The Beautiful Game behind the Premier League (game theory of players pricings)

Introduction

Game theory is the formal study of decision being made by multiple players must make choices that potentially affect the interests of the other players. Now, game theory can be used to describe how football player’s agents and football clubs should maximise their payoff, which can be defined as the profit or utility (points in the league table), while cooperating with each other. So, as you may have guessed by now, I will be focusing on cooperative game theory in this essay, but we will dip in and out of non-cooperative game theory too as agents are not paid to be nice. But let us first get a feel for the market of players to do proper economic analysis.

Market for players

Agents, who represent both the players and the club’s interest, are the sellers in this market. Their incentive is to maximise the transfer fee and the agreed salary of the player as the agent gets a cut from the year’s wages and a slice of the transfer fee paid for the player’s services. They also have to think about sponsors. The agent needs to negotiate the split between the club and the player on the fees earned by sponsors, and this is especially important for star players. Football agents have a key role to play in increasing the financial power currently experienced by footballers. For example, due to a good season for his club, a player’s market value goes up so his agents will often use this as a bargaining tool to engineer a new contract for that player despite not being anywhere near the end of his previous contract. Football player’s contracts can last for a total of five years but are often renewed after only two years in order to increase the wages paid to that player – this is a key example of player power.

The Price Elasticity of Demand is low for football players, especially in the premier league, although the elasticity varies depending on the club. The richest clubs usually have higher reservation price for the player they target, and their PED is usually inelastic as they are keen to improve their team. For example, in 2015, Manchester City paid £49 million for Raheem Sterling in 2015, while Leicester City paid £375,000 for Mahrez in 2014. Mahrez was one the top goal scorer for Leicester with 19 goals and 11 assists, while Sterling exhibited a relatively meagre performance of 11 goals and 4 assists (and then helped England exit Europe). So obviously, the utility derived by Leicester (which went on to win the latest premier league, partly due to the magic of Mahrez) was much higher than that of Manchester City, though his initial prize was much lower.   

[i]Transfer fees serve to prevent a total barrier for players’ mobility. Free movement of players is restricted under transfer rules so that there is a fair and balanced competition. This is so that clubs experiencing a string of success are not able to attract the suddenly best players in the league and drain their competitors.  

Game theory in negotiation of transfer fee

When we use game theory in economic analysis, we assume these things:

·             Players or parties rational beings.

·             Players have the intention to maximize their utility/outcome.

·             Players will accept the highest payoffs (profit or utility).

·             Players know the "rules of the game.", which means that they have full knowledge on how the game is operating

·             Players assume other parties to be fully rational.

·             The number of players is fixed and known to all parties.

·             Each party recognizes a set of available options and develops tangible preferences among those options.  Preferences remain constant throughout the conflict/negotiation interaction.

·             Each party knows or can estimate well the options and preferences of the other parties.

·             Communication is limited, highly controlled, or not relevant to the conflict/negotiation interaction.

·             A decision must be possible that is maximally efficient, i.e., intersects with the solution set at a point that maximizes each party's own interests (so too create a pareto optimal, which is the allocation of resources in a way so that it is impossible for one individual to be better off without making at least one individual worse off).

Now, let us imagine a black box. Imagining this black box is important as it represents the apparatus of the legal system (set by completely reliable and controversial-free regulatory bodies like FIFA), and we have to assume that there is cooperation as the both sides of the table could get sued if they don’t live up to their side of their bargain. So from the the following discussion, we are going to imagine the existence of this black box so that we can simplify the problem at hand.

The simplest two-person game

Usually when we think of negotiations, we imagine two people facing off against each other.  Whatever one wins, the other loses the same amount.  So, in regards to the question, in the negotiations the player’s agent wants to maximise his/her compensation and the buying club wants to minimise the fee it offers for the player.

In the following example, let’s say Nickolas is the manager of Jamie’s Angels F.C., and is negotiating the transfer Dmitri Lafayette from City Hawks and they have to agree on how much JAFC will pay for Lafayette with his agent, Benjamin.  They each have two strategies available to them, but the outcome is not just dependent on the strategy chosen, but also on what their opponent does. So while Nickolas would obviously choose to pay the minimum (£40,000,000) and Benjamin would like to have the maximum (£60,000,000), the opposing move needs to be taken into account before an optimal strategy can be selected.

 

As the title of this section might suggest, this game might be the simplest negotiation scenario we could think of. The minimax theorem would tell us that these rational agents of economic force should pick the strategy where the maximum advantage of their opponent is minimized. So, in the above example, Nickolas should pick strategy #2 to pay 10 less unit (a unit being 10 million) while Benjamin should pick strategy #1 to avoid only getting paid 40 million.

The Minimax theorem is a simple but useful as it can be can be applied to everyday situations.  However, it’s problematic partly because it assumes the parties have access to perfect information. Obviously, real life is much more complicated, not least because our negotiating opponent is rarely limited to two strategies.

Let’s see what happens if we add additional strategic possibilities.

Although much more complicated, this game is still solvable. It is generally an advantage to have less options for yourself and more options for your opponent (although a bit counter-intuitive).

Game theorists achieve this mathematically by determining which strategies are numerically dominant and using randomly mixed strategies. During negotiation, the agent or the buying club would calculate h have a clear idea of what you want and eliminate inferior options.  Your advantage can sometimes be increased if you don’t announce your preferences to your opponent so that he still has to consider variables which you don’t.

Nash bargaining solution

So Lafayette is worth £60,000,000 (this would be its reservation price, which the highest price a consumer is willing to offer for a good or service) to the JAFC while the Hawks would be willing to sell Lafayette for at least £40,000,000. So, how can the cooperatively share the surplus of £20,000,000 amongst themselves. Now, the common approach to this problem would be to say that the player would be sold at £50,000,000, so the surplus is shared equally. However, each side could take advantage of their positions for a non-equilibrium (or zero sum) outcome to be produced. It could be that the Lafayette is very eager to move to Jamie’s Angels so the agent might be under pressure to let a deal go through as quickly as possible to avoid the risk of losing the transfer. However, if the agent knows JAFC is desperate for Lafayette and that Lafayette is in high demand, then he would be willingly to take more risk and demand a higher surplus.

Nash figured out the the set of agreement would be shaped like curved rectangle as Nickolas lie a curved square or a circle as Benjamin and Nickolas would be willingly to take different levels of risk differently, as we can see for figure 3. Another way to look at this would be say that Benjamin and Nickolas have different The Pareto frontier (the line of efficient outcomes) would be across the edge of the possible agreements. We would draw a tangent to the point which is the midpoint of the frontier, and set the slope’s angle to 45°. So the picture is looking quite pretty at the moment.

Let’s play with some numbers (aha pun, get it?). Let’s get back to how the two parties value the transfer of Lafayette. JAFC believes that Lafayette can get them points in the next season if they bring him in, as he is a top notch goal scorer. This also means that the demand for Lafayette is very high as he is a very well known player. Due to his ability to bring points to his team (the extra nine points would most likely that they would finish second in the league next season) they would get 15 million more from the Premier League, and the revenue from shirts, sponsorship and increased tickets is estimated to be around 15 million. So, the utility for buying Lafayette for JAFC would be 30 utils (this an arbitrary unit of utility defined as £1 million for 1 util). But for every 10 million more they invest into Lafayette’s transfer from City Hawks asking price, they lose 3 utils. Now, City Hawks, would be able to afford one extra defender who will give them 2 points each for every 20 million they would earn from the deal. 5 points would move them one place up in the table from the third place, and they would earn £6 million from every place they move up, which is 6 utils. Now, the two extremes are that JAFC pays the Hawks £40 million, or that it pays the Hawks £60 million.

·             In the first extreme, the JAFC gain 30 – 4*3 = 18 utils. Hawks would be able to buy two defenders, and so it will gain 12 utils.

·             In the second extreme, the JAFC will gain 30 - 6*3 = 12 utils. Hawks will be able to buy three defenders, so it would gain 18 utils.

Nash’s bargaining solution is found by averaging the two extremes. The average gives 15 utils for City Hawks and also 16 utils for Jamie’s Angels. This means the price should be at £50 million. Conveniently, the artificial numbers in this hypothetical scenario turned out to work so that the answer came out to be the nice average £50 million, but under different conditions, the Nash’s bargaining solution would have been the most realistic way to compute the ultimate transfer fee than finding the average of the maximum and minimum prices being offered by the negotiators.

Rubenstein’s bargaining method

We have not considered commitment issues. If, let’s say, Benjamin is intent that he will only accept at least a bid of £55 million for Lafayette’s, what guarantee would Nickolas have that this is Benjamin’s lowest asking price. This is a negotiation after all. Ben and Nick can alternate offers until they reach an agreement. Assuming that the prefer to make a particular deal now then later, then Rubenstein showed that there is a sub-game perfect equilibrium. If Nick is more patient then Ben, his discount rate (the rate at which he decreases his price to sell Lafayette) would be lower, so he will get a higher portion of the 20-million-pound surplus. Rubenstein’s model assumes there is perfect information, so both sides now for sure what each other minimum/maximum offers are. Neither Ben nor Nick know the most the first is willing to offer and the least the latter is willing to accept for Lafayette. The issue of commitment means that both parties stand to benefit from being patient, but due to the nature of the transfer market of the premier leagues (Lafayette has to be sold during the transfer window), time is a limited resources and demand for Lafayette is high, so JAFC’s Nickolas would cannot afford the same patience as Benjamin because delays are costly.

Let’s answer one final question with game theory about the transfer of players.

Should a football team sell a player?

The club has to calculate the expected value of selling a player or not to look at this question.

EV(Not sell) = P(Club staying in EPL) x (Total Revenue from EPL) + P(Relegated) x (Total Revenue from the Championship)  – (Money spent improving the squad)

EV(Sell) = P(Staying in the EPL) * (Total Revenue from being in the EPL) + P(Relegated) x (Total Revenue from the Championship) + (Money gained from selling) – (Money spent replacing him)

Note: EV stands for Expected Value

But, the intangible value that a player can bring to the club should be considered too. For example, Lafayette brings the City Hawks a loyal fan base who are excited to see their star player and so are more likely to come frequently to matches. Then, there is also the morale that the star player Lafayette brings to the changing room and chemistry on to the field, so that the team is motivated and able to win matches. Considering these, it might not be such a good idea for a Nickolas to sell Lafayette. If we quantify these costs as revenue in form of ticket, merchandise and earnings from winning games, these costs would be the opportunity cost of selling Lafayette.

Bibliography

Websites

http://www.digitaltonto.com/2009/game-theory-guide-to-negotiations/

http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/cons-study-transfers-final-rpt.pdf

http://soccer.chadmurphy.org/methods/game-theory-a-long-term-look-at-selling-young-players/

http://soccer.chadmurphy.org/methods/game-theory-a-long-term-look-at-selling-young-players

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/football-player-breaking-contracts

http://blog.fieldoo.com/2013/05/how-much-do-football-agents-earn 

http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2014/7/28/5923187/transfer-window-soccer-europe-explained

http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/price-elasticity-of-demand

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/the-transfer-values-of-the-top-100-players-in-europe-cies-football-observatory/

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/04/clubs-calculate-cost-transfer-market-leicester-southampton

http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/cons-study-transfers-final-rpt.pdf

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/comm440-540/gametheory.htm

http://web.stanford.edu/~niederle/Nash%20Bargaining.pdf

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-254-game-theory-with-engineering-applications-spring-2010/lecture-notes/MIT6_254S10_lec14.pdf

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_11/PThy_Chapter_11.html

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1998-99/game-theory/index.html

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_ToC.html

Books

Game Theory, A very short introduction, Ken Binmore

Games and Decisions, Luce and Raiffa.

---

Review of a mice and men

Expert’s rating: ★★★★★

Now, I admit that ‘Of Mice and Men’ has become one of my favourite books, and it is surely one of the ten books I would take to an island, if I could find one (or afford to buy one). But why? Why is it so good?   

To start, ‘Of Mice and Men’ is a brilliant title. It captures the reader’s imagination - how could a book  about The Great Depression’s effect on people have anything to do with mice and men? It made me dive into the book to unravel this mystery with a spate of excitement and zeal. Having read another Steinbeck’s masterpiece, ‘The Grapes of Wrath’, I expected this book to have an effective and terse use of language, which Steinbeck consistently demonstrated in his work, to provide the reader with a immaculate image of the story that enacts itself to turn into a wondrous motion film in your imagination. 

Now, this tragic novella is not only carefully written, but it also conveys the mood of The Great Depression very effectively using a sentimental, tragic, moralistic and comic tone. The variation in tone clearly emphasizes the difficulties and the uncertainties ranch workers faced in The Great Depression. You will become confident that everything is as it should, that George and Lennie are going to achieve their dream and then BAAM! The world starts to collapse in the book and you will be suddenly reading ‘He pulled the trigger...’ Oh, I nearly ruined the book for you. Let’s avoid doing that and give you a plot overview instead. 

Of Mice and Men follows two migrant workers, who drift from ranch to ranch in 1930’s California after they have to quit because of Lennie’s persistent affinity with trouble. Lennie is a mentally handicapped gentle giant who George, a clever and ‘small’ man, looks after. Both depend on each other for companionship, which sets them apart from other itinerant ranch hands, and they share a dream of owning a farm one day (and tending rabbits, of course). This, however, is not meant to be. They arrive at a new farm in Soledad, make friends and get close to achieving their dream with a old crippled swamper called Candy till the ranch owner’s son’s wife ruins it all for them. Sigh! A very cheerful book indeed. 

What is the message? The message is about a failed society. A failed society in which unsuccessful dreams are ubiquitous, while successful ones are non-existent; broken dreams, broken lives and premature death are eventualities; a society in which class and discrimination determines a person’s position in society. It is also a society where people are dehumanised - not by other people, but by their situation. The situation leads to tragedies, and multiple more tragedies, because the story is a tragedy, as Nate Brown rightly wrote. To me, it seemed that Steinbeck wrote the book to relate to use the stories of typical ranch workers in 1930’s America, to tell us that why poor stay poor; to Steinbeck, they stay poor not because they are clueless and lazy, but because they are in an inescapable situation, in which they would collect their ‘fifty bucks at the end of the month’ and spent time in a ‘lousy cat-house’ and then quit and move onto the next ranch, and that this happens all the time. Maybe that is why he initially called the book “Something That Happened”. This inescapable situation is created by the Great Depression, which dehumanises them, also isolates them from other people and so George and Lennie’s friendship stands out so us. Steinbeck underscores friendship and loneliness because he wants to show how  people were creating a predatory and harsh society in those days. Lastly, dreams are very constitutive to the book. George, Lennie and Candy dream of having their own land and living “of fatta the lan’” instead of having to rely on others; Crooks dreams of having his rights and dignity; Curley’s wife dreams of escaping this patriarchal society, in which she can’t talk to ‘nobody’ instead of her husband, and be self-sufficient with pretty dresses by being in the ‘pitchers’ and Curly dreams of being in control and respected. So a lot of the characters have dreams, but all those dreams seem inaccessible. And the tragedy of this book is that this fact is proven to be true. Thus Steinbeck shows us that not all people get to lead the content life that they want to live and he is forcing us to rethink our fortunate position but also remind us that the society we are shaping is becoming predatory, and we should stop this from continuing. The broken dreams are symbolic of ‘the best laid schemes of mice and men’ which often go “awry, and leave us nothing but grief and pain, for promised joy!”(Robert Burn’s “To a Mouse”, lines 39-42)          

Thus, Of Mice and Men is a social commentary. But, it is not an allegory like The Lord Of Flies or The Great Gatsby. It is very sensible, because Steinbeck based the story on characters that he really saw while working in ranches as a young man.  Whatever you would decide about the characters, you will see that they serve a common purpose, which is to act like personifications of people in the ranches during the Great Depression. George Milton and Lennie Small are the protagonists of the books, and they are very likeable characters indeed. George is likeable because he is sharp and compassionate, and the readers learn to respect him for looking out for another person during a time as tumultuous as The Great Depression. Lennie, on the other hand, is likeable for his childish innocence; an innocence that is unique amongst the avarice and cupidity of the men in this book. The character that I personally liked the most was Slim. Slim represents the rational, affectionate, authoritative, charming… the pinnacle of all human qualities. Slim is a demigod in this terrible situation, and his presence makes the reader feel comfortable because he gives them a sense of stability. But then there are characters that represent the nadir of humanity, such as Curley’s wife. She is self-centred, grumbling, flirtatious and inadvertently dangerous, and Steinbeck makes you wish that she goes away. However, if you dig deep, you will see that the she is bad because of her situation. Steinbeck also uses her to show that the worst of us have our humanity when he writes in the penultimate chapter “Curley's wife lay with a half-covering of yellow hay. And the meanness and the plannings and the discontent and the ache for attention were all gone from her face. She was very pretty and simple, and her face was sweet and young. Now her rouged cheeks and her reddened lips made her seem alive and sleeping very lightly.”  

Although the last two chapter were really thrilling and intense, chapter 3 was my favourite because a lot happened in it. It begun with a friendly conversation between Slim and George, which shed some light on Lennie and George's past, then there was a death, and finally a fight that leaves the reader wondering what will happen next. I loved this chapter for many reasons: the chapter is notable because Steinbeck uses language to slow time when Candy’s dog is about to die and then, he does not let the reader catch his/her breath before a fight breaks out. When I finished the chapter, I felt that I was actually in the book, because Steinbeck ingrained reality into the chapter, such as the slowing of time or the multiple events unfolding parallely.     

You probably  expect me to talk about the 1992 film adaptation of the book. Should you watch it? In an entertainment perspective, it is good. However, personally, the ending was disappointing - the screen-writers missed out a very important part of the book, which summarises what the book is all about. If you read the book, you will know.   

SPOILER ALERT - George kills Lennie. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself any longer.

    

Do we inherit identity or can we develop it?

Identity is composed of a myriad of different aspects, such as skin colour, age, family, habits, hobbies, interests and talents (and the lists continues). However, not all of these aspects are inherited at birth from ancestors because one's environment also affects his/her identity. Thus, identity cannot be inherited, instead, through a process of assimilation, a person's identity develops and becomes more than just a name, physical appearance, skin colour and background. In 'To Kill a Mockingbird', one of my favourite books, Scout, the protagonists, develops her identity as the book progresses.

Scout's character, at first, is very innocent and oblivious of what means to be white, a daughter of lawyer and privileged in the 1930's Alabama. But as the book progresses, so does her character and identity, because she comes by life experiences that teaches her profound lessons. One such lesson that the author of the book, Harper-lee, really highlights is equality between all races the trial of Tom Robinson. Tom Robinson is a black slave who is convicted for rape of a white woman called Mayella Ewell. Scout's father, Atticus Finch, is appointed to defend Tom Robinson. During the trial, Atticus clearly proves the Tom Robinson's innocence. Moreover, when Mayella's father, Bob Ewell, comes before court as a witness, Atticus exposes the inconsistency of the witness' account. However, the jury votes unanimously in favour of Tom Robinson's indictment. Atticus knew that the jury would take the "white man's word over a black man's" because it was only made out of white men, and in 1930's Alabama, the white people thought themselves above black people. But Atticus, an adult who Scout learns many of her lessons from, lets Scout realise her identity as a white girl doesn't make her superior - he taught her that 'there is only one type of folks: folks'.

This is not the only lesson that Scout receives; she receives many during the five years that traverses the book. And each lesson changes her identity because they teach her role in society. Everyone goes through the cycle of maturity, which last all through their live, and as they do so, their habits, speech, nationality, jobs, appearance, morality and emotions, their whole identity in fact, changes. If our identity was just our names and features, none of us would be unique intrinsically.

Is it always best to determine one's own views of right and wrong, or can we benefit from following the crowd?

Morality, that is our a view over what is right or wrong, is determined by what we feel we have learned about ethics from our life experience. Now, everyone's view on right and wrong should then vary; however, nowadays, people are too concerned with what other people think of them, but such an approach is an incorrect, because by following the crowd, we risk believing in a set of principles that is fallacious. In the 20th Century, in many parts of the world, racism was thought of as incontrovertibly right by many people, especially in places like South Africa, but, nowadays, racism is widely condemned. Why is that? This is because in the 20th Century many people believed in a flawed herd mentality about race.

One particular country where racism was accepted (but it is not anymore, fortunately) was South Africa. For most of the 20th Century, South Africa was ruled by the white community while the black community suffered because it was denuded of the opportunity to gain financial prosperity and was disenfranchised. Any opposition by a black person too these immoral oppression was met with fierce punishment and even violence (that often led to death) - for example, an activist leader, Nelson Mandela, was indicted and imprisoned for three decades.

Unfortunately, members of the white community were passive to these atrocities that their government was committing until the 1970's, when an editor of an already controversial newspaper let an article that was censorious of the government's unfair treatment towards black people to be published. Then, he met up with a black activist leader who was under a quarantine that only allowed him to be with one person at a time. This journalist's action was met with a severe punishment by the government, and soon the journalist had to flee his country to England. There, he campaigned against the apartheid (the racism in South Africa) and due to his work and work of many other, apartheid was removed from South Africa. This white journalist's action to be a heretic and go against the morality that other people of his skin colour tried to instill in him led to the demise of the terrible racism in South Africa.

Moreover, we can really see that people sometimes can be blinded if they follow the crowd. Pip, the protagonist of Charles Dickens' novel 'The Great Expectation', tries to shed his humble past in his quest to become a gentleman. However, he was wrong to do so, but even though he realised his mistake at the end of the book, he was going in the wrong direction and losing his morality by trying to emulate his gentlemen friends. Thus we can see that other people could be mistaken about difficult topics such as morality, so we should follow our mind than those of other people, to find the ultimate truth.

Is people's willingness to limit their personal interests important for a community to be successful?

A successful community is buttressed by collaboration. Collaboration can only achieved if the community's members conciliate their personal interests with those of their neighbours, team mates, classmates, family and friends. We can see that such conciliation and collaboration is important because it unites everyone in the community to achieve a common goal. The African-American society was able to gain the rights it deserved because most African-Americans compromised their personal interest to win the Civil Rights movement.

The African-American society was deeply neglected and disenfranchised for much of the twentieth century, but in the 1950 and 1960s, the whole community united to win their rights as citizens of America. But in order to gain this rights, families had to take considerable risk. People who joined the civil rights movement not only faced possible unemployment and financial instability, but also violence and torture. Groups like the Ku-Klux-Klan and Black Legion constantly threatened activists and the leaders of the movement that they would be lynched if they carried on. For example, Malcolm X's and his family had to relocate while he was young because his father was an outspoken baptist lay speaker. But because the activists pushed aside their interests and carried on their work, eventually, the civil rights movement was successful gained them their rights.

J.K Rowling is very effective at showing how important it is sometimes time to make a community successful by limiting one's personal interests. For example, when people first learnt that Voldemort was extant, people cared more about their safety and those of their family safety than supporting the Ministry of Magic and uniting together enfeeble Voldemort and the Death Eaters. But the bravery of the Order of the Order of Phoenix, who limited their personal interest, convinced everyone that to join the offensive against topple Voldemort and the Death Eaters. So only when people limited their personal interest could they really secured their interests (that was their safety). Hence, we can see that by becoming less selfish and by willing to unite to preserve a thriving community can it become really successful.

Even though this example is derived from fiction, it is truly the personification of a successful community. This is because a community can only be successful if its constituents are willing to compromise their personal interest to secure their communities' well being and success. But, you may ask, what about people personal interests. That is surely important - we cannot expect people to sacrifice their personal interest for other people's well beings. Well, we can clearly see that by achieving a successful and stable community, the wizards and witches in Harry Potter (the book, not the character) did achieve their personal interest - that was their personal security because they inherited stable environment in which they did not face threats such as Voldemort by the end of the last book.

Do people put too much emphasis on winning?

Everyone is not naturally adept at most things. But, the act of participating is equally important as being best at 'something', because when one participates, they become better at that thing that than they are at that craft/skill a day before. In today's society, it seems that winning is the only type of achievement one can have, however, I believe that participation should be given equal importance as winning is. In the movie "Meet the Fockers", we can see that winning is given more emphasis.

In the movie, Greg's to-be parents-in-law visit his parents. Upon arrival, Greg's father draws away a velvety curtain to reveal a wall ornate with certification that display all Greg's achievements as a teenager. No one of the certificates had 'first' on it. Greg's to-be parent-in-law are not impressed. From this example, we can see that in current time more emphasis is put on winning than participating. Greg's father highlights this de-facto when he says 'Most parents put emphasis on winning. We are proud of our son because participates.'

I have also observed that too much emphasis is put on winning in sport also. In the Olympics, the gold-winners are always given the most coverage. This idiosyncrasy of the media depicts the reality that we humans give too much emphasis on winning, The few seconds difference between the time it takes Usain Bolt to run 100 metres Yohan Blake to run 100 metres makes us believe the fallacy that if someone is better at something than someone else, then they must have done more hard work than the person who came second. This perception of ours should be changed - we should put less emphasis on winning.

I recognise the fact that winning is important because it encourages and facilitates us to strive to be the best, but it is equally important to appreciate participation. If winning is all that matters, than Usain Bolt should be only one running in the 100 metres, but the winner would never be the winner if there is no other contetestant contending. 

Do people truly benefit from hardship and misfortunes?

I believe that in order to attain what one wants in his/her life, one needs to fail many times and learn from his/her failure. In literature and in the lives of successful and renowned men, I have observed that one can learn the best life lessons from their failures.

My first evidence that proves that people benefit from hardship and failure is the life of Andrew Carnegie. Andrew Carnegie built a vast and successful empire on railroads, steel and oil. However, Carnegie's childhood was not as opulent as his as his adulthood was. Carnegie was born to impecunious parents in Scotland. However, he did not let his poor background define him, instead, he learned to appreciate the value of money and knowledge and committed himself to business. Not only did his experiences of hardship benefit him, but also it contributed to the lives of others because when Carnegie grew old, he submerged himself to philanthropy. This philanthropy bore great fruits; Carnegie founded institutions that promoted and still promotes learning and entrepreneurship. Had he not suffered the hardship that he did as a child, Carnegie would never had realised the importance of money and investment, and so would never had become to be the man that we all now admire and respect.

To establish my thesis that people do benefit from hardship and misfortune, I will know analyse the life of the brilliant inventor and investor, Thomas Edison. Thomas Edison was one of the finest scientists the 20th century had ever seen. He failed numerous times when attempting to make the first commercially available incandescent light bulb. Before he could could complete making a perfect commercial light bulb, his workshop (where he built his inventions) was burned down by a fire that also obliterated all of Edison's design for the incandescent light bulb. But, being the strong-willed man he was, Edison did not despair and continued his pursuit for the first commercial light bulb. The values he learned from his hardship and misfortune (i.e. tenacity, perfection and dedication) helped him to produce a radical product that has shaped human history.

The benefits of the hardship and misfortune that the men I wrote about above highlight the truth to us. People truly benefit from hardship and misfortune because teaches them endurance - a value that is essential for a person to have in order for him/her to excel. In the book, The Great Gatsby, the protagonist Jay Gatsby is affluent because of the inheritance he has received from his father. Because he never experiences hardship or misfortune, he is unable to realise that avarice is detrimental for one's life. His pursuit for Daisy Buchanan and The American dream eventually leads to his demise because such desires were foolishly cupid. And so again, we can infer that one truly benefits from hardship and misfortunes