Freitag, 15. November 2013

Will talent decline?

While there are a couple of other interesting developments in sports (e.g. the significant poll results for the Olympic candidacy of Munich or the new betting scandal in Austrian professional Football (which might be just the tip of an iceberg)) I have to - finally - continue my blog by discussing the recent news on the decline of Pop Warner Football in the US.

As many news agencies report, Pop Warner participation has declined nearly 10 percent over the last three years. This is significant and substantial and some commentators have raised the question: Is the future quality of (Professional) Football in the US in danger? Before all European Football teams start celebrating and expect to beat US teams 10 or 20 years down the road, we have to take a closer look.

Pop Warner Football is a possible gate to a live or career in Football. From there on, the way can potentially lead through high school football, collegiate football to the promised land of the highest level of pro football, the NFL. Or any other professional league that offers considerable salaries and career opportunities. So if talent on the first talent pool - and this is the main argument of those who raised their warning voices - declines, we will eventually see a trickle-down effect which will endanger the quality of the game and players in the NFL.

The whole argument is certainly not far-fetched, as Football - like anything where certain skills are needed - needs institutions that teach those specific skills to the players. In one of our paper (Böheim and Lackner, 2012), we show that Football involves education like any other profession does. And it yields comparable returns if you analyze the in terms of additional entry-wages per year spent in college football. So if education on early stages is eroding, it is reasonable to conclude that the specific skills needed to play football at the highest level will eventually become scarce. But how big of a problem will this really be? Considering the fact that the maximum time to stay in the NCAA Football system is limited to 5 years (with 1 year of little participation at all), it might be something felt by NFL times as players might enter the league with a lower skill-set than in previous decades.

But what should really change? The career possibilities as well as the potential earnings for a player in the NFL are still very intriguing. True, careers in Football are shorter than those in other major leagues, but the NFL still is on the top of all professional leagues in terms of (worldwide) popularity, the amount of money and salaries involved and the general product that it offers. If the decline of Pop Warner Football does indeed damage the extremely high popularity of the NFL and its product, I could imagine that the current development is quite dangerous. But if the fish does not stink from the head downwards, the incentives to acquire the necessary skills will be there and the inflow of talent will not be endangered. NFL teams and NCAA programs, however, might have to adjust their way of further developing their prospect players' talent as they might need more additional training.


The whole discussion comes at a time, where the NFL has to deal with serious problems in terms of long-term health consequences of Football. A number of tragic cases of former players who were suffering from concussion-related long-term health issues and committed suicide, has revealed a substantial problem for the NFL. This is a big threat to the league and the popularity of the sport. It certainly also plays a major role in the decline of Pop Warner as parents will be reluctant to allow their kids to participate in a sport they perceive as highly dangerous. And this is the area where the NFL has to put most effort in. If they manage to make Football safe and deal with the past of neglected health consequences, the future of the NFL is as bright as ever and eventually kids will return to Pop Warner.

Donnerstag, 14. Februar 2013

When Business beats Tradition

Wrestling (in various different styles) is a sport which has a very rich tradition. It's origins can be traced back 15,000 years and it was very popular in highly developed cultures like the Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece. AND it was an important part of ancient Olympic games.

A few days ago, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has announced the decision to drop wrestling from Olympic Summer Games. This essentially means that beginning with the 2020 Games, freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestling won't be part of competition. This end the Olympic career of this highly traditional sport - a career which has started with the first modern Olympics in 1896.

Concerning the line of reasoning, the IOC mostly names problems with selling the sport to the public and the media to be the primary causes for the discontinuation. They argue that the "declining popularity" justified the move, which was soon heavily criticized. IOC and leading members from the international wrestling federation (FILA) are set to meet, but I do not see much hope that one of the oldest Olympic sports might ultimately be saved.

In 2016 golf will be introduced as a new sport in the Olympic program. Although golf has been part of the Olympics in 1900 and 1904, it has arguably a very short tradition compared to wrestling. But there is one important difference: Golf draws huge crowds -  live on the grounds as well as on TV - and it will yield much greater returns to the IOC than wrestling. The discussion is already on which sport should replace wrestling in 2020 and beyond. Some argue that softball and baseball should come back. I am cautious, because baseball makes no sense if MLB players do not compete. It would be another "lame duck" like Olympic Soccer.

In the case of wrestling, the IOC has chosen money and revenues ahead of tradition. My guess is that this is completely at odds with the original idea of the modern Olympics.

Mittwoch, 23. Januar 2013

Sabotage?


No, it was not me who was sabotaged as I have not posted anything recently. It was more a mixture of holidays, NFL playoffs and a heavy workload.

But now let's start the new year of sports and the recent news from the NFL are a good way to start off. Today the front pages of all sports news are filled with the alleged "sabotage" of Super Bowl XXXVII by then Oakland Raider head-coach Bill Callahan. Well, such rumor might not be that shocking if it came from the "usual" unknown source, but it definitely is almost shocking that the allegations come from two Hall of Fame wide receivers: Tim Brown and Jerry Rice, both played for the Raiders back then.

So how credible is this? When Rice made his allegations on ESPN and backed comments by his former teammate he, well, sounds like somebody who is still not over the loss. And he seemed to fully understand what he was actually saying. But could this be true? Could it really be that a coach, who has a chance to win the most prestigious title in US sports, intentionally sabotages his team to hand the win to his former boss, who happened to be his mentor and the coach of the opposing Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

To pull this off, you certainly must have the means to succeed. This could arguably be the case, as the head coach of a team certainly could influence any game in order to sabotage it. But could he do it without anybody realizing what he is doing? It is hard to imagine, as NFL sidelines are crowded with coaches who would at the very least be highly suspicious if their boss influenced the game in a negative way. The same is true for the players. It takes a joint effort of all participants to win a game and I am not convinced the effort of a single person - even the head coach - could lose a game.

But let's turn to the incentives side of things. Why would he do it? Because of loyalty to his friend/former boss/mentor Jon Gruden? Losing a Super Bowl will certainly cost you. It will cost you in terms of money and discounted lifetime earnings. In addition to this you will lose a lot of "utility", as winning this title is the ultimate achievement in any career in professional football. But could the benefit from letting Gruden win out-weight the losses and the associated risk of getting caught while doing so?

I do not think this is plausible at all. Callahan is now an Offensive Coordinator (Dallas) and I think his career would have taken some different (more favorable) turns had he won back then. I think it is save to put this to rest and think of it as the bitterness of two former great players.