No abstract

Worldwide, politicians, scientists, and entrepreneurs are operating under high uncertainty and incomplete information regarding the adequacy of measures to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. It seems indisputable that only widespread and global immunity can bring normalization to social life. In this respect, the development of a vaccine was a milestone in pandemic control. However, within the EU, especially in Germany, the vaccination plan is increasingly faltering, and criticism is growing louder. This paper considers the EU’s political decision in general and the decisions of the German government to procure vaccine doses against the background of modern economics as a decision under uncertainty and critically analyzes the process.

The phenomenon of home advantage (home bias) is well-analyzed in the scientific literature. But only the COVID-19 pandemic enabled studies on this phenomenon—for the first time in history—on a global scale. Thus, several studies to date examined the effects of empty stadiums by comparing regular matches (with supporters) before the COVID-19 restrictions with so-called ghost games (games without supporters) during the pandemic. To synthesize the existing knowledge and offer an overview regarding the effects of ghost games on home advantage we provide a systematic literature review on this topic. Our findings—based on 26 primary studies—indicate that ghost games have a considerable impact on the phenomenon of home advantage. Deeper analysis further indicates that this effect is based on a reduced “referee bias” and a lack of “emotional support from the ranks”. From a psychological perspective, we argue that our conclusions are highly relevant by emphasizing decision making under pressure and crowd-induced motivation in sports. From a socio-economic perspective, we argue that our findings legitimize a discussion regarding compensation of fans after sporting success as plausible and worth considering. Thus, our results are significant for scientists, sports and team managers, media executives, fan representatives and other persons responsible in the football industry.

No abstract

The NBA installed the draft mechanism to fairly distribute young amateur players among its franchises. As this policy hinges on appropriate talent evaluation skills of the respective organizations, it can be considered a proxy for decision‐making under uncertainty. Such judgments are prone to fallacies and systemic mistakes. The article found the RSCI rank as a problematic metric, which is the source for systematic draft errors. It can be shown that in many cases, managers do not deviate enough from the pre‐draft rankings of players, leading to systematically over‐ and undervaluing certain groups of talents. This can be described as a decision‐quality‐lowering anchoring bias.