This study examines the importance of team success for attendance for Major League Baseball teams. Winning and attendance go together for most baseball teams, but the direction of causation is not obvious. Winning could lead to greater attendance as fans want to see a winner; an increase in attendance could lead to greater winning as teams have greater resources to spend on salaries. This study finds that the direction of causation runs from team success to greater attendance, and that a sudden increase in fans does not lead to additional winning in the future. A secondary result sug- gests that exogenous shocks to attendance have replicating effects on attendance as well.
AllenP. G., & FildesR. (2005). Levels, differences and ECMs — Principles for improved econometric forecasting.Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67(s1), 707–1033.
2.
BaiJ., & PerronP. (1998). Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural changes.Econometrica, 66(1), 47–78.
3.
BaiJ., & PerronP. (2003). Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models.Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 1–22.
4.
BekaertG., HarveyC. R., & LumsdaineR. L. (2002). The dynamics of emerging market equity flows.Journal of International Money and Finance, 21, 295–350.
5.
ChristianoL. J., EichenbaumM., & VigfussonR. (2004). What happens after a technology shock? Unpublished manuscript.
6.
DepkenC. A. (2006). The impact of new stadiums on professional baseball team finances.Public Finance and Management, 6(3), 436–474.
7.
ElliottG. (1998). On the robustness of cointegration methods when regressors almost have unit roots.Econometrica, 66(1), 149–158.
8.
FortR., & QuirkJ. (1995). Cross-subsidization, incentives, and outcomes in professional team sports leagues.Journal of Economic Literature, 33(3), 1265–1299.
9.
FortR., & LeeY. H. (2006). Stationarity and Major League Baseball attendance analysis.Journal of Sports Economics, 7(4), 408–415.
10.
FrancisN., & RameyV. A. (2005). Is the technology-driven real business cycle hypothesis dead?Shocks and aggregate fluctuations revisited. Journal of Monetary Economics, 52(8), 1379–1399.
11.
HamiltonJ. D. (1994). Time series analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
JordaO. (2005). Estimation and inference of impulse response by local projections.The American Economic Review, 95(1), 161–182.
13.
KnowlesG., SheronyK., & HaupertM. (1992). The demand for Major League Baseball: A test of the uncertainty of outcome hypothesis.The American Economist, 36(2), 72–80.
14.
LeeJ., & StrazicichM. C. (2003). Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with two structural breaks.Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1082–1089.
15.
LeeY. H., & FortR. (2005). Structural change in MLB competitive balance: The Depression, team location and integration.Economic Inquiry, 43(1), 158–169.
16.
MathesonV. A. (2006). The effects of labour strikes on consumer demand in professional sports: Revisited.Applied Economics, 38, 1173–1179.
17.
NgS., & VogelsandT. J. (2002). Analysis of vector autoregressions in the presence of shifts in mean.Econometric Review, 21(3), 353–381.
18.
PesaventoE., & RossiB. (2004). Do technology shocks drive hours up or down? A little evidence from an agnostic procedure. Unpublished manuscript.
19.
RascherD. (1999). A test of the optimal positive production network externality in Major League Baseball. In FizelJ., GustafsonE., & HadleyL. (Eds.), Sports economics: Current research (pp. 2745). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
20.
SchmidtM. B., & BerriD. J. (2001). Competitive balance and attendance: The case of Major League Baseball.Journal of Sports Economics, 2(2), 145–167.
21.
SchmidtM. B., & BerriD. J. (2006). What takes them out to the ball game?Journal of Sports Economics, 7(2), 222–233.
22.
SimsC. A. (1980). Macroeconomics and reality.Econometrica, 48(1), 1–48.
