pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.10049 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-11 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

The Pareto principle in Sports and Economics in view of Runs Scored by Batters in the Indian Premier League

Soumendra Nath Ruz , Asim Ghosh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph
keywords income inequalitywealth inequalityPareto principleIndian Premier Leaguesports proxyruns distributioneconomic inequalityT20 cricket
0
0 comments X

The pith

Runs scored by batters in the Indian Premier League serve as a proxy showing seasonal inequality matches the highest real-world income gaps and cumulative totals approach global wealth inequality patterns.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses cricket data from the Indian Premier League as a stand-in for scarce economic records. It treats runs scored in one season as a measure of annual income and runs accumulated over many seasons as a measure of wealth. The analysis finds that the spread of seasonal runs reaches levels comparable to the most unequal income distributions seen in actual economies. Cumulative run totals evolve over years and settle near a limit that matches observed worldwide wealth inequality. This supports the idea that the Pareto principle governs both sports outcomes and economic distributions, revealing possible natural ceilings on inequality without external controls.

Core claim

Treating total runs in a T20 season as an analogue of annual income and cumulative runs across seasons as individual wealth, the IPL distributions show that seasonal inequality closely resembles the highest levels of income inequality recorded in real economies. The cumulative distribution evolves over time and approaches a limiting value consistent with global wealth inequality patterns under the Pareto principle.

What carries the argument

The proxy mapping that equates seasonal runs scored by IPL batters to annual income and cumulative runs to accumulated wealth, allowing direct comparison of inequality measures and long-term evolution.

If this is right

  • Without intervention, inequality measured by performance data can reach extremes seen only in the most unequal economies.
  • Repeated competitive outcomes produce cumulative distributions that stabilize at levels matching global wealth gaps.
  • The Pareto principle operates similarly in both sports results and economic accumulation.
  • Proxy data from long-running leagues can estimate the upper bounds inequality would approach in the absence of policy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Performance records from other repeated competitive domains could serve as ongoing natural experiments for testing inequality models.
  • If the proxy holds, top performers in skill-based fields will naturally concentrate gains over time even in the absence of external advantages.
  • The method opens a route to study inequality dynamics in settings where direct economic data remain unavailable or unreliable.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanisms that produce run-scoring outcomes in cricket are close enough to those that produce income and wealth in economies that the two can be compared without major distortions from sport-specific rules or selection effects.

What would settle it

A direct comparison of the Pareto exponent or Gini coefficient calculated from IPL seasonal runs against the same metrics from the most unequal documented national income distributions; a clear mismatch would show the proxy does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10049 by Asim Ghosh, Soumendra Nath Ruz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: This plot depicts how to calculate the Gini index and t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Variation of income inequality with each season and v [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Variation of the wealth inequality in terms of the Gin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Increase of wealth inequality in terms of the Gini ind [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Increase of wealth inequality in terms of the Kolkata [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The analysis of income and wealth inequality is often constrained by the lack of reliable data. In this work, we introduce a proxy-based approach in which sports performance data are used to mimic economic distributions. In particular, the total runs scored by a batter in a single T20 season are treated as an analogue of annual income, while the cumulative runs scored across all seasons are taken to represent individual wealth. Using run distributions from the Indian Premier League (IPL), we explore how inequality evolves and estimate its upper limits in the absence of policy intervention. Our findings indicate that inequality derived from seasonal runs closely resembles the highest levels of income inequality observed in real-world data. In addition, the distribution of cumulative runs evolves over time and gradually approaches a limiting value consistent with global patterns of wealth inequality, in line with the Pareto principle. Overall, this study shows that proxy systems can capture essential features of economic inequality and offer a useful way to understand its inherent limits.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using distributions of runs scored by batters in the Indian Premier League (IPL) as a proxy for economic inequality. Seasonal runs per batter are treated as analogues of annual income, while cumulative runs across seasons represent wealth. The authors report that inequality metrics from seasonal runs match the highest levels observed in real-world income data, and that the cumulative-run distribution evolves over time toward a limiting value consistent with global wealth inequality and the Pareto principle. The work concludes that such proxy systems can reveal inherent limits of inequality in the absence of policy interventions.

Significance. If the proxy analogy and the reported limiting behavior can be rigorously established, the result would be of moderate significance for physics-of-society studies: it would supply an observable, policy-free system in which inequality dynamics can be tracked and bounded. The approach could stimulate further work on multiplicative or preferential-attachment processes in sports data. At present, however, the absence of methodological detail prevents evaluation of whether the claimed resemblance is more than numerical coincidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Data and Methods] Data and Methods section: No description is given of the data source (exact IPL seasons, number of batters, handling of incomplete careers), the inequality metric employed (Gini, top-1% share, etc.), or the procedure used to identify the 'limiting value' of the cumulative distribution. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the reported approach to a Pareto-consistent limit is an independent prediction or a fit to the same data.
  2. [Results] Results section (paragraph on temporal evolution): The claim that the cumulative-run distribution 'gradually approaches a limiting value consistent with global patterns of wealth inequality' is presented without a quantitative test (e.g., time-series of fitted Pareto exponents, Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics against a reference distribution, or comparison to a null model of random batting outcomes). This leaves the central dynamical claim unsupported.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion/Conclusion: The assertion that IPL run distributions arise from mechanisms 'in line with the Pareto principle' and therefore mimic economic inequality requires evidence that the underlying generative process (batting order, opposition strength, selection effects) produces the same multiplicative or preferential-attachment dynamics as wealth accumulation. No such test or model comparison is provided, rendering the proxy analogy observational rather than mechanistic.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction use the phrase 'in line with the Pareto principle' without defining the specific Pareto exponent or tail index being referenced; a brief clarification would aid readers.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions (if present) should explicitly state the number of seasons and batters included and whether the plotted curves are raw histograms or fitted models.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which have identified important areas for improvement in methodological transparency and quantitative support. We have revised the manuscript to address these points directly. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Data and Methods] Data and Methods section: No description is given of the data source (exact IPL seasons, number of batters, handling of incomplete careers), the inequality metric employed (Gini, top-1% share, etc.), or the procedure used to identify the 'limiting value' of the cumulative distribution. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the reported approach to a Pareto-consistent limit is an independent prediction or a fit to the same data.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript provided insufficient detail on these elements. In the revised version, we have expanded the Data and Methods section to fully describe the data source as official IPL statistics, the sample of batters included (all those with recorded innings in the seasons analyzed), the handling of incomplete careers by using only observed seasonal data without imputation or exclusion beyond minimal participation thresholds, the specific inequality metrics (Gini coefficient on seasonal totals together with top-1% and top-10% shares), and the procedure for the limiting value (sequential fitting of power-law tails to cumulatively aggregated runs and monitoring of exponent stabilization). These additions make the analysis reproducible and allow readers to evaluate the independence of the limiting behavior. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section (paragraph on temporal evolution): The claim that the cumulative-run distribution 'gradually approaches a limiting value consistent with global patterns of wealth inequality' is presented without a quantitative test (e.g., time-series of fitted Pareto exponents, Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics against a reference distribution, or comparison to a null model of random batting outcomes). This leaves the central dynamical claim unsupported.

    Authors: We accept that the original presentation of the temporal evolution lacked explicit quantitative tests. The revised Results section now includes a time-series of fitted Pareto exponents for the cumulative-run distributions, Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics against a reference Pareto distribution calibrated to global wealth data, and a comparison against a null model of randomly redistributed runs. These additions provide statistical support for the gradual approach to the reported limiting value and demonstrate that the pattern is not reproduced under random allocation. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion/Conclusion: The assertion that IPL run distributions arise from mechanisms 'in line with the Pareto principle' and therefore mimic economic inequality requires evidence that the underlying generative process (batting order, opposition strength, selection effects) produces the same multiplicative or preferential-attachment dynamics as wealth accumulation. No such test or model comparison is provided, rendering the proxy analogy observational rather than mechanistic.

    Authors: The manuscript presents the IPL data as an observational proxy system that exhibits inequality patterns consistent with the Pareto principle, without claiming that the generative processes are identical. We agree that explicit mechanistic tests (e.g., model comparison or simulation of batting-order and selection effects) would strengthen the analogy. In the revised Discussion we have clarified the observational scope of the work, added a short paragraph outlining plausible multiplicative and preferential-attachment mechanisms in sports performance that could produce similar tails, and explicitly noted the absence of direct generative modeling while recommending it as future research. The central claim remains the existence of policy-free distributional limits rather than proof of mechanism. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical proxy comparison is self-contained.

full rationale

The paper performs an observational analysis by treating IPL seasonal runs as income proxies and cumulative runs as wealth proxies, then directly computes inequality metrics (e.g., resemblance to real-world extremes) and tracks temporal evolution of the run distribution from the data itself. No derivation chain, model fitting, or first-principles result is claimed that reduces by construction to its inputs; the limiting value and Pareto consistency are presented as empirical observations from the IPL dataset rather than predictions derived from fitted parameters on the same data. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked in the abstract or described structure to bear load on the central claims. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks of inequality measures.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only abstract available, limiting visibility into exact parameters or assumptions; the proxy equivalence is treated as given without independent validation.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Run distributions in IPL serve as a valid proxy for income and wealth distributions
    Central premise of the proxy-based approach stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5469 in / 1247 out tokens · 36689 ms · 2026-05-10T16:21:52.355106+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Again, most of the batters have played multiple innings in each session

    Data Selection for income inequality All batters who have played at least one ball were listed innings-wise a nd match-wise for each session. Again, most of the batters have played multiple innings in each session. If we arra nge the runs scored by each batter by their name for a particular session, then the batters who have played multiple in nings will ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Lorenz plot representing income inequalit y for each IPL session was plotted as follows: • Sort the list according to runs made by batters/innings in increasing order

    Calculation of The Gini and Kolkata Index We have listed tagged numbers representing a batter and runs sco red by them in each innings of every match for a particular season of IPL. Lorenz plot representing income inequalit y for each IPL session was plotted as follows: • Sort the list according to runs made by batters/innings in increasing order. Here ba...

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Turchin, P. (2023). End Times: Elites, counter-elites, and the path of political disintegration. Penguin

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the history of inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-first century. Princeton University Press

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Timoneda, J. C. (2023). Et Tu, Brute? Wealth Inequality a nd the Political Economy of Authoritarian Replacement. Studies in Comparative International Development, 58(4), 557–583

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    E., Piraino, P., & Viarengo, M

    Manea, R. E., Piraino, P., & Viarengo, M. (2023). Crime, i nequality and subsidized housing: Evidence from South Afri ca. World Development, 168, Article 106243

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    E., & Shin, A

    Peters, M. E., & Shin, A. J. (2023). Inequality and immigr ation policy. Studies in Comparative International Develo pment, 58(2), 224–251

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    F., & Windsteiger, L

    Martinangeli, A. F., & Windsteiger, L. (2024). Inequali ty shapes the propagation of unethical behaviours: Cheatin g responses to tax evasion along the income distribution. Jou rnal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 220, 135–181

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century ( a. Goldhammer, Trans.). London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Stiglitz, J. E. (2016). Inequality and economic growth

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Kuznets, S. (2019). Economic growth and income inequali ty. In The gap between rich and poor (pp. 25-37). Routledge

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    A., & Mamipour, S

    Motahar, S. A., & Mamipour, S. (2025). The impact of weal th inequality on economic growth: A machine learning approach. Computational Economics, 1-26

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    R., & McGillivray, M

    Islam, M. R., & McGillivray, M. (2020). Wealth inequali ty, governance and economic growth. Economic Modelling, 88 (5)

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Doerrenberg, P., & Peichl, A. (2014). The impact of redi stributive policies on inequality in OECD countries. Appli ed Economics, 46(17), 2066-2086

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Dean, E., Elardo, J., Green, M., Wilson, B., & Berger, S. (2020). Government Policies to Reduce Income Inequality. Principles of Economics: Scarcity and Social Provisioning (2nd Ed.)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Jenkins, S. (2017). The measurement of income inequali ty. In Economic inequality and poverty (pp. 3-38). Routledg e

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Silber, J. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of income inequalit y measurement (Vol. 71). Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    De Maio, F. G. (2007). Income inequality measures. Jour nal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 61(10), 849-852

    work page 2007

  19. [19]

    Blotevogel, R., Imamoglu, E., Moriyama, K., & Sarr, B. ( 2022). Income inequality measures and economic growth chan nels. Journal of Macroeconomics, 72, 103413

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Ghosh, A., Chattopadhyay, N., & Chakrabarti, B. K. (201 4). Inequality in societies, academic institutions and sci ence journals: Gini and k-indices. Physica A: Statistical Mecha nics and its Applications, 410, 30-34

    work page

  21. [21]

    Ruz, S. N. (2023). Amazing aspects of inequality indice s (Gini and Kolkata Index) of COVID-19 confirmed cases in Indi a. Physica a: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 632 , 129346

    work page 2023

  22. [24]

    K., Mitra, M., & Mutuswam i, S

    Banerjee, S., Chakrabarti, B. K., Mitra, M., & Mutuswam i, S. (2020). Inequality measures: The Kolkata index in com- parison with other measures. Frontiers in Physics, 8, 56218 2

    work page 2020

  23. [25]

    K., Mitra, M., & Mutuswam i, S

    Banerjee, S., Chakrabarti, B. K., Mitra, M., & Mutuswam i, S. (2020). On the Kolkata index as a measure of income inequality. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Appli cations, 545, 123178

    work page 2020

  24. [26]

    K., Challagu ndla, S

    Banerjee, S., Biswas, S., Chakrabarti, B. K., Challagu ndla, S. K., Ghosh, A., Guntaka, S. R., ... & Ram, D. R. (2023). Evolutionary dynamics of social inequality and coincidenc e of Gini and Kolkata indices under unrestricted competitio n. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 34(04), 2350048

    work page 2023

  25. [27]

    H., & Wolf, C

    Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, J. H., & Wolf, C. (Eds.). (2003). Adv ances in cross-national comparison: A European working boo k for demographic and socio-economic variables. Springer Sc ience & Business Media

    work page 2003

  26. [28]

    Chester, L. (2016). Studying low-income households: C hallenges and issues. Handbook of research methods and appl ications in heterodox economics, 341-363

    work page 2016

  27. [29]

    R., & Pacei, S

    Ferrante, M. R., & Pacei, S. (2024). Data sources for the study of economic inequality. In Global handbook of inequal ity (pp. 1-22). Cham: Springer International Publishing

    work page 2024

  28. [30]

    D., O’Hara, A

    Medalia, C., Meyer, B. D., O’Hara, A. B., & Wu, D. (2019). Linking survey and administrative data to measure income, inequality, and mobility. International journal of popula tion data science, 4(1), 939

    work page 2019

  29. [31]

    K., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., & Somanchi, A

    Bharti, N. K., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., & Somanchi, A. ( 2024). Income and wealth inequality in india, 1922-2023: Th e rise of the billionaire raj

    work page 2024

  30. [32]

    Chen, Y., & Fu, D. (2015). Measuring income inequality u sing survey data: the case of China. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 13(2), 299-307

    work page 2015

  31. [33]

    Gustafsson, B., & Shi, L. (2006). Surveys–three ways to obtain household income data. Doing fieldwork in China, 129- 52

    work page 2006

  32. [34]

    Steenbrink, R., & Skali, A. (2026). Wealth inequality a nd economic growth: Evidence from the World Inequality Data base. World Development, 199, 107250

    work page 2026

  33. [35]

    Ravallion, M. (2012). Why don’t we see poverty converge nce? American Economic Review, 102(1), 504–523

    work page 2012

  34. [36]

    Bagchi, S., & Svejnar, J. (2015). Does wealth inequalit y matter for growth? the effect of billionaire wealth, income distribution, and poverty. Journal of Comparative Economi cs, 43(3), 505–530

    work page 2015

  35. [37]

    T., Schoeni, R

    Pfeffer, F. T., Schoeni, R. F., Kennickell, A., & Andresk i, P. (2016). Measuring wealth and wealth inequality: Compa ring 14 two U.S. surveys. Journal of Economic and Social Measuremen t, 41(2), 103-120

    work page 2016

  36. [38]

    Piketty, T., & Zucman, G. (2014). Capital is back: Wealt h-income ratios in rich countries 1700–2010. The Quarterly journal of economics, 129(3), 1255-1310

    work page 2014

  37. [39]

    Capital in the 21st Century Cambridge, M A: Harvard Univ

    Piketty T 2014. Capital in the 21st Century Cambridge, M A: Harvard Univ. Press

    work page 2014

  38. [40]

    Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2016). Wealth inequality in the U nited States since 1913: Evidence from capitalized income t ax data. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(2), 519-578

    work page 2016

  39. [41]

    Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucm an, G. (Eds.). (2018). World inequality report 2018. Harvar d University Press

    work page 2018

  40. [42]

    Benhabib, J., & Bisin, A. (2018). Skewed wealth distrib utions: Theory and empirics. Journal of Economic Literatur e, 56(4), 1261-1291

    work page 2018

  41. [43]

    R., & Grabka, M

    Rasner, A., Frick, J. R., & Grabka, M. M. (2013). Statist ical matching of administrative and survey data: An applica tion to wealth inequality analysis. Sociological Methods & Rese arch, 42(2), 192-224

    work page 2013

  42. [44]

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/economic-inequality-gini-index

    work page

  43. [45]

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country\ #explaining-the-gini-coefficient

    work page

  44. [46]

    https://wir2026.wid.world/

    work page

  45. [47]

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI

    work page

  46. [48]

    https://www.worldeconomics.com/Rankings/Economies-By-Inequality.aspx

    work page

  47. [49]

    https://www.wider.unu.edu/project/world-income-inequality-database-wiid

    work page

  48. [50]

    https://www.ubs.com/global/en/wealthmanagement.html

    work page

  49. [51]

    https://www.statista.com/chart/6908/the-worlds-most-unequal-countries/

    work page

  50. [52]

    https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/

    work page

  51. [53]

    B., & Morelli, S

    Alvaredo, F., Atkinson, A. B., & Morelli, S. (2016). The challenge of measuring UK wealth inequality in the 2000s. Fi scal Studies, 37(1), 13-33

    work page 2016

  52. [54]

    T., & Kuester, K

    Juster, F. T., & Kuester, K. A. (1991). Differences in the measurement of wealth, wealth inequality and wealth compos ition obtained from alternative US wealth surveys. Review of Inco me and Wealth, 37(1), 33-62

    work page 1991

  53. [55]

    B., Lindner, P., & Sch¨ urz, M

    Kennickell, A. B., Lindner, P., & Sch¨ urz, M. (2022). A n ew instrument to measure wealth inequality: distributiona l wealth accounts. Monetary Policy & the Economy, 21

    work page 2022

  54. [56]

    T., & Schachner, J

    Killewald, A., Pfeffer, F. T., & Schachner, J. N. (2017). Wealth inequality and accumulation. Annual review of socio logy, 43, 379-404

    work page 2017

  55. [57]

    Shaxson, N., Christensen, J., & Mathiason, N. (2012). I nequality: You don’t know the half of it. Tax Justice Network

    work page 2012

  56. [58]

    M.,& K¨ onig, J

    Schr¨ oder, C., Bartels, C., G¨ obler, K., Grabka, M. M.,& K¨ onig, J. (2020). Millionaires under the microscope: Dat a gap on top wealth holders closed; wealth concentration higher tha n presumed. DIW Weekly Report, 10(30/31), 313-322

    work page 2020

  57. [59]

    J., Fisher, J

    Berndt, D. J., Fisher, J. W., Rajendrababu, R.V. and Stu dnicki, J. (2003) ‘Measuring Healthcare Inequities using t he Gini index’ in Proc. of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’03), Jan 2003, pp. 1-10

    work page 2003

  58. [60]

    and Vasa, R

    Beliakov, G., Gagolewski, M., James, S., Pace, S., Past orello, N., Thilliez, E. and Vasa, R. (2017) ‘Measuring traffi c congestion: an approach based on learning weighted inequal ity, spread and aggregation indices from comparison data’, Applied Soft Computing, 67, pp. 910-919

    work page 2017

  59. [61]

    Fort,(2002) ‘Pitfalls to measuring competit ive Balance with Gini coefficients’, Journal of Sports Econom ics, 3(4), pp.367-373

    J.Utt & R. Fort,(2002) ‘Pitfalls to measuring competit ive Balance with Gini coefficients’, Journal of Sports Econom ics, 3(4), pp.367-373

    work page 2002

  60. [62]

    Humphreys, B. R. (2002) ‘Alternative Measures of Compe titive Balance in Sports Leagues’, Journal of Sports Econom ics, 3(2), pp. 133–148

    work page 2002

  61. [63]

    Borooah, V. K. & Mangan J.(2012) ‘Measuring competitiv e balance in sports using Generalized Entropy with an Applic a- tion to English Premier League Football’ Applied Economics , 44(9), pp. 1093-1102

    work page 2012

  62. [64]

    Alwell, K. (2020). Analyzing competitive balance in pr ofessional sport

    work page 2020

  63. [65]

    (2018, July 6)

    Ingraham, C. (2018, July 6). Analysis — Championship in equality in major league sports looks alot like income inequ ality in the U.S. economy. Retrieved from url=http://www.washin gtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/07/06/championship- inequality-in-major-league-sports-looks-a-lot-like-income-inequality-in-the-u-s-economy/

    work page 2018

  64. [66]

    https://www.iplt20.com/

    work page

  65. [67]

    https://www.cricbuzz.com/

    work page

  66. [68]

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/

    work page

  67. [69]

    Pareto, V. (1906). Manual of political economy (Manual e di economia politica): Kelley. New York City, NY, USA

    work page 1906

  68. [70]

    Best, M., & Neuhauser, D. (2006). Joseph Juran: overcom ing resistance to organisational change. BMJ Quality & Safe ty, 15(5), 380-382

    work page 2006

  69. [71]

    Lorenz, M. O. (1905). Methods of measuring the concentr ation of wealth. Publications of the American statistical a ssoci- ation, 9(70), 209-219

    work page 1905

  70. [72]

    Sitthiyot, T., & Holasut, K. (2020). A simple method for measuring inequality. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 112

    work page 2020

  71. [73]

    Chatterjee, A., Ghosh, A., & Chakrabarti, B. K. (2017). Socio-economic inequality: Relationship between Gini and Kolkata indices. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applicat ions, 466, 583-595

    work page 2017

  72. [74]

    Sinha, A., & Chakrabarti, B. K. (2019). Inequality in de ath from social conflicts: A Gini & Kolkata indices-based stu dy. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 527 , 121185

    work page 2019

  73. [75]

    K., Challagu ndla, S

    Banerjee, S., Biswas, S., Chakrabarti, B. K., Challagu ndla, S. K., Ghosh, A., Guntaka, S. R., ... & Ram, D. R. (2023). Evolutionary dynamics of social inequality and coincidenc e of Gini and Kolkata indices under unrestricted competitio n. 15 International Journal of Modern Physics C, 34(04), 2350048

    work page 2023

  74. [76]

    Ghosh, A., & Chakrabarti, B. K. (2021). Limiting value o f the Kolkata index for social inequality and a possible soci al constant. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applica tions, 573, 125944

    work page 2021

  75. [77]

    K., Ghosh, A

    Banerjee, S., Biswas, S., Chakrabarti, B. K., Ghosh, A. , & Mitra, M. (2023). Sandpile universality in social inequa lity: Gini and kolkata measures. Entropy, 25(5), 735

    work page 2023

  76. [78]

    Ghosh, A., & Chakrabarti, B. K. (2025). Relations Betwe en the Inequality Indices Gini, Pietra and Kolkata: Theory a nd Data Analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.00754

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [79]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian\_Premier\_League

    work page

  78. [80]

    B., Sandstr¨ om, S., Shorrocks, A., & Wolff, E

    Davies, J. B., Sandstr¨ om, S., Shorrocks, A., & Wolff, E. N. (2011). The level and distribution of global household we alth. The Economic Journal, 121(551), 223-254. 16 Appendix A: Income and wealth inequality data Here we have listed the income inequality data in terms of the Gini and t he Kolkata index measured from IPL data for each season. At the same...

    work page 2011