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

4. Ticketing

Introduction

The consultation paper clarifies that UEFA is the only authorised seller of EUROs tickets. It notes that in the past UEFA has operated its own platform for the resale of tickets for those who had purchased tickets but could not use them and wished to sell them at face value.

EURO 2020 restrictions on ticket sales

Selling tickets for a profit – or ‘ticket touting’ – was banned, both for in person and online sales, for EURO 2020. Measures were intended to protect UEFA’s rights, support fair access to tickets and help ensure public confidence in the event. Exemptions included for charity auctions and certain electronic communications or the storage of data.

Were you aware of ticket touting laws put into place for EURO 2020?

What impact, if any, did those measures have on you (as a resident, business or visitor)?

Awareness of ticket touting laws that were in place for EURO 2020 was evenly split among those who answered this question, with 52% aware and 48% not aware. All organisations who answered were aware of the previous laws, compared to 27% of individuals.

Open comments were provided by 17 respondents. The most frequently mentioned theme was that there had been no impact, with a small number of other comments.

No impact

Ten respondents commented there had been no impact on them as a result of the ticket touting laws in place for EURO 2020. Only one expanded their comment – an organisation who clarified that there had been no impact on them as the police had been responsible for enforcing the law.

Other issues

A small number of other comments were received on the topic of ticket touts, though these comments did not relate directly to the proposals. For instance, the British Transport Police observed that due to the electronic sale of tickets for EURO 2020, fewer touts had operated. They suggested this approach be replicated for EURO 2028, noting:

“This reduced the risk of criminality on our jurisdiction as well as calls to service (i.e. for touts congregating at or blocking entrances).” - Justice Solutions, British Transport Police

However, Advice Direct Scotland highlighted their consumer advice service had received contacts regarding the touting of tickets for EURO 2020. They felt a “fertile ground for fake tickets” was created by the demand for tickets, alongside the urgency placed on getting them. They identified difficulties achieving suitable remedies for consumers who had bought tickets from touts. They felt the market for touted tickets “remains prevalent to this day” and called for efforts to raise consumer awareness and prevent tickets being touted.

One individual felt that selling tickets for a profit should be allowable given other commercial products could be sold for a profit.

Proposed EURO 2028 restrictions on ticket sales

UEFA has suggested the measures used for EURO 2020 did not go far enough and should be strengthened for 2028. They have expressed a preference for all unauthorised resales, including tickets sold at face value, to be banned, and that it does not include a charity exemption or any other exemption.

What impact do you think the proposed measures on ticket touting for EURO 2028 might have on you (as a resident, business or visitor)?

A total of 18 respondents commented on the perceived impact of the proposed measures on ticket touting for EURO 2028.

No impact

Seven respondents felt there would be no impact on them arising from the proposals on ticket touting. Two were traders - one a sole trader, the other an organisation trading across Scotland. None of these respondents expanded upon their answer.

Positive impact for visitors

Some respondents highlighted positive impacts for visitors, the second most prevalent theme. For instance, individuals felt benefits would include not being harassed by ticket touts, avoiding the inadvertent purchase of unauthorised tickets and preventing needless travel to events due to having bought an unauthorised ticket. One individual felt the proposals might make it easier to buy tickets but did not give further details. DF Concerts & Events called for a consumer law to be introduced that banned ticket touts across all industries including sports and music events.

Satisfaction with the proposals

Two individuals agreed with the proposals, with one stating: “It’s the right thing to do”, though the other did not give further explanation.

Comments on ticket resale

Although comments were not directly related to the question, a few respondents raised the issue of ticket resales. One noted likely demand for tickets and felt the incentive to resell was therefore high. They cited UEFA EURO 2024 championships where ticket resales rose to over £10,000 in some cases, causing detriment to consumers and increased resources for scammers to repeat their scams. While they called for strict measures to counter such activity, they also noted that some deterrents such as exclusive codes and non-transferable methods could also reduce the practicality of reselling tickets by legitimate means.

One organisation called for clarification as to whether there would be a resale platform, noting this would help avoid empty seats within the stadium. One individual felt ticket resales should be managed by a UEFA controlled transfer system rather than a resale platform. This could work by having the ticket buyer designating the invited buyer on a digital system, then providing their contact details so the ticket can be transferred once checks have been run. One individual felt it should be possible to sell tickets at face value but not for a profit.

“With tickets being produced and distributed electronically, UEFA can prevent significant profiteering by implementing controls at point of purchase and points of ticket distribution and transfer between buyers and users. Buyers can be required to submit names and contact details of all ticket users, transfers can be “controlled” by UEFA ticketing system and therefore transfers, and the initial purchase, can be blocked or cancelled and the tickets resold. Of course, this requires investment in tech and resources, however it will prevent abuse and protect the commercial rights. UEFA can relatively easily introduce a ticket transfer system that includes bank details / payment details between original buyers and secondary buyers.” - Individual

Managing adverse impacts

Do you think there are any exemptions or other measures that could be applied to help manage any adverse impacts from the proposed ticket touting measures?

Can you explain your answer to the above question?

Overall, one quarter (24%) of those who answered indicated that there are exemptions or other measures that could help manage any impacts from the suggested ticket touting measures; 43% felt there were not and one third (33%) were unsure. Views were relatively equally split among organisations who answered, with 43% indicating there were other measures and 43% that there were not, with 14% unsure. However, among individuals 14% answered yes compared to 43% answering no and 43% who were unsure.

In total, nine respondents left a comment to explain their answer to help manage adverse impacts from the proposed ticket touting measures. However, while two respondents made suggestions for exemptions, other comments aligned with the proposals.

Suggested exemptions

Advice Direct Scotland felt selling tickets by auction for charitable purposes should be exempt from the measures to prevent ticket touting as the intention behind this was positive and did not involve illicit profiting from resales. They suggested:

“The removal of a profit motive will curtail the common incentive for ticket resale. The regulation of charity work will mitigate the risks of this exemption and will not mislead the public about resales.” – Advice Direct Scotland

An individual suggested locally based ticketing or hospitality firms should be offered the ability to become authorised ticket resellers or distributors to “continue to service their traditional local markets”.

Another respondent felt that an exemption should be made for people who wished to sell tickets they had purchased, though it was not clear if they meant separately from the official UEFA resale platform as no further detail was provided.

Other issues

A few respondents left comments that aligned to the proposals. For instance, two suggested avoiding the use of intermediaries for ticket sales and two suggested preventing ticket sales on the streets and in event zones.

Conversely, one individual felt the proposals were unfair and that they should be allowed to buy and sell tickets for a profit.

Level of financial penalty

The consultation paper set out that, for EURO 2020, a person convicted of a ticket touting offence was liable on a summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, up to £5,000. Views were sought on increasing the maximum fine for those convicted of a ticket touting offence, taking into account the greater potential to make a significant profit at scale using the internet and smartphones. The proposed options for a maximum fine were £5,000, £10,000, £20,000, £50,000 or don’t know.

Which level of penalty for ticket touting offences do you think would be most appropriate for EURO 2028? Why?

Among those who answered this question, the largest proportion – 39% – were unsure what level of penalty would be most appropriate. This was the most common answer among both individuals (33%) and organisations (50%) who answered. Among those who selected any of the proposed penalty levels presented as answer options, there was more support for larger value penalties. Overall, 22% favoured a penalty of £20,000 and 17% favoured £50,000, compared to 9% supporting a £5,000 penalty and 13% a £10,000 penalty. No organisations who answered felt a £5,000 penalty was appropriate.

Open comments were given by 14 respondents. The most prevalent theme was that the penalty should be proportionate to the amount ticket touts made, with the second most common theme being that the amount should be increased so it acts as a better deterrent.

Penalties should be proportionate

The penalty should be proportionate to the situation or amount made by ticket touts, according to some respondents who opted for fine levels of either £10,000 or £20,000. British Transport Police Justice Solutions preferred the lower of these, highlighting that the higher penalties would likely be unaffordable for low level ticket touts and would be disproportionate compared to other offences or fines.

The penalty should act as a deterrent

A few individuals felt the penalty should be greater than £5,000 to act as a better deterrent for ticket touts. These respondents varied in the level of fine they preferred, and ranged from £10,000 to £50,000. The individual who opted for £50,000 felt this was only feasible if the level was widely publicised and enforced. Another individual agreed, also suggesting £50,000 was an appropriate level that would act as an effective deterrent:

“Of the numbers proposed I would support £50,000 and it should be at least equal to other EURO 2028 territories. Offences out with Scotland relating to Scotland matches should be similarly treated and vice versa. Jurisdiction is important to avoid offshore offences having little deterrence or punishment. Fines should not be capped and should be the greater of £50,000 or a multiple of the estimated commercial gain being sought or achieved by the tout, and or at least include all unlawful gains made by that tout.” - Individual

Other suggestions

Advice Direct Scotland advocated a fine of £20,000, calling for this to be paired with clear public information and additional preventative activity. This included clearly indicating proper channels for the sale of tickets and making them secure against reselling, noting:

“The use of electronic and non-resalable tickets in the recent EURO 2024 championship minimised the ability to tout and made scam tickets much easier to identify.” - Advice Direct Scotland

Another organisation queried how many ticket tout offences were committed during EURO 2020 and what the penalties had been, noting penalties were only useful if offences were prosecuted.

Two individuals felt there should be no fine; one felt it was not illegal to sell tickets for a profit and another felt the level of fine did not matter as people would still try to tout tickets regardless.