Rank-order tournaments with heterogeneous competitors work best when the competitors are relatively equal in abilities. Using data from 2007-2012 on major track and field events, this paper examines whether the presence of a superstar, Usain Bolt, has an effect on competitors. Results indicate a positive superstar effect. For average runners, the presence of Bolt is associated with running faster times and a higher likelihood of setting a personal record, but these results vary across runner abilities and stage of tournament. In general, the positive superstar effect is smaller for relatively fast runners, and the positive effect diminishes as the tournament progresses.
AmmermuellerA., & PischkeJ. (2009). Peer Effects in European Primary Schools: Evidence from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study. Journal of Labor Economics, 27, 315–348.
2.
AngristJ. D., & LangK. (2004). Does School Integration Generate Peer Effects? Evidence from Boston's Metco Program. American Economic Review, 94, 1613–1634.
3.
AngristJ. D., & PischkeJ. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
BandieraO., BarankayI., & RasulI. (2009). Social Incentives in the Workplace. Review of Economic Studies, 77, 417–458.
5.
BrownJ. (2011). Quitters Never Win: The (Adverse) Incentive Effects of Competing with Superstars. Journal of Political Economy, 119, 982–1013.
6.
EhrenbergR., & BognannoM. (1990a). Do Tournaments have Incentive Effects?. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1307–1324.
7.
EhrenbergR., & BognannoM. (1990b). The Incentive Effects of Tournaments Revisited: Evidence from the European PGA tour. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 43, 74–88.
8.
FrickB., & PrinzJ. (2007). Pay and Performance in Professional Road Racing: The Case of City Marathons. International Journal of Sport Finance, 2, 25–35.
9.
GilsdorfK. F., & SukhatmeV. A. (2008a). Testing Rosen's Sequential Elimination Tournament Model Incentives and Player Performance in Professional Tennis. Journal of Sports Economics, 9, 287–303.
10.
GilsdorfK. F., & SukhatmeV. A. (2008b). Tournament Incentives and Match Outcomes in Women's Professional Tennis. Applied Economics, 40, 2405–2412.
11.
GuryanJ., KroftK., & NotowidigdoM. J. (2009). Peer Effects in the Workplace: Evidence from Random Groupings in Professional Golf Tournaments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1, 34–68.
12.
HillB.(Forthcoming). The Heat is On: Tournament Structure, Peer Effects, and Performance. Journal of Sports Economics, (Forthcoming).
LazearE., & RosenS. (1981). Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 841–864.
15.
LynchJ. G., & ZaxJ. S. (2000). The Rewards to Running: Prize Structure and Performance in Professional Road Racing. Journal of Sports Economics, 1, 323–340.
16.
MaloneyM., & McCormickR. (2000). The Response of Workers to Wages in Tournaments: Evidence from Foot Races. Journal of Sports Economics, 1, 99–123.
17.
MasA., & MorettiE. (2009). Peers at Work. American Economic Review, 99, 112–45.
18.
MatthewsP. H., SommersP. M., & PeschieraF. J. (2007). Incentives and Superstars on the LPGA Tour. Applied Economics, 39, 87–94.
19.
McLaughlinK. J. (1988). Aspects of Tournament Models: Survey A. Research in Labor Economics, 9, 225–256.
20.
OrszagM. (1994). NewA. Look at Incentive Effects and Golf Tournaments. Economic Letters, 46, 77–88.
21.
RosenS. (1986). Prizes and Incentives in Elimination Tournaments. American Economic Review, 76, 701–715
22.
SundeU. (2009). Heterogeneity and Performance in Tournaments: Test A. for Incentive Effects Using Professional Tennis Data. Applied Economics, 41, 3199–3208.
23.
SzymanskiS. (2003). The Economic Design of Sporting Contests. Journal of Economic Literature, 41, 1137–1187.
24.
TanakaR., & IshinoK. (2012). Testing the Incentive Effects in Tournaments with a Superstar. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 26, 393–404.
