Empirical Economics

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 123–140 | Cite as

Are subjective evaluations biased by social factors or connections? An econometric analysis of soccer referee decisions

  • Vincenzo ScoppaEmail author
Original Paper


Many incentive contracts are based on subjective evaluations and contractual disputes depend on judges’ decisions. However, subjective evaluations raise risks of favouritism and distortions. Sport contests are a fruitful field for testing empirically theories of incentives. In this paper the behaviour of the referees in the Italian soccer (football) league (“Serie A”) is analyzed. Using data on injury (or extra) time subjectively assigned by the referee at the end of the match and controlling for factors which may influence it (players substitutions, yellow and red cards, penalty kicks, etc.), we show that referees are biased in favour of home team, in that injury time is significantly greater if home teams are losing. The refereeing bias increases greatly when there is no running track in the stadium and the crowd is close to the pitch. Following the 2006 “Serie A” scandal we test whether favouritism emerges towards teams suspected of connections with referees finding that these teams obtain favourable decisions. Social pressure by the crowd attending the match however appears to be the main cause of favouritism.


Favouritism Subjective evaluation Sport economics 

JEL Classification

M50 L83 Z13 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akerlof G (1980) A theory of social custom, of which unemployment may be one consequence. Q J Econ 94:749–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baroncelli A, Lago U (2006) Italian football. J Sports Econ 7(1):13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker G, Murphy KM (2000) Social economics: market behavior in a social environment. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernheim D (1994) A theory of conformity. J Polit Econ 102:841–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carmichael F, Thomas D (2005) Home-field effect and team performance. J Sports Econ 6(3):264–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiappori P, Levitt S, Groseclose T (2002) Testing mixed-strategy equilibria when players are heterogeneous: the case of penalty kicks in soccer. Am Econ Rev 92(4):1138–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dohmen T (2005) Social pressure influences decisions of individuals. Evidence from the behavior of football referees. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 1595Google Scholar
  8. Duggan M, Levitt S (2002) Winning isn’t everything: corruption in sumo wrestling. Am Econ Rev 92(5): 1594–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehrenberg R, Bognanno M (1990) Do tournaments have incentive effects. J Polit Econ 98(6):1307–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garicano L, Palacios-Huerta I, Prendergast C (2001) Favouritism under social pressure. Working Paper NBER, No. 8376Google Scholar
  11. Garicano L, Palacios-Huerta I, Prendergast C (2005) Favouritism under social pressure. Rev Econ Stat 87(2):208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ichino A, Polo M, Rettore E (2003) Are judges biased by labor market conditions. Eur Econ Rev 47:913–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Milgrom P (1988) Employment contracts, influence activities, and efficient organization design. J Polit Econ 96:42–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Neale W (1964) The peculiar economics of professional Sport. Q J Econ 78(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nevill A, Balmer N, Williams M (1999) Crowd influence on decisions in association football. Lancet 353:1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nevill AM, Balmer NJ, Williams AM (2002) The influence of crowd noise and experience upon refereeing decisions in football. Psychol Sport Exerc 3:261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Posner R (1993) What do judges and justices maximize? The same thing everybody else does. Supreme Court Econ Rev 3:1–41Google Scholar
  18. Prendergast C (1999) The provision of incentives in firms. J Econ Lit 37:7–63Google Scholar
  19. Prendergast C, Topel R (1996) Favouritism in organizations. J Polit Econ 104:958–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sutter M, Kocher MG (2002) Favoritism of agents—the case of referees’ home bias. Papers on Strategic Interaction 28/2002, Max-Planck-Institute for Research in Economic Systems, JenaGoogle Scholar
  21. Sutter M, Kocher M (2004) Favouritism of agents: the case of referees’ home bias. J Econ Psychol 25:461–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Szymanski S (2003a) The assessment: the economics of sport. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 19(4):467–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Szymanski S (2003b) The economic design of sporting contests. J Econ Lit 41(4):1137–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tirole J (1992) Collusion and the theory of organizations. In: Laffont JJ (ed) Advances in economic theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 151–206Google Scholar
  25. Tirole J (1999) Incomplete contracts: where do we stand?. Econometrica 67(4):741–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Walker M, Wooders J (2001) Minimax play at Wimbledon. Am Econ Rev 91(5):1521–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wallsten T, Barton C (1982) Processing probabilistic multidimensional information for decisions. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 8:361–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Economia e StatisticaUniversità della CalabriaArcavacata di Rende, CosenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations