Evaluating Organizational Design Through Efficiency Values - CiteSeerX

Documento de Trabajo 2005-04 Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales Universidad de Zaragoza

Evaluating Organizational Design Through Efficiency Values: An Application To The Spanish First Division Soccer Teams*

Manuel Espitia-Escuer Lucía Isabel García-Cebrián

Department of Business Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales Gran Vía, 2 50005 Zaragoza (Spain) Phone: 34 976 76 27 12 Fax: 34 976 76 16 67 e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Problems faced by human groups according with Organization Theory can be summarized as the search for an equilibrium between the transmission of the information necessary in order for teams to raise their efficiency, and the increase in costs that this entails. The fact that one of the proposed solutions to this problem is the use of slack resources allows us to evaluate the organizational design that has been put into practice by reference to the efficiency levels obtained. To that end, and using Data Envelopment Analysis, we have determined the efficiency of the professional soccer teams that make-up the Spanish First Division during the seasons covered by the period 19982004. Key Words: Soccer teams, Efficiency, Data Envelopment Analysis, Team Theory JEL Classification: L83, M12 * The authors wish to express their thanks to GECA Sport for its collaboration in supplying the data used in this paper. This work has been carried out as part of Project No. SEC2002-00835, financed by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology and FEDER Funds.

DTECONZ 2005-04: M.Espitia and L.García

1. Introduction The professional soccer teams that make-up the Spanish First Division are, in their majority, the star product of the institutions of which they form a part. Many of these institutions also have soccer teams that play in lower leagues, as well as basketball teams and other professional team sports that represent a broad and varied offer for their shareholders and season ticket holders alike. Furthermore, the great majority of them take the legal form of Corporations (more specifically, under the Spanish Company Law system, Sociedades Anónimas Deportivas). In the near future, some of these companies will be quoted on the Stock Market, as is already the case with some soccer clubs operating in other European countries. We are, therefore, dealing with entities that can be analyzed and studied from the point of view of Economics and using the tools of analysis provided by this discipline. In this latter regard, the theoretical framework provided by Organization Theory identifies the relevant problems and possible solutions to those situations involving a group of individuals that have a decision-making capacity, and which share the same objective, but on the basis of different information. These basic conditions, necessary in order to be able to speak of a team from the point of view of that theory, can be found in soccer teams, as we demonstrate in Section 2. In that section we offer an approximation of the stages into which their productive process can be divided, which causes us to differentiate between the productive stage prior to the soccer match, and that carried out during the match itself. It is precisely during this second stage where soccer teams most clearly demonstrate the properties of a team as this is understood by Organization Theory. Given the characteristics of a team, it is recognized that, leaving to one side the uncertainty caused by random events over which it has no control, the results obtained will improve if all the team’s members share the complete information that is available. However, this supposes an increase in the costs of the process, more specifically, an increase in the co-ordination costs and in the time used to that end. The solution to this problem has come to be described as team design, with one of its alternatives being the establishment of slack resources, which supposes a reduction in efficiency. Against this

1


background, in this paper we set out to measure the efficiency of the professional soccer teams that play in the Spanish First Division, taking the 1998/1999, 1999/2000, 2000/2001, 2001/2002, 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 seasons as the time horizon for the analysis and applying the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) methodology. Section 3 is therefore devoted to these efficiency calculations, whilst Section 4 closes the paper with a summary of the main results.

2. Soccer Teams and The Theory of Teams As regards the productive process of soccer teams, Schofield (1988), Carmichael and Thomas (1995) and Carmichael, Thomas and Ward (2000) consider a recursive system in which the success of the team depends on the performance of the players during the game and this, in turn, depends both on their abilities and on the work of the coach. Therefore, if this is applied to the production function of soccer teams, we can consider that such a function is made up of two different components, each with its own inputs and outputs: In the first part, we can consider the abilities of the players (sporting talent, physical condition and form, experience...) together with the work of the coach (work during training sessions, tactics, line-up, etc...) as the inputs to obtain a result, where this is the performance during the match, that is to say, attacking and defensive moves against the opposing team. In the second part, we take as inputs the attacking and defensive moves (result of the first component) which are transformed into success during the matches, in such a way that they can be considered as output. As Jost (2000) in Serra (2001) points out, the players interact in a dynamic flow, so that coordination takes place via the adaptation of each player to the evolution of the match in a natural and immediate way. The parallel that exists between the characteristics of a soccer team in the second of these stages, that is to say, in the course of a match, and those of a team, as this is understood by Organization Theory, can be appreciated by reference to the activities of its individual members, the existence of common objectives, the influence of the environment over the results obtained, the interdependence between individuals and the solutions proposed to solve the problems derived from the need to co-ordinate. Let us consider each of these points separately. 2


As regards the activities of the individuals that make-up a team, as this is understood by Organization Theory, attention should first be drawn to the phenomenon of specialization by tasks and, secondly, to the fact that the information available to each of the team’s members with respect to the environment is different. In the context of soccer teams, this specialization by tasks is present in the sense that goalkeepers, defenders, mid-field players, forwards and the coach are not interchangeable one with the other and have distinct activities assigned to them. In general terms, it is possible to distinguish between the tasks given to the players, on the one hand, and to the coach, on the other: the former interpret and decide on their own account the moves to be made during the course of the match, whilst the latter acts by introducing the relevant changes in the formation of the team. Furthermore, each player acquires information on the environment during the course of the match (for example, the goalkeeper and defenders with respect to the forwards of the opposing team, and forwards with respect to the defenders of the opposing team), which gives rise to a situation of asymmetry in the information. In those groups that take the form of teams, there is no conflict of interest, and all the team members pursue the same objective. In the case of a soccer match, the aim of the players is to win it, although in reality it is possible to consider this as a subobjective established in order to achieve a higher one, namely that of winning the league championship in question. Turning now to the influence of the environment, Organization Theory establishes that the results of a complete team depend not only on the decisions of its members, but also on the values taken by the variables outside its control which, in the case of soccer teams, could be represented by the performance of the opposition. In a group characterized as a team under the terms of the said theory, the interdependence between the individuals that make it up takes a specific form, that is to say, in the effects that the activity of each of these individuals has over the result obtained by the group as a whole. Thus, in order to be able to speak of a team, we must be able to observe the generation of synergies between its components, ie. the results obtained by the team have to be greater than the sum of the results that would be obtained individually by its members acting independently. Furthermore, the activity of each member can be considered as optimum not only in function of its isolated contribution to the final result, but also by further taking into account the decision that

3


has been adopted by the remaining members. Given the situation of asymmetry of information with respect to the environment, this would require a change of such information, as the overall result of the group improves if more information is exchanged and the co-ordination between the activities of the individuals is greater, even when this means that a higher cost must be supported. Translating these idea to the case of a soccer match, the existence of synergies cannot be directly evaluated. However, there would appear to be empirical evidence on the improved results induced by training sessions and the putting into practice of common moves. As an illustration, we can offer the example of the national teams of different countries, which are concentrated together for lengthy periods of time prior to championships, or the teams formed by players who have not worked together previously, with their appearances being limited to friendly matches1. Furthermore, the moves in which various players are involved would be an example of the interrelation of individual activities and of the need to exchange information. With respect to the first of these two aspects, these moves have a result that depends both on the decision of each individual and on those taken by the remaining members of the team, and not exclusively on the particular action that culminates the move. Additionally, the equivalent of the exchange of information in such moves would be the need for the participants to be in some form of agreement, through a short communication, the mutual understanding that exists between them, or thanks to the prior establishment of behavioral rules. This agreement would, in turn, improve the outcome of the move, as well as the result of the match and of the championship, given that each player has better information on the conditions that prevail in the area in which he is located. Moreover, in the case of soccer, and by contrast to other games, such as basketball, the match cannot be interrupted for an exchange of information between the players, or between the players and the coach, with the aim of planning the moves to be made. When expressed in economic terms, this impossibility can be interpreted as a very high cost of information exchange on the field of play, so that the use of other mechanisms, such as prior planning and training, becomes fundamental.

1

This provides an additional justification for the division into two stages of the productive process of soccer teams: the conditions necessary in order for a soccer team to be identified as a team according to Organization Theory are established in the first stage, in such a way that the theory can be used to analyze the second stage of the productive process.

4


In order to solve the problems derived from the need for co-ordination in decision taking on the part of independent economic agents, it has been suggested that use be made of the market mechanism, given that this provides efficient results in many areas of the economy. However, in the case of teams, the conditions required in order for the market mechanism to produce desirable results are not present. As a result, it is necessary to establish alternative co-ordination mechanisms, such as the fixing of rules, programs or procedures that instruct the members of the team on how to respond to each contingency. In the case of soccer matches, this would consist in the establishment of common tactics developed in the training sessions prior to each match. Similarly, it is necessary to create decision centers and, in the context of soccer, the captain of the team would fill this role during the matches, as would the coach, albeit to a lesser extent, in that he could only give instructions during half-time on the basis of his perception of the game2. Furthermore, if the environment is characterized by great uncertainty and variability, the group will need to recur to working systems that imply a high degree of discretion. In each match, the circumstances of the game are different; for example the rival team is different, the condition of the pitch changes during the game, etc. Thus, despite the tactics fixed by the coach and the exchange of information that can take place between the players or between the captain and the rest of the team, when making an individual moves or participating in a collective move, it is the player himself who decides the activity to be carried out.

3. The Efficiency of the Professional Soccer Teams Playing in the Spanish First Division as an Evaluation of their Organizational Design According to Organization Theory, a team is a group of individuals specialized in different tasks and with different information on the environment. Information exchange and co-ordination between the tasks of the individuals will improve the overall results of the team. Thus, the problem faced by the team is what information should be shared and what must be the co-ordination mechanism. This is the case not because there is a conflict of interest in such a way that a negotiation between individuals must take place, given that these share the same objective, but rather 2

Thus, it could be concluded that during the soccer matches both alternatives to the market are used in a complementary manner.

5


because the transmission of information that increases the profit by facilitating the coordination of the individuals has a cost. All these circumstances are aggravated by the random nature of the exogenous contingencies and the impossibility of foreseeing them in advance. In order to provide a response to this, Galbraith (1973) proposed different organizational designs that facilitate the transmission and reception of the information necessary for the co-ordination task. One of these is the establishment of slack resources, which absorb the impact of an unforeseen contingency and, as a consequence, allow fewer resources to be dedicated to the anticipation of this contingency and to the design of rules or procedures to provide a possible reply to it. However, the existence of such resources leads to a fall in the efficiency of the organization. March and Simon (1958) suggest that idle resources invite inefficiency demons. This “slack as inefficiency” perspective posits that slack can encourage satisfying politics, or self-serving projects managers (Jensen, 1986). Others authors, like Bourgeois (1981) suggest a curvilinear relation in which firms should have surplus resources sufficient to address unforeseen threats or opportunities, but limited enough to prevent managers’ irresponsible behavior. In the case of soccer teams, an analysis of their efficiency on the pitch would allow us to evaluate the solution that has been established in order to respond to the need for communication and the co-ordination of activities generated by the interdependence of the actions. In this way, the teams that are most efficient over the length of a competition would be those that have provided the best solution to these problems and that do not have to recur to the existence of slack resources as a result. However, the high cost of information exchange during the match means that it is not possible to consider the complete consideration of these slack resources and, therefore, their presence would be more justified than in the realization of other activities. As a consequence, the description of a soccer team as efficient in a given competition cannot be based on theoretical standards or on the averages that take as reference data relative to different sectors. Rather, it must be based on the values that reflect the activity of soccer teams with similar characteristics. In this way, we can evaluate the possible excess in the use of resources and, as a consequence, the inadequacy of the organizational design that has been adopted. In doing so, account must be taken of the restrictions imposed by the actual rules of the game or of other circumstances that

6


affects all soccer teams during the course of a match. The utilization of frontier functions and, more specifically, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), can be considered as very appropriate tools for the case we are considering, in that they calculate the efficiency of one unit in comparison with the values of the production activity of a sample that is as homogenous as possible. Frontier functions measure efficiency with respect to the best observations and correspond to optimization processes. Within these types of models we can find a number of different approaches, which have been summarized in Førsund, Lovell and Schmidt (1980). In the empirical part of this paper, we will employ deterministic nonparametric frontiers, also known as Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). These types of models do not consider a specific functional form for the frontier; rather, they are formed through linear programming techniques, such as the envelopment of the observed values. Firms belonging to the frontier established in this way are considered as efficient. As Farrell (1957) indicates, the most significant aspect of this method is not the graphical representation of the isoquant, but rather the mathematical formulation by way of linear programming problem like the following one: Min λ1

P.1. s.t.

u ≤ zU λ1 x ≥ z X k z∈ R+

where λ1 is the overall technical efficiency index considering an orientation towards input (that means, a unit is technically efficient if it is not possible to reduce the use of one of its factors without increasing the use of any other resource or without reducing the amount of any product), u is the vector that represents the amounts of the m products produced by the firm, U is the k.m matrix that represents the amount of the m products for the k firms in the sample, x are the amounts of the n productive factors used by the firm whose efficiency is being measured, X is the k.n matrix of the amounts of the n productive factors used by the firms in the sample, and z is a vector of parameters that determines combinations of factors and products observed. When λ1=1, the firm being analyzed lies on the isoquant and it is impossible to obtain its production vector with a radial reduction of all its resources.

7


Up to now, we have worked under the assumption of constant returns to scale. However, it is possible to relax this hypothesis to consider the case of variable returns to scale. In such cases, it is possible to measure the efficiency of each firm not only with respect to all the firms in the sample, but also with respect to firms of a similar size. The mathematical formulation that allows us to measure such efficiency takes the form: Min λ2

P.2. s.t.

u ≤ zU λ2 x ≥ z X Σ zi = 1 k z∈ R+

where λ2 is the value of the so-called purely technical efficiency. The scale efficiency is therefore the value of the quotient λ1/λ2 and measures the losses in efficiency due to a wrong choice of firm size. The analysis undertaken in this study is centred on the second of the previously mentioned components of the productive function. The analysis sample is Spanish First Division soccer teams in the 1998/1999, 1999/2000, 2001/2002, 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 seasons. In order to measure efficiency using Data Envelopment Analysis we have to determine the variables and resources that may be considered as representative of the product. In this study, the output variable is considered as success in the competition whilst input is considered as those variables representing attacking play and the performance of the players themselves. With reference to the measurement of output as success in the competition, Dawson, Dobson and Gerrard (2000) point out that a draw is a common result in a match and the rules of the League allow this result with no obligation to find a way to determine a winner and loser of each game; they therefore consider the number of points accumulated during a season as a variable - a variable that conveniently measures a soccer team’s results as its calculation contemplates the three possible results of a match (win, loose and draw), with each result being rewarded with a different number of points. This study does not consider the number of goals scored as an output variable because the final position of the team in the league does not depend on this but on the difference between goals for and goals against.

8


As variables representative of attacking play we have considered the number of attacking moves, the number of minutes during which the teams had possession of the ball and the number of shots and headers. The decision not to include defensive moves as input is due to the fact that in the Spanish First Division all teams have to play against each other twice so it is possible to consider that the influence of the opposition is homogenous throughout the sample. On the other hand, the human factor is a productive resource present in all activity so we have also included the number of players as part of the input that characterises the second part of the productive function of a soccer team. Including this variable as representative of the productive resources without taking into account the different characteristics of the individual players is justified by the concept of efficiency. Leibenstein (1966) differentiates between allocative efficiency and "XEfficiency", using the latter term to refer to internal company efficiency (this would be related to overall technical efficiency); "Efficiency X" would be influenced by managerial task allocation in the company, an aspect that the author considers of great importance if one considers that managers do not only depend on their own productivity but also on that of their subordinates. In addition, one of the determining elements of "X-Efficiency" is, according to Leibenstein, the appropriate use of the organisation’s existing knowledge. In a similar way, Cuervo (1993) argues that an important factor in business competitiveness is the role of the company itself in the process of developing resources and capacity through non-observable specific assets such as the skills, training and experience of the workers and management: all these resources are intangible assets that may be interpreted as explanatory variables in the success of a company or the strengthening of its competitive advantages. As a consequence, it could be concluded that the positive properties of a company’s factors of production, specifically the human factor, are clearly shown in performance and the generation of competitive advantages and this can be reflected in greater company efficiency. Therefore, from a methodological point of view, in the calculation of the measurement of performance, the quantity of resources used should not be considered in terms of its characteristics. Applying the above to this study, the taking of the number players from each team used during the season as input has the objective of incorporating into the efficiency calculation the effects of having to turn to a larger number of players in order to deal with injuries, red cards or any circumstance that might result in a substitution during a

9


match. This does not mean that the individual characteristics of the players has no influence on the efficiency of each team, but the relationship between them must be analysed with the correct tools and discount value judgements or any preconceived ideas of the fans3. An alternative for the analysis of the influence of individual characteristics on the efficiency of soccer teams could be through a regression that takes one as a dependent variable and the other as explicative; nevertheless, this solution, that would be adequate when considering the overall productive process of the sample units, would not be convenient in this study as the individual characteristics of the players are specifically taken as input in the first part of the productive function and as a consequence, for the incorporation of the influence that they have on efficiency it is recommendable to carry out the analysis of efficiency in this same first phase. Finally, we would say that it is usual that in studies of efficiency of sports teams to introduce the number of players as part of the input without taking into account the differences in their characteristics, for example; Mazur (1994) and Anderson and Sharp (1997) evaluate the performance of individual baseball players by firstly assigning the same input to all the players and secondly taking both the input and output as being based on performance and on-field play; on the other hand, Zak, Huang and Siegfried (1979) and Hofler and Payne (1997) evaluate the efficiency of basketball teams by taking the number of victories as output and play variables as input. The results obtained are set out in Tables 1 to 6. (Table 1 - 6 about here) In the six seasons analyzed in this work, we observe that the team that won the league always presents an overall technical efficiency value of 1. However, the best classified teams at the end of the season are not always the most efficient, as can be seen in seasons 1998/1999, 1999/2000 and 2003/2004. In the first of these, the overall technical efficiency of the second-placed team (Real Madrid) is worse than that of other teams finishing lower in the table, while in contrast the third-placed team (Mallorca) is efficient. In season 1999/2000, the only team that is efficient apart from the league champion is Alavés, which finished in 6th place. Finally, in season 2003/2004, the

3

It should not be assumed, for example, that the teams with more expensive players will be the most efficient or that the individual characteristics of the players have a positive correlation with their salaries. On the other hand, the inclusion of salaries in the efficiency analysis is made through the calculation of price efficiency, a concept that falls outside the parameters of this study.

10


second-placed team (Barcelona) is not efficient, whereas the third-placed team (Deportivo) is. For the other seasons analyzed, the top teams by points coincide with the most efficient ones (Real Madrid, Deportivo and Mallorca in 2000/2001; Valencia in 2001/2002; Real Madrid and Real Sociedad in 2002/2003). With regards the bottom three teams in each of the six seasons analyzed in this work – i.e., the three teams relegated to a lower division each year – these are the teams with the worst overall technical efficiency values except for in season 2000/2001, in which Zaragoza was less efficient than one of the relegated teams, but finished higher in the table. As far as the teams in the mid-table positions are concerned, there is no exact match between the classification by points and the classification in terms of efficiency here either. Moreover, we can see that teams that finished the season level on points also differ in their efficiency values. From the results presented in Tables 1 to 6, attention should be drawn to the significant weight of scale inefficiency in overall technical efficiency, given that around half the teams present purely technical efficiency in every season. When we find that some efficient team is exceeded in terms of points gained by less efficient teams, we have the situation where both these better classified, but inefficient teams, present purely technical efficiency (Barcelona, Valencia and Zaragoza during the 1999/2000 season and Barcelona in 1999/2000 and 2003/2004 seasons) or where they are not even efficient from the purely technical point of view (Real Madrid in the 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 seasons). In this sense, we should particularly note the case of teams which were relegated to a lower league but nevertheless presented a value of purely technical efficiency equal to one (Villarreal in the 1998/1999 season; the three last teams in 2002/2003 season, i.e., Rayo Vallecano, Alavés and Recreativo Huelva; and Murcia in the 2003/2004 season).

4. Conclusions In this paper we have measured the efficiency of the professional soccer teams playing in the Spanish First Division, with the aim of evaluating their organizational design. More specifically, we have measured the efficiency in the productive stage carried out during the matches played in the Spanish First Division League Championship. To that end, we have taken the time horizon of the six seasons covering

11


the period 1998 to 2004 and have applied DEA methodology, dividing the values obtained for overall technical efficiency into purely technical efficiency and scale efficiency. When the organizational design -which allows for information exchange between the players during the course of the match so that their actions can be coordinated- is not the most appropriate, it is possible that part of the resources employed are allocated to moderating the effects of unforeseen events. In this way, they became slack resources not directly involved in achieving the result, so that efficiency suffers. During the course of a soccer match it is difficult to exchange information, above all between the coach and the players. As a result, and given that not all the individuals have perfect information on the environment, there are attacking moves, periods of possession and shots that do not result in goals and, therefore, in points. Furthermore, injuries, suspensions and other random events can contribute towards the use of an number of players higher than that considered as efficient. Two fundamental results have emerged. First, we have noted that the efficient teams do not always correspond with those that finished highest in the league at the end of the season. From the point of view of the management of sports clubs as business organizations, this result implies that well classified, but inefficient teams, could have achieved the same results with less resources, or improved their results with the same resources that they have employed. That is to say, soccer competitions are a type of activity in which, because the sporting results come first (the victory in each match and, as a consequence, the number of points gained during the complete season), independent of the amount of resources employed, a team can be effective without being efficient and, furthermore, it is the former which is rewarded. This means that making the right choice of the organizational design that facilitates co-ordination and information between players and reduces the use of slack resources does not form part of the valuation criteria of a soccer team. Secondly, the importance of scale inefficiencies makes it clear that we are dealing with an activity that gives rise to variable returns to scale and, therefore, the size of each team is a factor to be taken into account when evaluating its efficiency. On this basis, it is to be expected that the organizational designs will be similar in teams of the same size.

12


Bearing in mind the forthcoming quotation of these Corporations (Sociedades Anónimas Deportivas) on the Stock Market, and their subsequent management and evaluation as business organizations, the results of this paper highlight the fact that, at least up to now, the economic objective (maximization of profits or minimization of costs) has been second in importance to the sporting objective which, in this ambit, are the match results. This has been the case because the Boards of Directors have been responsible to their season ticket holders, who naturally wish to see their teams perform well in all the competitions they enter. It is to be expected that when these entities are converted into quoted Corporations, and their Boards of Directors become subject to the criteria of owners who search for a return on their investment, profit will become the objective. This search for maximum profit will necessarily imply the elimination of waste in the use of resources and, as a result, efficiency will be converted into a useful criterion with which to evaluate the activities of professional soccer teams. Applying the lessons of Organization Theory to the phenomenon of teams, the achievement of efficiency during the matches should rest on the organizational design of the team that resorts to the use of slack resources to the least extent.

5. References Anderson, T.R. and Sharp, G.P. (1997). A new measure of baseball batters using DEA. Annals of Operations Research, vol. 73. Bourgeois, L. (1981). On the measurement of the organization slack. Academy of Management Review, vol. 6. Carmichael, F. and Thomas, C. (1995). Production and efficiency in team sports : an investigation of rugby league football. Applied Economics, vol. 27, nº 9, September. Carmichael, F., Thomas, D. and Ward, R. (2000). Team Performance : The Case of English Premiership Football. Managerial and Decision Economics, vol. 21, nº 1, January-February. Cuervo, A. (1993). El papel de la empresa en la competitividad. Papeles de Economía Española, nº 56. Dawson, P., Dobson, S. And Gerrard, B. (2000). Estimating Coaching Efficiency in Professional Team Sports : Evidence from English Association Football. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, vol. 47, nº 4, September.

13


Farrell, M.J. (1957). The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Serie A, vol. 120, Part III. Førsund, F.R., Lovell, C.A.K. and Schmidt, P. (1980). A survey of frontier production functions and of their relationship to efficiency measurement. Journal of Econometrics, vol. 13. Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing Complex Organizations. Adison-Wesley. Hofler, R.A. and Payne, J.E. (1997). Measuring efficiency in the National Basketball Association. Economic Letters, vol. 52, nº 2, August. Jensen, M. (1986). Agency cost and free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review, vol. 76. Jost, P.J. (2000). Organization und Koordination. Weisbaden Glaber. Leibenstein, H. (1966). Allocative efficiency vs. “X- Efficiency. American Economic Review, vol. LVI, nº 3. March, J. and Simon, H.(1958). Organizations. New York Wiley. Mazur, M.J. (1994). Evaluating the relative efficiency of baseball players. In Data Envelopment Analysis. Theory, Methodology and Application by A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, A.Y. Lewis and L.M. Seidford (Ed.). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Schofield, J.A. (1988). Production functions in the sports industry : an empirical analysis of professional cricket. Applied Economics, vol. 20, nº 2, February. Serra, A. (2001). Mercados, Contratos y Empresa. Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra Zak, T.A., Huang. C.J. And Siegfried, J.J. (1979). Production Efficiency: The Case Of Professional Basketball. Journal Of Business. Vol. 52, Nº 3

14


Table 1.- Efficiency and results corresponding to the 1998/1999 season

TEAM

OVERALL TECHNICAL

PURELY

SCALE

TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY

POSITION IN

POINTS

THE TABLE

OBTAINED

EFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY ALAVES

0.64

1

0.64

16

40

AT. MADRID

0.63

0.87

0.73

13

46

ATH. BILBAO

0.97

1

0.97

7

60

BARCELONA

1

1

1

1

79

BETIS

0.72

0.97

0.74

11

49

CELTA

0.95

1

0.95

5

64

DEPORTIVO

0.90

0.96

0.94

6

63

ESPAÑOL

0.95

1

0.95

8

58

EXTREMADURA

0.65

1

0.65

17

39

MALLORCA

1

1

1

3

66

OVIEDO

0.71

1

0.71

14

45

RACING

0.63

0.92

0.68

15

42

REAL MADRID

0.84

0.96

0.87

2

68

REAL SOCIEDAD

0.79

0.99

0.80

10

54

SALAMANCA

0.39

0.93

0.42

20

27

TENERIFE

0.48

0.95

0.51

19

34

VALENCIA

0.98

1

0.98

4

65

VALLADOLID

0.71

0.98

0.72

12

48

VILLARREAL

0.58

1

0.58

18

36

ZARAGOZA

0.87

0.97

0.89

9

57

15



TEAM

OVERALL TECHNICAL

PURELY

SCALE


POSITION IN

POINTS

THE TABLE

OBTAINED


1

1

1

6

61

AT. MADRID

0.56

0.94

0.59

19

38

ATH. BILBAO

0.78

0.98

0.79

11

50

BARCELONA

0.99

1

0.99

2

64

BETIS

0.68

0.99

0.69

18

42

CELTA

0.81

0.98

0.82

7

53

DEPORTIVO

1

1

1

1

69

ESPAÑOL

0.75

0.98

0.76

14

47

MALAGA

0.75

0.99

0.75

12

48

MALLORCA

0.84

1

0.84

10

51

NUMANCIA

0.75

1

0.75

17

45

OVIEDO

0.73

0.98

0.74

16

45

RACING

0.70

1

0.70

15

46

RAYO VALLECA.

0.88

1

0.88

9

52

REAL MADRID

0.91

0.97

0.93

5

62

REAL SOCIEDAD

0.76

1

0.76

13

47

SEVILLA

0.45

0.99

0.45

20

28

VALENCIA

0.96

1

0.96

3

64

VALLADOLID

0.83

0.97

0.86

8

53

ZARAGOZA

0.97

1

0.97

4

63

16



TEAM

OVERALL TECHNICAL

PURELY

SCALE


POSITION IN

POINTS

THE TABLE

OBTAINED


0.74

1

0.74

10

49

ATH. BILBAO

0.70

1

0.70

12

43

BARCELONA

0.82

0.99

0.83

4

63

CELTA

0.82

1

0.82

6

59

DEPORTIVO

1

1

1

2

73

ESPAÑOL

0.72

1

0.72

9

50

LAS PALMAS

0.72

1

0.72

11

46

MALAGA

0.87

1

0.87

8

56

MALLORCA

1

1

1

3

71

NUMANCIA

0.56

0.96

0.58

20

39

OSASUNA

0.77

1

0.77

15

42

OVIEDO

0.58

0.94

0.61

18

41

RACING

0.54

0.95

0.57

19

39

RAYO VALLECA.

0.74

1

0.74

14

43

REAL MADRID

1

1

1

1

80

REAL SOCIEDAD

0.64

0.99

0.64

13

43

VALENCIA

0.87

0.99

0.87

5

63

VALLADOLID

0.63

0.98

0.64

16

42

VILLARREAL

0.84

1

0.84

7

57

ZARAGOZA

0.57

0.96

0.59

17

42

17



TEAM

OVERALL TECHNICAL

PURELY

SCALE


POSITION IN

POINTS

THE TABLE

OBTAINED


0.88

1

0.88

7

54

ATH. BILBAO

0.87

1

0.87

10

53

BARCELONA

0.89

1

0.89

4

64

BETIS

0.87

0.99

0.89

6

59

CELTA

0.86

1

0.86

5

60

DEPORTIVO

0.98

1

0.98

2

68

ESPAÑOL

0.79

1

0.79

14

47

LAS PALMAS

0.67

0.99

0.67

18

40

MALAGA

0.83

1

0.83

9

53

MALLORCA

0.77

1

0.77

16

43

OSASUNA

0.75

1

0.75

17

42

RAYO VALLECA.

0.79

0.98

0.80

11

49

REAL MADRID

0.95

0.99

0.96

3

66

REAL SOCIEDAD

0.70

0.97

0.71

13

47

SEVILLA

0.79

0.98

0.80

8

53

TENERIFE

0.64

0.99

0.64

19

38

VALENCIA

1

1

1

1

75

VALLADOLID

0.82

0.99

0.82

12

48

VILLARREAL

0.74

1

0.74

15

43

ZARAGOZA

0.57

0.96

0.6

20

37

18



TEAM

OVERALL TECHNICAL

PURELY

SCALE


POSITION IN

POINTS

THE TABLE

OBTAINED


0.51

1

0.51

19

35

AT. MADRID

0.62

0.95

0.66

11

47

ATH. BILBAO

0.80

1

0.80

7

55

BARCELONA

0.78

0.97

0.80

6

56

BETIS

0.75

0.97

0.77

8

54

CELTA

0.88

1

0.88

4

61

DEPORTIVO

0.93

0.97

0.96

3

72

ESPAÑOL

0.64

1

0.64

17

43

MALAGA

0.67

1

0.67

14

46

MALLORCA

0.74

0.98

0.75

9

52

OSASUNA

0.65

0.97

0.68

12

47

R. HUELVA

0.52

1

0.52

18

36

RACING

0.63

0.99

0.64

16

44

RAYO VALLECA.

0.49

1

0.49

20

32

REAL MADRID

1

1

1

1

78

REAL SOCIEDAD

1

1

1

2

76

SEVILLA

0.69

0.97

0.71

10

50

VALENCIA

0.81

0.95

0.85

5

60

VALLADOLID

0.72

1

0.72

13

46

VILLARREAL

0.62

0.95

0.65

15

45

19



TEAM

OVERALL TECHNICAL

PURELY

SCALE


POSITION IN

POINTS

THE TABLE

OBTAINED

EFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY ALBACETE

0.76

1

0.76

14

47

AT. MADRID

0.76

0.96

0.79

7

55

ATH. BILBAO

0.76

1

0.76

5

56

BARCELONA

0.97

1

0.97

2

72

BETIS

0.72

0.95

0.76

9

52

CELTA

0.55

0.96

0.57

19

39

DEPORTIVO

1

1

1

3

71

ESPAÑOL

0.62

0.99

0.62

17

43

MALAGA

0.75

1

0.75

10

51

MALLORCA

0.73

0.98

0.74

11

51

MURCIA

0.42

1

0.42

20

26

OSASUNA

0.67

0.98

0.69

12

48

RACING

0.65

1

0.65

16

43

REAL MADRID

0.92

0.99

0.92

4

70

REAL SOCIEDAD

0.63

0.96

0.66

15

46

SEVILLA

0.76

0.98

0.78

6

55

VALENCIA

1

1

1

1

77

VALLADOLID

0.57

0.96

0.60

18

41

VILLARREAL

0.78

1

0.78

8

54

ZARAGOZA

0.65

0.94

0.69

13

48

20


Documentos de Trabajo Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales. Universidad de Zaragoza. 2002-01: “Evolution of Spanish Urban Structure During the Twentieth Century”. Luis Lanaspa, Fernando Pueyo y Fernando Sanz. Department of Economic Analysis, University of Zaragoza. 2002-02: “Una Nueva Perspectiva en la Medición del Capital Humano”. Gregorio Giménez y Blanca Simón. Departamento de Estructura, Historia Económica y Economía Pública, Universidad de Zaragoza. 2002-03: “A Practical Evaluation of Employee Productivity Using a Professional Data Base”. Raquel Ortega. Department of Business, University of Zaragoza. 2002-04: “La Información Financiera de las Entidades No Lucrativas: Una Perspectiva Internacional”. Isabel Brusca y Caridad Martí. Departamento de Contabilidad y Finanzas, Universidad de Zaragoza. 2003-01: “Las Opciones Reales y su Influencia en la Valoración de Empresas”. Manuel Espitia y Gema Pastor. Departamento de Economía y Dirección de Empresas, Universidad de Zaragoza. 2003-02: “The Valuation of Earnings Components by the Capital Markets. An International Comparison”. Susana Callao, Beatriz Cuellar, José Ignacio Jarne and José Antonio Laínez. Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Zaragoza. 2003-03: “Selection of the Informative Base in ARMA-GARCH Models”. Laura Muñoz, Pilar Olave and Manuel Salvador. Department of Statistics Methods, University of Zaragoza. 2003-04: “Structural Change and Productive Blocks in the Spanish Economy: An Imput-Output Analysis for 1980-1994”. Julio Sánchez Chóliz and Rosa Duarte. Department of Economic Analysis, University of Zaragoza. 2003-05: “Automatic Monitoring and Intervention in Linear Gaussian State-Space Models: A Bayesian Approach”. Manuel Salvador and Pilar Gargallo. Department of Statistics Methods, University of Zaragoza. 2003-06: “An Application of the Data Envelopment Analysis Methodology in the Performance Assessment of the Zaragoza University Departments”. Emilio Martín. Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Zaragoza. 2003-07: “Harmonisation at the European Union: a difficult but needed task”. Ana Yetano Sánchez. Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Zaragoza. 2003-08: “The investment activity of spanish firms with tangible and intangible assets”. Manuel Espitia and Gema Pastor. Department of Business, University of Zaragoza.

21


2004-01: “Persistencia en la performance de los fondos de inversión españoles de renta variable nacional (1994-2002)”. Luis Ferruz y María S. Vargas. Departamento de Contabilidad y Finanzas, Universidad de Zaragoza. 2004-02: “Calidad institucional y factores político-culturales: un panorama inter.nacional por niveles de renta”. José Aixalá, Gema Fabro y Blanca Simón. Departamento de Estructura, Historia Económica y Economía Pública, Universidad de Zaragoza. 2004-03: “La utilización de las nuevas tecnologías en la contratación pública”. José Mª Gimeno Feliú. Departamento de Derecho Público, Universidad de Zaragoza. 2004-04: “Valoración económica y financiera de los trasvases previstos en el Plan Hidrológico Nacional español”. Pedro Arrojo Agudo. Departamento de Análisis Económico, Universidad de Zaragoza. Laura Sánchez Gallardo. Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua. 2004-05: “Impacto de las tecnologías de la información en la productividad de las empresas españolas”. Carmen Galve Gorriz y Ana Gargallo Castel. Departamento de Economía y Dirección de Empresas. Universidad de Zaragoza. 2004-06: “National and International Income Dispersión and Aggregate Expenditures”. Carmen Fillat. Department of Applied Economics and Economic History, University of Zaragoza. Joseph Francois. Tinbergen Institute Rotterdam and Center for Economic Policy Resarch-CEPR. 2004-07: “Targeted Advertising with Vertically Differentiated Products”. Lola Esteban and José M. Hernández. Department of Economic Analysis. University of Zaragoza. 2004-08: “Returns to education and to experience within the EU: are there differences between wage earners and the self-employed?”. Inmaculada García Mainar. Department of Economic Analysis. University of Zaragoza. Víctor M. Montuenga Gómez. Department of Business. University of La Rioja 2005-01: “E-government and the transformation of public administrations in EU countries: Beyond NPM or just a second wave of reforms?”. Lourdes Torres, Vicente Pina and Sonia Royo. Department of Accounting and Finance.University of Zaragoza 2005-02: “Externalidades tecnológicas internacionales y productividad de la manufactura: un análisis sectorial”. Carmen López Pueyo, Jaime Sanau y Sara Barcenilla. Departamento de Economía Aplicada. Universidad de Zaragoza. 2005-03: “Detecting Determinism Using Recurrence Quantification Analysis: Three Test Procedures”. María Teresa Aparicio, Eduardo Fernández Pozo and Dulce Saura. Department of Economic Analysis. University of Zaragoza. 2005-04: “Evaluating Organizational Design Through Efficiency Values: An Application To The Spanish First Division Soccer Teams”. Manuel Espitia Escuer and Lucía Isabel García Cebrián. Department of Business. University of Zaragoza.

22


23