This game is lost :)

Long story shortened and stripped of irrelevancies, there was an advanced sale for some group of people for some reason, and the tickets for that vanished in a few minutes. Then they began to turn up in (legal) resale sites at many times their face value.

Next the general sale went online and it was sold out quickly. So yet more tickets appeared in resale sites, at even higher prices. I hear the more expensive seats are going for as much as 100,000 pesos, or around $5,200 US.

Now, that's completely insane.

There are travel agencies which sell NFL Football packages. Typically these include airfare, hotel, transportation to and from the airport, hotel and stadium, an activity or two (like a lunch meeting with a retired player, or a visit to a team practice), and the game ticket, and sell for around $1,100 US per person.

So what would be an appropriate tariff for next Monday's Raiders vs Texans game? 35% 50%? And who'd pay it, The NFL, the Raiders, the Texans, or ABC?

I have noticed this happens all the time with sporting events. Superbowl is obviously a prime example. When I was buying tickets for the US Open Tennis this year the page for the men's final locked up because of the traffic and then everything was sold a few minutes later. Tickets appear on the ticket exchange for a much higher price. Now, I don't actually have a problem with a secondary market for sporting tickets but what I don't understand is this: clearly the market is happy to pay these huge markups so why don't the sporting teams/bodies/stadiums etc sell them at a higher price to maximise profit? It doesn't make any sense to sell a ticket for $100 for example if that same ticket will be sold for $300 on a ticket exchange.

Quote: Aussie

It doesn't make any sense to sell a ticket for $100 for example if that same ticket will be sold for $300 on a ticket exchange.

I suppose because you can't slap a tariff on resold tickets? :)

They could run a reverse auction. Offer seats for $300, then lower the price until you click or tap on "BUY." The dynamics would be interesting.

I suppose the venue sells tickets for what they deem to be profitable. Re-sellers go for what the market will pay.

What I find amazing is how many things that were illegal suddenly aren't if done on line. Like re-selling tickets, or offering cab rides without a cab permit.

Quote: Aussie

I have noticed this happens all the time with sporting events. Superbowl is obviously a prime example. When I was buying tickets for the US Open Tennis this year the page for the men's final locked up because of the traffic and then everything was sold a few minutes later. Tickets appear on the ticket exchange for a much higher price. Now, I don't actually have a problem with a secondary market for sporting tickets but what I don't understand is this: clearly the market is happy to pay these huge markups so why don't the sporting teams/bodies/stadiums etc sell them at a higher price to maximise profit? It doesn't make any sense to sell a ticket for $100 for example if that same ticket will be sold for $300 on a ticket exchange.

Concerts have started doing this, sports seems less accepting.

What I say is why not do it via a Dutch Auction. Put a block of tickets up by sections. Let people bid, even have higher bids for aisle seats perhaps. State most you will pay. Then the top bidders get their seats for the lowest price in the block. Or some other kind of auction?

A Dutch auction could work and is an idea.

I just question the pricing strategy of the entity that's originally selling the tickets. Let's take the super bowl as an example. A while ago I researched the cost of tickets and (correct me if I'm wrong) cheapest tickets (assuming you win the lottery and are allocated tickets) were around the $1,000 mark. These same tickets will be sold on an exchange for several times that. Knowing that they will be able to fill the stadium anyway, why doesn't the NFL offer the cheapest seats at say $5,000 each? Why allow third parties to make big money off your product?

Quote: Nareed

What I find amazing is how many things that were illegal suddenly aren't if done on line. Like re-selling tickets, or offering cab rides without a cab permit.

I find this strange too. At the US Open they had sign everywhere - "resale of tickets illegal within 1,500ft of the venue" blah blah blah. But yet there is an official online ticket exchange authorised by the USTA. I'm sure they get a cut of online exchange sales but again, why not price the tickets at a point where they will maximise revenue in the first place? I suppose some sports may want to encourage grass roots supporters to come along so that could be a consideration but they could do something like offer cheaper "non-transferable" tickets to these people.

Quote: Aussie

A Dutch auction could work and is an idea.

I just question the pricing strategy of the entity that's originally selling the tickets. Let's take the super bowl as an example. A while ago I researched the cost of tickets and (correct me if I'm wrong) cheapest tickets (assuming you win the lottery and are allocated tickets) were around the $1,000 mark. These same tickets will be sold on an exchange for several times that. Knowing that they will be able to fill the stadium anyway, why doesn't the NFL offer the cheapest seats at say $5,000 each? Why allow third parties to make big money off your product?

Only reason I can see is what if eventually people don't buy? SuperBowl will for the time being always fill up, I think just one did not sell out. But what about the trickle-down? Playoffs? They have sometimes not sold out. Buffalo had an ad "buy a ticket and think of it as pay per view!" Regular season for the NFL is getting dangerous in attendance. There is a top-tier with the Green Bays, Chicagos, and Pittsburghs selling out easily. But the Buffalos and Jacksonvilles not so much. Still, even then, I have talked to many people whp would rather watch at home. Some of this can be chalked up to MAWGs who have seen enough games and want the comforts of home now. But MAWGs are historically the NFL base. Last thing the NFL wants is empty seats on TV. Second to last is having to paper the town to fill those seats.

With $5 Billion per year coming just from TV it may be a small loss to take or care about.

Quote: AZDuffman

Only reason I can see is what if eventually people don't buy? SuperBowl will for the time being always fill up, I think just one did not sell out. But what about the trickle-down? Playoffs? They have sometimes not sold out. Buffalo had an ad "buy a ticket and think of it as pay per view!" Regular season for the NFL is getting dangerous in attendance. There is a top-tier with the Green Bays, Chicagos, and Pittsburghs selling out easily. But the Buffalos and Jacksonvilles not so much. Still, even then, I have talked to many people whp would rather watch at home. Some of this can be chalked up to MAWGs who have seen enough games and want the comforts of home now. But MAWGs are historically the NFL base. Last thing the NFL wants is empty seats on TV. Second to last is having to paper the town to fill those seats.

With $5 Billion per year coming just from TV it may be a small loss to take or care about.

These are all valid points but surely when you have a sport that is worth billions of dollars a year you can employ people with the ability to work out the correct price point to maximise revenue without impacting attendance? If a tickets for a team/game are going to be in high demand then price them accordingly. If you have a struggling team then simply price tickets lower to encourage attendance. Perhaps NFL isnt the best example (outside the super bowl) because as you say, TV rights are $5b per year but with something like tennis where hardly anyone cares about it outside of the grand slams I would have thought that maximising ticket revenue would have been a pretty high priority.

Quote: Aussie

These are all valid points but surely when you have a sport that is worth billions of dollars a year you can employ people with the ability to work out the correct price point to maximise revenue without impacting attendance? If a tickets for a team/game are going to be in high demand then price them accordingly. If you have a struggling team then simply price tickets lower to encourage attendance. Perhaps NFL isnt the best example (outside the super bowl) because as you say, TV rights are $5b per year but with something like tennis where hardly anyone cares about it outside of the grand slams I would have thought that maximising ticket revenue would have been a pretty high priority.

Still, I think it has to do with preferring a full house. Another example is stadium size. The Pirates have one of the nicest parks in baseball. People come from out of town for the park. It is also near AAA size. Why? Because they want it filled. More seats is more revenue, but an empty park feeds on itself.