Minimizing Shirking in Auctions and Tournaments

DOI: 10.4236/tel.2013.34033   PDF   HTML     3,675 Downloads   5,372 Views   Citations


The present paper deals with two-player all pay contests in which a tie is due to slacking, showing that to reduce the likelihood of such an occurrence, slackers should be denied any reward, or even punished. The denial of reward, or the punishment, inflicted on substandard performers, may spur some players to bigger efforts, or induce others to avoid contests in which they are unable to meet standards. However denying any reward to those making small but not substandard efforts, would not raise the proportion of those making the maximum effort, while more competitors would abstain from any effort at all, detracting from overall performance. The point allocation rule suggested by this paper is thus shown to improve on its alternatives. The paper proposes changing the rules of point allocation in soccer, to reduce the incidence of non-scoring draws, often the outcome of bad playing or of extreme risk avoidance, expressed in purely defensive game strategies. Under the new rules, a win would award a team with three points, a scoring draw would entitle the teams to one point each, but neither team would receive any points for non-scoring draws. We show that this change would reduce the numbers of games ending in 0:0, while raising the numbers of goals in other games, thus boosting spectator enjoyment.

Share and Cite:

C. Cohen and M. Schwartz, "Minimizing Shirking in Auctions and Tournaments," Theoretical Economics Letters, Vol. 3 No. 4, 2013, pp. 197-201. doi: 10.4236/tel.2013.34033.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] G. Becker, “A Theory of Competition among Pressure Groups for Political Influence,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 98, No. 3, 1983, pp. 371-400. doi:10.2307/1886017
[2] I. Broca and J. D. Carrillo, “Do the Three-Point Victory and Golden Goal Rules Make Soccer More Exciting?” Journal of Sports Economics, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2004, pp. 169-185. doi:10.1177/1527002503257207
[3] Y. K. Che and I. Gale, “Caps on Political Lobbying,” American Economic Review, Vol. 88, No. 3, 1998, pp. 643-651.
[4] C. Cohen and A. Sela, “Contests with Ties,” The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2007, Article 43.
[5] P. Dasgupta, “The Theory of Technological Competition,” In: J. Stiglitz and G. F. Mathewson, Eds., New Developments in the Analysis of Market Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1986, pp. 519-545.
[6] S. Dobson and J. Goddard, “The Economics of Football,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511493225
[7] A. Hillman and J. G. Riley, “Politically Contestable Rents and Transfers,” Economics and Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1989, pp. 17-39. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0343.1989.tb00003.x
[8] A. Hillman and D. Samet, “Dissipation of Contestable Rents by Small Numbers of Contenders,” Public Choice, Vol. 54, No. 1, 1987, pp. 63-82. doi:10.1007/BF00123805
[9] G. Moschini, “Incentives and Outcomes in a Strategic Setting: The 3-Points-for-a-Win System in Soccer,” Working Paper # 08021, Department of Economics Working Paper Series, Iowa State University, 2008.
[10] B. O’Neal, “International Escalation and the Dollar Auction,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1968, pp. 33-50. doi:10.1177/0022002786030001003
[11] J. Snyder, “Elections Goals and the Allocation of Campaign Resources,” Econometrica, Vol. 57, No. 3, 1989, pp. 637-660. doi:10.2307/1911056

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.