Tiger Woods Scandal Cost Shareholders up to $12 Billion
(Davis, CA) — Shareholders of Nike, Gatorade and other Tiger Woods sponsors lost a collective $5 to $12 billion in the wake of the scandal involving his extramarital affairs, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, Davis.
The losses are separate from – and potentially much larger than – damage to Woods’ own earnings.
“Total shareholder losses may exceed several decades’ worth of Tiger Woods’ personal endorsement income,” said Victor Stango, a professor of economics at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management and co-author of the study.
With fellow UC Davis economics professor Christopher Knittel, Stango looked at stock market returns for the 13 trading days that fell between Nov. 27, the date of the car crash that ignited the Woods’ scandal, and Dec. 17, a week after the golf great announced his indefinite leave from the sport.
To assess shareholder losses, the economists compared returns for Woods’ sponsors during this period to those of both the total stock market and of each sponsor’s closest competitor.
Knittel and Stango also reviewed returns for four years before the car accident to determine how each sponsor’s market performance normally correlates with that of the total market and of competitor firms.
The study looked at eight sponsors for which stock prices are available: Accenture; AT&T; Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf (Electronic Arts); Gillette (Proctor and Gamble); Nike; Gatorade (PepsiCo); TLC Laser Eye Centers; and Golf Digest (Conde Nast).
Overall, Knittel and Stango concluded that the scandal reduced shareholder value in the sponsor companies by 2.3 percent, or about $12 billion.
“(This) pattern of losses is unlikely to stem from ordinary day-to-day variation in their stock prices,” the researchers wrote.
Investors in the three sports-related companies (Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf, Gatorade, and Nike) fared the worst, the study found. They experienced a 4.3-percent scandal-generated drop in stock value, equivalent to about $6 billion.
On the other hand, Accenture, a global management consulting firm, experienced no ill effects following the accident.
“Economic theory would predict this,” Knittel said. “For Tiger Woods, having a firm like Accenture as a sponsor probably does not enhance the overall value of the Tiger brand very much, giving Woods a lot of bargaining power when negotiating that deal. If the company therefore ends up paying Woods something close to its extra profit from his endorsement, it isn’t much worse off without him than with him.
“However, Nike and other premier sports-related sponsors are special for an athlete like Tiger Woods. They are themselves powerful brands that add value to Tiger’s brand and create other financial opportunities for him. This gives a premier sports sponsor the bargaining power to capture some of the profits generated by an endorsement deal with Woods – so that if the Tiger brand is tarnished, those profits may decline. Our study measures that decline.”
The pace of losses had slowed by Dec. 11, the day Woods announced his leave from golf, Knittel and Stango found. But as late as Dec. 17, shareholders had yet to reverse their losses.
“Our findings speak to a larger question of general interest in the business and academic communities: Does celebrity sponsorship have any impact on a firm’s bottom line?” Stango said.
“Our analysis makes clear that while having a celebrity of Tiger Woods’ stature as an endorser has undeniable upside, the downside risk is substantial too.”
Before the scandal, Woods earned about $100 million a year in endorsement income, more than any other athlete.
Note: This release contains two corrections: 1) Golf Digest is owned by Conde Nast, not News Corp., as stated in the original release. (Conde Nast recently entered into an agreement with News Corp. for digital content provision.) 2) The authors have eliminated American Express from their analysis. (Woods discontinued his relationship with American Express in 2007.) The changes do not affect the study’s conclusions and are reflected in the latest version, available online at http://faculty.gsm.ucdavis.edu/~vstango/tiger011_web.pdf.
About the UC Davis Graduate School of Management
Established in 1981, the UC Davis Graduate School of Management offers an interactive and collaborative learning environment distinguished by globally visible faculty renowned for their research and teaching, innovative and entrepreneurial students, a rigorous MBA curriculum, strong connections to the business community and prime locations in Northern California’s economic hubs. The UC Davis MBA program is ranked among the top 6 percent in the nation by US News & World Report. The Economist ranks the school’s faculty No. 3 in the world; and The Financial Times ranks UC Davis among the top 10 percent of accredited business schools worldwide. The Aspen Institute’s Center for Business Education recognizes the school among the best in the world for integrating issues of social and environmental stewardship into curricula and research.
About UC Davis
For more than 100 years, UC Davis has engaged in teaching, research and public service that matter to California and transform the world. Located close to the state capital, UC Davis has more than 32,000 students, more than 2,500 faculty and more than 21,000 staff, an annual research budget that exceeds $678 million, a comprehensive health system and 13 specialized research centers. The university offers interdisciplinary graduate study and more than 100 undergraduate majors in four colleges — Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Biological Sciences, Engineering, and Letters and Science. It also houses six professional schools — Education, Law, Management, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine and the Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing.