Has luxury seating ruined watching sports? The New Yorker investimagates

This week’s New Yorker has an article by John Seabrook on the question of whether modern stadium design is ruining the sports-watching experience by catering to rich folks, which because this is the New Yorker is so long that it took me two days to get around to finishing reading it. Also because it’s the New Yorker it’s filled with prose right on the knife’s edge between beautifully crafted and ponderously overwritten (“The suite levels are layered throughout the lower bowl like the buttercream filling in a Dobos torte, forming an inverted cone of the strata of American affluence”) and features a mid-article flashback to the origin of stadiums during Roman times, which helps with hitting that incredibly long word count.

But what does it actually have to teach us about whether luxury boxes have made the sports viewing experience suck? Let’s check in on the highlights and see:

The Houston Astrodome was “the first stadium to have luxury ‘skyboxes,’” which turned “the least desirable seats into the most expensive and coveted spots in the house,” and which New Yorker writer Roger Angell at the time called “immensely glum—sad, soft caves for indoor sportsmen.”

True! It was a long road from the nosebleed-seat skyboxes of the Astrodome to the premium-placed luxury suites of today, but that’s indeed the origin story.

Club seats, which offer cushier amenities but are out in the regular seating bowl, are more expensive than regular seats, and seats in luxury boxes are more expensive than either.

Again, checks out. And this is all part of the plan to capture the most possible revenue under each slice of the demand curve: Lance Evans, the lead architect for the Los Angeles Rams‘ new SoFi Stadium (the building with the Dobos torte of layered experiences), remarks to Seabrook that “every step along an individual’s journey through life they have an opportunity to create an experience that aligns with their place in the world. As they get their first promotion, there’s a spot in the stadium for them to celebrate. When they become a partner in a law firm, there’s a place for them, and as they become C.E.O.s there’s a place, too.” (Architecture schools should probably offer more required courses in irony.)

At SoFi, a club seat can cost as much as two thousand dollars a game, and a suite can go as high as fifty thousand dollars a game.

Does this make the regular seats more expensive and/or worse, though? The obvious answer is hell yeah, since the more grandstand space is dedicated to luxury options, the less room there is for regular seating; and, as this site has been harping on since the very beginning, the more space-gobbling suites you wedge in below the upper deck, the more the cheap seats have to be relocated farther from the field both vertically and horizontally. The reason the front row of the upper deck at the Chicago White Sox‘ current stadium is farther from the field from the back row of old Comiskey Park isn’t because the architects were idiots; it’s because they had to make space for a whole bunch of glassed-in living rooms between you and the field.

“N.F.L. owners don’t have to share certain types of premium revenue if they use the money to pay down any debt incurred in financing the stadium. Income from naming rights can also be used to pay off construction costs.” Since other revenue has to be shared with players, “Essentially, players are helping to cover the costs of building these mega-stadiums.”

Yes, ever since the NFL instituted its G-3 program (since replaced by G-4 and G-5) that lets team owners pay off some stadium construction costs with money that would otherwise have to be shared with the rest of the league, and the players. Seabrook doesn’t get into it, but G-3 was first put in place back in 1999 when the NFL was alarmed that teams like the New England Patriots were threatening to move to smaller cities like Hartford to get better stadium deals, and the league didn’t want to risk losing TV money as a result. The NFL owners appointed a committee to come up with a solution, and the head of the committee was Patriots owner Robert Kraft, and you can probably guess how things went from there.

“Suites are for corporate schmoozing and sips and bites, not bonkers fandom. Money prefers quiet; it’s more civilized.”

Sure, but again, how does that impact the folks in the non-suite seats? Seabrook, at SoFi to take in a Beyoncé concert from a suite as research (journalism does have its perks), notes that he “looked enviously at the concertgoers above me in the cheaper seats leaping up and down and dancing.” You could have been one of those concertgoers in the cheaper seats, John, if you’d been willing to pay for tickets yourself and put up with a more distant view and having to rub elbows with strangers instead of sitting on a sofa — but that’s the same reason anyone sits in luxury suites. The main advantage of “corporate schmoozing” is that somebody else is paying for it — the changing tax deductibility of sports tickets has also affected stadium design, another digression that might have been instructive here.

“Stadiums are secular megachurches, where believers gather to share communion, to exalt and mourn, and to don the vestments of faith.”

Live by New Yorkerese, die by New Yorkerese. Skipping ahead:

“In baseball stadiums, some tickets remained affordable, partly because the sport has so many games. At Yankee Stadium, for example, it’s still possible to snag a bleacher seat at a midweek game for less than thirty dollars. In most football stadiums, which in a given year host ten home games at best, twenty in SoFi’s case, limited demand has pushed prices up.”

Right — and this would be the case with or without luxury seating. Baseball’s 162-game schedule has, however, inspired lots of MLB owners to reduce capacity in new stadiums in order to create artificial ticket scarcity, allowing them to charge higher prices for fewer seats. (Luxury seating has an impact here as well: The ideal stadium, from an owner’s perspective, would probably be one incredibly luxurious seat that you could then sell to Martin Shkreli; barring that, dynamic pricing has been the next-best solution to separating the most people from the most money.)

“These days, there are nearly twenty-four million millionaires in the U.S. Roughly equivalent to the population of Florida, they constitute their own mass market. There are nine hundred and two billionaires—a number that has doubled in the past twelve years.”

And this, really, is the crux of the matter. Luxury suites and club seats aren’t an invention that stadium architects only just came up with over the last few decades; they’re a response to a change in the sports market, that change being that there are a hell of a lot more Americans for whom ticket prices are no object, thanks to Ronald Reagan, mostly. For NFL teams, who only have 500,000 tickets or so to sell per year, this has allowed owners to price all tickets at what only the filthy rich can afford (though some of the less rich end up finding ways), and even add personal seat license fees as well; for MLB, ticket inflation has been slightly slower, but team owners are still more concerned about marketing to those 24 million millionaires than to the other 300 million Americans.

Income inequality, new stadium design, and government tax policy are all working hand in hand to change sports into a more premium experience, which is maybe great if you can afford it — at least if you don’t feel constrained by all the corporate blandness like party poopers like Angell and Seabrook. But even if you do, there’s probably a spot somewhere in the layered torte for you, so long as you don’t mind feeling like a lowly person celebrating their first promotion. There’s probably a lesson here about the American dream as a whole, but even a New Yorker article is too short to contain it.

Share this post:

Would Mamdani aide’s plan to limit stadium food prices cause ticket prices to rise? The answer may surprise Matt Yglesias

New York City, you may have heard, has a new mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, who is currently working with his transition team to assemble a staff for when he takes office in January. While most of his team is made up of city political lifers, its co-chair is a somewhat unconventional choice: Lina Khan, who as Joe Biden’s chair of the Federal Trade Commission worked to find new ways to use antitrust law to rein in the power of big corporations. And as atomic news unit redesigners Semafor reported last week, one of her targets for New York, according to “people familiar with the transition,” will be “sports stadiums charging nosebleed prices for concessions.”

Semafor’s grasp on sports metaphor notwithstanding — “nosebleed” typically refers to how high seats are above the ground, not how much they cost — this is a reasonable enough goal, if maybe not the most important one to New Yorkers in making the city affordable. (Semafor did add that the Mamdani administration also plans to police hospitals that overcharge for drugs and companies that violate a new state law requiring transparency about algorithmic pricing.) And, citing no sources at all this time, the article said Khan has identified one old city law that prohibits “unconscionable” business practices as a potential route to banning the $8 pretzel.

Yesterday, though, Semafor followed up to report that “economists are fighting” on X over whether trying to reduce prices is even a good idea, with noted scholars like philosophy major Matt Yglesias arguing that “Price controls for in-stadium beer so that sober sports fan pay higher ticket prices to generate cross-subsidy for drunks is a very bad idea!!” while Columbia law professor Tim Wu replied, “This is just dumb and shows a failure to understand buyers.”

Like those two, I am also not an economist, and odds are neither are you, but we can think this through easily enough. One main reason food and drink prices at sporting events are so high is monopoly power: If you want a beer at a game, you have to buy it at a concession stand, you can’t run across the street to pick up a cheaper one at a bodega. (You can bring in your own pretzel to Mets and Yankees games, but not to Knicks and Rangers and Nets and Liberty games.) So sports fans have to make a decision before attending a game: Am I going to eat and drink beforehand and/or stuff my pockets with contraband granola bars and alcohol gummies, or am I going to factor in the cost of a trip to the concession stand before deciding whether to go to a game?

Matt Yglesias, being Matt Yglesias, doesn’t specify why he thinks “sober sports fans” will pay higher ticket prices if concessions prices are lowered — it’s possible that he thinks that sports team owners have a big number written on a whiteboard somewhere of how much money they need to bring in, and if they can’t get it from gouging on hot dogs, they’ll get it by jacking up ticket prices. If so, that’s easily enough answered: I wrote a whole book chapter about how that’s not how ticket prices work, either in theory or empirically, since team owners will always jack them up as far as they can regardless of what other money they have coming in (or going out).

If, however, Yglesias means that sports fans would celebrate the end of the $17 beer by using some of their savings to buy more expensive tickets, thus allowing team owners to jack up prices, sure, maybe? As much as sports fans also don’t have a whiteboard somewhere with their game budget written on it, as a sample size of one, I know that I have absolutely factored food costs into ticket-buying decisions: In particular, I’ve started skipping concerts when I didn’t want to pay a table food and drink minimum on top of the ticket price, especially when $18 will only get me a small plate of figs and goat cheese.

So, yes, it’s possible bringing down concession prices would allow team owners to raise ticket prices some. (It doesn’t appear that anyone has done an empirical study of this; I’m still digging.) Whether you think that’s a bad thing will largely depend on how you feel about price controls — economists generally hate them, on the grounds that they lead sellers to cut back on supply, though it’s less clear if team owners used to monopoly pricing would really start closing concession stands if forced to sell $5 beers. (Some teams have already voluntarily cut concession prices to get people to buy more food and drink, and possibly to spend more on tickets as well, it’s hard to tell from the limited examples.) And even if forcing teams to charge something closer to competitive market prices would put more money in fans’ pockets, allowing them to spend more on tickets if they want, that hardly seems like a burden — let alone a “subsidy” for fans who have the temerity to get hungry and thirsty.

Anyway, this is all for Mamdani and Khan and the corporation counsel to sort out, along with lots of other affordability promises the new mayor is going to have to figure out how to implement. In the meantime, bring in a turkey sandwich to your next baseball game, it’s allowed. In fact, maybe outlawing sports venue bans on outside food and drink would be something that everyone, economists included, could get behind? Undoing the K-shaped economy would probably do more to provide real affordability — $8 pretzels are also a byproduct of a society where $8 is no object for a significant minority — but one unconscionable system at a time.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Pritzker endorses “infrastructure” spending for Bears, Royals could soon propose Kansas vaporstadium

It’s Friday, which means I had to take valuable time away from reading about the Mafia luring rich people into playing in rigged poker games in order to hang out with NBA players who scored 6.6 points a game so that I could instead sum up the rest of this week’s stadium and arena news, for you, because I care.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Bengals reno plan called “PR stunt,” plus the return of the Rays two-stadium plan

Thanks to everyone who generously donated (and in some cases more than generously, you know who you are) to the Field of Schemes spring supporter drive — I have a whole lot of fridge magnets to send out! But first, there’s a weekly news roundup to get to:

  • That Hamilton County agreement to spend $80.5 million on Cincinnati Bengals stadium upgrades and repairs in exchange for no lease agreement at all turns out to be not so popular with the Hamilton County Commission, where commissioner Alicia “hugging the zero down” Reece called it “a PR stunt” because there’s no new lease while commission president Denise Driehaus countered (?) that “No one at that meeting ever said this was related to the final lease.” The county commission only has three members and the third, Stephanie Summerow Dumas, didn’t show up to yesterday’s meeting, so it’s hard to say what this means for the stadium proposal’s ultimate fate.
  • Hey, what if the Tampa Bay Rays built two stadiums, asks Tampa Bay Times opinion editor Graham Brink, one outdoors and one a refurbished Tropicana Field? Would that be cheaper or better? Probably not? Too bad, I already wrote the op-ed, and anyway this is just “back of the napkin” stuff. (Or envelope, which actually has two distinct sides. NAPKINS GOT BACKS!)
  • WAMU-FM reports that “a source familiar with [Washington Commanders stadium] talks” says funding “will likely involve the city borrowing against new tax revenues expected to be generated by any new development,” i.e., tax increment financing. The station cites a 2020 study claiming that D.C. has turned a profit on average on TIF districts — on first look it appears that the study’s authors guesstimated that development would still happen in the districts without the TIF but would take longer, which is probably a reasonable assumption but could create huge swings in the revenue numbers depending on what you mean by “longer.” I have emails out to a couple of TIF experts, I’ll update here if they have anything instructive to add.*
  • Former Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial director Brent Larkin says the Cleveland Browns stadium plans should be submitted to a public referendum, arguing that Ohio voters usually approve sports subsidy referendums anyway, so where’s the harm? Oh, and also it would be “a wildly generous gift to billionaire professional sports team owners at the same time those same elected officials are cutting aid to schools, food banks, libraries and programs for poor kids.” But anyway, it’ll probably win, so let the voters feel like they’re having a say, that’s democracy!
  • St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch has issued a proposal for redeveloping the waterfront that would include demolishing Al Lang Stadium, the old spring training ballpark that is currently home to the Tampa Bay Rowdies USL team. City councilmembers don’t sound too enthused about this, but also Welch’s managing director of city development said the Rowdies owners are “involved and they’re aware” of the plan, so maybe there’s a new soccer stadium proposal in the works? Worth keeping an eye on, if nothing else.
  • A group of downtown Kansas City businesses put up a giant sign with a giant QR code asking that a Royals stadium be built downtown. Chair of the Downtown Council of Kansas City: Gibb Kerr, managing director of the K.C. office of Cushman and Wakefield, a major developer, who surely would not be in position to profit from a downtown stadium, the Kansas City Star would certainly tell us if it were.
  • Work has begun at the proposed Las Vegas A’s stadium site on making it even flatter, this is what passes for progress these days.
  • Los Angeles Dodgers ticket prices are going up, and so is their payroll, and Forbes “contributor” Dan Schlossberg (author of “41 books and more than 25,000 articles about baseball”) concludes that the payroll must be driving up the ticket prices — sorry, Dan, that’s not how it works, there’s a book you might want to read if you have time between writing them.
  • Economist Joe Cortright has done his own analysis of the Portland baseball stadium income tax diversion proposal that I estimated could leave Oregon taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in the hole and determined that the total hole would be more than $600 million.
  • I was on WOSU’s “All Sides with Amy Juravich” on Wednesday to discuss the Browns and Bengals situations, and you can listen to it here. For those who are wondering: Yes, Andy Zimbalist and I did run into each other on the Zoom call as my segment ended and his began, and no, there were no punches thrown.
  • You can buy a piece of the shredded Tropicana Field roof at Tampa Bay Rays games for $15, with the money going to a Rays charity, and doesn’t the city own the roof remnants, shouldn’t the money be going to the general fund? Anyway, if anyone in the Tampa area has been looking for a National Hairball Awareness Day present for me, hint, hint!

*UPDATE: Eight minutes after I hit publish on this post, sports economist and tax expert Geoffrey Propheter replied to my question about the D.C. TIF study. Propheter said it “falls short of academic standards for economic policy analysis” because it doesn’t try to analyze how tax revenue from TIF developments compares to comparable plots of land, but rather just compares actual developments to hypothetical ones that would (according to the study’s assumptions) see different kinds of development take place. He concludes: “I don’t understand how anyone would use this study to justify a TIF for a Commanders stadium.”

And while I was writing the above, Greg LeRoy of Good Jobs First (disclosure: I’m doing some paid work for them, not on the subject of stadiums or TIFs) chimed in to note that D.C. TIF districts like the one for Gallery Place have had to be expanded to siphon off sales taxes from other nearby neighborhoods in order to break even.

Share this post:

No, Juan Soto’s contract won’t raise Mets ticket prices (though Juan Soto’s bat might)

Ever since news broke of Juan Soto’s record-breaking $765 million, 15-year contract with the New York Mets, I’ve been fielding messages from fellow Mets fans that come down to “WOOOO SOTO!” and “Great, now ticket prices are going to be completely unaffordable.” To which I’ve answered 1) yep, Soto is the best young hitter of his generation and 2) yes maybe, but not because of the size of the Soto’s contract, I wrote a whole book chapter about this!

The book in question was Baseball Between the Numbers, which Baseball Prospectus published in 2006 and which I contributed three chapters to. One of those was titled “Do High Salaries Lead to High Ticket Prices?”, and the answer was a mostly unqualified “no”:

When costs of doing business go up, they can affect prices — witness, for example, debates in recent years over the impact of high oil prices on food and other goods that must be shipped by truck or plane. But it’s not always that simple. Let’s say, for example, you’re building an automobile. If the price of steering wheels goes up, you might rationally boost car prices to compensate, figuring that you’d rather have a bigger profit margin on fewer sales than sell more cars but make less money on each one.

Steering wheels, though, are a marginal cost: If you sell fewer cars, you have to buy fewer steering wheels to put in them. Player salaries, on the other hand, are a fixed cost: If you sell only ten thousand tickets for Tuesday night’s game, that doesn’t mean you can employ fewer outfielders. The price point you select for your tickets, then, shouldn’t change: If you’re already charging the price that will bring in the most money, then raising ticket prices in response to increased player costs would be foolish. Conversely, if you think you can get away with charging more for tickets, you’d be foolish not to do so, regardless of what you’re paying your players.

And that’s not just a theoretical economic construct. Look at actual average ticket prices (in inflation-adjusted dollars) during the leap in salaries in the wake of the introduction of baseball free agency in 1976, and you can see that there was no obvious correlation:

What changed in the early ’90s that ticket prices started rising along with team payroll? As I wrote at the time, one huge factor was the wave of new stadiums that opened at the time:

In the stadium mania that followed in the wake of SkyDome and its brethren, team execs discovered that fans would pay unprecedented prices to gawk at the new retractable roofs and sample the garlic fries. … Eight of the top-ten single-season price hikes—and ten of the top twelve, and eleven of the top fourteen — came when a team was moving into new digs.

The one qualification here is that ticket prices do rise when teams get better, since it’s hard to get away with charging top dollar to watch a team in last place. And, obviously, Juan Soto should make the Mets better, because of the aforementioned “best young hitter of his generation” thing. So Mets prices should go up some in the coming years if Soto helps make the Mets an annual contender, just as they already rose some for the 2025 season riding on the high of the Mets’ unexpected run to the National League Championship Series.

But, importantly, this has nothing to do with the size Soto’s contract. If Soto had lost his mind and given in to his love for lemon ices and signed for half that amount — or if some inexpensive Mets rookie unexpectedly turned out to be a Soto-level star — you can bet anything that team owner Steve Cohen would still raise ticket prices just as much, on the basis of the fact that his team was still good and popular, even if he had managed it without digging as deep into his own pocket. And, conversely, if Soto falls victim to a wild boar and doesn’t produce as hoped, Cohen won’t be able to hike prices by much, no matter how much in payroll he’s on the hook for.

The problem of soaring sports ticket prices, as I noted in the BP book, isn’t with greedy owners trying to cover their costs — greedy owners will charge as much as possible under any circumstance — but with broader changes in the sports world, starting with stadiums that are increasingly geared toward attracting fans who are willing to pay extra for a luxury experience. (The only demographic segment to attend more games in the 1990s than the ’80s was households earning more than $50,000 a year — that’s about $120,000 in today’s dollars.) And, in addition to the stadium boom, there have been economic changes since the 1980s that have created a much larger sports fan base for whom price is no object:

“Certainly people in the upper half of the income distribution the last twenty years have done quite well,” said [sports economist Allen] Sanderson. “Those in the lower ranks have not, but those are not the ones that are going to sporting events.”

Massive economic inequality is still in force, and it’s still helping to create that market where during winning times, team execs can raise ticket prices through the roof without worrying about running out of fans who can afford them. (The same goes for, say, Taylor Swift tickets.) And that would be the case even if Juan Soto and other players were playing for six-digit salaries instead of eight-digit ones. And the windfall profits from those new stadiums packed with luxury suites and clubs are making it possible for team owners to offer record-breaking salaries. It may be less satisfying to blame Reagan-era SEC rules about stock buybacks than greedy athletes, but the numbers don’t lie: Baseball isn’t broken, our economic structure is.

UPDATE: I spoke with Chris Isidore of CNN about this as well, in case you want to read me making the same arguments over there.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Orioles owners get millions from state for no reason at all, plus whose relatives to hire as stadium lobbyists

Happy Friday! Just a heads-up that I’m going to be traveling some in the next 2-3 weeks, so there may be days when posts happen at weird hours or not at all. (Next week’s Friday Roundup stands an excellent chance of being a Saturday Roundup, for example.) On the bright side, I plan on picking up and mailing the Vaportecture prints before I hit the road, so those of you who’ve donated to the site will have something to entertain you on otherwise FoS-less mornings.

That’s all in the future, though, so let’s see what the recent past has in store:

  • Here is a lovely story about how the Baltimore Orioles owners decided that the lease they signed agreeing to give 45% of revenues from baseball events to the state didn’t work for them anymore, and asked the state to let them keep all the proceeds from a recent Paul McCartney concert. And the state stadium authority said sure, fine, it’s only money, at least we’ll get sales taxes! No, really, that’s what Maryland Stadium Authority chair Thomas Kelso said: “It’s a great thing. We take no risk and we make 8% of the total amount of tickets sold.” Except the other way, the way that the team owners agreed to, was to provide 45% of the actual concert revenues — if I’m reverse engineering the math right, that’s $4.5 million that the state of Maryland just handed over to the Orioles management because they asked. Time for me to move to Maryland and start asking the state for free money, they’re just giving it away!
  • WTVF-TV in Nashville has looked at the list of lobbyists hired by the Tennessee Titans owners to push for their new $2 billion stadium plan that could get $1.2 billion in subsidies, and hey, check it out, it’s the wife of the chair of the state Senate Finance Committee and the daughter of the state’s Commissioner of Tourist Development! The TV station tracking down the finance committee chair and asked him if there were ethical concerns here, and he said “Ah, no” and “There are rules in place for our kind of relationship, and I follow all of them” and he surely doesn’t know why his wife landed a ton more lobbying contracts right after she married him, jeez, you journalists and your questions, get a life already!
  • Speaking of Nashville, were you wanting to read an op-ed in the Tennessean newspaper by Nashville Mayor John Cooper about how spending $1.2 billion on a Titans stadium won’t really cost taxpayers anything because otherwise the city would have to spend “tens of millions of dollars per year” on renovations and anyway sales and hotel taxes aren’t really “your” tax money so don’t worry about it? That’s what you want from your news outlets, right, turning over space to local elected officials for long press releases without any context or asking them any questions? No need to answer, consider it done!
  • And finally from the Protestant Vatican/Hot Chicken Capital, turns out there isn’t enough parking at Nashville S.C.‘s stadium and the team has stopped running shuttle buses and fans are having to walk home when they can’t get a rideshare. Clearly the team needs a new stadium, the old one isn’t fan-friendly and is … 11 days old? That’s practically a century in stadium years, bring on the bulldozers!
  • The Erie County legislature has approved the first $100 million of its $250 million in spending on a Buffalo Bills stadium, but hasn’t yet voted on the full memorandum of understanding. The Bills owners were only supposed to receive $75 million up front originally, but the legislature upped this to $100 million because, writes the Buffalo News paraphrasing county chair April Baskin, “it became more clear that putting money down toward the stadium now will free up millions more in the future to redirect toward other county priorities.” Buffalo News, have you met the Tennessean? I bet you guys would get along swimmingly.
  • New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft is spending $225 million of his own money on a renovation of his 20-year-old stadium, which will include “a new and enhanced lighthouse in the north endzone” and “a new fan-activation area on the lower plaza” and other things that maybe make sense if you are either a Patriots fan or a marketing executive. Such is the state of the world that we feel obligated to call this a good thing because Kraft didn’t ask the state of Massachusetts to pay for this, though given Kraft’s past experience this is almost certainly because the state of Massachusetts likely would have told him to go pound sand. (Yes, despite Massachusetts being one of those East Coast states without California-style voter referendum laws. I never said that the map of the Progressive movement explained everything!)
  • I hate linking to the New York Post because I don’t want to give them the clicks, but also I like dragging them in public, so: Here’s a New York Post article about how NBA teams are hiking ticket prices even while attendance is falling. The Post portrays this as either a savvy move to make up for falling revenues or maybe a risk of alienating already-alienated fans, but … maybe they got the causality backwards, and attendance is falling because ticket prices are going up, like microeconomics says is supposed to happen? Or, wait, hang on, the Post “calculated average ticket prices by dividing gate receipts by paid attendance,” so maybe this is just a sign that more casual NBA fans are staying home to watch on TV, leaving pricey-ticket buyers disporportionately in the seats? The Post is a terrible excuse for a newspaper, any and all basic logic errors are possible!
  • KSHB-TV in Kansas City wanted to know if building new stadiums for the Chiefs and Royals was a good idea, so they talked to team executives, a guy from the city’s downtown business council, two people at a moving company, two sports radio hosts, and me. Kansas City diner patrons should rightfully be feeling unrepresented right now.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Ex-D.C. mayor says his $534m Nats stadium expense was worth it, Clippers arena stymied by car trouble, MLS franchise fees to go even higher

Shouldn’t posting items more regularly during the week leave less news to round up on Fridays? I’m pretty sure that’s how it’s supposed to work, but here I am on Friday with even more browser tabs open than usual, and I’m sure someone is still going to complain that I left out, say, the latest on arena site discussions in Saskatoon. I guess lemme type really fast and see how many I can get through before my fingers fall off:

 

Share this post:

Maple Leafs ticket prices aren’t part of a grand conspiracy, except for the usual ones

A headline like “Why are NHL tickets expensive in Toronto? Because they’re cheap in Phoenix” has got to be pretty much irresistable if you’re an editor at the Globe and Mail. But does columnist Tony Keller actually make that case? Let’s follow the bouncing argument:

  • The Toronto Maple Leafs can charge through the nose for tickets because demand for hockey in Ontario exceeds the supply.
  • The Arizona Coyotes can’t charge squat for tickets because demand for hockey in Arizona is a sad joke.
  • If the Coyotes moved to Toronto or even Hamilton, it would cut into the Leafs’ market, and they’d be forced to lower ticket prices.
  • Since the Coyotes don’t make money, they have to be subsidized by revenue sharing from teams like the Leafs.
  • “The MLSE golden goose helps subsidize a squad of American lame duck franchises; those lame ducks, stuck in dry ponds, make necessary a golden goose in Toronto.”

All of this is technically true, but there are some leaps of logic here: There’s no reason to think that the NHL would allow the Coyotes to move to within spitting distance of Toronto if they left Arizona, and that Toronto “golden goose” is something the league presumably would want to keep around (and the Leafs owners would absolutely want to keep around) with or without the Coyotes’ revenue issues. There’s a difference between “the Maple Leafs owners are willing to send some money to the Coyotes’ owners to maintain their monopoly” and “this is all part of a grand conspiracy to screw hockey fans both coming and going.” (Except inasmuch as trying to use your monopoly power as the only major pro league to jack up ticket prices is the plan for pretty much every sports league that doesn’t have open promotion and relegation.)

That said, it is undeniably true that if territorial rights were eliminated and teams could move wherever they wanted, it would be arguably good for hockey fans (except those in lousy hockey markets like Phoenix) and maybe even good for the league as a whole — just the same as it would be for MLB if the Steinbrenners and Wilpons didn’t have monopoly rights to New York City. But then, sports leagues aren’t really monolithic corporations, but rather cartels of individual business owners, each in it for themselves. The only conspiracy at work here is the profit motive combined with the failure to enforce antitrust laws, which is a bigger problem than just for hockey.

Share this post:

John Oliver’s “dress like you don’t belong there” Yankees stunt ends sadly hobo-free

John Oliver’s stunt to put fans in premium New York Yankees seats who promise to dress like they’ve never been there before — a dig at team COO Lonn Trost, who defended the team’s ticket resale restrictions because sitting next to non-rich folks would be a “frustration to our existing fan base” — ended up more of a costume party, with fans dressed as Ninja Turtles, sharks, unicorns, and dinosaurs ending up seated behind home plate.

john-oliver-ninja-turtlesAP_16098111550650bronx-unicornsoliverfansAll things considered, I’ve got to say that this is kind of disappointing. The ostensible goal of this gimmick was to point out the classism behind Trost’s statement: He was implying that if fans could buy good seats for below face value, the ones who’d paid full price would be offended by having to sit next to the hoi polloi. (It’s probable that Trost doesn’t actually believe this, of course; he’s more concerned that if fans can buy seats for below face value, he’ll have a harder time selling them for thousands of dollars a pop.) Instead, it turned into two frat brothers from Villanova putting on cheap dinosaur outfits and sitting behind home plate, which is pretty much like every day at Yankee Stadium, only the dinosaurs the fans are dressing as aren’t wearing number 13.

If Oliver’s staff really wanted to drive home the point, they’d have given the tickets to somebody dressed like this: Emmett_Kelly_1953If nothing else, I’d have loved to have seen what happened when they went to sign up for the fingerprint scanning to get a fast pass through security.

Share this post:

John Oliver offers premium Yankees tickets for 25 cents to anyone who’ll annoy the rich folk

If you’ve been following the sad story of the New York Yankees banning the use of print-at-home tickets in part on the grounds that, as team COO Lonn Trost put it, it’s “a frustration to our existing fan base” that the people sitting next to them “may be someone who has never sat in a premium location,” you will enjoy John Oliver’s latest excursion into sports, in which he offers to sell two seats behind the plate at the first three Yankees home games for 25 cents apiece to anyone who promises to dress as if they’re never sat in a premium location before:

Yesterday’s Yankees home opener was rained out and rescheduled for today at 1pm. I can’t wait to tune in and see who’s sitting behind the plate, and how long it takes before team security forces whisk them off to a black site, or at least the bleachers.

Share this post: