Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
August 10, 2006
Cubs Tickets

Via U.S.S. Mariner, Derek Zumsteg complains about the favorable ruling the Cubs received in their ticket scalping case.

The Illinois Ticket Scalping Act says that if you put on a sporting event (or a Cubs game), you can't sell those tickets for more than their face value. The Cubs set up a sham firm, Wrigley Field Premium Tickets, which was owned by the same people who owned the Cubs, run by a Cubs VP, and even had the Cubs do their accounting. The Cubs would then funnel them face-value tickets before they were available to anyone else, which the sham company would scalp. I've followed this story since 2002, when two Cubs fans took the whole rotten system to court, and I have no idea how this can be ruled legal.

The best part about this saga has been the amazing lies of the Cubs that this scheme is good for fans.

"Fans have more choices [to] buy tickets," Cubs vice president Mark McGuire said in 2003. "Brokers should be very disappointed today. Fans who buy tickets through those sources will have more choices, good seats, at better prices, than what they would have if freedom did not exist."

Because those other ticket brokers, like terrorists, hate our freedom.

Yes, Derek, less choice is always better. McGuire here is certainly spinning badly, but his underlieing argument is correct. The Cubs are just another ticket broker in this case. The more brokers offering me tickets, the better price I'm going to get.

I do argee with Derek on this:

This allows a team to make more money off their tickets by scalping them -- and they avoid paying other teams revenue-sharing money from that income. I'm surprised the highest-revenue teams haven't pooled their resources to build a time machine so they could start doing this through baseball's history. (Kill Hitler while you're in the '30s, as long as you're back there. It's worth a shot.)

The big teams, like the Yankees and Red Sox, who have rabid fan bases and see an active market for scalping their tickets, would love something like this. Instead of pricing a seat at $50 a game and seeing a ridiculous third taken away through revenue sharing to fund the infant-like flailing of the Royals, they can instead sell that ticket to their side business for $20, scalp it for $400, and then use the profits on whatever they want: starting pitchers, three platinum Escalades for each executive (one for them, one for their honeys, one for their money), a personal hair stylist for Manny Ramirez, whatever.

But this is easily remedied by Bud Selig acting as supreme dictator and forcing teams to share revenue if they own the broker. In fact, I don't understand why teams put face value on tickets anymore. They all should be sold by auction. A ticket, after all, is nothing more than a futures contract. Teams, for example, could sell lots of tickets to brokers in January to cover their cost for the year. That puts the risk on the broker. Teams could hold back tickets, in case they have a better year than expected, and reap the additional profit as demand increases. My guess is that attendance would be decent for poor teams because people could pick up tickets for $1 the day of the game. And teams will likely still make money because the fanny in the seats is worth a lot in concessions.

And all though it's meant as satire by Derek, I really like this idea, at least the part about the length of the line:

Food and drink are priced up based on the length of the line, and then individually marked up further based on the presence of screaming kids and the recommendation of a facial recognition software that determines how much hunger pain a potential customer is in.

I don't like missing the action. I'd pay extra to be able to get a hot dog and back to my seat between innings without missing a pitch. Real time price information on an electronic display in the food court, including wait times, would be great. Let the markets work!


Posted by David Pinto at 04:13 PM | Tickets | TrackBack (0)
Comments

the more choice the cheaper the price of the tickets is theoretically correct. but when you have a dozen brokers in the area, and you add a 13th, those prices aren't going to drop, they are already set.
this is just a way for the cubs to make more money.

now if there was only 1 broker there and the cubs added a 2nd one, then i could see the competition driving down the prices a bit.

if you haven't been around wrigley lately, everywhere there isn't a bar, there is a ticket broker.

Posted by: Boomer at August 10, 2006 05:02 PM

The number of brokers isn't the supply; it's the number of tickets and their placement. The Cubs Ticket Scalping Service keeps the best-placed tickets in space (seat location) and time (day/opponent) and leaves the rest for the 'lesser' scalpers to fight over.

This creates an artificial demand above the already tight market, allowing the Cubs to jack up the initial price as well as the 'secondary' market price. Those tickets withheld by Tribune Wallet Munching Associates may have been the first target for scalpers, but they still need tickets to sell. They scoop up tickets that might normally have been available for base price at an elevated rate, causing a price increase cascade.

Yes, they can get away with it. Mostly. They are creating an apathetic middle class of consumers and instead targeting a well-heeled few. It's a wonderful quarter-by-quarter method of extracting short-term gains, but the long-term investment in the sport could well be damaged by making baseball a game played far away by rich men on my Media Delivery Device and not a tangible experience.

All of which wouldn't matter if gambling on baseball were more fun, but you're stuck with the hand you're dealt.

Posted by: Dennis at August 10, 2006 06:31 PM

The problem isn't the Cubs scalping, but the stupid law which bans scalping.

Posted by: Mike at August 10, 2006 07:22 PM

I cannot believe how unfunny Derek Z is. And his point is lost in the goofy attempts.

Posted by: Al at August 10, 2006 10:17 PM

This creates an artificial demand above the already tight market, allowing the Cubs to jack up the initial price as well as the 'secondary' market price.

This isn't really correct. Demand is demand. The price people are willing to pay has very little to do with how many are purchased with the intent to scalp. If the Cubs sold some of these Wrigley Field Premium tickets to me at face via the public onsale, and I think they're worth, say, $100, then I'll go... until somebody else says "I'll pay $200", in which case I'm the one scalping the tickets. The only difference is who extracts the difference between the amount the person who values them most will pay and the face price. If the Cubs didn't run WFP, the end result would be scalpers large and small making more money, and the occasional family paying less than they're willing to pay for prime tickets. For some odd reason, people opposed to WFP rarely stress the former.

People are willing to pay much, much more than $50 to watch the Cubs from good seats, and until the Cubs are able to price them accordingly, scalping will be a great business.

Posted by: Ron Galt at August 11, 2006 12:27 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?