Experimente in der Sportökonomik

  • Christoph BührenEmail author
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history


Kernproblem empirischer Forschung ist die Bestimmung von Kausalitäten aus Korrelationen. Experimente können das Problem lösen. Der folgende Beitrag stellt Labor-, Online-, Feld- und Quasi-Experimente vor und nennt jeweils bedeutende Beispiele aus der Sportökonomik. Aufgrund der hervorragenden Datenlage sind sportökonomische Quasi-Experimente über den Sport hinaus interessant für unterschiedlichste Fragestellungen aus der Wirtschaftspolitik, insbesondere der Wettbewerbspolitik, ferner für Verhaltensökonomik, Recht, Psychologie, Marketing, Management und Personalökonomik.

Dieser Beitrag ist Teil der Sektion Sportökonomik, herausgegeben von den Teilherausgebern Eike Emrich und Christian Pierdzioch, innerhalb des Handbuchs Sport und Sportwissenschaft, herausgegeben von Arne Güllich und Michael Krüger.


Natürliche Experimente Feldexperimente Laborexperimente Sportökonomik Verhaltensökonomik 


  1. Adler, M. (1985). Stardom and talent. The American Economic Review, 75(1), 208–212.Google Scholar
  2. Apesteguia, J., & Palacios-Huerta, I. (2010). Psychological pressure in competitive environments: Evidence from a randomized natural experiment. The American Economic Review, 100(5), 2548–2564.Google Scholar
  3. Ariely, D., Gneezy, U., Loewenstein, G., & Mazar, N. (2009). Large stakes and big mistakes. The Review of Economic Studies, 76(2), 451–469.Google Scholar
  4. Avugos, S., Köppen, J., Czienskowski, U., Raab, M., & Bar-Eli, M. (2013). The „hot hand“ reconsidered: A meta-analytic approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(1), 21–27.Google Scholar
  5. Balafoutas, L., Lindner, F., & Sutter, M. (2012). Sabotage in tournaments: Evidence from a natural experiment. Kyklos, 65(4), 425–441.Google Scholar
  6. Bar-Eli, M., Avugos, S., & Raab, M. (2006). Twenty years of „hot hand“ research: Review and critique. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7(6), 525–553.Google Scholar
  7. Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 610–620.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Baumeister, R. F., & Steinhilber, A. (1984). Paradoxical effects of supportive audiences on performance under pressure: The home field disadvantage in sports championships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 85–93.Google Scholar
  9. Berger, J., & Pope, D. (2011). Can losing lead to winning? Management Science, 57(5), 817–827.Google Scholar
  10. Berri, D. J. (2008). A simple model of worker productivity in the National Basketball Association. In B. D. Humphreys & D. R. Howard (Hrsg.), The business of sports: Volume 3: Bridging research and practice (S. 1–40). London: Praeger Perspectives.Google Scholar
  11. Berri, D. J., & Jewell, R. T. (2004). Wage inequality and firm performance: Professional basketball’s natural experiment. Atlantic Economic Journal, 32(2), 130–139.Google Scholar
  12. Berri, D. J., & Krautmann, A. C. (2006). Shirking on the court: Testing for the incentive effects of guaranteed pay. Economic Inquiry, 44(3), 536–546.Google Scholar
  13. Bizzozero, P. (2016). Minimax play at Wimbledon: New evidence. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  14. Bizzozero, P., Flepp, R., & Franck, E. (2016). The importance of suspense and surprise in entertainment demand: Evidence from Wimbledon. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 130, 47–63.Google Scholar
  15. Bradbury, J. C. (2008). Statistical performance analysis in sport. In B. D. Humphreys & D. R. Howard (Hrsg.), The business of sports: Volume 3: Bridging research and practice (S. 41–56). London: Praeger Perspectives.Google Scholar
  16. Bryson, A., Rossi, G., & Simmons, R. (2014). The migrant wage premium in professional football: A superstar effect? Kyklos, 67(1), 12–28.Google Scholar
  17. Bühren, C., & Frank, B. (2012). Chess players’ performance beyond 64 squares: A case study on the limitations of cognitive abilities transfer. Talent Development and Excellence, 4(2), 157–169.Google Scholar
  18. Bühren, C., & Krabel, S. (2015). Individual performance after success and failure: A natural experiment (MAGKS Joint discussion paper series in economics no. 05-2015).Google Scholar
  19. Bühren, C., & Kundt, T. C. (2014). Does the level of work effort influence tax evasion? Experimental evidence. Review of Economics, 65(2), 137–158.Google Scholar
  20. Bühren, C., & Steinberg, P. J. (2018). The impact of psychological traits on performance in sequential tournaments: Evidence from a tennis field experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology. Google Scholar
  21. Bühren, C., Meyer, T., & Pierdzioch, C. (2018). Experimental evidence on forecaster (anti)herding in sports markets. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  22. Buraimo, B., Frick, B., Hickfang, M., & Simmons, R. (2015). The economics of long-term contracts in the footballers’ labour market. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 62(1), 8–24.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen-Zada, D., Krumer, A., Rosenboim, M., & Shapir, O. M. (2017). Choking under pressure and gender: Evidence from professional tennis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 61, 176–190.Google Scholar
  24. Dilger, A., & Geyer, H. (2009). Are three points for a win really better than two? A comparison of German soccer league and cup games. Journal of Sports Economics, 10(3), 305–318.Google Scholar
  25. Feri, F., Innocenti, A., & Pin, P. (2013). Is there psychological pressure in competitive environments? Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 249–256.Google Scholar
  26. Franck, E., & Nüesch, S. (2012). Talent and/or popularity: What does it take to be a superstar? Economic Inquiry, 50(1), 202–216.Google Scholar
  27. Frick, B. (2003). Contest theory and sport. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(4), 512–529.Google Scholar
  28. Frick, B., & Simmons, R. (2008). The impact of managerial quality on organizational performance: Evidence from German soccer. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(7), 593–600.Google Scholar
  29. Garcia-del Barrio, P., & Pujol, F. (2007). Hidden monopsony rents in winnertake- all markets – Sport and economic contribution of Spanish soccer players. Managerial and Decision Economics, 28(1), 57–70.Google Scholar
  30. Garicano, L., Palacios-Huerta, I., & Prendergast, C. (2005). Favoritism under social pressure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(2), 208–216.Google Scholar
  31. Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., & Tversky, A. (1985). The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences. Cognitive Psychology, 17(3), 295–314.Google Scholar
  32. Gilsdorf, K., & Sukhatme, V. (2007). Testing Rosen’s sequential elimination tournament model. Incentives and player performance in professional tennis. Journal of Sports Economics, 9(3), 287–303.Google Scholar
  33. González-Díaz, J., Gossner, O., & Rogers, B. W. (2012). Performing best when it matters most: Evidence from professional tennis. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 84(3), 767–781.Google Scholar
  34. Grund, C., Höcker, J., & Zimmermann, S. (2013). Incidence and consequences of risk-taking behavior in tournaments – Evidence from the NBA. Economic Inquiry, 51(2), 1489–1501.Google Scholar
  35. Harb-Wu, K., & Krumer, A. (2017). Choking under pressure in front of a supportive audience: Evidence from professional biathlon. Economics Working Paper Series 1717,University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  36. Heckelman, J. C., & Yates, A. J. (2003). And a hockey game broke out: Crime and punishment in the NHL. Economic Inquiry, 41(4), 705–712.Google Scholar
  37. Hon, L. Y., & Parinduri, R. A. (2014). Does the three-point rule make soccer more exciting? Evidence from a regression discontinuity design. Journal of Sports Economics, 17(4), 377–395.Google Scholar
  38. Hsu, S. H., Huang, C. Y., & Tang, C. T. (2007). Minimax play at Wimbledon: Comment. The American Economic Review, 97(1), 517–523.Google Scholar
  39. Izquierdo Sanchez, S., Elliott, C., & Simmons, R. (2016). Substitution between leisure activities: A quasi-natural experiment using sports viewing and cinema attendance. Applied Economics, 48(40), 3848–3860.Google Scholar
  40. Jones, M. B. (2007). Home advantage in the NBA as a game-long process. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 3(4), 2.Google Scholar
  41. Jung, S., & Vranceanu, R. (2017). Experimental estimates of men’s and women’s willingness to compete: Does the gender of the partner matter? Inha University. IBER working paper series no. 5-2017.Google Scholar
  42. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.Google Scholar
  43. Klaassen, F., & Magnus, J. R. (2014). Analyzing Wimbledon: The power of statistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kocher, M. G., Lenz, M. V., & Sutter, M. (2012). Psychological pressure in competitive environments: New evidence from randomized natural experiments. Management Science, 58(8), 1585–1591.Google Scholar
  45. Kolev, G. I., Pina, G., & Todeschini, F. (2015). Decision making and underperformance in competitive environments: Evidence from the national hockey league. Kyklos, 68(1), 65–80.Google Scholar
  46. Koning, R. H. (2011). Home advantage in professional tennis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(1), 19–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuethe, T. H., & Motamed, M. (2010). Returns to stardom: Evidence from U.S. major league soccer. Journal of Sports Economics, 11(5), 567–579.Google Scholar
  48. Lazear, E. P., & Rosen, S. (1981). Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 841–864.Google Scholar
  49. Lehman, D. W., & Hahn, J. (2013). Momentum and organizational risk taking: Evidence from the National Football League. Management Science, 59(4), 852–868.Google Scholar
  50. Levitt, S. D. (2002). Testing the economic model of crime: The national hockey league’s two-referee experiment. Contributions in Economic Analysis & Policy, 1(1), 2.Google Scholar
  51. Levitt, S. D., List, J. A., & Reiley, D. H. (2010). What happens in the field stays in the field: Exploring whether professionals play minimax in laboratory experiments. Econometrica, 78(4), 1413–1434.Google Scholar
  52. Lewis, M. (2004). Moneyball: The art of winning an unfair game. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  53. Lynch, J. G., & Zax, J. S. (2000). The rewards to running prize structure and performance in professional road racing. Journal of Sports Economics, 1(4), 323–340.Google Scholar
  54. Mago, S. D., Sheremeta, R. M., & Yates, A. (2013). Best-of-three contest experiments: Strategic versus psychological momentum. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 31(3), 287–296.Google Scholar
  55. Marcelino, R., Mesquita, I., Palao, J. M., & Sampaio, J. (2009). Home advantage in high-level volleyball varies according to set number. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 8(3), 352–356.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. McCormick, R. E., & Tollison, R. D. (1984). Crime on the court. The Journal of Political Economy, 92(2), 223–235.Google Scholar
  57. Miller, J. B., & Sanjurjo, A. (2014). A cold shower for the hot hand fallacy. IGIER working paper no. 518.Google Scholar
  58. Miller, J. B., & Sanjurjo, A. (2015). Is it a fallacy to believe in the hot hand in the NBA three-point contest? IGIER working paper no. 548.Google Scholar
  59. Miller, J. B., & Sanjurjo, A. (2018). Surprised by the hot hand fallacy? A truth in the law of small numbers. Econometrica, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  60. Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101.Google Scholar
  61. O’Neill, B. (1987). Nonmetric test of the minimax theory of two-person zerosum games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 84(7), 2106–2109.Google Scholar
  62. Page, K., & Page, L. (2010). Alone against the crowd: Individual differences in referees’ ability to cope under pressure. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(2), 192–199.Google Scholar
  63. Palacios-Huerta, I. (2003). Professionals play minimax. The Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 395–415.Google Scholar
  64. Palacios-Huerta, I. (2014). Beautiful game theory: How soccer can help economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Palacios-Huerta, I., & Volij, O. (2008). Experientia docet: Professionals play minimax in laboratory experiments. Econometrica, 76(1), 71–115.Google Scholar
  66. Pawlowski, T., Breuer, C., & Hovemann, A. (2010). Top clubs’ performance and the competitive situation in European domestic football competitions. Journal of Sports Economics, 11(2), 186–202.Google Scholar
  67. Pope, D. G., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2011). Is Tiger Woods loss averse? Persistent bias in the face of experience, competition, and high stakes. The American Economic Review, 101(1), 129–157.Google Scholar
  68. Prouhet, E. (1851). Mémoire sur quelques relations entre les puissances des nombres. Comptes Rendus des Scéances de l´Académie des Sciences., 33, 225–226.Google Scholar
  69. Rickman, N., & Witt, R. (2008). Favouritism and financial incentives: A natural experiment. Economica, 75(298), 296–309.Google Scholar
  70. Rosen, S. (1981). The economics of superstars. The American Economic Review, 71(5), 845–858.Google Scholar
  71. Schreyer, D., Schmidt, S. L., & Torgler, B. (2016). Against all odds? Exploring the role of game outcome uncertainty in season ticket holders’ stadium attendance demand. Journal of Economic Psychology, 56, 192–217.Google Scholar
  72. Simmons, R., & Berri, D. J. (2011). Mixing the princes and the paupers: Pay and performance in the National Basketball Association. Labour Economics, 18(3), 381–388.Google Scholar
  73. Stiroh, K. J. (2007). Playing for keeps: Pay and performance in the NBA. Economic Inquiry, 45(1), 145–161.Google Scholar
  74. Szymanski, S. (2001). Income inequality, competitive balance and the attractiveness of team sports: Some evidence and a natural experiment from English soccer. The Economic Journal, 111(469), 69–84.Google Scholar
  75. Walker, M., & Wooders, J. (2001). Minimax play at Wimbledon. The American Economic Review, 91(5), 1521–1538.Google Scholar
  76. Wooders, J. (2010). Does experience teach? Professionals and minimax play in the lab. Econometrica, 78(3), 1143–1154.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachbereich WirtschaftswissenschaftenUniversität KasselKasselDeutschland

Section editors and affiliations

  • Eike Emrich
    • 1
  • Christian Pierdzioch
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für SportökonomieUniversität des SaarlandesSaarbrückenDeutschland
  2. 2.Professur für Monetäre ÖkonomikHelmut-Schmidt-Universität HamburgHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations