UEFA EURO 2028 Commercial Rights Protection: consultation analysis - final report

1. Introduction

Background

The UEFA European Championship, the men's international football tournament held every four years, will be hosted by the UK and Ireland in 2028. The Scottish Government is discussing detailed requirements for EURO 2028 with UEFA. EURO 2028 matches would be played at Hampden Park. Hampden Park and potential fan zones at locations in Glasgow would be 'event zones' during the event. Glasgow hosted four matches at EURO 2020 with Hampden and a fan zone at Glasgow Green designated as event zones.

Large sporting events such as UEFA EUROs, Commonwealth Games and FIFA World Cup require specific legislation to protect the organisers' and sponsors' commercial rights, the event's character, integrity and high quality, and to protect spectators against unauthorised resale of tickets, also known as 'ticket touting'. To date, the Scottish Government has developed proposed commercial rights protection measures for EURO 2028 based on experience from EURO 2020 and government guarantees made to UEFA during the bidding process.

Police Scotland and officers appointed by Glasgow City Council enforced offences occurring for EURO 2020 and similar events. The proposed enforcement powers would take into account relevant previous legislation^[1]. Penalties for committing the advertising offence for EURO 2020 were, on summary conviction, a fine up to £20,000 and on conviction on indictment, to a fine. A person convicted of ticket touting for EURO 2020, could be fined up to £5,000.

The proposed measures in the consultation focus on three main themes:

• Unauthorised outdoor trading: The Scottish Government proposes to take a similar approach as in EURO 2020 when unauthorised outdoor trading was prohibited in event zones when these were in operation. In addition to protecting the event's character, integrity, and high standards, this measure aims to aid the flow of people into and out of event zones by keeping walkways clear. Certain exemptions, such as in EURO 2020, could include permissions for selling newspapers, busking, and public transport services.
• Unauthorised advertising: Again, the Scottish Government proposes similar measures to those in EURO 2020, when unauthorised advertising, including 'ambush marketing'^[2], is used in the event zones at prohibited times. There were some exemptions, such as advertising to commemorate events or to publicise political or religious beliefs, causes or campaigns.
• Unauthorised resale of tickets: In EURO 2020, resale of tickets was prohibited both in person and online, with an exemption for charity auctions and certain electronic communications or the storage of data, to protect UEFA's rights and enable fair access to tickets. UEFA has indicated that Scotland did not go far enough and should be strengthened for 2028, because resale was only prohibited above face value or at a profit. UEFA has called for a complete ban on ticket resale with no exemptions at EURO 2028.

A public consultation on the proposals ran from 2 May to 26 July 2024. The consultation sought views on impacts of measures for EURO 2020, how businesses would be impacted by measures likely required for EURO 2028 and what kinds of measures and exemptions would be most appropriate. It also asked for comments about the regulatory context for events in Scotland more widely.

Promoting the public consultation

The Scottish Parliament was informed of the public consultation launch via a Parliamentary Question, initiated by the Scottish Government, and answered on 2 May.

The Scottish Government also supported the launch of the consultation with a news release and social media post.

At launch, a wide range of stakeholders (including all Local Authorities, Police Scotland, other public bodies with an interest, Scottish FA and organisations representing people with protected characteristics) were contacted by the Scottish Government to invite them to contribute to the consultation and to share the opportunity with their networks. Supporting activity included a feature in EventScotland's e-Newsletter and social media channels. A reminder to participate was also issued by the Scottish Government before the consultation closed.

Supported by Glasgow Life, a communication was sent by post to registered street traders and local communities potentially affected by the proposed legislation. This included an offer to community councils for Scottish Government and Glasgow Life officials to come to one of their meetings to discuss the consultation.

Two in-person drop-in sessions were held in Glasgow. Two webinar sessions were hosted on Microsoft Teams. These sessions were also supported by Glasgow Life. Scottish Government officials also engaged with street traders in person to highlight the proposed legislation and to invite them to participate in the public consultation.

Respondent profile

The consultation was aimed at street traders, media owners and other businesses who may be based in event zones and have external advertising, and people living in places where measures are likely to apply and groups who represent them. In total, 26 consultation responses were received. Most - 23 - were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space^[3]. Three other responses were sent to the Scottish Government via email and were reviewed by the analysis team. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent.

The analysis also included notes collated from four consultation events. Two in-person events were attended by a total of 6 people, and two online events were attended by 12 people. All attendees were organisational representatives or attending in a professional capacity. In addition, a member of the Scottish Government team attended a meeting of a community council close to one of the event zones. These events were an open forum for attendees to discuss the proposals.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, and where possible using closed questions, to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

The technical nature of some of the proposals outlined in the consultation means it is impractical to fully repeat or explain these within this report. Further information on the proposals can be found in the consultation paper. Similarly, full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government's consultation website.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included seven closed questions. Not all of the 23 respondents who responded via Citizen Space answered every question, and the responses received via email did not align with the consultation question. To compare across sub-groups, this report therefore presents the results of the closed questions based on those who responded via Citizen Space and who answered each question.

For clarity, each results table shows:

• The percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses (white rows including and under "All answering").
• The number percentage of respondents from the total sample of 23 Citizen Space respondents who selected each response (grey row).

Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged. Where a response received via email did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.

Notes from the consultation events were reviewed to identify any differences in opinion compared to the main sample and to identify any new themes. The themes evident in the events typically aligned with those evident in the main sample, but any additional or unique perspectives are noted in this report.

Where appropriate, quotes are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

Limitations of the analysis

When reviewing the analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider:

• Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population. This is particularly important to note given the relatively small number of responses to this consultation.
• Of the 15 individual respondents, four identified as sole traders. Four individuals also indicated they were a street trader or advertised or owned advertising space in Glasgow, including two of the sole traders. Other individual respondents may also be sole traders, but chose not to identify as such.
• Where differences between the views of individuals and organisations, or by type of organisation, were evident in qualitative responses, these have been noted. If no specific differences are highlighted then a theme was raised by a mix of respondents.
• Some respondents have possibly not fully read or engaged with the consultation paper, leading to answers which do not directly address the questions. For example, respondents often reflected on the organisation of EURO 2028 or other potential impacts which did not relate directly to the proposed measures. While all comments have been included in the analysis and all themes presented in this report, we focus on those directly answering each question.
• A few respondents repeatedly raised the same issues or suggestions at multiple questions, regardless of the specific focus of the question. These views are all included in this report, but analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include each theme to avoid repetition.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• The most/second most common/prevalent theme; most frequently identified.
• Many respondents, a prevalent theme mentioned by at least nine respondents.
• Some respondents, a recurring theme mentioned by four to eight respondents
• A few/a small number, three respondents, a less commonly mentioned theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in two responses.