The Short and Long-Run Labor Market Effects of Age Eligibility Rules: Evidence from Women’s Professional Tennis

Article

Abstract

Age is often used in law and public policy as a low-cost proxy for competency, maturity, and ability. Age is also used in numerous sport (and non-sport) labor markets to determine workplace eligibility. We exploit the enactment of the women’s professional tennis minimum age rule (AR) in 1995 to estimate the effects of ARs on short-run and long-run labor market outcomes. We find very limited evidence that the AR has had any systematic beneficial effect on players’ career longevity or success. Our results suggest that sport governing bodies should (re-)evaluate the efficacy and necessity of “one size fits all” age eligibility rules.

Keywords

Age rules Labor policies Tennis 

JEL Classification

J44 J77 L83 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Marcel Battre, Kevin Thom, Andrew Nutting, Jeremy Arkes, Andrea Eagleman, Michelle Humowiecki, and conference participants at the Western Economics Association, Southern Economic Association, and Northern California Symposium on Statistics and Operations Research in Sports for helpful comments. Amanda Coble, Young Do Kim, and Jun Woo Kim provided excellent research assistance.

References

  1. Baland J, Robinson JA (2000) Is child labor inefficient? J Polit Econ 108(4):663–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clarey C (2005) Short players may be losing their place in women’s tennis. The New York Times, retrieved March 13, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/sports/tennis/19wimbledon.html?src=tp
  3. Coate D, Robbins D (2001) The tournament careers of top-ranked men and women tennis professionals: are the gentlemen more committed than the ladies? J Labor Res 22(1):185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DuBois C, Heyndels B (2007) It’s a different game you go to watch: competitive balance in men’s and women’s tennis. Eur Sport Manag Q 7(2):167–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DuBois C, Heyndels B (2009) Labor supply decisions of professional tennis players: determinants of tournament entry. Eur Sport Manag Q 9(3):333–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edgar S, O’Donoghue P (2005) Season of birth distribution of elite tennis players. J Sports Sci 23(10):1013–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frick B, Pietzner G, Prinz J (2007) Career duration in a competitive environment: the labor market for soccer players in Germany. East Econ J 33(3):429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grootaert C, Kanbur R (1995) Child labor: an economic perspective. Int Labor Rev 134(2):188–203Google Scholar
  9. Holtzen D (2000) Handedness and professional tennis. Int J Neurosci 105:101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Imbens G, Lemieux T (2008) Regression discontinuity design: a guide to practice. J Econom 142:615–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahn LM (2000) The sports business as a labor market laboratory. J Econ Perspect 14(3):75–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koning RH (2009) Sport and measurement of competition. Economist 157:229–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee DS, Lemieux T (2010) Regression discontinuity designs in economics. J Econ Lit XLVIII(2):281–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Livengood T, Keber A, Martin K (2008) Introduction to PRO U player orientation. Sci Med Tennis 13(2):10–12Google Scholar
  15. Martens S, Maes C (2005) Periodisation for professional female tennis players. Coaching Sport Sci Rev 36:14–15Google Scholar
  16. McGuire BH (2007) Age restrictions in women’s professional tennis: A case study of pro-competitive restraints of trade. J Int Media Entertain Law 199–251Google Scholar
  17. Miron JA, Tetelbaum E (2009) Does the minimum legal drinking age save lives? Econ Inq 47(2):317–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Musch J, Grondin S (2001) Unequal competition as an impediment to personal development: a review of the relative age effect in sport. Dev Rev 21:147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Otis C (2005) Successful transitions: WTA research and case study. Oral presentation at “Phenoms to Professionals: successful transitions” forum hosted by the Ladies Professional Golf Association, Daytona Beach, FLGoogle Scholar
  20. Otis CL, Crespo M, Flygare CT et al (2006) The Sony Ericsson WTA Tour 10 year age eligibility and professional development review. Br J Sports Med 40(5):464–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roberts S (1997) Kournikova: part phenom, part press agent’s dream. The New York Times. Retreived December 10, 2009, from http://partners.nytimes.com/library/sports/082697ten-usopen-kournikova.html
  22. Robson D (2009) Another unretirement in tennis: do players need sabbaticals? USAToday.com. Retrieved November 15, 2009 from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2009-09-22-tennis-comebacks_N.htm
  23. Rodenberg RM (2000) Age eligibility rules in women’s professional tennis: necessary for the integrity, viability, and administration of the game or an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of antitrust law? Sports Lawyers J 7:183–212Google Scholar
  24. Rodenberg RM, Gregg EA, Fielding LW (2009) Age eligibility rules in women’s professional golf: a legal eagle or an antitrust bogey? J Legal Asp Sport 19(2):103–120Google Scholar
  25. Rosen S, Sanderson A (2001) Labor markets in professional sports. Econ J 111(February):F47–F68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schoenfeld B (2008) Court dreams. Tennis 46–51Google Scholar
  27. Sowell CB, Mounts WS (2005) Ability, age, and performance: conclusions from the ironman triathlon world championships. J Sports Econ 6:78–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weiss M (2005) Successful transitions: strategies and programs. Oral presentation at “Phenoms to Professionals: successful transitions” forum hosted by the Ladies Professional Golf Association, Daytona Beach, FLGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sport ManagementFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations