El Podcast

E165: STUDY Shows NFL Favors the Chiefs — Lead Researcher Explains

Episode Summary

Dr. Spencer Barnes, Professor of Finance at UTEP, co-authored a study examining how postseason officiating differs for the Mahomes-era Kansas City Chiefs. The research finds that in the playoffs, the Chiefs are more likely to receive first-down–extending and subjective penalties compared to other teams, a pattern not seen in the regular season or with other dynasties like the Brady Patriots. The authors do not argue games are rigged, but suggest the pattern reflects subconscious, financially driven regulatory capture, benefiting the league’s most valuable, ratings-driving brand.

Episode Notes

Finance professor Spencer Barnes explains research showing postseason officiating systematically favors the Mahomes-era Chiefs—consistent with subconscious, financially driven “regulatory capture,” not explicit rigging.

Guest bio: Dr. Spencer Barnes is a finance professor at UTEP. He co-authored “Under Financial Pressure” with Brandon Mendez (South Carolina) and Ted Dischman, using sports as a transparent lab to study regulatory capture.

Topics discussed (in order):

• Why the NFL is a clean testbed for regulatory capture
• Data/methods: 13,136 defensive penalties (2015–2023), panel dataset, fixed-effects
• Postseason favoritism toward Mahomes-era Chiefs
• Magnitude and game impact (first downs, yards, FG-margin games)
• Subjective vs objective penalties (RTP, DPI vs offsides/false start)
• Regular season vs postseason differences
• Dynasty checks (Patriots/Brady; Eagles/Rams/49ers)
• Rigging vs subconscious bias
• Ratings, revenue (~$23B in 2024), media incentives
• Gambling’s rise post-2018 and bettor implications
• Taylor Swift factor (not tested due to data window)
• Ref assignment opacity; repeat-crew effects
• Tech/replay reform ideas
• Broader finance lesson on incentives and regulation

Main points & takeaways:

• Core postseason result: Chiefs ~20 percentage points more likely than peers to gain a first down from a defensive penalty.
• Subjective flags: ~30% more likely for KC in playoffs (RTP, DPI).
• Size: ~4 extra yards per defensive penalty in playoffs—small per play, decisive at FG margins.
• Regular season: No favorable treatment; slight tilt the other way.
• Ref carryover: Crews with a prior KC postseason official show more KC-favorable outcomes the next year.
• Not universal to dynasties: Patriots/Brady and other near-dynasties don’t show the same postseason effect.
• Mechanism: No claim of rigging; consistent with implicit bias under financial incentives.
• Policy: Use tech (skycam, auto-checks for false start/offsides), limited challenges for subjective calls, transparent ref advancement.
• General lesson: When regulators depend financially on outcomes, redesign incentives to reduce capture and protect fairness.

Top 3 quotes:

• “We make no claim the NFL is rigging anything. What we see looks like implicit bias shaped by financial incentives.” — Spencer Barnes
• “It only takes one call to swing a postseason game decided by a field goal.” — Spencer Barnes
• “If there’s money on the line, you must design the regulators’ environment so incentives don’t quietly bend enforcement.” — Spencer Barnes

Links/where to find the work: Spencer Barnes on LinkedIn (search: “Spencer Barnes UTEP”); paper Under Financial Pressure in the Financial Review (paywall) and as a free working paper on SSRN (search the title).