of the calendar year  represent their country at an elite level as for the duration of their time as a youth player they compete against relatively younger children, benefitting from early maturation. While it may not be nice to celebrate a birthday in the cold, being born in January, February or March has its benefits when it comes to organised sports!

RAE is of importance and deserves attention due the prevalence of the effect internationally both within and outside sport (it was originally studied in education systems) and also given that it has sustained in sport since its original application to hockey now over some twenty years ago. This bias toward those born earlier in the registration year has been documented in a variety of sports, not just hockey or soccer, and has led to suggestions that a RAE may even border on discrimination against those born later in the year.

As an economist it reminds me that organising a competition procedure can be tricky and that there can be nasty unseen biases in what appear efficient systems of organisation (even in this case when we try to by as fair as possible be grouping children in the same age category).

Satirising the name of the famous quarterback Bryan Bartlett Starr, the 9th seasons 'Bart Star' episode, written by Donick Cary, captures the dynamics of RAE fittingly and probably brings back memories for most of us that played youth sports. All the ingredients are there: brutally high levels of expectations and competitiveness from coaches, favourable treatment to certain star performers,  and of course, the expert parents on the side-lines.

The story  begins with Ned selecting the teams quarterback purely on the power of his arm and his general physique, something which the bully Nelson provides in abundance. Ned asks his try-outs to throw to the ball at him:

Flanders: A little higher, Wendell. (another throw) A lot higher, Martin. (another throw) Ralph, that's a basketball..(next throw hits Flanders hard) OK! Nelson's our quarterback. Nelson: Thanks, four-eyes.

Nelson proceeds to bulldoze the opposition, giving the team an unbeaten streak and at times being solely responsible for the teams success. Following a series of loutish heckling from the side-line however Homer manages to oust Flanders as coach.

Homer then proceeds to take the competitiveness of pee-wee football to a new level. He provides favourable treatment to one player (his son Bart!) but doesn’t rely on the previous successful tactic of leaving everything to Nelson, the most physical player on the field. The team however are not happy as their previously successful tactic of using Nelson's physicality has been unsuccessfully replaced. Despite the loss of their unbeaten streak Homer (hilariously) still takes great pleasure in “the easiest part of any coaches job – the cut”, dismissing what he deems the weaker performers and leaving the immature Ralph Wiggum on the side-line. Everyting returns to normal however by the end of the show as Nelson is restored to the quaterback position and the team win the championship.

As ever with my favourite TV show, the writers unpredictable and hyper ironic style allows them portray what often 'actually happens' through satire, albeit exaggerated to get a chuckle.

For those interested in the sociology associated with RAE and how it is linked to the theme's of this episode a good place to start is this Research Note Learning Life's Lessons in Tee Ball: The Reinforcement of Gender and Status in Kindergarten Sport.

By John Considine

To mark the publication of Homer Economicus: The Simpsons and Economics a few of the blog posts published this week will focus on sports economics in The Simpsons.  As one of the people who contributed a chapter to Joshua Hall's book, I will kick things off with a look at the episode The Old Man and the "C" Student.

Lisa writes to the International Olympic Committee and asks them to consider Springfield as a potential host city for the Olympic games.   A bickering committee, lobbying for their own countries, cannot agree so the IOC chairman decides they should visit Springfield.  Homer enters the competition to select the mascot for the games.  His "Springy" mascot wins.  However, Homer's hope of making money from his dangerous mascot are dashed after Bart's unsavoury antics in front of the IOC representatives (and despite Chief Wiggum's attempts to offer the IOC members women, drugs and money).

Many will recognise the black humour in the words of newscaster Ken Brockman when he says that economists predict that Springfield will experience the same boom that Sarajevo enjoyed after the 1984 games.  Sarajevo hosted the 1984 Winter Olympics (Los Angeles hosted the 1984 Summer games).  Within a decade Sarajevo was a war zone.  Jim Waterson at BuzzFeed provides 19 Haunting Pictures of the venue.

It is only a cartoon character, like Ken Brockman, that would get away with making those comments about Sarajevo.  However, it does illustrate a central point made by economists about the costs and benefits of such events.  For example, previous posts on this site have highlighted the costs associated with 2014 Sochi Olympics (here) , the optimism bias and strategic claims by bidders (here), and the manner in which voters in other potential host cities are withdrawing from the bidding process.  Last Saturday, Robbie Butler discussed the Brazil Olympics on a radio station in Montreal (a city that only recently fully paid for its 1976 Summer Games).

The cost to cities seeking to host the games are outlined in Michael Leeds and Peter von Allmen's textbook The Economics of Sports.  Leeds & von Allmen say it cost Los Angeles $1m for its unsuccessful 1924 bid and Cleveland $3m for its unsuccessful bid for the 1932 games.  They say Montreal spent C$1.6 billion on the 1976 games.  Leeds & von Allmen point out that those bidding are dealing with a monopolist that seeks to maximise its return for awarding the games to a city.  They argue that it is the monopoly that the IOC have that allows it to extract resources from bidding cities.

Homer's attempt to benefit from the games with his Olympic merchandise reflects the large amounts of money that are associated with Olympic merchandise.  In his book The Economics of Staging the Olympics, Holger Preuss produced IOC figures revenues for such items.  Preuss showed that the Organising Committee of the Olympic Games expected to get €151m from "pin" revenues in Athens 2004 (coins and stamps also generated significant revenues).

Homer ended up literally flushing his investment down the toilet.  His investment was derailed by events outside his control (even if he is Bart's dad).  There are some similarities with McDonalds scratchcard promotion for the 1984 Los Angeles games when the USSR boycott cost them many meals (see here).  Fans of The Simpsons will know that the series alluded to this in Lisa's First Word where Krusty Burger offers a similar promotion.

More sports economics from The Simpsons to follow!