tenuous at best

Interesting review over at The Economist on the economics of football in the UK. A curious finding that fans aren't as loyal as you would think. "The authors calculate the average proportion of English fans who are sure to watch their club next season: about half. People move to other towns. They have families. They reward success and shun failure." I'd say this would be a random sample of all people who consider themselves fans of a club; even if it’s a passing interest. I wouldn't think "die-hard" fans (as The Economist insists) would have a large switching propensity.

Another finding that I have always wondered about; are the large transfer fees worth it? “A third myth is that clubs cannot buy success. They can, so long as they spend on players’ wages rather than on transfers. Almost 90% of the variation in the positions of leading English teams is explained by wage bills. Transfer fees contribute little.”

I think this is also true of large transfer payments for employees in other companies. Like paying for high performing traders.

“Citi CEO Vikram Pandit, of all people, should know that committing huge sums of shareholders' capital to retain the services of a hot trader doesn't always pay off. In the spring of 2007, Citi spent close to $800 million to acquire the hedge fund Old Lane. Essentially, Citi was paying for the privilege of employing its founders, who had racked up impressive results. A year later, after the fund suffered losses, Citi basically folded it. One of the co-founders of the hedge fund was Vikram Pandit.”