For the casual fan such as myself, the final second of the Packers-Seahawks game had the thrill of the Roman circus – an arbitrary, conflicted decision was handed down by emperor referees. For the real fans and the teams, it must be torture. But is it painful for the owners? After all, they will influence the decision in the labor dispute with referees. Steve Young thinks not:
The NFL is “inelastic for demand,” Young said, meaning that nothing — including poor officiating — can deter a significant percentage of fans and corporate sponsors away from the most popular game in the country. It’s the primary reason the NFL has held steady in its labor impasse with regular officials: There is no sign that enough of the sporting public cares to make it a priority.
“There is nothing they can do to hurt the demand of the game,” Young said in the video. “So the bottom line is they don’t care. Player safety doesn’t matter in this case. Bring Division III officials? Doesn’t matter. Because in the end you’re still going to watch the game.”
But the NFL/referee dispute is partly about “pay for performance” – the NFL wants to bench referees who botch calls (the money issues are trifling as a fraction of NFL revenue). This suggests the NFL does actually care about good officiating. This makes them weak in the face of the current officiating. They should cave sooner rather than later.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 25, 2012 at 9:50 am
Inelastic demand and professional sports « Close to the Edge
[…] the replacement officials’ impact on fans’ willingness to watch games, courtesy of Cheap Talk: The NFL is “inelastic for demand,” Young said, meaning that nothing — including poor […]
September 29, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Enrique
Were the replacements refs really that bad from an empirical perspective? A few blown calls are going to occur in any game with any set of refs. After all, no system of rule enforcement is going to work perfectly.
October 1, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Thomas Hubbard
It was certainly a problem for the NFL that games were significantly longer with the replacement refs. Even if this does not drive away any viewers from games, it reduces the amount of advertising per minute that TV stations end up selling, and thereby drives down the value of the game rights. The NFL’s broadcast partners/clients were certainly hurt by the replacement refs, and this is one reason why the NFL needed to settle.
November 18, 2012 at 12:26 pm
What Economists Can Learn from the NFL Referee Lockout « BU UEA
[…] reason is that demand for sports is inelastic – that is, people will keep going to the games no matter what. This seems likely, as there […]
November 21, 2012 at 7:52 am
What Economists can Learn from the NFL Referee Lockout
[…] reason is that demand for sports is inelastic – that is, people will keep going to the games no matter what. This seems likely, as there is […]
August 13, 2014 at 9:16 pm
What Economists Can Learn from the NFL Referee Lockout | Boston University Undergraduate Economics Association
[…] reason is that demand for sports is inelastic – that is, people will keep going to the games no matter what. This seems likely, as there […]