Should Elite Level Sport be Available to Everyone

[GB72]

The massive payment for premier league football got be thinking about the cost of sporting events in general and I am probably thinking more about international level sport rather than league sports as these teams are controlled by the governing bodies rather than being businesses.

Anyway, the cost of these events across the board makes it prohibitive for many to ever experience it and that ignores the problem of getting tickets in the first place. Take the sport I love, for example, rugby. £60 is about the cheapest ticket that you can get for Twickenham if you can even get one in the first place. Most are more expensive than that, Couple that with transport, parking, food and drink costs and it is out of the price range for most.

I suspect that this is pretty much the same for Wembley to watch England, for any of the Test venues and across many other sporting events.

So, in an age where sports are trying to encourage increased levels of participation, is it time that the ticket prices were subsidised to allow a wider audience to attend and, more importantly, the distribution of tickets is looked at to stop them heading for corporate entertainment or profiteering ticket companies.

Alternatively, is it the case that the only concern should be to fill the venue and raise as much as possible to fund the game at all levels.

This is not one of those posts bemoaning the cost of elite sport but rather a debate on whether it is more important to increase accessibility to encourage future generations to take part or whether the purpose of elite level sport is to raise funds for grass roots participation.

 

[Tongo]

The massive payment for premier league football got be thinking about the cost of sporting events in general and I am probably thinking more about international level sport rather than league sports as these teams are controlled by the governing bodies rather than being businesses.

Anyway, the cost of these events across the board makes it prohibitive for many to ever experience it and that ignores the problem of getting tickets in the first place. Take the sport I love, for example, rugby. £60 is about the cheapest ticket that you can get for Twickenham if you can even get one in the first place. Most are more expensive than that, Couple that with transport, parking, food and drink costs and it is out of the price range for most.

I suspect that this is pretty much the same for Wembley to watch England, for any of the Test venues and across many other sporting events.

So, in an age where sports are trying to encourage increased levels of participation, is it time that the ticket prices were subsidised to allow a wider audience to attend and, more importantly, the distribution of tickets is looked at to stop them heading for corporate entertainment or profiteering ticket companies.

Alternatively, is it the case that the only concern should be to fill the venue and raise as much as possible to fund the game at all levels.

This is not one of those posts bemoaning the cost of elite sport but rather a debate on whether it is more important to increase accessibility to encourage future generations to take part or whether the purpose of elite level sport is to raise funds for grass roots participation.

That's about the nub of it. Certainly the former, probably not the latter. Top level sport these days does seem to have too much of an 'i'm alright Jack' ethos.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Their argument will be that if the venues are full then the pricing is correct. If the spectator numbers drop then prices will have to drop as well. Supply and demand. If you want truly elite sportsmen/women and top venues to see them in then they need to be paid for. I don't necessarily agree with the thinking behind the first point I made but that is how the owners/organisers think and that is what matters.

One aspect I would very much agree with is reducing the power of ticketing companies. If you make tickets cheap then these revolting companies and their computer programmes will simply vacuum up those cheap tickets and sell them on as part of more expensive packages. Happens throughout international sport already.

 

[GB72]

As an example, I would have a significant number of tickets given to schools rather than the token few given out if a match is undersold

 

[DanFST]

Free market economy.

 

[Hacker Khan]

I think there's a difference between filling a stadium with true fans/future generations who may get take the sport up after watching it live, and filling the stadium with corporate/sponsors seats, sports tourists 'The I was there brigade what spend most of the time posting selfies on snapchat rather than watching the action' who have bought the tickets at a huge mark up off ticket resale companies and competition winners. It seems the finals of major sporing events are increasingly catering for the latter.

One pays the bills in the short term and one may help to ensure the future popularity of the game for years to come.

 

[GB72]

Free market economy.

True but that is not the question. Should the governing bodies be ditching the profits made under a free market economy in order to make the sport more accessible and encourage kids to take part. After all, plenty were arguing that sending The Open to Sky was wrong but that is just the application of the same free market theory allbeit depriving the wider populace from seeing elite sport on tv as opposed to in person

 

[rosecott]

I thought from the thread title that you were pleading for a place in the final at Hillside.

 

[Foxholer]

It IS available to everyone - at a price!

What you are suggesting is that it should/could be available to some at a 'subsidised' price!

There are probably better ways to encourage Nationwide participation in the particular sport than cheap tickets to Elite games, though it's up to National associations to decide!

 

[GB72]

I would argue that it is not available to everyone due to some of the convoluted methods if distributing tickets and that needs assessing as much as pricing.

 

[Tongo]

Their argument will be that if the venues are full then the pricing is correct. If the spectator numbers drop then prices will have to drop as well. Supply and demand. If you want truly elite sportsmen/women and top venues to see them in then they need to be paid for. I don't necessarily agree with the thinking behind the first point I made but that is how the owners/organisers think and that is what matters.

One aspect I would very much agree with is reducing the power of ticketing companies. If you make tickets cheap then these revolting companies and their computer programmes will simply vacuum up those cheap tickets and sell them on as part of more expensive packages. Happens throughout international sport already.

Yep, those in charge will see it as a success if they 'fill' every seat. But look at the FA Cup final and how many of the 90,000 tickets go to the fans of the 2 clubs involved and how many are kept for the corporate element. Yep, they turn up and pay their money but they aint the least bit interested in the long-term health of the game, just where there next glass of Dom Pom comes from. And this is all administered by the FA, who are supposed to look after the game in this country.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

So who is going to pay for this?

Apparently the authorities should not be taking "top dollar" from satellite broadcasters but, at the same time, they should be subsidising ticket prices.

Something doesn't add up!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Have no issue with authorities taking top dollar if it filters down to ensure ticket prices are kept at a respectful level but they just go up and up despite the clubs getting more and more money from these deals

 

[Blue in Munich]

The massive payment for premier league football got be thinking about the cost of sporting events in general and I am probably thinking more about international level sport rather than league sports as these teams are controlled by the governing bodies rather than being businesses.

Anyway, the cost of these events across the board makes it prohibitive for many to ever experience it and that ignores the problem of getting tickets in the first place. Take the sport I love, for example, rugby. £60 is about the cheapest ticket that you can get for Twickenham if you can even get one in the first place. Most are more expensive than that, Couple that with transport, parking, food and drink costs and it is out of the price range for most.

I suspect that this is pretty much the same for Wembley to watch England, for any of the Test venues and across many other sporting events.

So, in an age where sports are trying to encourage increased levels of participation, is it time that the ticket prices were subsidised to allow a wider audience to attend and, more importantly, the distribution of tickets is looked at to stop them heading for corporate entertainment or profiteering ticket companies.

Alternatively, is it the case that the only concern should be to fill the venue and raise as much as possible to fund the game at all levels.

This is not one of those posts bemoaning the cost of elite sport but rather a debate on whether it is more important to increase accessibility to encourage future generations to take part or whether the purpose of elite level sport is to raise funds for grass roots participation.

Sorry, but I don't think you can simply differentiate between the two levels of sport like that. The players in the internationals are from the very highest levels of league sports, so have to some degree been subsidised by the fans of that sport who buy match tickets, season tickets, merchandise etc. I know Harlequins season ticket holders who are members of all the requisite clubs and still can't get England tickets as it is. And now we want to start subsidising tickets to bring it to a wider audience? So how will those who have indirectly supported country by supporting club feel when even less of them can get tickets, but the masses who've never been to a match in their life can get a subsidised ticket to an event that they might not even like? You might gain some, but by alienating how many in the process?

I understand the sentiment but I'm afraid I can't support it.

 

[Tongo]

Sorry, but I don't think you can simply differentiate between the two levels of sport like that. The players in the internationals are from the very highest levels of league sports, so have to some degree been subsidised by the fans of that sport who buy match tickets, season tickets, merchandise etc. I know Harlequins season ticket holders who are members of all the requisite clubs and still can't get England tickets as it is. And now we want to start subsidising tickets to bring it to a wider audience? So how will those who have indirectly supported country by supporting club feel when even less of them can get tickets, but the masses who've never been to a match in their life can get a subsidised ticket to an event that they might not even like? You might gain some, but by alienating how many in the process?

I understand the sentiment but I'm afraid I can't support it.

Surely then the question is why cant they get tickets? There's 82,000 available so how many of these actually go out to genuine fans? Similar to you, i'm not sure about subsidised tickets but another problem is that access to these tickets appears to be far too limited. Therefore because there arent that many tickets available those in charge can get away with charging high prices.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Surely then the question is why cant they get tickets? There's 82,000 available so how many of these actually go out to genuine fans? Similar to you, i'm not sure about subsidised tickets but another problem is that access to these tickets appears to be far too limited. Therefore because there arent that many tickets available those in charge can get away with charging high prices.

I don't know how the RFU hand out the tickets, but I'm pretty sure if you added up the capacity of the English Premiership Rugby grounds it would comfortably exceed 82,000, even if you account for that fact that a percentage will be away fans and so "double-counted". Take off the sponsors & away fans and it is fairly easy to see how not every top tier league supporter could get a ticket, never mind those lower down.

As far as the FA Cup goes, as I understand it, any club that is in the FA is entitled to buy 2 tickets for the final. Smaller clubs take them & raffle or auction them to raise funds. Once the corporate rake-off and sponsors are done, that leaves very little for each set of fans. As far as Chelsea goes, fans are awarded loyalty points for matches attended on their season ticket or membership. Once the allocation is known, they are sold in tranches, starting with the highest points holders and working down. If you haven't got enough points, you miss out. I'd estimate that the 2012 Cup Final effectively cost me £1200 on top of the final ticket. Any idea how I'd feel about missing out on that Cup Final ticket so that someone else who hadn't watched a game before got a subsidised ticket to encourage their future support?

 

[Tongo]

I don't know how the RFU hand out the tickets, but I'm pretty sure if you added up the capacity of the English Premiership Rugby grounds it would comfortably exceed 82,000, even if you account for that fact that a percentage will be away fans and so "double-counted". Take off the sponsors & away fans and it is fairly easy to see how not every top tier league supporter could get a ticket, never mind those lower down.

As far as the FA Cup goes, as I understand it, any club that is in the FA is entitled to buy 2 tickets for the final. Smaller clubs take them & raffle or auction them to raise funds. Once the corporate rake-off and sponsors are done, that leaves very little for each set of fans. As far as Chelsea goes, fans are awarded loyalty points for matches attended on their season ticket or membership. Once the allocation is known, they are sold in tranches, starting with the highest points holders and working down. If you haven't got enough points, you miss out. I'd estimate that the 2012 Cup Final effectively cost me £1200 on top of the final ticket. Any idea how I'd feel about missing out on that Cup Final ticket so that someone else who hadn't watched a game before got a subsidised ticket to encourage their future support?

And realistically not all fans who attend club rugby matches will attempt to get ticket to an England game. But when season ticket holding fans of the club across the road cant get tickets then you have to ask questions.

 

[Blue in Munich]

And realistically not all fans who attend club rugby matches will attempt to get ticket to an England game. But when season ticket holding fans of the club across the road cant get tickets then you have to ask questions.

Sorry, but I'm missing this one;what has their geographical location got to do with ticket entitlement?

 

[Tongo]

Sorry, but I'm missing this one;what has their geographical location got to do with ticket entitlement?

Nothing. But i'd imagine that you'd get more supporters from local clubs applying for tickets than those from, say, Exeter and / or Newcastle. Simple logistics dictates that. Not everyone can / is up for travelling 4/5/6+ hours to watch a game. But if its down the road then its a slightly different prospect.

 

[upsidedown]

Nothing. But i'd imagine that you'd get more supporters from local clubs applying for tickets than those from, say, Exeter and / or Newcastle. Simple logistics dictates that. Not everyone can / is up for travelling 4/5/6+ hours to watch a game. But if its down the road then its a slightly different prospect.

Not necessarily , there will probably be more Welsh fans watching the game in Edinburgh in bars and clubs than will be at Murrayfield this weekend
In NZ we were season ticket holders for The Crusaders but when it came to RWC allocation we had no sway on allocation , I'm lead to believe that debenture holders at Twickenham had first dibs for the RWC2015 , but happy to be proved wrong