Do Team-Specific Revenues Matter in Baseball’s Arbitration System?
According to baseball’s collective bargaining agreement, arbitrators may not consider team finances when rendering a decision. The author develops two theories to examine the setting of final offers. In the first theory, final offers are simply functions of the arbitral criteria and are, therefore, not a function of the revenue-generating capability of the team. In the second theory, the author argues that teams may trade some talented and, thus, high-priced arbitrationeligible players, resulting in an implicit premium embedded in the final offers. The empirical analysis suggests that there are no such premiums embedded in the final offers.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 1 (2006)
Issue (Month): 3 (August)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.fitinfotech.com/|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.fitinfotech.com/IJSF/IJSFbackissueWVU.tpl|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jsf:intjsf:v:1:y:2006:i:3:p:162-173. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Victor Matheson)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.