IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jospec/v23y2022i7p881-906.html

Does The Betting Industry Price Gender? Evidence from Professional Tennis

Author

Listed:
  • Joxe Maria Barrutiabengoa
  • Pilar Corredor
  • Luis Muga

Abstract

This research addresses the importance of gender in the pricing process of the sports betting industry. Specifically, we investigate the impact of gender in the prices that bookmakers offer for tennis matches. Despite widespread evidence of gender bias both in the practice of the sport and its media coverage, tennis is one of the sports that has done most to achieve equality. The analysis of 51,881 tennis matches reveals that betting firms quote higher prices for women's matches than for men's, even when considering uncertainty due to the surprise factor and the media attention. The separate analysis of two bookmakers strengthens the evidence for the role of media attention as a source of gender-related information asymmetry.

Suggested Citation

  • Joxe Maria Barrutiabengoa & Pilar Corredor & Luis Muga, 2022. "Does The Betting Industry Price Gender? Evidence from Professional Tennis," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 23(7), pages 881-906, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jospec:v:23:y:2022:i:7:p:881-906
    DOI: 10.1177/15270025211071026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15270025211071026
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/15270025211071026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown, Alasdair & Yang, Fuyu, 2015. "Does society underestimate women? Evidence from the performance of female jockeys in horse racing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 106-118.
    2. Alistair Bruce & David Marginson, 2014. "Power, Not Fear: A Collusion-Based Account of Betting Market Inefficiency," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 77-97, February.
    3. Alasdair Brown & Dooruj Rambaccussing & J. James Reade & Giambattista Rossi, 2018. "Forecasting With Social Media: Evidence From Tweets On Soccer Matches," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(3), pages 1748-1763, July.
    4. Glosten, Lawrence R. & Harris, Lawrence E., 1988. "Estimating the components of the bid/ask spread," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 123-142, May.
    5. Isabel Abinzano & Luis Muga & Rafael Santamaria, 2020. "The role of small bettors in price formation in betting exchanges," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(33), pages 3637-3650, June.
    6. Franck, Egon & Verbeek, Erwin & Nüesch, Stephan, 2010. "Prediction accuracy of different market structures -- bookmakers versus a betting exchange," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 448-459, July.
    7. Klaassen F. J G M & Magnus J. R., 2001. "Are Points in Tennis Independent and Identically Distributed? Evidence From a Dynamic Binary Panel Data Model," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 500-509, June.
    8. Michael Cain & David Law & David Peel, 2003. "The Favourite‐Longshot Bias, Bookmaker Margins and Insider Trading in a Variety of Betting Markets," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 263-273, July.
    9. Hyun Song Shin, 2008. "Prices Of State Contingent Claims With Insider Traders, And The Favourite-Longshot Bias," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Donald B Hausch & Victor SY Lo & William T Ziemba (ed.), Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Markets, chapter 34, pages 343-352, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Steven D. Levitt, 2004. "Why are gambling markets organised so differently from financial markets?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 223-246, April.
    11. Brown, Alasdair & Reade, J. James, 2019. "The wisdom of amateur crowds: Evidence from an online community of sports tipsters," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 1073-1081.
    12. Raphael H Heiberger, 2015. "Collective Attention and Stock Prices: Evidence from Google Trends Data on Standard and Poor's 100," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, August.
    13. Štefan Lyócsa & Igor Fedorko, 2016. "What drives intermediation costs? A case of tennis betting market," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(22), pages 2037-2053, May.
    14. Arne Feddersen & Brad R. Humphreys & Brian P. Soebbing, 2017. "Sentiment Bias And Asset Prices: Evidence From Sports Betting Markets And Social Media," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 1119-1129, April.
    15. del Corral, Julio & Prieto-Rodríguez, Juan, 2010. "Are differences in ranks good predictors for Grand Slam tennis matches?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 551-563, July.
    16. Jan Magnus & Franc Klaassen, 1999. "The final set in a tennis match: Four years at Wimbledon," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 461-468.
    17. Shin, Hyun Song, 1991. "Optimal Betting Odds against Insider Traders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(408), pages 1179-1185, September.
    18. Shin, Hyun Song, 1993. "Measuring the Incidence of Insider Trading in a Market for State-Contingent Claims," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(420), pages 1141-1153, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Isabel Abinzano & Harold Bonilla & Luis Muga, 2025. "Suspense and Surprise: The Role of Bookmakers’ Spreads," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 26(3), pages 240-267, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Isabel Abinzano & Harold Bonilla & Luis Muga, 2025. "Suspense and Surprise: The Role of Bookmakers’ Spreads," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 26(3), pages 240-267, April.
    2. Kai Fischer & Justus Haucap, 2022. "Home advantage in professional soccer and betting market efficiency: The role of spectator crowds," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 294-316, May.
    3. Goto, Shingo & Yamada, Toru, 2023. "What drives biased odds in sports betting markets: Bettors’ irrationality and the role of bookmakers," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 252-270.
    4. Kai Fischer & Justus Haucap, 2020. "Betting Market Efficiency in the Presence of Unfamiliar Shocks: The Case of Ghost Games during the Covid-19 Pandemic," CESifo Working Paper Series 8526, CESifo.
    5. Restocchi, Valerio & McGroarty, Frank & Gerding, Enrico & Johnson, Johnnie E.V., 2018. "It takes all sorts: A heterogeneous agent explanation for prediction market mispricing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(2), pages 556-569.
    6. Jan van Ours, 2025. "Non-Transitive Patterns in Sports Match Outcomes: A Profitable Anomaly," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 25-015/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Egon Franck & Erwin Verbeek & Stephan Nüesch, 2011. "Sentimental Preferences and the Organizational Regime of Betting Markets," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 78(2), pages 502-518, October.
    8. Vincenzo Candila & Antonio Scognamillo, 2019. "On the Longshot Bias in Tennis Betting Markets: The Casco Normalization," Working Papers 3_236, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Statistiche, Università degli Studi di Salerno.
    9. Alistair Bruce & David Marginson, 2014. "Power, Not Fear: A Collusion-Based Account of Betting Market Inefficiency," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 77-97, February.
    10. Gross, Johannes & Rebeggiani, Luca, 2018. "Chance or Ability? The Efficiency of the Football Betting Market Revisited," MPRA Paper 87230, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Franke, Maximilian, 2020. "Do market participants misprice lottery-type assets? Evidence from the European soccer betting market," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-18.
    12. Zhang, Chi & Thijssen, Jacco, 2022. "On sticky bookmaking as a learning device in horse-racing betting markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    13. Oliver Merz & Raphael Flepp & Egon Franck, 2019. "Does sentiment harm market efficiency? An empirical analysis using a betting exchange setting," Working Papers 381, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    14. Egon Franck & Erwin Verbeek & Stephan Nüesch, 2013. "Inter-market Arbitrage in Betting," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 80(318), pages 300-325, April.
    15. Charles Moul & Joseph Keller, 2014. "Time to Unbridle U.S. Thoroughbred Racetracks? Lessons from Australian Bookies," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(3), pages 211-239, May.
    16. McAlvanah, Patrick & Moul, Charles C., 2013. "The house doesn’t always win: Evidence of anchoring among Australian bookies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 87-99.
    17. Bag, Parimal Kanti & Saha, Bibhas, 2011. "Match-fixing under competitive odds," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 318-344.
    18. Parimal Kanti Bag & Bibhas Saha, 2010. "Betting in the Shadow of Match-Fixing," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 011, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    19. David Butler & Robert Butler & Joel Maxcy & Simon Woodworth, 2025. "Outcome Uncertainty and Viewer Demand for Basic Cable Boxing," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 26(2), pages 196-213, February.
    20. Vincenzo Candila & Lucio Palazzo, 2020. "Neural Networks and Betting Strategies for Tennis," Risks, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-19, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • G10 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - General (includes Measurement and Data)
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
    • L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Restaurants; Recreation; Tourism
    • Z2 - Other Special Topics - - Sports Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jospec:v:23:y:2022:i:7:p:881-906. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.