Ticket Resale

[TriCitySam]

The Hawks have sent out a notice to season ticket holders saying that if you sell a majority of your tickets, you’re subject to losing your season tickets. I get the concern, especially after the Packers game. Becomes a little difficult if you live on E Washington and can only travel to 3 or 4 games.

[River Dog]

The Hawks have sent out a notice to season ticket holders saying that if you sell a majority of your tickets, you’re subject to losing your season tickets. I get the concern, especially after the Packers game. Becomes a little difficult if you live on E Washington and can only travel to 3 or 4 games.

I assume that they're talking about reselling them on the secondary ticket market, ie Ticketmaster, Stub Hub, et al. If you need to resell some tickets, try posting a message here. If they are decent seats for a reasonable price, I'd consider buying them from you. I live in the Tri Cities, too.

[4XPIPS]

The Hawks have sent out a notice to season ticket holders saying that if you sell a majority of your tickets, you’re subject to losing your season tickets. I get the concern, especially after the Packers game. Becomes a little difficult if you live on E Washington and can only travel to 3 or 4 games.

How are they going to police this? Are they going to refund them the tickets if they find that they have resold majority of them on seatgeek/stubhub/ticketcheater? I get they want to prevent season ticket holders from selling their tickets to traveling opposing fans, but it's a free enterprise. I am pretty sure season resellers are going to work around it.

[River Dog]

The Hawks have sent out a notice to season ticket holders saying that if you sell a majority of your tickets, you’re subject to losing your season tickets. I get the concern, especially after the Packers game. Becomes a little difficult if you live on E Washington and can only travel to 3 or 4 games.

How are they going to police this? Are they going to refund them the tickets if they find that they have resold majority of them on seatgeek/stubhub/ticketcheater? I get they want to prevent season ticket holders from selling their tickets to traveling opposing fans, but it's a free enterprise. I am pretty sure season resellers are going to work around it.

That's a really good point. I'm no lawyer, but common sense would tell one that once you pay for the tickets, they are your personal property to do with them what you please.

[c_hawkbob]

My sense is that they'll communicate with people selling more than half of their tickets and determine on a case by case basis whether they will be able to purchase season tickets going forward. They obviously can't do anything about tickets already sold.

[River Dog]

My sense is that they'll communicate with people selling more than half of their tickets and determine on a case by case basis whether they will be able to purchase season tickets going forward. They obviously can't do anything about tickets already sold.

I'm not even sure that would be legal. Discriminating against a person because they didn't like what he did with his property even though what he did with it was completely legal? It's almost like discriminating against a landlord because he leased his property to minorities.

But if they've gone to the point of actually writing a letter to season ticket holders, they must have run it through their legal department, so what do I know. Like I said, I'm no lawyer. But it sure smells IMO.

[c_hawkbob]

Buying tickets is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. As long as the criteria isn't race, religion, gender, etc. they can sell to whoever they want.

[Oly]

I'm not even sure that would be legal. Discriminating against a person because they didn't like what he did with his property even though what he did with it was completely legal? It's almost like discriminating against a landlord because he leased his property to minorities.

But if they've gone to the point of actually writing a letter to season ticket holders, they must have run it through their legal department, so what do I know. Like I said, I'm no lawyer. But it sure smells IMO.

I'm also not a lawyer, but it seems totally legit to me. There are two main issues that I think make your examples not quite apply here:
1. Seats at an entertainment venue aren't really property in the same way as other goods. Every single ticket we buy has a list of terms and conditions we agree to in order for them to let us into their private property. The seat is their property, not the fan's, and we all abide by their rules on their property. If the new policy is in the terms, I'd think it's kosher.

2. The law protects against discrimination based on minority status and lots of other stuff. Those laws limit the freedom that a public venue has when setting its terms. As long as the Hawks aren't discriminating by race, sex, religion, etc., I think they can do what they want.

I'm actually fine with the rules, but I'll admit that I live out of state and am not impacted, so I'm not going to die on that hill. I recognize others have far more skin in the game and far more knowledge. I just know it sucks watching the team on TV compared to years past. A large contingent of fans is saying things like "if you want a better crowd, field a better team" and while that's part of it, it's just true that lots of people with season tickets can't or won't go to all the games, even if the Hawks are undefeated. Lumen is in the business of making money, and the watered down atmosphere is bad for business. I think they're within their rights to use the tools at their disposal to improve their product, and that includes getting as many of their customer base in Lumen as possible.

[River Dog]

I'm not even sure that would be legal. Discriminating against a person because they didn't like what he did with his property even though what he did with it was completely legal? It's almost like discriminating against a landlord because he leased his property to minorities.

But if they've gone to the point of actually writing a letter to season ticket holders, they must have run it through their legal department, so what do I know. Like I said, I'm no lawyer. But it sure smells IMO.

I'm also not a lawyer, but it seems totally legit to me. There are two main issues that I think make your examples not quite apply here:
1. Seats at an entertainment venue aren't really property in the same way as other goods. Every single ticket we buy has a list of terms and conditions we agree to in order for them to let us into their private property. The seat is their property, not the fan's, and we all abide by their rules on their property. If the new policy is in the terms, I'd think it's kosher.

Sure, the seat isn't your private property, but the right to use it at a certain date and time is. So long as you're not doing anything illegal with it, what business is it of the owners to dictate what you do with that right?

2. The law protects against discrimination based on minority status and lots of other stuff. Those laws limit the freedom that a public venue has when setting its terms. As long as the Hawks aren't discriminating by race, sex, religion, etc., I think they can do what they want.

So, if you buy a box of apples from me, do I have the right to tell you that you can't take it to a farmer's market and re-sell them at a 50% profit or else I won't sell you anymore apples? Even though you're not discriminating on the basis of a protected status, you still have to give a rational explanation for your action, and not wanting to sell a ticket to someone rooting for the visiting team doesn't seem like an appropriate reason to discriminate.

Imagine being a bartender and refusing to serve someone who has an accent under the guise that it's not on the basis of sex, race, nationality, ie protected status. You can't just say "I have the right to refuse service to anyone." You still have to give some sort of reasonable explanation for refusing service.

I'm actually fine with the rules, but I'll admit that I live out of state and am not impacted, so I'm not going to die on that hill. I recognize others have far more skin in the game and far more knowledge. I just know it sucks watching the team on TV compared to years past. A large contingent of fans is saying things like "if you want a better crowd, field a better team" and while that's part of it, it's just true that lots of people with season tickets can't or won't go to all the games, even if the Hawks are undefeated. Lumen is in the business of making money, and the watered-down atmosphere is bad for business. I think they're within their rights to use the tools at their disposal to improve their product, and that includes getting as many of their customer base in Lumen as possible.

How is the lack of enthusiasm bad for business? Do they buy fewer concessions? Buy less from the team store? Will it allow the Seahawks to sell their tickets for a higher price? So long as the stadium is full, it shouldn't make any difference how enthusiastic the fans are, they're going to sell the same amount of stuff and make the same amount of money regardless of what jersey they happen to be wearing.

I want to see the stadium fill up with screaming Hawk fans and turn our house into that intimidating venue it and its predecessor the Kingdome was for all those years just as badly if not more than anyone else. But this rule seems a little odd to say the least.

[Oly]

Sure, the seat isn't your private property, but the right to use it at a certain date and time is. So long as you're not doing anything illegal with it, what business is it of the owners to dictate what you do with that right?

Their rights are laid out in the terms and conditions and the law gives business owners a ton of rights to regulate the behavior of patrons on their property. If I start acting weird and yelling in a restaurant, they can kick me out, even if I'm not breaking a law. If I buy a ticket to a play and record the performance, breaking the terms and conditions of the ticket, they can kick me out and decide not to sell me another ticket. I can be kicked out of a gas station for not wearing a shirt. Etc.

I see your argument for what you think you ought to be able to do, and there is a legitimate argument to be had there. And to be clear I'm not saying it's legal to confiscate tickets if a person resells them, although it wouldn't shock me if they could put that in the terms and conditions, too. I'm just saying that businesses have a ton of legal leeway to decide the person with whom they want to do business, and what the Hawks are doing seems well within the laws.

So, if you buy a box of apples from me, do I have the right to tell you that you can't take it to a farmer's market and re-sell them at a 50% profit or else I won't sell you anymore apples? Even though you're not discriminating on the basis of a protected status, you still have to give a rational explanation for your action, and not wanting to sell a ticket to someone rooting for the visiting team doesn't seem like an appropriate reason to discriminate.

Honestly, I'm nearly positive the apple seller's action is legal in most states. At the federal level, the shopkeeper just needs to comply with the Civil Rights Act, but some states have expanded the list of protected classes. A shopowner can deny service for lots of reasons; they don't have to sell to the first person to show up with legal tender.

I think the better analogy here is with nightclubs that have doormen who choose who can go in. They are within their legal rights to deny entry to a person who is ugly or not wearing the right clothes because that person doesn't fit the aesthetic of the club or the doorman thinks they don't have the right energy. That's pretty much exactly what the Hawks are looking to do.

The one complicating factor is that Lumen is partly publicly owned, but I'm sure that original agreement spells out what that means for public access and the Hawks' ability to control the gates.

Imagine being a bartender and refusing to serve someone who has an accent under the guise that it's not on the basis of sex, race, nationality, ie protected status. You can't just say "I have the right to refuse service to anyone." You still have to give some sort of reasonable explanation for refusing service.

That one might be contested because nationality is a protected class, and therefore an explanation for why service was refused would probably be needed. But the basic answer is the same as above. The explanation doesn't have to be related to abiding by the law. In other words, the burden of proof isn't on a business to demonstrate their right to deny service. Legally, the burden of proof would be on the plantiff to show that the reason they were kicked out was illegally based on a protected class characteristic (with the public vs. private caveat, of course, and I definitely don't understand that and I doubt many other than the lawyers involved really understand it).

I know that, not long ago, a federal judge said that a bar legally denied service to a guy in a MAGA hat because political ideology isn't a protected class.

How is the lack of enthusiasm bad for business? Do they buy fewer concessions? Buy less from the team store? Will it allow the Seahawks to sell their tickets for a higher price? So long as the stadium is full, it shouldn't make any difference how enthusiastic the fans are, they're going to sell the same amount of stuff and make the same amount of money regardless of what jersey they happen to be wearing.

I want to see the stadium fill up with screaming Hawk fans and turn our house into that intimidating venue it and its predecessor the Kingdome was for all those years just as badly if not more than anyone else. But this rule seems a little odd to say the least.

If the stadium is full, you're mostly right (I might quibble with revenue from the team shop, but that's not making a big impact on the game day revenue and not really what we're talking about). But: (1) I could see that they might start worrying that a watered down atmosphere could start leading to attendance declines; (2) teams definitely consider how to keep the vibes good in a city and they could worry that a less frenzied crowd and home field advantage could be the canary in the coal mine of problems ahead; and (3) a raucous crowd probably helps TV viewership (especially as that was the calling card of the 12s for so long), and the Hawks are definitely declining in viewership. I'm not a businessman and I don't know if any of these ideas are good; I'm just saying that I can easily see a world in which the business side of the organization would be worried about a decline in the game day experience.

~~~

Although I said above it doesn't trouble me, I want to reiterate that I know it doesn't affect me much and it's not a hill I'll die on. I'm really just talking about the legality. I actually don't like the bedrock laws I think these statues are related to; I think they're connected with corporate personhood laws, and I think those laws are a net negative for society. But as long as we grant business things like free speech, we grant them many of the protections that individuals/homeowners have to regulate the behavior of people on our property. I think it's easy to forget that as much as we want individual freedom and liberty to act as we want with our property and have rights when we're in public, those businesses' rights are based in the same laws as our own.

[4XPIPS]

Well the purpose isn't clear on this. Are they putting a warning out to stop season ticket holders from reselling the majority of because they do not want anyone to profit of the original ticket face value.....or is this to deter season holders from selling their tickets to opposing fan bases? The motive isn't clear as to why they are putting this warning out. I can see all points and agree with what you are saying. Oly you bring a good point up when you state "field a better team." Take the Lions for example, they were a dumpster fire for many years and recently they have become a powerhouse club and their fan base is filling their stadium up, and it wouldn't shock me their fan base is louder then the Lumen.

However if the motive is to prevent season holders from selling to opposing fans, this will certainly not bode well for local shops and hotels. I can tell you that my little sister is a resort manger in Glendale AZ, and the resort is right across the Hwy from where the Cardinals play. Whenever there is a Cardinal's home game, they thrive heavily on the opposing fans as they are more apt to splurge on dinners and drinks, and eat out. Locals will just eat at home and travel to the game.

I guess I would like to know the purpose of this warning to season ticket holders.

Edited *My little sister*

[River Dog]

Well the purpose isn't clear on this. Are they putting a warning out to stop season ticket holders from reselling the majority of because they do not want anyone to profit of the original ticket face value.....or is this to deter season holders from selling their tickets to opposing fan bases? The motive isn't clear as to why they are putting this warning out. I can see all points and agree with what you are saying. Oly you bring a good point up when you state "field a better team." Take the Lions for example, they were a dumpster fire for many years and recently they have become a powerhouse club and their fan base is filling their stadium up, and it wouldn't shock me their fan base is louder then the Clink.

However if the motive is to prevent season holders from selling to opposing fans, this will certainly not bode well for local shops and hotels. I can tell you that little is a resort manger in Glendale AZ, and the resort is right across the Hwy from where the Cardinals play. Whenever there is a Cardinal's home game, they thrive heavily on the opposing fans as they are more apt to splurge on dinners and drinks, and eat out. Locals will just eat at home and travel to the game.

I guess I would like to know the purpose of this warning to season ticket holders.

People have made money on re-selling tickets ever since they started selling tickets to events. Stub Hub and Ticketmaster have been in business for over 25 years, so I find it hard to believe that the Seahawks have suddenly decided that they don't like this particular business or their season ticket holders making money off the resale.

IMO this is undoubtedly motivated by the recent takeovers of our home field by the opposing team's fans for important games, in particular, the Green Bay game last season. It had to have been a huge embarrassment for the Seahawks, a team that used to have one of the most dedicated fan bases in the league. Having been a die-hard Hawks fan since the get-go, I know that I feel somewhat ashamed of the state of our fan base. IMO the Hawks feel that if they can restrict or hinder season ticket holders from re-selling tickets on the secondary market that it would result in them having to sell them to people they know or are physically close to them, most likely fellow Seahawk fans, or going to the game themselves.

[TriCitySam]

My sense is that they'll communicate with people selling more than half of their tickets and determine on a case by case basis whether they will be able to purchase season tickets going forward. They obviously can't do anything about tickets already sold.

I spoke with my Seahawks ticket rep and was told it was an "advisory" notification - that they will monitor those who are simply in the resale business. They can do that as transfers go thru them. And if there is abuse to their new policy they will have a "discussion", and while there are no plans to cancel season tickets they may in the future. They have a resale affiliation and Stub Hub and Geek aren't part of it.

As for me, I was told they understand those living a distance from Seattle cannot attend all games. It's become costly. My tix went up $1000 (3) this year, so selling at premium helps. There were a number of years you couldn't give them away.

[NorthHawk]

I read somewhere that the Titans season ticket holders got a similar message from their team.
It makes me wonder if it isn't a league wide directive or goal to create a more fever pitch at games and thus possibly more revenue from broadcasters.

[River Dog]

I read somewhere that the Titans season ticket holders got a similar message from their team.
It makes me wonder if it isn't a league wide directive or goal to create a more fever pitch at games and thus possibly more revenue from broadcasters.

Even the Packers, a team with one of the most dedicated fan base in the league, have implemented a ticket resale policy. However, theirs isn't nearly as strict, saying that if a STH re-sells 100% of their tickets in multiple years, that they risk losing their right to buy season tickets.

The league has an agreement with Ticketmaster, called NFL Ticket Exchange, that competes with other secondary buyers like Stub Hub, Vivid Seats, Seat Geek, and so on, so I'm wondering if they aren't trying to direct more fans to use their sanctioned ticket resale company.

I still question the legality of such policies, and until they actually start denying buyers of the opportunity based on their resale activity, it won't get tested in court.

[NorthHawk]

It makes sense that they want to direct sellers to their sanctioned companies as they probably get a piece of the profits.

[River Dog]

It makes sense that they want to direct sellers to their sanctioned companies as they probably get a piece of the profits.

Even that would raise legal questions as it would affect competitiveness, a horizontal monopoly, if they're steering customers to a business they have a financial interest in.

[NorthHawk]

I don't remember the NFL being shy about stressing the edges if it means making money. Every penny they can...

[River Dog]

I don't remember the NFL being shy about stressing the edges if it means making money. Every penny they can...

This could be nothing more than a scare tactic designed to make people think twice before selling their tickets to a secondary market retailer that's likely to re-sell them to opposing fans.