The Economics of Running Backs
They used to be highly paid stars. Why do they now make so much less than quarterbacks?
By Roland Fryer, WSJ
Sept. 4, 2024 5:19 pm ET
Running backs have apparently fallen from football’s graces. The Carolina Panthers were the first team to select one in the 2024 National Football League Draft—at the 46th pick. The only time fans have waited longer for the position to be called was in 2014, when the Tennessee Titans chose one at the 54th pick. Yet the delay seems to be the new normal. In two of the past three years, a running back hasn’t been selected in the first round. Before that, at least one was chosen in the first round in 38 of the previous 40 years.
Once superstars of the sport, running backs now have shorter careers, reduced salaries and lower draft priorities. According to one analysis in 2023, pay for running backs and fullbacks since 2011 has increased only 11%. For every other offensive position, total pay has increased at least 90%.
When I played Texas youth football in the 1980s, we wore the position as a badge of honor. I’m now an economics professor, keen on putting my profession to work on the game I love. Thus, I gathered data to make sense of why my favorite position is no longer in the spotlight. Inspecting supply and demand seemed like the way to start.
I first tested the supply side. If the number of athletes capable of being an NFL running back has increased over time, all else equal, we should expect an attendant decrease in compensation. Alternatively, if the number of quality running backs has decreased, fewer might be worthy of early draft picks and high paychecks.
The data uniformly rejected these theories. Though the number of running backs in the NFL Combine increased between 2003 and 2015, it has declined sharply since. The players’ running speed, strength and explosiveness are essentially unchanged, too, though they have lower average body weights.
I then tested the demand side. If running backs are less crucial to winning than they used to be, teams will value them less. A fundamental principle of labor economics is that an employee’s wage is tied to his marginal productivity—which, in this case, is related to his contribution to victory.
Historically, running backs like Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, and Emmitt Smith were pivotal to their teams’ strategies and paid commensurate with their marginal productivity. Coaches believed they needed to run frequently to set up passing plays, as the threat of a ground campaign prompts the opposing team to move its defense closer to the line of scrimmage.
Now quarterbacks are king. It’s been more than 20 years since a team won a Super Bowl with an average quarterback and a dominant defense (Brad Johnson and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 2003). Several recent Super Bowl champions have had nondominant running backs.
Statistically, average passing yards per game have risen around 40% in the past 50 years. Average rushing yards over the same period have fallen. Quarterbacks have become more physically impressive, faster and more explosive. They also have larger hands and increased throwing velocity compared with many of their predecessors.
All told, my analysis of the data from the past 10 NFL seasons reveals an increasing correlation between passing efficiency and game outcomes. Meantime, the correlation between rushing yards and winning has weakened.
Illustration: Chad Crowe
What’s driving these demand shifts at a deeper level? After discussing the issue with coaches and league executives, the story became clear: The NFL is interested in increasing revenue, which depends on viewership. That’s music to my economist ears—and it makes sense. Fans like to watch games with a lot of scoring, and points are earned more efficiently via passing plays. The correlation between annual passing yards and annual revenue is approximately 0.7. The correlation for rushing yards is negative 0.01.
In the same way analytics revealed that professional basketball players should take more 3-point shots, it has also demonstrated that NFL teams should run less and pass more. The data don’t support the old adage that teams “have to run to set up the pass.” The prevailing view in my conversations with coaches has been that the game has become more horizontal than vertical. Passing more freely allows a team to better discern the defense’s schemes and score more effectively.
Teams have understandably adopted more passing-centric strategies in search of victory. The NFL, for its part, has adopted changes that encourage this shift, such as softening what constitutes defensive pass interference and imposing more-protective rules to safeguard quarterbacks.
All of which leaves me of two minds. I am delighted to see analytics put to good use but sad to see football’s best position taking a back seat. The economist in me likes the result. The kid in me hopes for a running-back renaissance.
Mr. Fryer is a professor of economics at Harvard, a founder of Equal Opportunity Ventures and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Comments