« Democracy is bad for capitalism? | Main | Jamelle Bouie squares a circle, perhaps »

May 31, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Repost to the more pertinent thread:

I don't know the literature or the industry structure at all, and I only follow the game very distantly.

In the author's three time periods, the second looks like racial matching, eerily so, while the third looks discriminatory, but with a caveat. Nonwhite players with salaries around $1.2 million to $3.3 million do somewhat *better* than predicted by their performance, if I am reading Figure 3 correctly. Meanwhile, nonwhite players with salaries above $3.3 million per year are compensated more poorly than their performance would suggest, until you get to the $8 million salary range.

Why? You got me.

Later thoughts: it's surprising that they didn't report if there was a particular team or division driving the results (or not!), or if there were correlations to the size of the media market. There should be enough data, frankly, to see how this labor practice was transmitted.

In football, racial discrimination in favor of incompetent white QBs is a real problem.

I dunno about basketball, can recall that silliness over Dellavedova during the Finals last year. However, I couldn't begin to guess how this effect works out in terms of pay--especially when the paper eliminates rookie salaries and foreign born players, which were my initial guesses.

The comments to this entry are closed.