Biases in legal decision-making are difficult to identify as type II errors (wrongful acquittals) are hardly observable and type I errors (wrongful convictions) are only observed for the subsample of subsequently exonerated convicts. Our data on the first German soccer league allow us to classify each referee decision accurately as correct, type I error or type II error. The potential bias we are interested in is favoritism toward clubs with higher long-term status, proxied by the ranking in the all-time table at the beginning of each session and by membership. Higher status clubs benefit largely from fewer type II errors. By contrast, the actual strength of clubs has no impact on referee decisions. We find no difference in type I errors and suggest anticipation of the bias as a potential explanation for the difference. We investigate several mechanisms potentially underlying our results; including career concerns and social pressure (JEL J00, M51, D81, D83).

中文翻译：

---

对高地位俱乐部的偏爱：来自德国足球的证据

法律决策中的偏见很难识别，因为几乎无法观察到第二类错误（错误的无罪开释），而第一类错误（错误的定罪）仅在随后被无罪定罪的子样本中观察到。我们关于第一个德国足球联赛的数据使我们能够准确地将每个裁判的决定分类为正确的、I 类错误或 II 类错误。我们感兴趣的潜在偏见是对长期地位较高的俱乐部的偏爱，这由每届会议开始时的历史排名和会员资格所代表。较高地位的俱乐部在很大程度上受益于较少的 II 类错误。相比之下，俱乐部的实际实力对裁判的决定没有影响。我们发现 I 型错误没有差异，并建议对偏差的预期作为差异的潜在解释。我们研究了可能成为我们结果的几种机制；包括职业问题和社会压力（JEL J00、M51、D81、D83）。