Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, Corey Simon and Peyton Manning all deserved to be paid over $10 million dollars during the 2006-2007 NFL Season! Some of you are probably thinking that this statement is a little over the top. You might be saying “There is no way they should be paid that much money”! Well, if you are an owner who’s primary goal is to win games, then paying these players was worth it. The Colts won the Super Bowl that year and I can guarantee you that these players had a lot to do with it. I came to this conclusion through a study I recently did in my Sports Economics Class while pursuing my MBA. I will summarize (the final paper is actually around 10 pages long) for you what I did for the study and the results. First, I want to share the results of the poll that I did in my previous post in which I asked:
What effect does Salary Dispersion within a team in the NFL have on winning percentage? Do you get the best players? Do role players get jealous? Choose one of the following.
- The higher the dispersion between the highest and lowest salaries on the team, the higher the winning percentage.
- The higher the dispersion between the highest and lowest salaries on the team, the lower the winning percentage.
As of 2 PM on May 2, 2012, the results were split right down the middle, 9 to 9! As I began to talk to some of the people who took the pool question, I got the feeling that some people were a little confused on the question and what “dispersion between the highest and lowest salaries on the team” actually meant. It is not nearly the range between the highest and lowest salary, it is how the size of the salaries are spread across the entire team. In Economics, there is a measurement called the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI). According to the United States Department of Justice, “The Herfindahl–Hirschman Index is a commonly accepted measure of market concentration. The HHI is calculated by squaring the market share of each firm competing in the market and then summing the resulting numbers” (USDOJ: Antitrust Division). I can use this measurement to look at each player as part of a market (the team) and use the salary to determine how much of the market they have. In this study, the higher the HHI, the more disparity there is between the highest salaries and the lower salaries. If the HHI is really high, then there are one or a couple players on the team who have really high salaries. If the HHI is relatively low, then the salaries are more evenly dispersed and everyone has a relatively average salary.
To test the effects of the HHI on the winning percentage, I collected the salaries of each player for each team during the 2000-2009 NFL Seasons. This was a lot of data! I then calculated the HHI of each team and compared it to their winning percentage by conducting a regression analysis. I was interested to see whether paying a couple of players a huge amount of money was really worth it, or did these players begin playing worse now that they had the money. There was also the possibility that role players would get jealous of these superstars. After seeing the results, it showed that on average, THE HIGHER THE TEAM HHI, THE HIGHER THE TEAM WINNING PERCENTAGE. The following chart shows visual confirmation. From the chart, you can see the estimated linear regression line that shows on average, a higher Team HHI results in a higher Team Winning Percentage.
While this study showed that paying for the best players in the NFL can help your winning percentage, further studies could be done to prove which positions, or which side of the ball (offense or defense), are worth spending the big bucks for. Overall, this was an interesting result for me because my teacher did a similar study in Major League Baseball and found the opposite result. He found that a higher Team HHI actually resulted in a smaller Team Winning Percentage. When I started thinking about it, it actually made sense when you started looking at the differences between MLB and the NFL. The NFL is more of an individual sport where star players, especially ones that play Quarterback or Running Back, can have a significant impact on the game. Quarterbacks touch the ball on almost every single offensive play and running backs can touch the ball 20 to 30 times a game. Whereas, in MLB, it is more of a team sport where players only get 3 to 5 at bats per game, only get 2 to 4 balls hit to them while playing defense, or only pitch 1 in 5 games. In conclusion, I believe it makes sense to have more of a balanced team in MLB, so you have more players who can impact the game. However, in the NFL, it is okay to have a superstar QB and a superstar Linebacker who are paid a lot of money to dominate their side of the ball and help win you games.
I hope you enjoyed reading this post and if you would like to see the full paper discussing the study, go to my LinkedIn Profile and check it out under my files. Connect with me while you’re there too!