American households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for soccer player development is measured using the contingent valuation method. Data are drawn from two national surveys administered before and after the 2014 World Cup event. Individuals are asked whether they perceive that additional funding for player development will improve the chances of the national team’s performance at the 2018 World Cup and whether they are willing to pay an annual household tax to fund the program. A bivariate probit model accounts for correlation between the two decisions. WTP estimates indicate that the intangible benefits of player development are roughly twice the cost.
AllisonL.MonningtonT. (2002). Sport, prestige and international relations. Government and Opposition, 37, 106–134.
2.
ArrowJ. K.SolowR.PortneyP. R.LeamerE. E.RadnerR.SchumandR. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation to the General Council of the US (Federal Register 58). Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
3.
AtkinsonG.MouratoS.SzymanskiS.OzdemirogluE. (2008). Are we willing to pay enough to ‘back the bid’?: Valuing the intangible impacts of London’s bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. Urban Studies, 45, 419–444.
4.
BerinskyA. J.HuberA.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368.
5.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
6.
CastellanosP.GarciaJ.SanchezJ. (2011). The willingness to pay to keep a football club in a city: How important are the methodological issues?Journal of Sports Economics, 12, 464–486.
7.
CummingsR. G.TaylorL. (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review, 89, 649–665.
8.
DeGarisL. (2015). Sports marketing: A practical approach. New York, NY, Routledge.
9.
DiamondP.A.HausmanJ.A. (1994). “Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?”Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (4), 45–64.
10.
FennA. J.CrookerJ. R. (2009). Estimating local welfare generated by an NFL team under credible threat of relocation. Southern Economic Journal, 76, 198–223.
11.
ForrestD.SimmonsR. (2003). Sport and gambling. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19, 598–611.
12.
HaabT. C.McConnellK. E. (2002). Valuing environmental and natural resources: The econometrics of non-market valuation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
13.
HarrisonG. W. (2006). Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34, 125–162.
14.
HarrisonG. W.RutströmE. (2006). Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In PlottC.SmithV. L. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results. New York, NY: Elsevier Science, 752–766.
15.
HumphreysB. R.JohnsonB. K.MasonD. S.WhiteheadJ. C. (2011). Estimating the value of medal success at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games (Department of Economics Working Paper 11-20). Boone, NC: Appalachian State University.
16.
JohnsonB. K. (2008). The valuation of nonmarket benefits in sport. In HumphreysB. R.HowardD. R. (Eds.), The business of sports (pp. 207–233). Westport, CT: Praeger.
17.
JohnsonB. K.GroothuisP. A.WhiteheadJ. C. (2001). The value of public goods generated by a major league sports team: The CVM approach. Journal of Sports Economics, 2, 6–21.
18.
JohnsonB. K.MondelloM.WhiteheadJ. C. (2007). What is the value of public goods generated by a national football league team: A CVM approach. Journal of Sports Management, 21, 123–136.
19.
JohnsonB. K.WhiteheadJ. C. (2000). Value of public goods from sport stadiums: The CVM approach. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18, 48–58.
20.
LittleJ.BerrensR. (2004). Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: Further investigation using meta-analysis. Economic Bulletin, 3, 1–13.
21.
LoomisJ. (2011). What’s to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25, 363–370.
22.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.
23.
PoeG. L.ClarkJ. E.RondeauD.SchultzW. D. (2002). Can hypothetical questions predict actual participation in public programs? Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 105–131.
VosslerC. A.RobertA.EthierG.PoeG. L.WelshM. P. (2003). Payment certainty in discrete choice contingent valuation responses: Results from a field validity test. Southern Economic Journal, 69, 886–902.
28.
WaltonH.LongoA.DawsonP. (2008). A contingent valuation of the 2012 London Olympic games—A regional perspective. Journal of Sports Economics, 9, 304–317.
29.
WickerP.HallmannK.BreuerC.FeilerS. (2012). The value of Olympic success and the intangible effects of sport events—A contingent valuation approach in Germany. European Sport Management Quarterly, 12, 337–355.
30.
WickerP.KieferS.DilgerA. (2015). The value of sporting success to Germans: Comparing the 2012 UEFA Championships with the 2012 Olympics. Journal of Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11573-014-0761-1
31.
WickerP.PrinzJ.von HanauT. (2012). Estimating the value of national sporting success. Sport Management Review, 15, 200–210.
