Optimal contest design, closeness and the contest success function

Abstract

This paper considers the optimal design of an asymmetric two-player contest when the designer’s payoff depends not only on performance of the contestants, but also on the closeness of the contest measured by the difference in winning probabilities. In contrast to previous studies, the impact of closeness on the optimal prize depends on the shape of the contest success function. Furthermore, including closeness in the designer’s objective may induce the designer to uniformly increase the contestants’ effort costs. A similar result is obtained in case the designer may handicap the stronger contestant, but an even contest is never optimal. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2006Closeness, Contest design, Contest success function,

The Effect of Salary Caps in Professional Team Sports on Social Welfare

“…∂q ∂x i > 0, no matter how unbalanced the league becomes. In contrast, in our model, quality decreases if the league becomes too unbalanced (see also Runkel, 2006; Given this profit-maximizing price, league revenue depends solely on the quality of the league…”

Revenue Sharing, Competitive Balance and the Contest Success Function

“…The function also reflects the often used power function H ( t )= t r if we set k 1 = k 2 =1, k 3 =0 and k 4 =( r −1)/ r . Moreover, Runkel (2006) considers a gallery of further functional forms of H , for example For all these CSFs we obtain…”

Politicians, governed versus non-governed interest groups and rent dissipation

“…Most of the literature on optimal contest design has focused on the choice of the contest prize (Glazer and Hassin 1988;Runkel 2006;Singh and Wittman 1998;Epstein and Nitzan 2002, 2006a,b, 2007; the set of contestants (Baye et al 1993;Amegashie 2000;Moldovanu and Sela 2006;Taylor 1995); the set of contestants and the prize system (Che and Gale 2003); the structure of multi-stage contests (Gradstein 1998;Gradstein and Konrad 1999;Amegashie 2000); caps on political lobbying (Che and Gale 1998); and the CSF, which relates the contestants' efforts to their probabilities of winning (Che and Gale 1997;Nti 1997Nti , 2004.…”