Here’s another thing that’s America’s fault: the use of statistics in sport.
It’s no secret that I love numbers. Perhaps a little too much. It’s not so much the numbers as the insights we gain from them. (For more on my obsession with numbers – see this post) I find them to be fascinating.
And AFL? Well, that’s a statistician’s dream. There are so many things that can be measured by numbers that it’s unreal.
But how much is too much?
Ah, variable pricing. The never-ending possibilities. Let’s talk about it.
Variable pricing is when prices change based on a region, location, date or other aspects. This is also known as ‘real-time pricing.’
I find it miraculous that teams brag about not changing their ticket prices. When they do this, they’re trying to convince the public that they are trying to make attendance affordable for everyone. Anyone who has been to a game knows that’s not true – the price of food is ABSURD (and we all know that even Andrew Demetriou thinks so).
The point I’m making is: if you’re trying to make it affordable… why don’t you try lowering your ticket prices?
Confession: I love controversy. I am not one of those girls who denies enjoying drama. I LOVE drama – good if it’s mine, great if it’s someone else’s, and the BEST if it’s public. Probably because I have such strong opinions (shocking, I know) that I love taking sides. And COLA is no different.
If you don’t know (and if you’re reading this post, I’m sure that you do, but just in case…) COLA is the cost-of-living allowance that Sydney teams get because the AFL has decided that the cost of living in Sydney is higher. The cost-of-living comparison has some merit in other industries. For instance, an engineer earning $100,000 in Sydney is doing well. An engineer earning $100,000 in Minsk is a freaking ROCKSTAR. As undergrads, we were taught to consider the cost-of-living when comparing job offers (which was no value to me because I decided to run halfway around the world, but I digress).
I was really excited the other day when I read a headline for ‘The World’s Most Functional Stadium.’ I thought: great. Very cool. Stadiums in Australia could use a facelift (or two). See, there’s this project (the NSW Stadia Strategy) that is meant to fund stadium building and improvements in NSW in order to improve patron experience. They’re also a bit jealous of Victoria and want to be the new home of international sporting events.
So when I read the details about it I had to ask… who thought this was a good idea?
Recently, we talked (well, I talked and you rolled your eyes) about the Americanisation of Australian sport. I said I didn’t think it was a good idea because it’s taking something so pure (for lack of a better word) and commercializing it. Sure, this happens all the time but in this case, not only is it sad to watch it’s also unsustainable.
For starters, Australia isn’t big enough. It’s big, , sure, but in comparison to the US it’s just not big enough. There are about 22 million people in Australia (give or take a baby or two). The US has about 315 million. That’s… heaps. There are a few implications for this but two big ones.
Winter Olympics have never been my jam. Maybe it’s because I’m from Hawaii and I used to be a gymnast when I was younger (if you can call it that) or maybe it’s because I hate being cold and (not-so-) silently judge everyone who voluntarily spends more time than absolutely necessary in the snow. I don’t know. But I’ve never been that keen on them. (But Boyfriend loves them so what can I do?)
But as an economics major, I don’t see snowboarding and bob-sledding anymore. I see a mega-event. And economists have mixed emotions about those. Easy there, don’t start begging – I’ll tell you why.
I’ll give you the cliff notes version (if you want the extended version, you know all you have to do is ask).