Gary Thwaites
(Ed’s note – The first of two articles on the ticket price debate. Running them both on the same day so we can move put a lid on this subject for the time being)
We hardly need reminding that we live in a world of austerity but that football operates on an entirely different planet. However, the fact that Man City had to return a third of their allocation of tickets has brought the issue into focus again. Putting aside the tabloid hyperbole, the issue is not as simple as might first appear.
It is difficult not to feel some sympathy for the City fans. After all, they generally live in Manchester, which is depressing enough for a start. Uber-rich as the sheiks are, many of City’s actual fans are understandably unwilling or unable to cover the £62 cost of a ticket, on top of travel and everything else. I can’t remember another “Category A” game not selling out the away end, but then Chelsea, Tottenham and Surrey are all a lot closer to Islington than Moss Side. Given this, the game being live on television, and the fact that we are no longer any kind of title challenger, is anyone really surprised that this has happened?
Arsenal, for its part, has defended the ticket-prices in a number of ways, some more valid than others. The argument that City are only getting charged what home fans are in the same area is irrelevant. First of all, it is an FA requirement, so the backslapping egalitarianism being spouted from our PR department is, at best, a hollow and meaningless platitude. In any event, “we fleece our own fans too” is hardly an edifying counter-argument to a legitimate complaint.
The Club has also argued, with only a modicum more legitimacy, that, in 13 away fixtures this year, our fans will be charged more than the away fans at the corresponding home fixtures. This is, of course, a consequence of the way we and other clubs categorise ticket prices according to opposition. After all, the likes of Wigan coming to Ashburton hardly has the same draw for the home support as we have to their fans when we roll into town (give it a few more years of the ongoing and abject mismanagement of the club and that might change, but that is a different rant altogether). However, even this seemingly reasonable argument is a manipulation of the simple truth behind the disparity. The Club made much of its decision to lower Category C ticket prices last year, whilst quietly increasing the Category A prices by an almost equal amount. Of course it’s a good thing that more fans, particularly youngsters, can get access to home games, but it is just supply and demand at work. Category C games were not selling out, so ticket prices had to come down. It was about the club trying to make more money, not less.
The Club’s final defence to the tabloids’ attack on its profiteering this week has been to simply say that we sell out every week, so we cannot be doing too much wrong. In all honesty, I do not know what to say about this. If it is true, it is difficult to dispute the pure economics of the argument, even if the short-termism of pricing a generation of fans out of the bond-forming experience of seeing the team live will surely come back to haunt us in years to come. However, as anybody who goes to home games regularly will know, there are empty seats all over the place at an ever increasing number of games (I write this before the City game, so will have to wait and see if the trend continues then). I have long suspected that the Club lies to us about home attendance figures, which tellingly have not been announced in the ground for a couple of years now, probably because the laughter that ensued was putting the team off. I have hypothesised before on these pages that the interest rate on our stadium loan is perhaps tied in to keeping the average attendance up, so it is in the Club’s interest to fib a little. A couple of years ago, the Club sheepishly admitted, having previously denied it, that we count tickets sold, not bums-on-seats, but surely we would try sell what we can. I have no explanation, therefore, for the fact that you cannot buy a ticket a day or two before a “sold out” game, only for a couple of thousand people apparently to just not turn up. Who are these people who are paying so much for games they do not attend? It baffles me.
Turning back to the City game, I believe the most significant factor in our pricing strategy is something that the manager himself raised in his press conference, in one of the first statements he has made in a number of seasons that I actually agreed with (again, another rant for another day). Rightly or wrongly (ahem, it is “wrongly” if you were wondering), we have spurned Usmanov’s billions and Silent Stan does not want to put his to work. Our self-sustaining model therefore requires an exceptional match-day income just to cover our wage-bill. In part, that is because of Wenger’s champagne socialist approach to the wage-structure. Just think what we are going to spend in February on the wages of Denilson, Bendtner, Chamakh, Djourou and Park – none of whom are likely to play for us again, but all of whom are on such big contracts that nobody in their right mind would match their salaries. However, as Arsène said, the wage inflation of recent seasons is also in large part down to the sugar daddy business model started by Chelsea and taken to a whole new level by City themselves.
In no other business, in no other industry, can mediocrity be as richly rewarded as it is at City. Players who get nowhere near their first team are suddenly on money that would make a banker blush. The trickle-down effect is that we are held over a barrel by the likes of Walcott for £5m plus a year. Don’t get me wrong; I think Theo is having a good season and I hope he stays. Still, the sums just do not add up and with UEFA already back-sliding on financial fair play, it shows no signs of changing. I would suggest, therefore, that the City fans who have been complaining about Arsenal so vociferously this week would be better off looking to their own players, many of whom are directly responsible for the amount we have to charge them in order to make ends meet. Some of their reserves could pay for their entire ticket allocation out of their weekly wage packet.
So, as I say, feel a little sympathy for the City fans, but not too much. It is their club that is the worst culprit in indulging the worst excesses in our game, which in turn has led to the £62 match ticket. It’s us Arsenal fans that I really feel sorry for. At least City fans have a good chance of being rewarded with a trophy or two in exchange for their pound of flesh.
