Toward a new (evolutionary) economics of sports

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a new classification of rules-driven sports and technology-driven sports that suggests different models of how sports develop. This paper outlines some key aspects of an evolutionary view of sports economics research and, separately, an institutional view of sports economic research. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a conceptual/theoretical piece rather than an empirical analysis of a research question. The authors scaffold a proposed analytic framework that is a combination of evolutionary economics and new institutional economics. Findings A new dynamic approach to the study of sports industries is called for. The authors observe that sports and sports industries exhibit dynamic qualities but in the study of sports there is no analogue of “industrial dynamics” as in economics. What is missing is the field of “evolutionary sports dynamics.” To build this, the authors frame a new evolutionary approach to the study of the sports economy and sports industries – by examining the evolution of sports, their industries, and the complex industrial ecosystems they operate in, through the lens of institutional and evolutionary economics. Originality/value The paper establishes a theoretical basis for a “New Economics of Sports” – as a shift in the types of questions that sports economics seeks to answer. These are away from “sports statics” – as a branch of applied economics of industrial organization and optimal allocation of sports resources (ala Rottenberg, 1956; Neale, 1964) – and toward concern with the economics of “sports dynamics.” The prime questions are less with the optimal organization of existing sports, and more toward understanding the origin of new sports and the evolutionary life cycles of sports.

The evolution of the football jersey – an institutional perspective

“…Individual clubs are required to coordinate their resources based on the rules which are codified, administered and enforced. Potts and Thomas (2018) argue that under these conditions sports are closer to a commons, as outlined by Ostrom (1990) and Hess and Ostrom (2007). The structures in place to manage the sport and the overarching rules are shared by all agents.…”

The key importance of spending on research and development in Formula One

“…Formula One is also a very interesting sport from an economic point of view (Fairley et al, 2011; Mao & Huang, 2016; Potts & Thomas, 2018; Sobral et al, 2022; Xue & Mason, 2011). It is de facto a closed market with 10 players (although this number has varied historically) in the form of teams competing freely against each other and one regulator, the Fédération International de l'Automobile (FIA).…”

The perspectives on the efficiency of individual sports programs within a selected public sector entity: a case study

“…Sport is legislatively defined as a public benefit activity in numerous countries, encompassing social and economic dimensions that play a crucial role in achieving the socio-economic goals outlined by national economies and the European Union. Simultaneously, it generates positive externalities, leading to substantial economic and social advantages (Novotný et al, 2011;Onwumechili, 2018, Potts & Thomas, 2018Leeds, 2022;Zhou, Ke & Waqas, 2023). From an economic perspective, understanding the costs and benefits associated with sports activities becomes pertinent.…”