The role of social capital in national football team …...2016/11/11 · The role of social...

The role of social capital in national football team

performance

8th ESEA, September 2, 2016

Inna Zaytseva

NRU HSE, Moscow

[email protected]

Problem

8th ESEA, September 2, 2016 2

Talent and effort

Cooperation

What is the role of cooperation in translating players’ talent

to a team performance?

Hypothesis


Social capital, defined as the ability to act

collectively for a common goal (Putnam,

1993), and measured at the national level, positively influences the national football team performance

Explicit incentives of immediate financial gain are weak for

national team players

Players have pro-social motivation in

addition to the implicit incentive of

career concerns

SC complements individual skills as

factor of team success

About cultural factors in football

Latin American culture Hoffmann et al., 2002

• Positive effect of Latin culture

Football traditions Hoffmann et al., 2002; Houston, Wilson, 2002; Macmillan, Smith, 2007; Leeds, Leeds, 2009

Three different measures: • the duration of the development of football

in the country • hosting the FIFA World cup • colonial past


Factors of success in football

Cultural heterogeneity in clubs Maderer et al., 2014

• Negative effect of cultural diversity • No support for the hypothesis “The more collectivist a

team is, the more successful it is” (average national individualism/collectivism scores of Hofstede (2001))

Other factors of success of national football teams Houston, Wilson, 2002; Macmillan, Smith, 2007; Berlinschi at all. 2013; Leeds, Leeds, 2009 • Income, population, climate, oil production, the

power of national championship, migration of national team players, political regime


Pay-performance relationship and financial

motivation

Pay -> Performance Torgler, Schmidt, 2007; Della Torre et al., 2014 • the absolute value of lagged salary has positive effect

with diminishing return on individual performance

Franck, Nüesch, 2011 • wage expenditures increase sporting success at the

team level, however including the pay dispersion eliminates this effect



motivation

Performance -> Pay Deutscher, Buschemann, 2016 • average performance explains the difference in

players’ market values

• consistency of payer’s performance negatively impacts the market value

Wicker et al., 2013 • effort, measured as distance covered and intensive

runs, has no effect



motivation

Causality Nüesch, 2009 • both pay and performance of players are driven

mostly by the talent

Frick, 2006 • poor teams use bonus payments, while rich teams pay

a high fixed salary

Hall, Symanski and Zimbalist, 2002 • the more restrictions on players spending is imposed

the weaker is the influence of wage bill on the team performance


Do players have a vested interest in a national team win? To what extent does the FIFA WC team performance determine future market value? • MV before and after the World Cup 2014 • National football team performance at the

World Cup 2014 (number of points) • 50 biggest changes in market value • Corr=0.004, t-stat=0.025

Coupe, 2007 • No link between cumulative bonuses to players and

the performance of the team on the World Cup 2006

Players’ motivation


Theoretical model Dewatripont, Jewitt, Tirole (1999). The economics of career concerns

Team output:

𝑦 = (𝜆𝜃𝑖 + 𝜇𝑎𝑖 + 𝑎𝑖

𝑛

𝑖=1

𝜃𝑖) + 𝜀

• 𝜆, 𝜇 > 0

• 𝜃~𝑁 𝜃 , 𝜎𝜃2 , i.i.d.

• 𝜀~𝑁 0, 𝜎𝜀2

The expected reward or the career concern of players is 𝐸 𝜃𝑖 𝑦, 𝑎

∗

Player’s problem: max𝑎𝑖≥0𝛼𝐸𝑦 + 𝐸𝑦𝐸𝜃 𝜃𝑖 𝑦, 𝑎 − 𝑐 𝑎𝑖

F.O.C.: 𝛼 𝜇 + 𝜃 +(𝜇+𝜃 )(𝜆+𝑎𝑖)𝜎𝜃

2

𝜎𝜃2 (𝑎𝑖+𝜆)

2𝑛𝑗=1 +𝜎𝜀

2 = 𝑐′(𝑎𝑖)


Explicit incentives of immediate financial gain are weak for national team players

Theoretical model

Assumption: 𝜆 >𝜎𝜀

𝜎𝜃 𝑛

Proposition 1 𝑎∗ increases in 𝜃 (expected talent), 𝛼 (social capital) and decreases in n (collective signaling problem).

Proposition 2 𝐸𝑦 increases in 𝜃 (expected talent) and 𝛼 (social capital).

Proposition 3

For sufficiently large n and 𝑐 𝑎 = 𝑎2 one has 𝜕2

𝜕𝛼𝜕𝜃𝑦 > 0.


Why do we use national SC?


National culture

determines the players’

behavior to a large extent

Rare meetings of the team

(3-6 days 5-6 times a year)

High club heterogeneity

HH Index Spain 0.13 HH Index Italy 0.07

HH Index Russia 0.16 HH Index India 0.15

Teams are comprised of mostly home

country nationals

Data

142 observations for 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014 ESS waves

Dependent variable: Performance of national football teams: the FIFA World Ranking

Social capital measures: • Trust: “Most people can be trusted or that you can't

be too careful in dealing with people?” • Help: “Most of the time people helpful or people

mostly look out for themselves?” • Care: “Important to help people and care for others

well-being” • Fair: “Most people try to take advantage of you, or

try to be fair”


Data

Controls: • TMV: cumulative market value (inverse

relation)(transfermarkt.de) • Clim: deviation of average annual temperature

from 14C • Inc: GDP PPP • Pop: population size

Method: Negative Binomial Regression


Summary Statistics


Variable Mean Std.Dev. Min Max

fifarank 36.859 30.664 1 155

tmv 92.843 96.272 1.54 562.981

clim 47.177 43.013 0 213.16

inc 520.477 708.381 9.551 3049.71

pop 21.590 30.226 0.291 143.3

trust 41.895 17.739 12.5 78.4

help 37.722 15.322 13.6 66.4

care 89.478 5.934 69.1 98.5

fair 50.556 17.877 17.8 83

Results1


fifarank 1 2

tmv_inv 2.518 2.3628 (1.0634)** (1.0631)**

lninc -0.2221 -0.2726 (0.0838)*** (0.0796)***

pop -0.0132 -0.0103 (0.0041)*** (0.0037)***

clim 0.0086 0.0072 (0.0019)*** (0.0017)***

trust -0.0122 (0.0047)***

help -0.0091 (0.0048)*

_cons lnalpha 4.9046 5.0317 (0.3990)*** (0.4027)***

_cons -1.0279 -1.0079 (0.1327)*** (0.1325)***

Results1


fifarank 3 4

tmv_inv 2.4623 2.5976 (1.1022)** (1.0626)**

lninc -0.3215 -0.2211 (0.0754)*** (0.0864)**

pop -0.0069 -0.0119 (0.0031)** (0.0039)***

clim 0.0052 0.0078 (0.0014)*** (0.0018)***

care -0.01 (-0.0096)

fair -0.0101 (0.0044)**

_cons lnalpha 5.8661 4.9064 (0.9428)*** (0.3979)***

_cons -0.9894 -1.021 (0.1321)*** (0.1329)***

Results3


fifarank 1 2

tmv_inv 1.7637 1.92 (0.8109)** (0.8462)**

lninc -0.1345 -0.1585 (0.0710)* (0.0690)**

pop -0.0039 -0.0021 -0.0037 -0.0034

clim 0.0015 0.0012 -0.0019 -0.0017

trust 0.0078 (0.0047)*

tmvtrust -0.0001 (0.0000)***

help 0.0106 (0.0049)**

tmvhelp -0.0002 (0.0000)***

Results4


fifarank 3 4

tmv_inv 1.7719 1.9979 (0.8353)** (0.8868)**

lninc -0.157 -0.187 (0.0655)** (0.0758)**

pop -0.0027 -0.0015 -0.0028 -0.0039

clim 0.0016 0.0009 -0.0013 -0.0019

care -0.0022 -0.0082

tmvcare -0.0001 (0.0000)***

fair 0.0078 -0.0048

tmvfair -0.0001 (0.0000)***

Conclusion

Team performance in football is determined not only by talent of players, but also by their ability to work cooperatively for common goal (SC)

SC works through the pro-social motivation to contribute to team’s success even if such success is little material value for an athlete

National level social capital, measured as perception of values and behavior in a society, can be used as a proxy for national football team social capital

Social capital complements individual skills and talent


8th ESEA, September 2, 2016

Data

Dependent variable: Performance of national football teams: the FIFA World Ranking

• Four-year period • Was the match won or drawn? (M) • How important was the match? (I) • How strong was the opposing team in

terms of ranking position? (T) • How strong was the confederation to

which they belong? (C) • P = M x I x T x C


Date post:	12-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

The role of social capital in national football team …...2016/11/11 · The role of social...

Documents