Dear Economist,

For the last few years I have lived in the US and have noticed there are quite a few girls, aged between 10 and 20, named Chelsea; yet few, if any, named Arsenal or Tottenham - but they must have been born when the latter two clubs were much more successful than Chelsea. Why would people name their daughters after a second-rate team?

Andrew Slaughter, via e-mail

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Andrew,

The natural person to answer this question is Stephen Dubner, who, as co-author of the bestselling book, Freakonomics, has explained the patterns behind the most popular names in the US. But when I asked him his answers were rather non-economic. “Tottenham” does not sound pleasing to his ear, and while “Totty” is acceptable, he believes that “Arsenal” can be truncated infelicitously. None of this sounds like solid neoclassical theory to me. I prefer a more rigorous explanation and can offer not one, but three. The first is pure information herding: parents have taken a signal from the Clintons, who named their daughter Chelsea and are undeniably successful. Rational name choosers will recognise that Bill and Hillary are probably good judges of a name.

The second possibility is that this is an attempt to create a focal point, inspired by Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling. One of Schelling’s famous observations was that apparently trivial information could be helpful in rendezvousing when lost. If parents lose their daughter in London it will be more natural to seek a “Chelsea” in Chelsea and an “Arsenal” near Finsbury Park. Where would you rather search?

The final explanation is that parents are excellent forecasters who correctly predicted the rise of Chelsea and the fall of Tottenham. The bookies must be trembling.

Questions to economist@ft.com