Determinants of Demand for Gambling/Office Football Pool Betting in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria

Abstract

In the present study, we evaluated the statistical significance of a number of socioeconomic and demographic variables on the demand for office football pool betting in Ibadan, Oyo State of Nigeria. The Ordinary Least Square (OLS) econometric model was employed. The study identifies the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the gamblers and econometrically analyzed the factors influencing gambling activities. The results showed that gender, age, household size, educational attainment, occupation, monthly income of pool bettors, as well as price of coupons, were among the major factors affecting the demand for office football pool betting. To the extent that our sample may be representative of a wide and broader set of circumstances, our finding led to the recommendation of policy and institutions that support government involvement in gambling activities, especially office football pool betting.

Variables affecting the market demand of sport lottery sales in China

“…Croups et al (1998), Ghent and Grant (2006), and Giacopassi et al (2006) found the presence of a negative relationship between educational attainment and lottery consumption. The result was consistent with the findings by Albers and Hubl (1997), Clotfelter and Cook (1990), and Nwigwe et al (2012) who discovered that gambling activity fell with formal education. Raymond (1994) found purchasers of lottery tickets to be moderately well-educated.…”

“…This finding was consistent with those by Clotfelter and Cook (1989), Delfabbro (2000), Kaizeler and Faustino (2010), and Kearney (2002). With respect to occupation, the study by Nwigwe et al (2012) shows that people with more lucrative occupations gambled less. Albers and Hubl (1997), Clotfelter and Cook (1990), and Worthington (2001) also found the same result and discovered that skilled and unskilled workers gambled more than intellectuals.…”

“…Few studies, such as Kaizeler and Faustino (2010), actually found a positive relationship between education and lottery sales. Nwigwe et al (2012) found that gender of pool bettors affected the demand for gambling, with men gambling more than women. This finding was consistent with those by Clotfelter and Cook (1989), Delfabbro (2000), Kaizeler and Faustino (2010), and Kearney (2002).…”

“…As the popularity of lottery games has grown steadily, understanding consumer demand for the products has received considerable attention from researchers of various scholarly perspectives, such as economists, psychologists, and sociologists. The empirical literature in this area has focused on such research questions as “Why do people play lottery games?” “Who are they purchasing lottery tickets?” and “How do lottery features (for example the prize structure) affect the demand for lottery tickets?” Mao and Zhang (2013) categorized previous studies into three groups, including those related to product attribute variables, such as effective price, jackpot, prize structure, and probability of winning (Deboer, 1990; Forrest et al , 2002; García and Rodríguez, 2007; Garrett and Sobel, 2004; Humphreys and Perez, 2012; Matheson, 2001; Scoggins, 1995; Scott and Gulley, 1995; Shapira and Venezia, 1992), those related to consumer characteristic variables, such as income, gender, age, education, religion, and ethnicity (Nwigwe et al , 2012; Clotfelter and Cook, 1987; Crowley et al , 2012; Felsher et al , 2003; Herring and Bledsoe, 1994; Walker et al , 2006), and those related to marketing variables, such as venue accessibility (Hing and Haw, 2009; Shiller, 2000; Sleight et al , 2002; Welte et al , 2004), cross-border competition (Kitchen and Powells, 1991), and product substitution (Forrest et al , 2004; Forrest and McHale, 2007; Garrett and Marsh, 2002; Grote and Matheson, 2006; Guryan and Kearney, 2008; Humphreys and Perez, 2012; Lin and Lai, 2006; Trousdale and Dunn, 2014), take-out rate (Clotfelter and Cook, 1989; DeBoer, 1986; Mikesell, 1987; Vasche, 1985), and social responsibility marketing (Li et al , 2011).…”