Should football fans pay for security? Effects of a security fee

IF 1.2 Q3 ECONOMICS Research in Economics Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.rie.2023.01.006

Christian J. Sander , Stefan Thiem

引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is a lively debate on whether football fans should pay a security fee to finance police activities. This paper investigates the price effect on the demand for tickets in a dynamic setting, by considering two subgroups of spectators, namely fans and hooligans. We analyze a situation in which the demand from each subgroup causes a negative social externality for members of the other group but a positive one for members of the same group. We show that charging a security fee may start a dynamic process, leading to fewer fans and more hooligans attending matches and thus, counterintuitively to even more violence. Therefore, the present study provides an argument to refrain from charging a security fee. As an alternative economic solution, we discuss the strategy of outpricing hooligans.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

球迷们应该支付安保费用吗?安全费用的影响

关于球迷是否应该支付安保费来资助警察活动，人们展开了激烈的争论。本文通过考虑两类观众，即球迷和流氓，研究了在动态环境中价格对门票需求的影响。我们分析了一种情况，在这种情况下，每个小组的需求对另一个小组的成员造成了负的社会外部性，但对同一小组的成员却造成了正的社会外部。我们表明，收取安保费可能会启动一个动态的过程，导致更少的球迷和更多的流氓参加比赛，从而导致更多的暴力行为。因此，本研究为避免收取安保费提供了一个论据。作为另一种经济解决方案，我们讨论了超越流氓的策略。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Research in Economics ECONOMICS-

CiteScore

1.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

89 days

期刊介绍： Established in 1947, Research in Economics is one of the oldest general-interest economics journals in the world and the main one among those based in Italy. The purpose of the journal is to select original theoretical and empirical articles that will have high impact on the debate in the social sciences; since 1947, it has published important research contributions on a wide range of topics. A summary of our editorial policy is this: the editors make a preliminary assessment of whether the results of a paper, if correct, are worth publishing. If so one of the associate editors reviews the paper: from the reviewer we expect to learn if the paper is understandable and coherent and - within reasonable bounds - the results are correct. We believe that long lags in publication and multiple demands for revision simply slow scientific progress. Our goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor. We expect the associate editor to provide a more detailed evaluation within three weeks so that the editors can make a final decision before the month expires. In the (rare) case of a revision we allow four months and in the case of conditional acceptance we allow two months to submit the final version. In both cases we expect a cover letter explaining how you met the requirements. For conditional acceptance the editors will verify that the requirements were met. In the case of revision the original associate editor will do so. If the revision cannot be at least conditionally accepted it is rejected: there is no second revision.