Quality, Subjectivity, and Sustained Superior Performance at the Olympic Games

In some competitions, performance evaluation includes a substantial subjective component. We argue that the inherent uncertainty and ambiguity in subjective evaluation can lead to favorable ex post treatment for reputationally privileged competitors. Post consumption, judges may infer quality that is not directly observed and/or make conservative choices to assuage accountability concerns. We examine these issues in the context of the Olympic Games, comparing country-level performance outcomes across Olympic sports. We find that past performance is predictive of current performance in all sports, but the effect is stronger in subjective outcome sports versus objective outcome sports. That is, past performance is a better predictor of future performance in sports where external judges and referees can influence the outcomes. We find the same pattern in individual boxing matches, with past country-level performance having a stronger effect on subjective boxing outcomes (judges' decisions) than objective boxing outcomes (knockouts).