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.

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.

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. 

Learning on the Job

Or: the art of introducing a rookie Quarterback.

The most important position in team sports might be the Quarterback in Football. Quarterbacks learn how to play the game in the NCAA - or let us better put it this way: they learn the fundamentals of the game. The game of football is so different on the collegiate level that it can hardly be compared to Professional Football as it is played in the NFL.

So where do these people learn how to win in the Pros? In the past the conventional wisdom was to "bring on a QB slowly". This often meant that a rookie QB was basically assigned to be a "clipboard holder" and an understudy to the current starting QB for his first couple of seasons. Teams used "in-firm training" to develop the future franchise QBs.

This, however, has changed dramatically over the last few years. Rookie QBs are nowadays often thrown into game action on the very first days of their careers. Players like Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Blaine Gabbert, Andy Dalton, Russell Wilson, Joe Flacco, Sam Bradford, Matt Ryan and many other names are examples for this trend. And along with all rookie QBs who were inserted as starters immediately there is a second line of players who played at some point during their rookie seasons because the incumbent starter either went down due to an injury or failed to perform.

Concerning the performances of the mentioned young QBs, most of them did fairly well. This is especially true for this season, as guys like Andrew Luck, RGIII and Wilson are having sensational rookie seasons. And had it not been for the downfall of Gabbert and the major struggles of Nick Foles, rookie- (and still young) QBs flat out could be called great.

Has the collegiate game converged with the Pros? The answer is obviously: NO. College football has changed into a wide-open high-scoring shootout game, with only few programs still focusing on the art of playing defense. What might have changed, however, is the approach of the teams. Instead of waiting a couple of seasons before the actual talent of the new QB commodity is revealed, young guys have to show early what they are capable of. It is now literally: either do or die! And it is probably not failure in some games that might decide the fate of a rookie QB these days, but his ability to progress,  refine and develop his game. QBs now have to be mentally tough enough to pick up the pro-game on the fly and being a quick learner is more important than a rocket arm.

There is an interesting case in the NFL now. 28-year-old quarterback Brandon Weeden (Cleveland Browns) was put in as the starter on day 1 and has struggled heavily at times. But he is obviously progressing and he shows some promises for the future. What makes his case interesting is his age. He is a rookie at 28, an age when most other QBs are usually seasoned veterans. Having him sit for a couple of seasons would move him over the 30s. At this age some QBs already show signs of decline. We will see how Weeden's career evolves. If Weeden succeeds along with the success of some other senior rookie QBs (Luck) teams could be looking for some "experience" out of college.

Only the time will tell if the new approach to rookie Quarterbacks will pay dividends for teams and players...

The monster is growing.

US Today has just published the 2012 version of the NCAA Football coaches salary database. And what we see is hard to believe. As they state only "six years ago 42 major college football coaches made at least $1 million. Today, 42 make at least $2 million." Coaches salaries in FBS schools are up 12% over last season and have increased an eye-whopping 70% since 2006. Alabama's Nick Saban is the highest paid at $5.5 million.

This is amazing! Institutions of higher education are paying enormous sums to coaches, who have no academic background, to run a football program, which should at best be an activity for students to spend their free time in a healthy way. Well, that ideal is long gone. I have mentioned that numerous times in the past. But why is the monster NCAA still growing that fast? College Football is popular for a long time and the growth rates in media attention and TV contracts is far from what is going on with coaches salaries.

Is something fundamentally wrong with the labor market for FBS coaches? In the past we used to see coaches move from the collegiate level to the NFL because of greater job opportunities. Obviously, this could change. Data shows that--on average--colleges do not profit financially from their sports programs. There is also some evidence that running large sport programs can influence student achievements. It is still debated whether it is fair to leave participating students without financial compensation. Looking at the current figures in terms of coaches wages we see that, for whatever reason, colleges pay enormous sums for something they might not actually benefit from. Rents seem to be generated - and as for now it seems as they are almost exclusively shared with the coaches. Most likely this a result of the non-competitive character of the BCS system.

Intertemporal Substitution

Week 6 of the 2012 NFl season is in the book and while we might have entered a new era of parity and competitive balance in Football, we also saw an (aging) icon of the game go down: Baltimore Ravens Linebacker Ray Lewis.

Lewis is probably the best Inside Linebacker in the long tradition of great players at this position in the NFL. He was the first draft pick of the relocated Baltimore Ravens and has lead the mostly great Defense ever since. He is an icon, not only for Ravens fans. He was elected to thirteen Pro Bowls and has one the Super Bowl once as a member of one of the best defensive units ever in the 2000 season. Once he is retired (a time that could come sooner than later) he will enter the Hall of Fame right off the bat.

But Lewis is also 37, playing his 17th season in the NFL. This is quite an accomplishment, as he clearly played longer than the average career at his position. And he played on a higher level. Only recently critics came to the front. They called him out for missing tackles and looking slow and (well actually he is in terms of football age) old. On Sunday Lewis injured his triceps while playing the Dallas Cowboys and on Monday he was ruled out for the season. Immediately speculations started if that might be the end of his career - only to be countered by the newest question: Would he be ready to play in a (possible) Super Bowl?

I am not convinced that the Ravens will eventually get to the title game, as they are beat up in terms of injuries and have played badly on Defense even when healthy. If they do it would have to be the (currently) high-powered Offense to carry the team. Sounds odd to say that about the Ravens, doesn't it?

If there is the slightest possibility that Lewis could return for the Super Bowl in February, the Ravens have to make a tough decision: Do they put him on injured reserve (IR) and sign somebody to replace him, or do they keep him on the roster and hope he will return for a game that is all but certain. There was a similar situation for the New York Jets, who also lost their best player on Defense, Darelle Revis, to injury and discussed his return for the Super Bowl. He was soon put on IR and all hopes for a return in the current season were put to rest. While I wish all the best to Lewis, my guess is that he will share Revis' fate.

In terms of economics the Ravens face a simple question: Is it good to save for the future? Are future returns larger than immediate returns? Is the team better off waiting for Lewis, or does it have to fill glaring holes on the roster? In this case we do not have a clear setup where we compare the utility of today's consumption to utility of consumption in t+1 because the Ravens do not know if they will still be there in t+1 if they do not consume today. So many interesting questions to think about!

Back to the replacements

While my last entry in this blog was dealing with the possible repercussions of the current referee situation in the NFL, reality has once again overtaken me and it is now even worse than I had expected. While during the last weeks the replacement refs made many critical and obviously wrong calls, it has reached a new level with the result of Monday Night Football.

On Monday the Green Bay Packers played at Seattle to match the Seahawks. Most of the game was a brilliant defensive effort (sadly nobody is talking about that)  from Seattle and not much offense took place. And it was a "usual" replacements game, as there were numerous dubious pass interference calls, some critical penalties and a general feeling that they were not 100% in control of what was going on all the time.

But then there was th final play. And it was a big one, as Seattle was back 5 points and they needed a hail mary pass to win the game with the final play. So Seattle QB Wilson, after avoiding a sack, threw it up for grabs into the end zone in the general area where Golden Tate was waiting for it. He was surrounded by at least four Packers and Packers DB M. Jennings was in perfect position to defend the pass. Instead of doing what defenders are tought to do in such a situation, i.e. knocking the ball down, he tried to catch it. And he DID catch it and all replay angles showed he caught it first and although Tate might have had simultaneous possession of the ball while going to the ground for a split second, it was Jennings who had the ball in the end.

By now everybody knows the end of the story. The catch was awarded to Tate (even after review) and the NFL has admitted the mistake. However, they are only admitting that Tate was actually pushing off before the "catch" (enough to overturn it) and still call it a simultaneous catch which, by rule, should go to the offense. Everybody who saw what happened knows that this is wrong. There was a push off, yes, but Tate never caught the ball. It was a clear mistake that I do not think regular NFL refs would have made.

The way the NFL is handling the situation is definitely deciding games. We saw that on Monday. The integrity of the game is in danger. Some Packers have come forward and argued that the NFL was "more about money than the integrity of the game". Well, that's news! The NFL is the best sports business in the world. Of course, it is all about money. If it was just about competing in the game of football it would not be a billion dollar industry. Interesting, though, that this criticism comes from the only NFL team which is publicly owned (Packers). So there is no owner involved who wants his profits maximized rather than the success of his team on the field of play.

I agree. The integrity of the game is in danger. But I would go a step further: the only fans who might be happy right now live in the city of Seattle. If fans see that the current situation goes on and more games are decided by wrong officiating, they will turn away and the NFL as a whole product could suffer.

The NFL could have changed the call or set a rematch. They decided to stick to the result and come up with bad excuses. Fine, but please, for the sake of the game and the league, pay the regular refs and bring them back!

Their A game!

One of this year's big stories in sports is the season the Oakland A's are having. They are currently ranked 2nd in the American League West and tied for first in the Wild Card race with the Baltimore Orioles. While they are technically not yet in the playoffs, they are in a good spot and there is no indication that they will fall off.

But is is the way they reached their current spot that is so amazing: The A's are playing with rookie starters (5 at one point), they have really no major names on their roster and their lineup does not scare anyone in the American League. AND they are doing it with Major League's second lowest payroll at $ 55,372,500. This is substantially lower than what the Texans spend ($ 120,510,974), who they trail by just 4 games in the AL West. The A's are ranked 5th in the majors in pitching with a team ERA of 3.50. They rank 9th in terms of home runs with 172. So they have it all: pitching and power. And they are doing it while they should actually be rebuilding.

The A's manager Bob Melvin seems to be doing a lot right. But the whole organization from top to bottom does a perfect job. In sport economics the final word on the causal relationship between team payrolls and success has not yet been said. The A's once again show that maybe it is not money you need to win.

NFL replacement refs - dangerous for the game?

We are well into the current NFL season, and apart from the usual media buzz, injury news and endless discussions about the performances of rookies Quarterbacks, there is one thing standing out: the usual NFL referees are locked out and replacement crews are refereeing the games.  These replacement crews were installed in preseason and mostly consist of non-BCS conference referees from the NCAA. While this might not sound too spectacular, it might actually be a big deal for the league.

It is still a debate how good a job these referees are doing. The media are highly critical, while the broadcasting TV networks are still hesitant to be overly critical regarding the product they offer. But the first two weeks of regular season games showed that the replacement officials got at least a few major calls wrong, mixed up some penalties and generally made more mistakes than the usual referees.

The entry salary for an NFL official  is $78,000. While this might not sound bad for a season of 16 plus postseason games, their salary is significantly below those of the other major sports leagues. The talks between the officials and the NFL have basically been suspended. Both sides could not come even close to an agreement so far.

So is it really about a few blown calls or some misplaced balls on the field? I guess not, because now that two weeks of regular season play are in the books something else - even more problematic - has emerged. Numerous personal fouls were not called on the field by the replacements and the atmosphere in numerous games was more than just competitive. So my guess is that while they try to avoid any mistakes, the replacements referees miss many overly rough plays. The NFL was quick to fine the guilty players (ask Golden Tate of the Seattle Seahawks) , but on-field calls would certainly be better to stop the extracurricular chippiness and unnecessary roughness between players. Some media observes have even gone as far as arguing that the replacement refs might actually be the reason why the game is more violent and dangerous at the moment.

One of the big objectives of NFL boss commission Roger Goodell was to make the NFL saver and reduce the risk of severe (head) injuries. Rightfully so, with the high number of potential lawsuits lingering. But by being overly strict in the negotiations with the referees he might have reached the contrary. Maybe it would just be better to give the referees what they want instead of having to deal with the consequences of an increase in the number of injuries. And it is not just about the general perception of the NFL as a "save" league, but I do not think that fans want to pay for watching teams that are substantially decimated by injuries.     

The NFL's richest man.

This weekend has produced the highest NFL contract since the beginnings of professional football. Drew Brees, the man who has just broken Dan Marino's single season passing yardage record, was handed his 5-years $ 100 million contract by the New Orleans Saints.

While this move is not only record setting in terms of per year salary, it is also a significant move for the New Orleans franchise. The organization which was hit hard by the harsh penalties following the still evolving "bounty-gate scandal" had the first positive news since the end of last season. They signed the most productive and successful Quarterback in franchise history for a long-term deal and sent a message to the whole league that they want to be contenders in the future.

In terms of economics it is amazing to give a 32 year old QB such a huge contract, including $ 60 million of guaranteed money. Remember: Before coming to the Saints Brees had a significant, career-threatening shoulder injury, and he is not exactly young either. When the full 5 years of this contract are played out, he will be around 37, which is very old for an NFL QB. My guess is that this contract either makes the Saints look extremely smart over the next few seasons, or it will pretty much end the feel-good-story in the Big Easy.

Anyway:  i think it is just appropriate to congratulate Brees and I wish him all the best for the next five years at least.

Here we go again...

Another year at the Tour de France and we have yet another doping scandal. Yesterday we had the first day of rest of the 99th edition of the Grande Boucle. But instead of resting the peloton experienced a major shakeup. Cofidis rider Rémy Di Gregorio was arrested by the French police in the aftermath of a team hotel raid. He was later suspended by his team and is the first doping casualty of this year's tour.

But it is not the only doping related story these days. Lance Armstrong is fighting doping allegations brought forward by the USADA. Currently highly successful team SKY, the team featuring the current tour leader Bradley Wiggins, is confronted with doubt and suspicion, as it was questioned by the media if the remarkable time trial performance on Monday was possible without performance enhancing drugs.

After a relatively quiet Tour in 2011 we are probably back to the days when doping news were daily business during the 3 weeks of the Tour. Up to this day no positive test results were published, but Di Grigorio's case does not look good. Maybe he is indeed the "single case" his team wants him to look like - or not guilty at all. Maybe he is part of a team Festina-like structure of organized doping and just a scapegoat. We will have to wait and see what the next few weeks will bring along...

Doping is a highly interesting topic in sports economics. A recent paper by Coupé and Gergaud (2012) presents a recent attempt to analyze data from professional cycling in order to establish a link between doping related indicators and riders' performance.

Playoffs?!?

Now we have the long anticipated change in the BCS system: a four team playoff was introduced. So instead of having an dubious ranking system to go along with 5 BCS bowl games, including a championship game, we now face a mini playoff which will crown the next champion of College Football.

But has anything changed? Not really I would argue. Selecting teams into this playoff is more difficult than selecting them into 5 BCS bowls. And who will select them? This question still remains to be answered. The only thing that we know about this is that a "committee" will select the programs. Many experts argue that such a four-team playoff system would not have included teams like Boise State in the past, who also were the losers in the BCS system, as non-automatic qualifying schools.

Another point is that there will be a lot of money earned with the new playoff system. TV contracts will be huge. Even if the hopes of BCS powerbrokers  that the "playoff finale" will be just like the Super Bowl will probably not quite be fulfilled, the new format will generate even bigger revenues than the current BCS format. And this will lead to the following question: How will these revenues be shared? My opinion (and I am not alone)  is that this "playoff" system will make the rich colleges even richer and fully manifest their power over all the smaller colleges. The current BCS cartel will get even more powerful and we will see more disparity between school on and off the field.

The critical media coverage, criticism from within the NCAA, a vast number of scandals and legal issues, as well as continuing confusion over the actual champion of NCAA football made a change necessary. This change, however, will make matters even worse and the monster called BCS will grow and get more powerful.

New world record!

In the shadows of the current UEFA championship and the aftermath of the Heat's second NBA title, a very significant event took place in the US. Ashton  Eaton, 24, from Bend, Oregon, broke the decathlon world record at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials on Saturday. He improved the previous world record, owned by Czech Roman Seberle (2001) from 9,026 to  9,039.

This is an amazing and very impressive performance and Eaton is now the favorite for the Olympics in London. He had amazing performances on the 100 sprint, running it in 10.21 seconds and and amazing long jump at 8.23 meters. Decathlon is often considered to be the supreme discipline in track and field and eclipsing the 9,000 points mark is something very special. Eaton will probably not become as famous as LeBron James or the future winner of the UEFA championships. But his performance is second to none and will certainly go down in history. And if he wins gold in London it will also pay off. I wish him all the best and congratulations!

Margin for (human)error?

Now that we are well into the second phase of the European Championship in soccer, it is time to look back at the most notable event: a decision made by a referee-assistant in the game England vs. Ukraine. As the TV images clearly show, England defender John Terry was not able to keep the ball out of the goal on his spectacular attempt to prevent the Ukraine from tying the game at 1:1. The picture (in contrast to the famous Wembley goal) tell a clear story and there is absolutely no doubt that the newly installed goal referee made the wrong decision by not declaring it a goal.

Some people and media analysts continue to argue in favor of preserving the current way of enforcing the rules in a soccer match. They come forward and praise the human decision making as the best way to handle critical situations like the Ukraine non-goal. UEFA officials, spearheaded by president Platini, are still reluctant to accept any technical assistance for referees in order to make their decisions easier. According to them it would destroy the "flow" of the game. Moreover the performance of referees is often praised excessively and "human decisions" are considered part of the game of soccer and the optimal way to achieve a fair competition.

Well, the latest non-goal makes UEFA look old. But it is really just another example of refereeing that might decide important games. Some people, and they are probably right, argue that the vast majority of referee calls in soccer are correct. But even if 1% of all calls are wrong this can influence the result of games. In a still growing business of soccer and sports betting a wrong decision by a referee can have dramatic consequences. Moreover, they can change player careers, end coaches contracts and leave whole nations of soccer fans desperate. By now most of the major sports worldwide have some sort of technical assistance for referees. Even highly traditional sports like tennis and baseball have it by now.

In the end UEFA might turn out to be the biggest loser, as Platini might lose the power struggle with FIFA president platter over the use of goal line technology. And the European Championship lost quite some momentum as Ukraine (probably unjustified) dropped out of the tournament.

Another victim of extraordinary bad refereeing is Greece. One of their key player, Karagounis, will miss today's quarter final against Germany because he received his second yellow card in the game against Russia. This card came after a clear foul against him remained unseen by the ref and interpreted as blatant dive. This is neither bad luck, nor is it just or performance related. And it should definitely not be part of the game. It is just a very bad decision that will influence competition on the field of play.

If the UEFA was interested in fair competition they would lift the card off Karagounis and let him compete today. And they would finally accept that in today's football referee mistakes are avoidable and definitely not just a "part of the game".   

Concussions

In the upcoming days of the annual NFL spring meetings this week, there was a lot of discussion going on about the NFL and the obvious problems of negative long-term health effects of the game on players. In the wake of Junior Seau's tragic death, the question of the NFL's responsibility for retired players is more prominent than ever.

One phenomenon that was often downplayed or even ignored is the number of concussions professional football players suffer from during their careers. The league is facing an avalanche of lawsuits from former players who argue that they suffer from neglected long-term effects from ignored head injuries and concussions. While the NFL was quick to release a study which should prove that retired NFL players actually live longer than other people. The study, carried out by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), is focusing on all retirees who played in the NFL for at least five seasons from 1959 through 1988. It argues that playing in the NFL actually offered health benefits. While I do not know the exact details of the study (some results are presented here), I am sure that most of the problems you will face when evaluating the healt effects of a certain activity, were not dealt with adequately. Of course, the group of NFL player is highly selected and in order to make it to the NFL, you have to be in above-average health conditions already. So there is a lot of potential for sample selection bias and there is definitely not the full information on injuries like concussions. Moreover, the study has no power to prove any form of causality between playing in the NFL and long-term health effects.

What should be evaluated is the effect of playing in the NFL compared to other sports. We, and definitely the NFL, should be interested in the influence of the number of concussions on long-term health and brain conditions in retirement age. The NIOSH study concludes that former NFL players had a much lower rate of death overall compared to men in the general population. This does by no means surprise me. And it has no power as evidence that former NFL players do not suffer from negative effects when they have retired.

It will be interesting to see how Commissioner Goodell will address this issue in the future and at the spring meetings. The current stance of the commissioner on the Saints "bountygate scandal" indicates that the problem of (head) injuries and possible consequences has already been addressed. My intuition is that the danger of losing a huge amount of money in upcoming lawsuits is the main reason for this. The long-term health of players, however, should be the only reason. The NIOSH study does not tell us anything (new). While the neurologists are already working on the issues, a lot of further research in this area is needed. 

Money can't buy you...or can it?

Last weekend most Europena football leagues found their 2012 champions. The new Champion of the English Premiere League is Manchester City, the Italian Champion is Juventus Turin, in Spain, although already on top, Real Madrid was able to break the 100 points barrier and (because of home bias) the new champion in Austria is Red Bull Salzburg.

So what do Machester City, Juventus Turin and Red Bull Salzburg have in common? Well, ManCity is financed by  Sheik Mansour, Juventus by Fiat through Italy's richest sponsoring contract, and, of course, RB Salzburg is one of many "Red Bull operated" clubs. With UEFA's fair play initiative on the way things might (and I am still sceptical) change in favor of open competitions with more equal chances for all clubs who are not supported by a powerful oligarch, a sheik or a local business.

While Real Madrid is not really known for financial responsibility, one example for a national champion who has not won due to financial power is Borussia Dortmund. Dortmund has just defeated FC Bayern for the fifth time this season (5:2 in Berlin) to capture the DFB cup on Saturday, despite featuring a budged significantly lower than Bayern's. In fact Borussia Dortmund was in financial ruins following a period of heavy spending and transformation into a share issuing business in the mid/late 1990s. From this financial turmoil the club made a complete restart and focused on developing young talents while operating strictly within their financial limits. In contrast to their local rival, Schalke 04, who are heavily sponsored by Gazprom, Dortmund was highly successful during the last two seasons and is said to have surpassed FC Bayern as the dominating force in German football.

Time will tell if Dortmund and their almost unique approach towards the "business" of professional football will carry over into longterm success and a permanent ability to challenge the heavy-spending FC Bayern. However, in times where titles are usually going to towns where big money is, it is refreshing to see that it is not always money that brings success. Maybe it is not UEFA Fair Play that will change Europena football. Maybe all it needs are some clubs that change their attitude and have success on and off the field of play.

Congratulations Dortmund!

The perfect game?

First: let me apologize for the long time I have not posted anything here on my blog, but I've been busy with a recent research project you will hopefully read a lot about here in a few month...


A lot has happened since, mostly related to the activities before the upcoming NFL draft and the New Orleans Saints "bounty scandal". I am already on records on this topic and it is amazing how the NFL (in person of the Commissioner) is destroying the NFL feelgood story of the last 5 years. More on this soon. As it looks now we might even have a second spygate.

But something else happened this weekend. We saw the 21st perfect game in the history of Major League Baseball. It belongs to Philip Humber of the Chicago White Sox. First let me say this: I am not taking away anything Humber has achieved on this day. I saw the game and he had a magnificent pitching performance, completely dominating the Seattle Mariners. But was his game really perfect? His last pitch, to me, was a clear ball and I have not seen a swing by his last batter. This final out came on a check-swing strikeout of Brendan Ryan, where be barely swung and obviously thought he earned himself a walk.

Statistics in sports are important and I have use them regularly to study human behavior and economics. But baseball really takes statistics to the limit. I really love the sport and it is an amazing setting to study decision making under pressure conditions. On Saturday I had the feeling that on his last at bat Philip Humber, who by the way has never even pitched a complete game before Saturday, was awarded the perfect game rather then really earning it. And here decision making comes into play: What did Humber do on this all important pitch with a 3-2 count, facing a probably once-in-a-lifetime chance? He throws a ball down and away. Does this make any sense? Why would somebody who wants to get the batter out at any price throw an obvious ball when it counted most? I think it is obvious: He wanted to save his no-hitter. If he throws a ball over the strike zone and he gives up a hit, his complete game, as well as his no-hit bid are gone. So instead of rolling the dice, he threw an awful (and it was clearly visible that the ball did not get away from him) ball and was lucky (or just had the right umpire) to get the strikeout. Arguably a perfectly rational decision.

In the 9th inning, when Humber was about to make history, the game was all about one thing: "will he do it, or not?" So a personal achievement becomes more important then the actual win of the White Sox. And I think that Humber decided to protect the second-best outcome with his final pitch rather than going for the perfect game. The officials still handed him his part in history.

I argue that Philip Humber had an amazing performance, even if he had walked this batter. Even if he had given up a hit on that pitch. Putting away all that perfect-game no-hitter craze he still had a historic performance. Congratulations!

Single Entity?

The NFL, as well as other professional sports leagues in the US, have repeatedly been suspected of violating antitrust regulations. NFL v. American Needle  case was only the most recent in a row of cases dating back to the Oakland Raiders  case (consult Lehn and Sykuta, 1997) in the 1980s. The NFL has often come forward using the "single entity" defense, arguing that the league is basically one big enterprise not a trust formed by a number of teams as individual business entities.

In the wake of last year's lockout and the result that last year's NFL season is an uncapped (i.e. meaning that no salary cap would limit player salaries) two teams reportedly have tried to benefit from the situation. The Washington Redskins as well as the Dallas Cowboys have structured some contracts of their players to make the front-loaded in a way to shift substantial parts of the salaries into the 2010/2011 season. This would certainly create a competitive advantage in coming years as they will have an advantage in terms of salary cap space.

It has now surfaced that the NFL has taken away salary cap space from these two teams: $36 million in cap space from the Redskins and $10 million from the Cowboys. The league split this sum and handed it to 28 remaining teams, who receive an additional $1.6 million in cap space. Both teams argue that the NFL has no point in doing so, especially as 2010/2011 was an un-capped season. Some other teams who were obviously affected by what the Redskins and Cowboys did complained and the Washington Post cites the saying:

All the clubs were warned not to do anything to create a competitive advantage when the salary cap came back, and that's what [the Redskins] did [...].

So what do we have here: We have an organization, which is per constitution of the league the group of all team owners, telling teams not to take advantage of the lack of regulations. We have two individual organizations operating within this league who sought (which is only rational) an advantage and did nothing wrong because the regulations were missing. The Redskins and Cowboys acted like individual entities and are defending themselves as single entities now. The Cowboys issued the following statement:

The Dallas Cowboys were in compliance with all league salary cap rules during the uncapped year. We look forward to the start of the free agency period, where our commitment to improving our team remains unchanged.

As far as I am concerned they are perfectly right. And this recent events should really make antitrust officials even more suspicious. In the American Needle case (consult Brad Humphreys' excellent resource page for details)  the NFL actively sought antitrust immunity. The final ruling denied this. The way the NFL handled this recent salary cap issues is another strong argument against the single entity defense. Should the Cowboys and Redskins be willing to go to court I think they might have a good chance to win this case. Does not sound like a single entity to me...

 

Bounty hunters?

Quite recently a potentially big scandal shook up the "pre-Draft" NFL. Accusations surfaced that now Ex-New Orleans Defensive Coordinator Gregg Williams used to run illegal (under NFL rules) pay for performance schemes when he was with the Saints (2009-11), the Redskins and probably the Tennessee Titans and Buffalo Bills earlier in his career. Some former players came forward and described Williams' system as some sort of "bounty program" where hard hits and injuries of opponents where awarded extra money.

Former Titans and 49ers Safety Lance Schulters is cited by the Tennesseasn newspaper as follows:

“Guys would throw out there, ‘Hey, knock this guy out and it’s worth $1,000,’ ” Schulters said. “Let’s say when we played the Steelers, and Hines Ward was always trying to knock guys out. So if you knocked (him) out, there might be something in the pot, $100 or whatever, for a big hit on Hines — a legal, big hit."

He went on saying:

"A player scoring a touchdown might receive $500 from a pool, a defensive lineman with a sack might get $200 and a 100-yard rusher might be handed $1,000. Special teams players would get a bonus for a downing a punt inside the 10, and offensive linemen could expect to be handed extra cash for not giving up a sack. Sometimes the bonuses could be as much as $5,000." 

So we have two essentially different things: One is a clear incentive to injure and harm opponents and the other is basically extra financial compensation for making perfectly legal plays and performing well.

So let us turn our intention to the incentives to get opponents injured. Is this really something new or illegal? Every defender in the NFL or in other levels of football knows that knocking out any starter on the offense of the opponent will substantially increase the probability to win the game. Of course defenders will try to hit the opposing Quarterback as hard as possible and if he is on the sideline nobody will feel bad about it. And as long as the hits were legal it will (and should not) have any negative consequences. When Jay Cuttler (Chicago Bears) went down in the NFC Championship game last year against Green Bay, the chances of the Packers to win the game increase dramatically. I doubt that it needed any extra incentives for Green Bay defenders to go after Cuttler as hard as possible. So why make too much out of this new story?

But let us turn to the second Schulters quote. What he is saying is that there was systematic extra compensation for making plays on defense and offense.  $1.000 for a 100-yards rusher, $500 for a TD catch and a mere $200 for a sack. Should we really care for this at all? When we talk about  $1.000 for a 100 yards rusher we usually talk about an athlete earning a million dollars base salary, having a contract usually involving performances bonuses anyway and (more often than not) being a multi millionaire. The same is true for Wide Receivers who catch TDs and defenders who get to the QB. Performance will always be rewarded in professional sports. So what is an extra $200 for a linemen who earns thousands of dollars for each game anyway? What kind of an extra incentive is that? I say it is pretty much irrelevant. And as long as performance incentives are part of regular NFL contracts it just another way of rewarding (perfectly legal) performances.

We are either seeing just the tip of an iceberg right now, or this story is blown out of proportion already. Even if we condemn Gregg Williams' ways of coaching we could still say that it probably has not worked out anyway. The New Orleans Saints' defense has not really done well in recent years, culminating in a rather bad 2011 season. This ultimately got Williams fired. His approach failed, but was it really that "bad" after all? We will probably have to think about this as soon as the NFL has issued the penalty...

 

Market Po(e)wer

As reported earlier here on my blog the NFL Scouting Combine is on the way. Yesterday one player might have earned himself a small fortune by posting unbelievable numbers at the workouts. Dontari Poe, a Defensive Tackle from the University of Kentucky, weighted in at the Combine at  at 346 lbs, standing tall at 6-4.

At that size Poe is literally a giant, being only 21 years old. Even though he has a massive body, he had an amazing workout yesterday in Indianapolis and ran the 40 yards dash in 4.87 seconds. But he was not only fast, but also demonstrated a lot of power:  he  bench-pressed 225 pounds 44 times.

With this performance he might have lifted his draft stock a lot. Probably into the first 15 picks overall. He now might lead the market for Defensive Tackles in the Draft. And this translates directly into a lot of money in terms of salary and signing bonus. Poe earned himself a substantial amount of money yesterday without ever stepping on the field in the NFL. We will see how his career turns out...