In this paper, we address the problem of sabotage in tournaments with heterogeneous contestants. In a first step, we develop a formal model, which yields the prediction that favorites exert higher productive effort, while underdogs are more tempted to engage in destructive actions (sabotage). This is because favorites have a higher return on productive effort and both types of effort are substitutes. In a second step, we use data from German professional soccer to test this prediction. In line with the model, we find that favorite teams win more tackles in a fair way, while underdog teams commit more fouls.

No abstract

Applying detailed within-tournament information about intermediate scores and contestants' ability in rank-order professional soccer tournaments, this study empirically analyzes the impact of interim results on the sabotage activities of heterogeneous contestants. Intermediate information that suggests that a contest is decided early decreases total sabotage. Splitting contestants into favorites and underdogs reveals that both contestants sabotage the most if intermediate information about the score compensates for or decreases ex ante heterogeneity between the teams. However, engaging in sabotage does not pay off for the contestants.

No abstract

The purpose of the current study is to investigate how consistency of professional soccer players’ performance affects salaries in the German Bundesliga. Using game-level data for five consecutive seasons ( n = 34,413 player–match day observations), we find empirical evidence for a salary premium to players showing volatility in performance. Applying ordinary least squares, fixed-effects as well as quantile regression analyses, this effect remains robust.

Reprints availrblc dirrclly fmm the pvblirhcr Pholacopying pcrmincd by liccnw only Q ZOO1 OPA (Ovcruu Publishen Aarociolion) N. V. Published by liccnw u n h r Ihs H m m d Academic Publishen imprint. panof %Cordon and B-h Publishing Omup.Validation of new crash test dummies for rear-end collision testing requires human response data from pertinent test situations. Eleven human volunteers were exposed to 23 low-speed rear impacts to determine human response in well-defined test seats, and to quantify repeatability, variability and the effect of seat design on human response.The results showed vertical motion of the volunteers' H-point caused by ramping up along the seat, and an upward motion of the volunteers'torso and head. The latter was caused by a combination of ramping up along the seatback and straightening of the thoracic kyphosis. During the first 100 ms, the volunteers flexed their necks. Thereafter, the volunteers extended their necks. These new data have proven to be useful in validation of rear-impact dummies.

This study investigates whether firms are willing to pay higher wages to workers who demonstrate consistent performance than to those whose performance is more volatile. A formal model reflects a production technology view, assuming the law of diminishing marginal product. This model suggests that a more consistent worker produces higher expected output and therefore receives a higher wage. The test of the model uses data from the National Basketball Association. The empirical data support the model: Players whose performances were more consistent than the performances of other players received higher wages on average. (JEL D41, J31, M52, Z20)

Beginning March 2015, the National Basketball Association (NBA) started the public assessment of officiated events in close game situations, where teams are within five points with two or less minutes to play. This ex-post league evaluation of officials' actions allows for a much improved analysis of referee biases like the home bias, preferential treatment of superstars, race and favoritism towards losing teams. Instead of relying on statistical frequency of calls and devoting it to biased decision making, in-game decision making is matched with reviewed broadcasting video in this paper. The empirical analysis for 113 games and 1229 total calls finds no support of referee bias in foul calling.