Question1:

The hypothesis test you're conducting aims to determine whether there is a statistically
significant relationship between the goal difference variable (goal_diff) and the logarithm of
attendance in second-leg matches. The null hypothesis (Ho) states that the coefficient γ1, which
corresponds to the linear term of goal difference, is equal to 0. The alternative hypothesis (Ha)
states that Ho is not true, which implies that there is some relationship between the goal
difference and attendance.
In hypothesis testing, we use the F-test to assess the significance of the coefficients. The F-test
calculates the ratio of the variance explained by the model (i.e., the variance that can be
attributed to the goal difference) to the residual variance (variance not explained by the
model).
The F-test statistic can be calculated as follows:

Where,
R2 is the coefficient of determination (a measure of how well the model fits the data).
k is the number of independent variables (in this case, 2: γ1 and γ2).
n is the number of observations (sample size).
Given the values provided, we can calculate R2 using the following formula:

Plugging in the given values:

Now, calculating the F-test statistic:

The degrees of freedom for the numerator (k) is 2, and for the denominator (n - k - 1) is (n - 3).
Assuming you have the sample size (n), you can substitute the values and calculate the F-test
value. Once you have the F-test value, you can compare it to the critical value from the F-
distribution table at a significance level of 0.05 to determine whether to reject the null
hypothesis.
The p-value can also be calculated using the F-test value and the degrees of freedom. The p-
value will tell you the probability of observing such extreme results if the null hypothesis were
true. If the p-value is less than 0.05, you would typically reject the null hypothesis.

Question 2:
Computing the Stationary Point:
The stationary point refers to the point where the first derivative of a function is equal to zero.
In this case, you're dealing with a regression equation where the attendance is modeled based
on the goal difference variables. The equation is given by:

To find the stationary point, you need to calculate the first derivative of the equation with
respect to the goal difference (goal_diff) and set it equal to zero. This will give you the value of
(goal_diff) at which the first derivative is zero.

Determining Maximum or Minimum:

To determine whether the stationary point is a maximum or minimum, you need to examine
the second derivative of the function. If the second derivative is positive, the stationary point is
a minimum; if it's negative, it's a maximum.

Sampling Variance for the Second-Order Derivative:

The sampling variance for the second-order derivative can be calculated using the formula for
variance propagation. Given the variances and covariances of the coefficients ( γ1, γ2 ), you can
calculate the variance of the second derivative using the formula for the variance of a function
of random variables.
Interpreting Δ seems to represent a specific point, possibly the stationary point or some other
value derived from your analysis. However, without more context or information about how Δ
is calculated, it's hard to provide a precise interpretation.
Calculating the p-value and F-test Value:
To calculate the p-value, you'll need the test statistic, which depends on the estimated value of
Δ and its standard error. The p-value will indicate the likelihood of observing the obtained
results if the null hypothesis were true.
Similarly, the F-test value can be calculated by comparing the difference between the restricted
model (null hypothesis) and the full model (alternative hypothesis) in terms of their explained
variance.
Interpreting the Test Result:
The interpretation of the p-value will be crucial. If the p-value is less than 0.05, you may reject
the null hypothesis and conclude that there's evidence to suggest that Δ is not equal to -1. This
would have implications for the relationship between goal differences and attendance and
possibly their influence on match outcomes.

Question 3:
a1 estimate: The estimated value of
α1 is -1.7. This indicates the effect of the first spline function (spline_1) on the relationship
between goal difference and attendance. A negative value suggests that as the goal difference
increases, the attendance tends to decrease. In other words, a larger negative goal difference in
the first leg match is associated with a lower attendance in the second leg match. This could
potentially suggest that fans are less likely to attend matches where their team had a poor
performance in the first leg.
α2 estimate: The estimated value of α2 is 0.96. This indicates the effect of the second spline
function (spline_2) on the relationship between goal difference and attendance. A positive
value suggests that there might be a more complex relationship involving a positive curvature.
It could imply that attendance tends to increase as the goal difference deviates from 0 (positive
or negative), indicating that matches with larger goal differences in the first leg, either positive
or negative, attract more spectators.

Question4:
The hypothesis you're testing aims to determine whether there is a statistically significant
difference between the two estimates, α 1 and α 2 , in the context of the model Specification 1.
Let's break down the hypothesis and interpret the test value:
Hypothesis:
Null Hypothesis (Ho):
α1=α2 (The estimates for α1 and α2 are equal.)
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha):
α1 =α2 (The estimates for α1 and α2 are not equal.)

Interpreting the Test Value:

You will likely use a t-test to compare the two estimates and determine whether the difference
between them is statistically significant. The test value (t-value) indicates how many standard
errors the difference between the estimates is away from 0. A higher t-value suggests a larger
difference relative to the variability in the data.

Implication for Specification 1:

The outcome of this test will inform you whether there is a significant difference between the
linear and nonlinear effects represented by α1 and α 2 in Specification 1. If the p-value
associated with the test is less than 0.05 (assuming a significance level of 0.05), you would
reject the null hypothesis. This would imply that there is evidence of a significant difference
between the two estimates.
The implication of this test result for Specification 1 could be that both linear and nonlinear
effects have distinct and statistically significant impacts on the relationship between the goal
difference and spectator attendance at the second leg match. In other words, the nature of the
relationship is not adequately captured by either a purely linear effect or a purely nonlinear
effect. This could suggest that the interplay between these two effects is important for
understanding the attendance patterns in the context of goal differences.

Question 5:
Hypothesis:

Null Hypothesis (Ho): α 1 =−α 2 (The linear effect is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction
to the negative of the nonlinear effect.)
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): α 1 ≠−α 2 (The linear effect is not equal in magnitude and/or
direction to the negative of the nonlinear effect.)
Intuition:
The intuition behind this hypothesis is to explore whether the linear and negative nonlinear
effects are effectively canceling each other out in terms of their impact on the relationship
between goal difference and spectator attendance. If the null hypothesis is true, it suggests that
the linear effect and the negative nonlinear effect are offsetting each other, resulting in a
relationship where the overall effect might appear to be weaker or more neutral.

Implications for the Nature of the Relationship:

If the test result indicates that you should reject the null hypothesis, it implies that the linear
and negative nonlinear effects are not canceling each other out. In other words, both effects
are contributing uniquely to the relationship between goal difference and spectator
attendance. This could mean that the attendance response to goal difference is not simply a
linear relationship nor a purely negative nonlinear relationship, but rather a more complex
combination of both.

Implications for Specification 2:

If the test result indicates a significant difference between α 1 and −α 2, it suggests that both
linear and nonlinear effects are playing distinct roles in influencing attendance. This has
implications for Specification 2, as it implies that considering both linear and nonlinear
components in the model might be necessary to capture the complexity of the relationship
accurately. Specification 2 might need to account for the possibility that the two effects are not
canceling each other and might have joint or interactive effects on spectator attendance.