IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/mgtdec/v37y2016i8p574-584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Good Walk Foiled: Monopoly Power and Barriers to Entry into the PGA Tour

Author

Listed:
  • Scott Hamel
  • Steven B. Caudill
  • Franklin G. Mixon Jr.

Abstract

In order to explore whether the PGA Tour's 2013 qualifications amendments represent a meritocratic evolution or simply a monopolistic barrier to entry, this study compares the results of the 2014 PGA Tour to those of the Web.com Tour. Upon empirical examination of each tour's earnings, scoring characteristics, and course characteristics, we are able to predict the marginal skill differences between players on the two tours. In doing so, we illustrate that sufficiently talented Web.com Tour golfers are being excluded from participation in the PGA Tour. As such, the changes made by the PGA Tour regarding qualification perhaps run counter to welfare maximization in terms of tour participants and fans of professional golf. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott Hamel & Steven B. Caudill & Franklin G. Mixon Jr., 2016. "A Good Walk Foiled: Monopoly Power and Barriers to Entry into the PGA Tour," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(8), pages 574-584, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:37:y:2016:i:8:p:574-584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ferdi Botha & Gavin Fraser & Thomas A. Rhoads, 2021. "Skill and Earnings Amongst Golfers on the Southern‐African Sunshine Tour," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 89(2), pages 274-281, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:37:y:2016:i:8:p:574-584. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/7976 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.