Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-28)
MR PAUL
VAUGHAN, MR
ALEX HORNE
AND MR
NICHOLAS BITEL
26 JUNE 2007
Q20 Paul Farrelly: The last one-day
inquiry we did was into the quiz TV industry and we have seen
what happened there afterwards. During that inquiry it was quite
clear that many people exploit the Internet to have sophisticated
calling systems to maximise their chances, and some people make
a good return on it. That is clearly a feature of applications
to official primary ticket agencies. When it comes to the secondary
agents, do you have any evidence that those major operations are
more than just exchanges; that they have links, particularly in
setting themselves up, with the organised touting fraternity?
Mr Vaughan: They are genuine marketplaces.
eBay is a very good example and is a very good marketplace. In
terms of its ticketing, it is able to control the types of tickets
that go on there. For things like charitable concerts in Hyde
Park, for instance, it is very easy to take them down; whereas
in other things it seems to be extremely difficult for them to
control. They will give you the numbers later probably, but about
60%-odd of people will only sell one or two tickets; but that
also does not talk about the other 30-40% that sell multiple tickets.
Whether it be rugby, concert, tennis or whatever, there are people
on viagogo, certainly today, offering 18 tickets which do not
exist yet. We are flabbergasted as to how that works. There must
be a connection into some way of saying, "It's an easy route
through"; newspapers used to be the route years ago; this
is just the electronic version of it.
Q21 Paul Farrelly: The question was
about the specialist, not eBay which sells tickets as well as
unwanted Christmas presents. Do you have any evidence, being able
to establish themselves, that these secondary sellers are more
than just exchanges; that they actually are complicit and collaborate
with organised touting operations with sophisticated application
strategies?
Mr Bitel: First of all, some of
the internet sales operations that you are seeing are purely touts
in another form. We at Wimbledon have obtained injunctions against
a number of ticket touts; it used to be street touts. We now know
that they are running ticket sites on the Internet. They are not
the exchange mechanisms; they are not the viagogos of this world;
but for the punter they cannot see the difference between a "Sold
Out Events", if that is the name of the company, or "London
Ticket Brokers" or "viagogo". They do not see the
difference when they are the customer. Secondly, some of the exchange
companies are offering a facility which says that if you do not
get your tickets we guarantee that you get the ticket. How do
you do that in a marketplace where there are no legitimate tickets
for you to access?
Q22 Paul Farrelly: Clearly in the
evidence that you have given, there are very clear remedies that
could be adopted. Sellers could be forced to put on the ticket
seat number and the block number to identify where it is coming
from, and also make sure that is a real ticket. We could extend
the protections that are there for football at the moment and
the Olympics quite simply through a statutory instrument; that
is quite clear. The Government in a free market is always going
to be reluctant to legislate and regulate and has to be proportionate.
One of the reasons is that there are always unintended consequences
of legislation. The question I have got is really from the football
evidence. What evidence have you got of the impact on prices of
the legislation that is currently in place?
Mr Horne: The impact of prices
in terms of the secondary market?
Q23 Paul Farrelly: Just the impact
on pricing.
Mr Horne: In terms of the football
fraternity we work very hard to maintain a reasonable level of
ticket prices for tickets available (and I hate to use the word
again because I know Adrian will pick up on it) to the genuine
fans and genuine supporters. I know this is something keen to
Alan's heart. At both the Football Association or the premier
league clubs, we work incredibly hard to keep ticket prices at
a very reasonable level. We know, as Nick has highlighted already,
that Cup Final tickets, for example that were a maximum price
of £95, more widely available at £60 and £80, were
trading hands for thousands and thousands of pounds. That is the
only evidence I have specifically in relation to this.
Mr Bitel: We acted for UEFA and
when the law was extended to cover England matches abroad we did
not see much effect upon the ticket prices in the secondary market.
It used to be illegal only to sell tickets for England matches
at home and now it is for abroad. Certainly for the European matches
we have not seen much difference.
Q24 Paul Farrelly: The introduction
of controls in football following Hillsborough you would not say
has produced any unintended and adverse consequences that affected
fans?
Mr Bitel: I certainly would not.
Mr Horne: I do not think so, no.
It is beneficial benefits of what have followed the introduction
of legislation in football. We all know it came about because
of segregation issues in the Taylor Report, and the idea that
you want traceable tickets into fans; you know who is sitting
there; and you have segregation at football.
Q25 Alan Keen: I will come back to
Alex and Wembley. Philip raised the point about the prawn sandwich
brigade. It is true, is it not, Alex, that the FA were reluctant
to have to sell as many debentures as they have but that was essential,
was it not, because of the financing of Wembley Stadium itself?
Is it not true that fans whose team maybe gets to Wembley for
the first time ever will pay almost anything to be there? Those
fans who never complain about managers' and players' salaries,
because they think they deserve it, they do object to having to
pay over the odds for tickets where that money goes out of the
game. Is that not really the main complaint that fans have?
Mr Horne: I think that is right.
It is worth just reflecting on the ownership structure of Wembley
Stadium. It is owned 100% by the Football Association and the
profits generated ultimately by Wembley will be reinvested back
into football, which is the argument drawn up in the Five Sports
paper. Yes, we have sold 17,000 seats on a ten-year licence basis
to finance the world's largest and greatest stadium. To pick up
on your other point, not only do fans probably object to being
forced to pay substantial amounts of money for tickets, but fans
would also object to having to buy tickets through routes, as
I mentioned before, that are not safe for the consumer. They are
not guaranteeing access to a stadium by having to resort to picking
up tickets from internet sites; or indeed trying to get them on
the street on the way into Wembley; and they cannot guarantee
the atmosphere around them if they do not know whether they are
going to be in with their own supporters. With a public order
and protection hat on, as I mentioned in my opening statement,
it is a very important aspect of the legislation for us because
it enables us to track supporters of different teams into the
appropriate ends of the stadium.
Q26 Adam Price: Shaun Woodward, the
Minister who is appearing before us later, has said he thinks
the majority of ticket buyers are relaxed about ticket resale.
You have just said that the majority of fans object. Do you have
any evidence of this? What is the view on this?
Mr Vaughan: If you want to buy
a ticket you will never be upset by people selling you a ticket.
Q27 Adam Price: That seems a fair
point! I know—I have been there myself.
Mr Vaughan: If you are trying
to actually encourage kids to play the sport and keep the sport
going for a longer time, it is the sport that loses out.
Mr Bitel: I think we all have
had complaints from customers saying, "Why is it that your
tickets are being sold at inflated prices", and it turns
out when we investigate that it is not us who is selling them.
We have all experienced that and our ticket office this particular
week with Wimbledon is full of complaints of that nature.
Q28 Paul Farrelly: We have got the
Rugby World Cup coming up as the next major tournament in September,
what is so special about the Olympics where the Government has
accepted anti-touting restrictions and put in place legislation
that should not apply to events like the Rugby World Cup, some
of whose games are being played in Wales and Scotland?
Mr Vaughan: All major events have
something about them which needs to be ensured, that if you are
bidding for something as a country—and what has actually
happened is that London, having won the Olympic bid, the Government
has signed up to protection of ticket touting, that that should
be extended through to big events like the Rugby World Cup who
do want protection if they are going to move into new markets,
or indeed come back to old markets. The Rugby World Cup has only
been going since 1987, so when it wants to come back here we are
going to have to be able to say to them, "We'll protect your
tickets", because that is their key source of income, and
they are not cheap tickets I have to say.
Mr Bitel: I am Chairman of the
Major Events Panel of UK Sport and we are seeing more and more
major events saying to us, "If you wish to bid you have to
protect the tickets". We are seeing that. The Rugby World
Cup is one example. I know Scotland have a desire to bid against
England maybe and others. Scotland maybe together with Wales,
and maybe Ireland. Almost certainly the IRU is going to say, "You
have to have this type of legislation in place". The Cricket
World Cup is another example. The Caribbean Islands—nine
different sovereign nations introduced laws to outlaw ticket touting
for the Cricket World Cup as part of a prerequisite of obtaining
that event. I think if Britain wishes to attract more major events
in the future we are certainly going to have to see that type
of protection being extended. I think extending it to 2012 gave
a legitimate expectation to a number of these major international
sporting organisations that Britain will do likewise for their
events as well.
Chairman: We need to move on. Thank you
very much.
| 
