4 ms·

Are sports economics zero-sum? Both teams get paid for playing. If one team loses, they don't give money to the other team.

jdminhbg 10y ago
Depending on the sport, there is frequently prize money at stake, so while you're not actively giving money to the winner, you're all competing for a fixed prize. But beyond that, the more salient point is that unlike in sports, in the real world, for me to win does not necessarily mean that you have to lose. Every time I make a shot in basketball, I've increased the "value" of my team and also decreased the value of my opponent.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
michaelt 10y ago
Most sports are zero-sum in the sense that over a given set of matches, the number of wins has to equal the number of losses. Obviously not every sport is that way. A major marathon might have one male and one female winner among 30,000 entrants.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  By the same logic: the more losers, the more winners (for pairwise matches). You can't have winning teams without losers.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 10y ago
  Your ignoring golf for example where the winner / loser split is not 1:1. Also, regular session games in many sports are simply gateways to playoffs so the number of winners = slots in playoffs. More importantly it's entertainment. A close game is better in the long term than annual blowouts. Making the occasional loss highly valuable.
- squeaky-clean 10y ago
  Sure, winning and losing is zero-sum, but the payout isn't. Lebron is still going to get that $27 million / year from his contract, regardless of whether or not the cavs win anything. (or whatever team he's decided to switch to most recently, haha. I barely follow these things)
MagnumOpus 10y ago
Sports is zero-sum in the way that there's a fixed amount of money to be distributed from ticket sales and TV rights. That money goes to the top few hundred athletes/clubs/franchises in every sport - doesn't matter whether there are a million or a billion aspiring players. Pertinently, active investment management - Buffett's forte - is similarly zero-sum in the way fees on managed assets accrue, although the stock market as a whole isn't.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  The stock market isn't as a whole as long as we have continuing growth. Japan is a good counterexample to that.

jdminhbg 10y ago

Depending on the sport, there is frequently prize money at stake, so while you're not actively giving money to the winner, you're all competing for a fixed prize. But beyond that, the more salient point is that unlike in sports, in the real world, for me to win does not necessarily mean that you have to lose. Every time I make a shot in basketball, I've increased the "value" of my team and also decreased the value of my opponent.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

michaelt 10y ago

Most sports are zero-sum in the sense that over a given set of matches, the number of wins has to equal the number of losses. Obviously not every sport is that way. A major marathon might have one male and one female winner among 30,000 entrants.

dredmorbius 10y ago
By the same logic: the more losers, the more winners (for pairwise matches). You can't have winning teams without losers.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Retric 10y ago
Your ignoring golf for example where the winner / loser split is not 1:1. Also, regular session games in many sports are simply gateways to playoffs so the number of winners = slots in playoffs. More importantly it's entertainment. A close game is better in the long term than annual blowouts. Making the occasional loss highly valuable.
squeaky-clean 10y ago
Sure, winning and losing is zero-sum, but the payout isn't. Lebron is still going to get that $27 million / year from his contract, regardless of whether or not the cavs win anything. (or whatever team he's decided to switch to most recently, haha. I barely follow these things)

MagnumOpus 10y ago

Sports is zero-sum in the way that there's a fixed amount of money to be distributed from ticket sales and TV rights. That money goes to the top few hundred athletes/clubs/franchises in every sport - doesn't matter whether there are a million or a billion aspiring players. Pertinently, active investment management - Buffett's forte - is similarly zero-sum in the way fees on managed assets accrue, although the stock market as a whole isn't.

infinite8s 10y ago
The stock market isn't as a whole as long as we have continuing growth. Japan is a good counterexample to that.