Ticket scalping in Australia
Commonwealth Consumers Affairs Advisory Council Report
In November 2010, the Commonwealth Consumers Affairs Advisory Council
(CCAAC) produced a report on ticket onselling in the Australian market. It
found that ticket onselling could be advantageous for both consumers and
For consumers, the benefits include providing an alternative
avenue to access tickets, particularly for popular events, offering convenience
and allowing tickets to be transferred. For suppliers, ticket onselling can
assist increases in ticket sales, improve crowd attendance and promote
publicity for events.
CCAAC considered that the existing consumer protection regulatory
framework in Australia was adequate to protect consumers from unfair trading
practices in the resale market for event tickets. Furthermore, it found that the
level of unauthorised onselling in Australia was low, due to:
- only a few events in Australia selling out each year—a
precondition for a strong secondary market;
the low number of onsold tickets for popular events compared to
the total number of tickets sold; and
ticket onselling being less common in Australia than in some
other markets, such as the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK).
The CCAAC report suggested that problems related to ticket onselling were
centred on 'consumer dissatisfaction demonstrated by consumer’s perception of
unfairness rather than on significant levels of consumer detriment'.
While it believed that the broad issue of ticket onselling had positive and
negative effects for consumers and suppliers, it concluded that currently onselling
did not cause a significant level
of consumer harm. Even so, it was of the view that, if the broad issue of
onselling did in the future lead to consumer detriment, industry could use
mechanisms to prevent onselling.
In this regard, CCAAC recognised that industry had the ability to
respond to specific concerns raised by some consumers about unauthorised
onselling in a number of ways.
It explained further that industry can and does use a variety of mechanisms to
address these concerns, such as 'the transferability of tickets, transparency of
ticket allocations and fair access to tickets'. The report stated that
'promoters and sporting clubs, if they chose to, could use technology to
prevent unauthorised onselling'.
According to the report, technology would 'continue to assist in reducing
ticket onselling' and that future technological advances would 'eventually
to eliminate the practice completely'.
Ticket scalping is not new but the advent and growing importance of the
internet, which facilitates the convenient online sale of tickets, has opened
up access to a much wider secondary market. Online secondary ticket platforms
such as eBay, Gumtree and more recently viagogo dominate this marketplace and
provide a framework in which ticket resellers operate. For example, viagogo
explained to the committee that with the development of marketplaces such as viagogo,
people now had 'greater access to a wide selection of tickets for events all
over the world and they can buy and sell tickets in a secure environment'.
Those with a genuine reason for reselling their ticket as well as rent
seekers chasing a profit tend to use the internet to resell their tickets. The
increasing online sale of tickets has made it difficult to contain the
activities of scalpers which are now more visible. The major sporting
organisations were particularly concerned with, what they described as 'the
burgeoning prevalence of online ticket scalping sales', which was making it
increasingly hard for them to minimise the practice.
Significance of secondary markets
EBay informed the committee that a survey it had commissioned with
Newspoll showed that 'the vast majority of consumers bought their ticket via an official ticketing agency (i.e. Ticketek or Ticketmaster): 68 per cent for
sporting events and 75 per cent for concerts. Other places where consumers
could purchase tickets included fan clubs, stadium memberships and other
Even so, submissions recognised the legitimate role that a secondary
market has in providing a service for ticket purchasers who have a genuine need
to onsell their tickets.
For example, Australia's major sporting bodies do not oppose the onselling of
tickets at face value where there is a valid reason for doing so—a bona fide
purchaser who intended to use a ticket but is no longer able to do so and seeks
to resell that ticket.
Indeed, the reasons for persons wishing to resell their tickets could be
varied but include circumstances where their favourite team is no longer
playing in the event, where unexpected work or family commitments have arisen
or the person has become ill or indisposed and cannot attend the event.
A secondary ticket marketing place provides the opportunity for such a person
to recover in full or in part their outlay while allowing another person to
benefit from an otherwise unused ticket. Live Performance Australia (LPA), the
peak body for Australia's live performance industry that represents over 390
...it is important to allow consumers the opportunity to onsell
tickets in a legitimate secondary marketplace if they genuinely can no
longer attend an event. Without legitimate avenues for genuine onselling,
consumer confidence would be severely eroded and there would be a great
deterrence to purchasing tickets in advance, which would have a detrimental
impact on the live performance industry.
According to Ticketmaster, the overwhelming majority of event attendees
in Australia recognise the value of resale. The secondary market can also work
in favour of artists and venues in that 'no one wants empty seats'.
Ticketmaster informed the committee that, at the moment, fans unable to attend
an event cannot easily return tickets. As an example, it cited sports events
where a resale market would allow fans to maximise the use of their season
tickets. It stated:
People feel more comfortable committing to a season ticket
when they know that they can give it up or resell the right to use it for
The same reasoning applies to the entertainment industry where the
ability to resell tickets may even boost ticket sales by offering encouragement to
people to buy a subscription season ticket knowing that they could resell a
ticket for a performance they cannot attend. The Ticket Brokers Association,
which comprises six of the largest professional ticket brokers in Australia,
also drew attention to wider economic benefits of an effective and reliable
secondary market which results in international and domestic tourists buying
Distinction between ticket scalping
and ticket resale
Clearly, there are cases where ticket purchasers have legitimate reasons
for seeking to resell their tickets and hence want access to a secondary market.
In this regard, it should be noted that Ticketmaster sought to make the
distinction between ticket scalping and the resale of tickets.
Ticketmaster attributed scalping to a distinct group of people who, 'through
unlawful or shady means, try to siphon tickets off the primary market with the
sole purpose of reselling those at a profit'.
Indeed, in some cases, it would appear that professional scalpers use
state-of-the-art technology to purchase tickets. NSW Fair Trading noted that
modern ticketing technology allows up to 20,000 consumers to simultaneously
purchase tickets on line.
One article referred to 'the bots'—computer programs that conduct automated
tasks and were able to purchase tickets en masse.
Evidence before the committee overwhelmingly supported a market where, to recover the costs associated with purchasing tickets, individuals could resell
tickets they no longer needed for a variety of reasons. The committee regards
such people as genuine resellers and not as ticket scalpers. Thus, while there
was general agreement on the need to have an effective means whereby ticket
purchasers with a legitimate reason could offer their tickets for resale, witnesses
rejected the notion of having
a secondary market open to abuse by ticket scalpers. For example, the sports
organisations objected strongly to racketeering in the resale of tickets. When
the committee refers to ticket scalpers, it means people who deliberately set
out to purchase tickets and then resell them with profiteering as their sole
Effects of scalping
Over recent years, media reports and event holders have raised concerns periodically
about ticket touting, suggesting that genuine fans were losing out to scalpers.
The Coalition of Major Professional & Participation Sports (COMPPS),
which represents Australia's premier sporting organisations, maintained that
scalped tickets do not necessarily reflect the fair market value of the ticket.
It argued that ticket scalping distorts the market—scalpers buy tickets in bulk
and on-sell them, which often creates a false demand. COMPSS stated:
If scalpers had not purchased the tickets in the first place,
there would be no need for such inflated prices as the sports would still have
the tickets to sell at face value price to fans.
Indeed, a common consumer complaint is that tickets sell out within
minutes of going on sale and are then offered at highly inflated prices on
auction web sites.
Events such as Radiohead's 2012 concert epitomised the concerns raised by
patrons and fans. According to the promoter, Chugg Entertainment, it was
frustrated at non-fans profiting at the expense of genuine fans and issued the
We are doing what we can to police this, but unfortunately for
all of the deterrents that we are able to put in place (like additional terms
and conditions of sale) it is difficult for promoters, ticketing agencies and
venues to enforce.
A similar situation arose with the Pink, Bruce Springsteen and One
In May 2013, CHOICE, the public face of the not-for-profit Australian Consumers
Association, reported on instances of ticket scalping where for
example, tickets to One Direction, priced at $79, sold out within hours but
were available on eBay, an online marketplace, for $4,000.
One entertainment publication also noted that:
Premium tickets to next year’s sold-out Rolling Stones
stadium concert in Adelaide have appeared online for nearly six times their
original cost. ABC reports fans who missed out on tickets and still want to
catch the Stones’ first Adelaide appearance in two decades, will have to fork
out a hefty $3,000 to online scalpers.
While the committee received only a few submissions from retail
consumers, their views were consistent with accounts of scalpers profiteering
from the resale of tickets reported in the media and by consumer protection
agencies, such as CHOICE.
The submitters recounted their individual experiences of attempting to
purchase tickets at the very start of a ticket sale only to discover that the
tickets had already been 'snapped up' and available on eBay at inflated prices.
For example, Mr Keith Sawers submitted his request on line for four
tickets to the Rolling Stones concert three minutes after they went on sale.
The site, however, responded with the message that there were middle tier
tickets available. When he tried to purchase third tier seats only five minutes
after the tickets went on sale, he was advised that none was available. He
Later that day, I searched Ebay and gumtree for tickets and
there were lots for sale at 3 and 4 times the original price. I even found one
site located in Canada advertising tickets for the Sydney concert. They had
single tickets onsale for $1000 each, and advertised they had 8 for sale.
Ticketek site said there was a limit of 4 tickets per transaction. How can
someone in Canada buy 8 tickets to a Sydney show when a resident of NSW cannot
Mr Carl de Vos experienced the same exasperation when trying to purchase
tickets to Bruce Spingsteen and the Rolling Stones and was struck by the fact
...it was not possible to buy tickets within 10 seconds of them
going on sale due to ticket allocations being exhausted. However a number of tickets
were available on on-line trading sites such as eBay within less than half an
hour at far higher prices. I appreciate that high demand concerts will sell out
quickly, however the sheer number of tickets that are available through
resellers on the same day is beyond reasonable. It is clear that there is a
cottage industry of individuals seeking to rip-off genuine music lovers.
Another submitter informed the committee that in April 2013, he
contacted the Football Federation of Australia (FFA), Melbourne Victory Football
Club, Ticketek, eBay, and the State Government regarding the distribution of
tickets to the Melbourne Victory v. Liverpool football match. He informed the
committee that ticket allocations for both Melbourne Victory members and the general
public sold out in minutes, with many tickets appearing almost immediately on eBay
at inflated prices. According to Mr Doug West:
None of the involved parties to this event—FFA, Ticketek nor Ebay—showed
any interest in taking action on this computerised scalping process, leaving
many football fans without tickets, as they either could not afford the higher
prices or refused to pay the inflated prices which would have had them
supporting the scalping process.
Most of Australia's major sporting codes have encountered ticket
COMPPS cited a number of cases that occurred in 2013 from the Australian
Football League (AFL), Cricket Australia (CA), Tennis Australia, Australian
Rugby Union, National Rugby League (NRL) and Football Federation Australia. They
three tickets for the AFL Grand Final with a face value of $260
each and a total value of $780 offered for $3,500—a breach of the Major
Sporting Events Act 2009;
a ticket for the first day of the Ashes Test in Sydney on 3
January 2014 offered for sale at $350—tickets on sale on ticketek.com for $130;
a ticket for the Australian Open Tennis Men's Final offered for
sale at a cost of $1,388.89 which was more than three times the public sale price—tickets
for the Australian Open are often advertised by unauthorised online on-sellers even
before they actually go on sale to the public;
platinum tickets for the 2013 British and Irish Lions Test
Matches against the Wallabies in each of Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney had a
face value of $295 yet were being scalped on secondary markets such as eBay and
viagogo for up to $999;
bronze category tickets to the British and Irish Lions Test
Matches with a face value of $99 offered for sale by scalpers at prices in
excess of $700; and
2 Category A tickets for A-League All Stars v Manchester United
in July 2013 with a face value of $379 ($189.50 each) on sale on eBay
within 90 minutes of going on sale for $2,200.
Clearly, there are sectors of the Australian community that believe that
the current operating environment for onselling tickets to major sporting and
entertainment events is unfair and disadvantages consumers.
Negates sound social policy
The scalping of tickets not only means that consumers may pay a higher
price for tickets to sporting or entertainment events, but that the promoters'
intentions may be thwarted. The LPA noted that when ticket scalping occurs for popular
shows and is highly publicised, it can have a potentially negative effect on
the relationship between event organisers and genuine consumers. It explained:
Event organisers expend a great deal of energy on setting a
fair price for tickets that allow fair access to genuine consumers. This customer
service objective is undermined when scalpers sell tickets for sold out shows
at exorbitant prices on unauthorised onselling websites, leaving consumers with
the perception that they have been denied fair access to events.
A flourishing secondary market may also undermine important social
considerations of artists and promoters in setting discount ticket prices. For
example, one reason for under-pricing tickets is to open up access to events to
members of the public who normally could not afford to pay the market value of
a ticket. The unauthorised sale of tickets at higher prices can thus frustrate
the efforts of event holders to target certain audience demographics, such as young
fans or families, through ticket pricing.
COMPPS told the committee that sports organisations take care to devise
their ticket strategy. They seek to ensure that tickets are 'affordable,
accessible, competitive in price with other similar sports and entertainment
events'. The sporting bodies aim
to provide 'great value for money for purchasers, many of whom attend several
the events that are provided by the sports'.
In some cases, maximising revenue is not the key driver. COMPPS explained:
The collateral benefits of having a large and enthusiastic
crowd flows through to areas such as sponsor satisfaction, merchandise sales,
providing a great television spectacle and growing sustainable long-term
supporters of the game. Affordable, highly discounted family tickets issued by
several of the sports are the best example of this. Each of the sports sets its
ticket prices so that it attracts a broad spectrum of supporters.
The emphasis on optimising attendance means that in
many cases, the sports charge less than they would if they sought to maximise
Indeed, many sporting organisations pride themselves on their family
friendly events and price their tickets accordingly. Such an approach not only
encourages families to attend but helps to secure the future of the respective
sport by fostering in younger generations an interest in the sport.
Similarly, artists and the promoters of concerts and theatrical events
may under-price tickets for a range of strategic reasons which may benefit them
and their patrons in the long term. One submitter informed the committee confidentially
The choice to underprice may be based on the recognition by
the particular artist or sporting body of the constraints of their 'fan base',
or could be an attempt to maintain important egalitarian principles associated
with the artist or the event (such as the desire to facilitate access to all
consumers regardless of socio-economic divides).
In this way, unauthorised onselling may defeat good social policy and
result in scalpers reaping dividends while denying people, who could not afford
the scalpers' price, access to the event.
Under-priced tickets for concerts, which may prompt quick sales and lead
to additional performances, may also assist the promotion of an album or song
or generate interest in a show and draw future audiences. Thus, under-pricing
should not be assumed to indicate an inefficient market.
Consumer detriment from cancelled
Scalping may be a breach of the contract between the original purchaser
and the event holder. For example, one of the conditions of sale spelt out
clearly on NRL tickets is that the tickets may not be 'resold at a premium nor
used for advertising, promotion or other commercial purposes or to enhance the
demand for other goods or services'.
COMPPS informed the committee that if a ticket is sold or used in breach of
these conditions, the bearer of the ticket may be denied admission.
On its website, Ticketek states quite clearly that one of the conditions
of sale of tickets (including any resale or subsequent assignment) is that:
Tickets may not, without the prior written consent of
Ticketek and the seller, be resold or offered for resale at a premium
(including via on-line auction sites) or used for advertising, promotion or
other commercial purposes (including competitions and trade promotions) or to
enhance the demand for other goods or services, either by the original
purchaser or any subsequent bearer. If a ticket is sold or used in breach of
this condition, the ticket may be cancelled without a refund and the bearer of
the ticket may be refused admission.
While performers and event holders have the option to commence legal
proceedings against ticket scalpers for breach of the sale conditions of their
tickets, such a process is both timely and costly.
At present, a practical measure to prevent scalping is to enforce the ticket's terms
and conditions by cancelling the ticket thereby refusing the ticket holder
access. Indeed, as a deterrent to ticket scalping, promoters have cancelled
tickets that were being offered or had been re-sold in contravention
of the terms and conditions under which the tickets were originally purchased.
In effect, such action renders the tickets worthless and places the ticket
holder at risk of being denied access.
In February 2011, Mr Peter Kell, then deputy chair ACCC, released a
public statement noting that tickets sold by authorised sellers often carried
conditions that restricted their resale or transfer above face value. According
to Mr Kell, if the tickets were resold in breach of those conditions, they may be
cancelled or the ticketholder refused entry to the event. He explained that
consumers not only risk being turned away but they may not get the seats they
ordered or even get their tickets.
Since then, there have been a number of instances where consumers have had
their tickets invalidated. COMPSS referred to situations where consumers had not
been able to take possession of the tickets they had bought for the 2014
Australian Open and 2013/14 Ashes series. In the lead up to these events, both Tennis
Australia and Cricket Australia (CA) experienced a significantly increased
number of people arriving at the on-site box office or contacting the relevant organisations
to obtain the ticket they had purchased. In these circumstances, Tennis Australia
or Cricket Australia, as the case may be, were then placed in the difficult
situation of having to advise the consumer that no ticket existed or that it
had been cancelled. COMPSS cited the First Ashes Test in Brisbane in November
Cricket Australia identified a scalper when six people tried
to access the same one seat. Cricket Australia cancelled all the original
purchaser’s tickets (more than 500 tickets bought through at least six
different accounts). At every Test we refused entry to this scalper’s 'customers',
including one man in Perth who bought his tickets though a sports travel
company in the UK. This company had been previously warned by CA about
It also gave a second example that occurred during the Second Ashes Test
in Adelaide in December, where:
...a customer fraudulently purchased 150 tickets per day in
Adelaide by falsely claiming that they were for a large medical conference. The
tickets were used to run a corporate function that took place across the road
from the Adelaide Oval. During discussions with Cricket Australia after they
were refused entry, clients confessed that they had paid $500 per head and had
travelled from interstate for a $50 ticket.
COMPSS provided a further example that involved 45 persons holding
tickets to an NRL match that they had purchased from a range of online auction
sites and sales outlets. The NRL had, however, detected the tickets as part of
and cancelled them. All the fans had paid above face value for the cancelled
tickets and on match day many were forced to leave the venue or purchase a
legitimate ticket from the box office. According to COMPSS, the fans 'suffered
great financial loss, emotional stress and disappointment. The entire situation
reflected badly on the sport, the ticket agent, on-line auction and the venue'.
Stadium Queensland also commented on the practice of cancelling tickets
purchased from unauthorised sellers:
In recent years, a number of promoters responsible for
sellout events have included a prohibition on ticket re-sale in the conditions
of sale and that any re-sold tickets may be cancelled. In these circumstances,
promoters have monitored the advertising of tickets for re-sale in order to
cancel such tickets, where there is sufficient information available about the
specific seat number of the ticket to enable this to occur. In this situation,
it is important for consumers to be aware of the possibility that their funds
may be lost and tickets cancelled if tickets are purchased from anyone other
than the authorised ticket seller for an event.
Because of the anonymity afforded to buyers and sellers on online sites,
there may be no way of alerting purchasers to the fact that their tickets have
been cancelled. The disappointed ticket holder is ineligible for a refund from
the ticketing agency and generally has none of the protections normally afforded
While the scalpers escape any detriment and indeed retain their profits,
the purchasers of the tickets are punished and the event holders have the
unenviable task of informing disappointed fans that their tickets were unusable.
Moreover, in such cases, the end purchasers may not be aware of the
cancellation until refused entry at the venue, increasing the risk of
disgruntled consumers venting their anger at venue staff, jeopardising their
safety and welfare.
EBay also noted that, because a ticket reseller could deliberately
number the advertised seats incorrectly to avoid detection, the promoter may
cancel the wrong tickets.
Thus persons holding tickets purchased legitimately through the authorised
ticket seller may find themselves barred from entry.
Consumer detriment from counterfeit
Purchasing tickets from the secondary market also creates the potential
for fraud where a buyer may not receive the tickets as advertised or any
tickets at all.
COMPSS informed the committee that for sessions or events that are sold
out, the incidents of counterfeit or non-existent tickets was becoming more
and creating difficulties for the individual customer, venue owner, promoter
and authorised ticketing agent. It cited the 2014 Australian Open where a
customer paid $900 for a $69 ticket at a sold out session, only to find he or
she was unable to obtain the ticket purchased from the unauthorised seller.
The Treasury has also referred to the risk of counterfeit tickets being sold on
the secondary market as a matter of concern, though in its view the problem was
Based on its experience, the Ticket Brokers Association found that in
...the majority of fraudulent instances involving the sale of
any goods (including tickets) take place on Gumtree and other classifieds
sites, where transactions are not widely monitored and where buyers undertake
sole risk. In such circumstances, buyers risk not knowing with whom they are
transacting nor can they determine the legitimacy of the tickets (especially in
the case of electronic tickets) and the propensity for fraudulent transactions
is much greater.
Interestingly, the Ticket Brokers Association noted that buyers may also
engage in fraudulent activity. It stated that its members could cite:
...a number of instances where buyers have falsely claimed chargebacks
from their credit card companies, either asserting that the goods were not
received or that the relevant transaction was not authorised. Little to no
assistance is provided by law enforcement and monies lost are ultimately
Racketeering in the resale of tickets also reaches beyond Australia's
borders and can sometimes cause quite substantial losses and significant
For example, in February 2011, the ACCC's immediate concern was the 2011 Rugby
World Cup in New Zealand. It urged sports fans to be vigilant when buying
tickets on line noting that they may not receive the tickets at all.
In April 2012, New South Wales Fair Trading issued a warning to 'unsuspecting
consumers' who faced losing costs associated with travelling to exotic venues
or events as well as the value of any tickets purchased. It cited the case of a
consumer who had travelled from Sydney to Hong Kong for the 2011 Hong Kong Rugby
Sevens but was denied entry to the game. She had purchased tickets from a
seller that bought and sold tickets online but at that time did not hold
agreements with promoters and venues to sell tickets to their events.
A recent report by the UK Metropolitan Police on ticket fraud found that
such criminal activity was committed by organised criminal networks that create
legitimate-looking websites, take payments for event tickets and then fail to
supply them. Although accounts varied, the report found that some estimates
indicate that as many as one in seven UK ticket buyers were defrauded by sham
websites, and in 2010 it was estimated that half a million Britons fell victim
to bogus ticket sellers.
The Police reported that the true scale of ticket fraud was 'unknown because
the majority of those defrauded did not file a report with the police or Action
It made clear that it was difficult to prove that a website was fraudulent
until victims came forward.
The Police report also found that one of the difficulties confronting
law enforcement was that the UK did not have legislation outlawing or
regulating the resale of tickets (except for football and the London 2012
Olympic and Paralympic Games). Thus websites could not be suspended unless
authorities were confident that fraud was going to be committed. It also noted
that suspended websites could easily re-emerge and that websites hosts and
registrars based overseas were often not compliant with UK law enforcement
requests, and some would not act without a court order.
As noted earlier, the 2010 CCAAC report noted that ticket onselling was
more prevalent in the US and UK. Even so, according to a survey by Galaxy
Research undertaken in September 2013, an estimated 500,000 Australians aged
18 and 64 were, during the previous 12 months, scammed when purchasing tickets
They reported that tickets either did not turn up or were for the wrong seat
with 81 per cent of those scammed buying their tickets from eBay or Gumtree.
The experiences of eBay, LPA and Ticketmaster do not support the
findings of this research. EBay stated that the incidence of counterfeit
tickets being available on its website, was 'practically non-existent' and
'certainly insufficiently high
to warrant regulatory intervention'.
The LPA suggested that its members have also indicated that counterfeit tickets
were practically non-existent as ticketing agents had 'invested in technology
that easily identifies counterfeit tickets'. 
Ticketmaster shared the view that the sale of counterfeit tickets was
not an issue of 'any significance in Australia'. It indicated that the risk
would be further reduced through technological advances. It also noted that
'the ability of companies like Ticketmaster to authenticate and reissue
barcodes, even for sales in the secondary market, would further minimise the
opportunity for illegal practices in the ticketing market. Ticketmaster warned,
however, that if 'unnecessary regulation restricts and limits the resale market
in Australia, and pushes consumers to offshore sites,
we would expect the risk to consumers to increase substantially'.
The ACCC was unable to comment on the reliability of the Galaxy
Research. Even so, while it acknowledged that many consumers contact their
local fair trading or consumer affairs agency to report a complaint, the ACCC
provided the following statistics on bogus tickets.
Between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013, the ACCC received 196
reports of scams involving counterfeit or non-existent tickets. Of these
160 (81.6 per cent) complained of losing money to these scams, totalling a
reported $70,933 for the year. Activities involving counterfeit or non-existent
a small component of the total number of scams reported in 2013 to the ACCC
(including via the Scamwatch website). In 2013 over 91,000 scam contacts were
received with an estimated loss of $90 million.
Security at venues
An increased risk to security at the venue was another reason put
forward for the need to regulate the secondary market. Regulation would give
the event organisers and venues increased control over who could gain access to
Viagogo rejected this proposition. It argued that secondary ticket marketplaces
were 'equally capable of instituting measures deemed necessary to reduce
security risks'. It noted that a managed marketplace such as viagogo's
'registers customers and has fully trackable data'. In this way, it would know
who its customers were, and could work in partnership with football clubs and
other event organisers to segregate rival fans by ensuring that only home
supporters were able to buy resold tickets in the home section of the stadium
if there were legitimate security concerns for a particular event'.
Clearly, the secondary marketplace is not without its drawbacks,
especially when unscrupulous ticket sellers engage in profiteering to the
detriment of consumers and event holders or ticketing agencies cancel resold
tickets in an effort to curb the unauthorised resale of tickets.
Without doubt the activities of ticket scalpers pose problems for event
holders and their promoters, but more importantly for consumers who may pay
inflated prices for their tickets; have their tickets cancelled and are
subsequently denied entry to the event; or fall prey to a fraudster and not
receive the tickets at all.
In the following chapter, the committee considers the efforts being
taken in both the primary and secondary markets to curtail the activity of
unscrupulous ticket resellers.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page