How the Economy Will Affect Salaries
It is possible that the recession in the United States has already ended. Yesterday, the Commerce Department announced that U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) had grown in the third quarter at an annual rate of 3.5%. It marked the first quarter of GDP growth in more than a year. What does this have to do with baseball?
This past offseason, many commentators noted the effect the financial panic had on the free agent market. With the uncertainty in the economy, below-market contracts were given to players like Bobby Abreu and Orlando Hudson. Evaluating the value of a win is never easy, but perhaps we can make some inferences about player salaries based only on GDP statistics.
UPDATED x 2 (see below)
I have taken the yearly GDP data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, who compile the statistics. I took average MLB salary from CBS Sports. First, take a look at an X-Y plot of the two sets of data (click to enlarge):
I have not adjusted any of these numbers for inflation, but it does not impact the outcome because each x-y datapoint contains data from the same year.
Notice the high correlation, reflected by the best-fit line's r-squared value of 0.97. Given only this data, it would appear that average player salary tracks annual GDP rather closely. There are, however, some outliers. 2003 is the year that falls farthest from the best-fit line; I don't have a good explanation for why it might be anomalous.
But this graph doesn't tell the whole story. To see why, look at this graph (click to enlarge):
Here, rather than plotting GDP and average salary against each other, I have converted each year's data point to a ratio with the value in 1989. So, in 1992, average MLB salary was approximately twice what it had been in 1989. I did the same for GDP (meaning GDP in 2002 was approximately double what it was in 1989).
This graph shows how much faster than GDP average salaries have been increasing. With the exception of the strike-affected 1995 salaries and a blip from '03 to '04, it has been a slow, steep march upwards.
GDP, however, has been climbing at about a 3.5% rate consistently for even longer than this graph shows.
Much of the difference in the two series is explainable by the rapid growth in MLB revenues. However, the high r-squared value from the best-fit line in the first graph is pretty tough to ignore. So what conclusions can we draw from these two charts?
First, don't expect salaries to remain depressed for long. Although attendance has been down this year, teams ought to make their spending decisions based on next season's attendance. And while the possibility of W-shaped, or "double dip" recession is significant, it is much more likely that GDP will continue to grow, albeit at a slow pace.
If that is the case, teams looking for bargains may not find them, particularly since this year's free agent class is underwhelming.
What do you think? Will the economy, and salaries right along with it, recover into next year? Or are there likely to be some bargains again this winter?
UPDATE (10/30, 12:20pm)
After thinking about Matt Swartz's intelligent comments below, I have adjusted the numbers for inflation by using Consumer Price Index (CPI) numbers, which are freely available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics here.
All figures are now in 1989 dollars. Here's the updated chart:
Please note the lower r-squared value. I made the mistake of assuming that multiplying both variables by a constant that changed from year to year would not affect the correlation. Of course, that's not true at all! As Matt put it:
[I]t’s driving your R^2 up because you are correlating two thin gs (real baseball player income times price level) with (real average income level times price level). Since price level is a component of both nominal variables, you would obviously get a high correlation even if you were correlating price level times something unrelated to GDP.
However, an r-squared of .91 is still reasonably high. It is difficult to go much farther back than the 1980s (which we would like to do in order to add to the sample) for two reasons.
First, inflation during the 1970s and early 1980s was severe, and prices from that period are somewhat unreliable because of the rapid changes in the price level. Put another way, simply adjusting for inflation may not be sufficient.
Second, the landmark decision in Flood v. Kuhn, which effectively nullified baseball's reserve clause and ushered in free agency, was handed down in 1972. It would be several years before contracts ran out and the full effects of free agency were felt.
UPDATE #2 (12:40pm)
Here is the second chart, also now updated for inflation:
Note here that you can see much more clearly the impact of intrinsic baseball factors like the 1994 strike on the average salary level. You can also see the decline in real GDP that happened in 2008.
I have also added trend-lines, after thinking about Tom Tango's comment here. As the slopes of the trend-lines show, real (which is to say inflation-adjusted) average MLB salaries have been growing at something like four times real GDP. If predictive (and I'm not at all sure that it is), it would seem to imply a pretty big jump in salary for even a modest increase in GDP in 2010.
1 recs |
20 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
Nice
Love this kind of work.
The second graph is interesting. While it’d be useful to have some indication of baseball’s market share, and perhaps % of GDP spent on entertainment to compare to, the implication, to me, is that the rate of increase in baseball’s salaries were unsustainable in the long term. In the short term, they could be merely “catching up” to where they should have been given the size of the industry.
But at some point, salaries almost have to start paralleling GDP, unless there’s a consistent, disproportionate increase in % of GDP spent on entertainment (and especially baseball) to permit that continued growth. Right?
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
by JinAZ on Oct 30, 2009 8:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that's right
Justin, I think you are right that salaries will not continue to increase at this rate. But I’m not sure the reason is that they ought to parallel GDP. At least, I can’t think of any really good reason why they should.
Salaries are probably most dependent on revenues, which in turn are most dependent on consumer spending. If there were one component of GDP that I would say will continue to be underwhelming for the next several years (disclaimer: I am not a macroeconomist), it would be consumer spending. That supports the thought that salaries will not continue to grow at the rapid (~10% a year) rate they have in recent years. The only reason why they might is because the MLBPA continues to win an ever larger share of revenues as salary.
by Tommy Bennett on Oct 30, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“The only reason why they might is because the MLBPA continues to win an ever larger share of revenues as salary.”
Using the baseball-databank salary data and forbes revenue data:
1992 51%
1993 51%
1996 52%
1997 51%
1998 48%
1999 53%
2000 52%
2001 55%
2002 55%
2003 55%
…
2004 49%
2005 46%
2006 45%
2007 45%
2008 46%
Looks like the MLBPA’s increasing share of the pot ended a couple years ago…
by erosen on Oct 30, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If there were one component of GDP that I would say will continue to be underwhelming for the next several years (disclaimer: I am not a macroeconomist), it would be consumer spending
Consumer spending basically is GDP. The way we calculate GDP puts consumer spending at around 75% (on average) of GDP, so this isn’t really going to tell us much that’s different from what GDP as a whole tell us.
by Missing Barry on Oct 30, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Few Things
1) You REALLY need to do this analysis adjusting for inflation. Use the CPI (Consumer Price Index) and just divide by the average CPI for that year. It’s going to make everything look ridiculously significant otherwise, and it’s driving your R^2 up because you are correlating two things (real baseball player income times price level) with (real average income level times price level). Since price level is a component of both nominal variables, you would obviously get a high correlation even if you were correlating price level times something unrelated to GDP.
2) There was a new Collective Bargaining Agreement reached in August 2002, so just in time for the 2002-2003 free-agent off-season. Anything that both helps teams avoid liquidity constraints increases the marginal value of a win is good. A spelled out CBA, especially if teams were expecting high revenue sharing anyway, can help drive up salaries.
3) There’s no reason why your result would need to be true, so that you seem to have a result is significant. If it holds significant without price level, you have found that baseball salaries are cyclical which is interesting. Everyone knows that the revenue will go up when people have more money to spend on leisure, but it’s absolutely not guaranteed that the marginal revenue associated with a win will go up when people have more money to spend on leisure. It could very well be that people will only spend money on winning teams but not on losing teams, thus driving up the price of talent in recessions.
4) You mentioned attendance is down, but keep in mind that attendance is only half of the revenue picture. Average ticket prices certainly went up, and I suspect ticket revenue went up despite smaller attendance figures. Also, keep in mind baseball teams gets StubHub revenue kicked back to them partly, so even sold tickets don’t explain all of the ticket revenue that is associated with winning clubs.
5) I would see if you could find average free agent salaries instead of overall salaries, as a contrast. Teams may be more inclined to seek cheap talent at certain times, driving down average salaries, even if that is based on market trends that are not related to economic conditions (i.e. Moneyball’s release, etc.).
by Matt Swartz on Oct 30, 2009 11:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for the thoughtful comments
You are absolutely correct about 1. It was an oversight and I have added a CPI-adjusted graph above. Your theory about the CBA is interesting.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the CBA clarified contract issues which increased parties’ willingness to contract. If correct, that would increase salaries. Perhaps it also explains why, during the negotiations of that CBA, salaries actually fell (as reflected the next year).
I considered 5, and I am working on a way to identify only free agent salaries. However, I think the assumption that the primary driver of salaries in general is free agency, and therefore that overall average salary is a good proxy for free agent salaries while controlling for the disparate quality of free agent classes, is at least defensible.
by Tommy Bennett on Oct 30, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My comments would be
Consumer confidence indicators are still lagging, and baseball tickets being elastic/luxury items, I think that will impact attendance. Attending games this year (and this only works for my experience in Houston), it seemed to always be the case that field seats, box seats, and other expensive seats were filled. What was lacking was upper deck tickets/other mid-to-low range tickets. With consumer savings actually increasing for the first time in forever, and the fear of a double dip recession, plus an unemployment rate poised to go over 10%, I think that part of the fan base will continue to hold back.
Also, looking at the ratio graph, MLB salaries broke faster from GDP during the .com boom, and then asset bubble-era than any other time (the period of irrational exuberance), which also coincided with a opening of a lot of new stadiums. So there’s a double whammy in that section of the graph of the honeymoon period, plus the increasing value of owners stock portfolios, that are exogenous to what you’re trying to chart, but I imagine heavily impact it. It’s impossible to know the psychology of the owners, but I imagine that most of them have had a rather sobering year to rethink their valuations of players, and their franchise in general.
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by DyingQuail on Oct 30, 2009 12:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Consumer confidence indicators are still lagging
While consumer confident (which is really a proxy for consumer behavior) is important to the economic situation, current measures of consumer confidence are completely inadequate, and basically don’t have any worthwhile predictive power at all (despite what WSJ would like you to think)….
by Missing Barry on Oct 30, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Replace "consumer confidence" with "unemployment"
and I’m right there with you on the first point.
As for exogenous variables, you may be right. Stay tuned for part 2.
by Tommy Bennett on Oct 30, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correlation does not imply causation.
GDP does not drive player salaries. Both GDP and salaries are rising steadily over time, so they will show correlation, even though they are driven by different factors. American average weight and waistlines are also increasing with time, so they would correlate with either GDP or player salaries, but nobody would hint at a causal relationship.
Jon Peltier
by JonPeltier on Oct 30, 2009 12:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't believe I hinted at a causal relationship
I think in this case correlation is sufficient. Unless the correlation is totally random (which is unlikely given the r-squared), it must either be the case that one causes the other or that some other variable is driving both. Either way, the correlation ought to be predictive, I believe.
by Tommy Bennett on Oct 30, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
With time series data, just regressing two things and looking the R-Square is not enough. If one or both of your series are some form of stochastic process, you will get a spurious correlation.
This is only predictive in the sense that time is likely to go on, GDP to rise, and player’s salaries to rise as well.
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
by oldjacket on Oct 31, 2009 3:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice work
And an interesting discussion. Thanks.
by stevesommer05 on Oct 30, 2009 2:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think baseball salaries will still be somewhat depressed this year, but nothing like some of the bargains from last year. Important points – 1.) while we think of recessions/expansions in terms of GDP, GDP growth really doesn’t seem like a relevant variable here to me at all. I would rather see a look at employment vs. baseball salaries, as people without jobs aren’t going to be attending many baseball games. Even though we’re technically out of a recession (most economsits are fairly confident of this), it doesn’t mean our economic situation is good, or even better really. Unemployment is still incredibly high and likely to go higher, which should keep attendance down well into the future. It’s going to take years to get back to normal employment levels.
Second, I think Bud Selig/MLB’s assessment of this past year was optmistic, my take was Bud was happy at the end revenues/attendance levels – baseball was certainly preparing and fearing worse conditions than we actually saw during the offseason last year. I believe that undercertainty drove some players out of the market and prices down. While the economic conditions are bad now, and could get worse (think double-dip recession), we’re reasonably confident we escaped any legitimate depression, and reasonably confident we’re going to get back on the right path, even if we don’t know when. I think baseball decision-makers, even though they should still expect depressed attendance and revenue in general, can be fairly certain that we will move out of this eventually, and this will allow them to at least get past some of the bargain basement prices of last offseason.
I also think an analysis of baseball revenues in general would be useful – I would compare GDP growth/employment to baseball revenues, and then baseball revenues to player salaries. I think we’re kind of missing that step in the middle here.
So…overall, to sum up how I feel – a lot of uncertainty is gone, leading to higher salaries. Economic situation is still bad, and should be that way for the next couple of seasons, preventing a return to previous levels.
by Missing Barry on Oct 30, 2009 3:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Spurious correlation
1. Correlation does not imply causation – I’m sure you could get a high R2 if you plotted salaries against “cumulative rainfall” or any other strongly trending variable.
2. These correlations may be spurious because both time series are non-stationary. Therefore, the correlation that you think you observe may not actually exist.
The wikipedia entry for cointegration is probably helpful, at least a little bit.
by rogue409 on Oct 30, 2009 5:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I admit that if I were implying causation, I'd be in trouble
But I’m not saying GDP causes higher salaries. So even if some third variable (let’s call it “consumer spending – leisure”) is driving both, the fact that GDP is rising may give us some insight into how salaries might move. I’m not saying we can rule out spurious causation, I’m just saying that it might be enough to satisfy our purposes.
Given the empirical difficulties in the dataset (noted above), I think this may be the best we can do.
by Tommy Bennett on Oct 30, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
does this mean the Cardinals have a better chance of keeping Albert,
and signing Holliday?
pretzels pretzels pretzels pretzels
by gdm426 on Nov 1, 2009 1:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great article
One of the best I’ve read lately
I don't know, I'm not in shape yet.
by The_Fan on Nov 1, 2009 10:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 














BtB on Facebook
















