Dan Stone and I recently finished a paper that tests the efficacy of minimum age rules in women’s professional tennis. A copy of the paper will be posted on SSRN soon. I also gathered data specific to the NBA and recently anazyzed such data using similar methods, but have yet to write up my results in paper format. As soon as I do, I will post the paper on SSRN.
The abstract for the tennis paper is below:
Age is often used in law and public policy as a low-cost proxy for competency, maturity, and ability. Age is also used in numerous sport (and non-sport) labour markets to determine workplace eligibility. We exploit the enactment of the women’s professional tennis minimum age rule (AR) in 1995 to estimate the effects of ARs on short-run and long-run labour market outcomes. We find no evidence that the AR has had a beneficial effect on players’ career longevity or success, and weak evidence that players subject to the AR actually had worse outcomes than those not subject to the rule. Our results suggest that sport governing bodies should revisit “one size fits all” eligibility rules that are paternalistic in nature.