Connect with us

Published

on

Spending a fair chunk on going to see your favourite big artist is not new – but it certainly feels like concert prices have entered a new stratosphere.

Fans of Bruce Springsteen have paid upwards of £120 for “rear pitch” standing tickets for his May 2024 tour, while some expressed disappointment recently over the £145 price tag of standing tickets for Billie Eilish’s 2025 UK leg.

And while you could have nabbed Beyonce or Taylor Swift tickets in the UK for £50 (before fees) if you took a “nosebleed” seat, these had limited availability and quickly sold out. General admission standing tickets for Swift’s Eras tour – which comes to the UK next week – started at £110.40 and those at the front had to shell out £172.25. It didn’t stop there – by the time many fans got to the front of the online ticket queue, the only tickets left cost upwards of £300.

So what’s behind rising ticket costs? The Money blog investigates some of the reasons…

Fans willing to pay for big spectacles

Simply put, ticket prices would come down if people voted with their feet.

Matt Hanner, booking agent and operations director at Runway, said prices at the top level had “risen considerably” – but the increase was partly being driven by demand.

“We’re seeing a lot more stadium shows, greenfield, outdoor festival-type shows which are now a staple of towns around the country,” he said.

“There’s a growing number of people that are happy to spend a large chunk of their disposable income on going to a major music event.”

Read more:
‘Heartsick’ Jennifer Lopez cancels tour
Mike Tyson v Jake Paul bout postponed
Model sues Cannes Film Festival over alleged red carpet assault

Jon Collins, chief executive of LIVE, the trade body representing the UK’s live music industry, had a similar view.

He said there were more large-scale shows and tours now than ever, and there was “massive appetite” among music lovers for “bigger spectacles”.

Fancy shows mean higher costs – with staffing, the price of the venue, transport, artists’ needs, insurance and loads more to factor in.

Of course, all these things are affected by inflation. Collins said ticket prices also factored in the rising costs that had hit every venue from the grassroots scene to major arenas.

“You’ve got a couple of different factors – you’ve got the spectacle of the show and the production cost and everything that goes into the ticket price. But then you’ve also got the fundamentals,” he said.

The cost of venue hire has increased “significantly” in the past couple of years due to electricity and gas price rises, he added.

“You’ve got the increase in the cost of people… very justifiable costs like increases in minimum wage and living wage. At every stage of the process we’ve got these cost increases that will all push through the pressure on the ticket price.”

Beyonce performing in Cardiff. Pic: Cover Images via AP
Image:
Beyonce performing in Cardiff. Pic: Cover Images via AP

Are artists being greedy?

How much money artists really earn off live touring is of interest to many – but the music industry is generally reluctant to release details.

The people we spoke to suggested it was not as simple as artist greed because, as we mentioned earlier, there’s a lot to pay for before anything reaches their bank accounts.

The Guardian spoke to anonymous insiders about this topic in 2017. Its report suggested that between 50-70% of gross earnings were left for promoters and artists. The piece also cited a commonly quoted figure that the promoter takes 15% of what is left and the act will get 85%.

It all depends on the calibre of the artist and how much work the promoter has had to put in – they could end up with a bigger share if it was a hard push to get the show sold.

The people we spoke to said music acts and their teams would discuss the ticket price, and the bigger the act, the more sway they have – but it’s ultimately set by the promoter.

Taylor Swift – arguably the biggest popstar on the planet right now – is personally earning between $10m and $13m (£8m – £10.5m) on every stop of her Eras Tour, according to Forbes. She is reported to take home a whopping 85% of all revenue from the tour.

But it’s worth pointing out, too, that she’s been known to be generous with her cash, having given $100,000 bonuses to the dozens of lorry drivers working on the tour.

What have other artists said?

Some artists have been critical of the high ticket prices being demanded by others.

Tom Grennan told ITV two years ago that he had seen “loads of artists putting tickets out that are way too expensive for the times that we are in”, adding that he wanted people to enjoy shows without worrying if they could pay their bills.

Singer-songwriter Paul Heaton was also praised for capping ticket prices for his tour with Jacqui Heaton at £30 in a bid to tackle music industry “greed” and help people during the cost of living.

British star Yungblud recently announced his own music festival, Bludfest – saying the industry was too expensive and needed to be “shaken up”.

“I believe that gigs are too expensive, festivals are too expensive, and I just wanted to work to create something that has been completely done by me,” he told Sky News.

Read more:
Think twice before buying your holiday clothes from Zara
Can my mortgage lender end my two-year fix if I haven’t been in the house for two years?

Meanwhile, frequent Swift collaborator Jack Antonoff has said “dynamic pricing” by ticket sale sites such as Ticketmaster was also an issue when it came to cost.

He told Stereogum that he wanted artists to be able to opt out of the system – which basically means ticket prices increase when a show is in demand – and be able to sell them at the price they choose.

On its website, Ticketmaster describes its “Platinum” tickets as those that have their price adjusted according to supply and demand.

It says the goal of the dynamic pricing system is to “give fans fair and safe access to the tickets, while enabling artists and other people involved in staging live events to price tickets closer to their true market value”.

The company claims it is artists, their teams and promoters who set pricing and choose whether dynamic pricing is used for their shows.

Coldplay's 2022 tour. Pic: PA
Image:
Coldplay’s 2022 tour. Pic: PA

Ticketing website fees

As well as dynamic pricing, “sneaky” fees by online ticket sites are also causing issues for live music lovers, according to the consumer champion Which?.

A report from the group last month said an array of fees that isn’t seen until checkout can add around 20% to the cost of concert and festival tickets.

Which? has urged a crackdown on the “bewildering” extra charges, which include booking, “delivery” and “transaction” fees, venue charges and sometimes charges for e-tickets.

The Cure lead singer Robert Smith tweeted that he was “sickened” after fans complained last year about processing fees on Ticketmaster that wound up costing more than the ticket itself in some cases.

Responding to the Which? findings, Ticketmaster (which was far from the only company named) said: “Fees are typically set by and shared with our clients… who all invest their skill, resource and capital into getting an event off the ground. Ticketmaster supports legislation that requires all-in pricing across the industry.”

Live Nation and Ticketmaster sued over ‘dominance’

The US government is suing Ticketmaster owner Live Nation over allegations the company is “monopolising” the live events industry.

Justice department officials said it was unfair for the firm to control around 70% of primary ticketing for concerts in America.

Live Nation has been accused of using lengthy contracts to prevent venues from choosing rival ticket companies, blocking venues from using multiple ticket sellers and threatening venues that they could lose money and support if Ticketmaster wasn’t the chosen seller.

Live Nation said the lawsuit reflected a White House that had turned over competition enforcement “to a populist urge that simply rejects how antitrust law works”.

“Some call this ‘anti-monopoly’, but in reality it is just anti-business,” it said.

And it said its share of the market had been shrinking and its profit margin of 1.4% was the “opposite of monopoly power”.

The lawsuit “won’t solve the issues fans care about relating to ticket prices, service fees and access to in-demand shows”, the company said.

“We will defend against these baseless allegations, use this opportunity to shed light on the industry and continue to push for reforms that truly protect consumers and artists.”

Billie Eilish performs in Paris. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Billie Eilish performs in Paris. Pic: Reuters

As well as reportedly controlling most of the ticketing market, Live Nation also owns and represents some acts and venues.

Canadian artist Dan Mangan told Moneywise this was enabling the company to take “more and more of the pie”.

He said when venue rent, equipment and other costs were taken into account, lesser known artists could take as little as 20% of ticket sales.

VAT

Another major cost on tickets in the UK is VAT (value added tax).

At 20%, it’s pretty hefty. It was brought down to 5% and then 12.5% as the live music industry was hampered by COVID, but returned to the pre-pandemic level in April 2022.

The charge puts the UK “out of step” with other countries, Collins said.

“In competitive major markets like France, it’s 5%. Germany it’s 7%, Italy it’s 10%. Sales tax in the US is typically 6% or 7%. So we are significantly out of step with other markets when it comes to how much VAT we charge on tickets,” he said.

Touring now bigger source of income for major stars

With the decline of physical products and the rise of subscription listening, artists are earning less from making music – and income from live shows has become more important for the biggest stars.

Writer and broadcaster Paul Stokes said major stars who would have toured infrequently in the past were now willing to put on more shows as it becomes increasingly profitable.

Some artists will even pencil in multiple nights at huge venues like Wembley Arena, he said – something that wouldn’t have been considered two decades ago.

“When Wembley was built and they said ‘we’ll be doing regular shows’ you’d think ‘are there acts big enough to fill this massive stadium?’

“It’s become absolutely part of the live calendar that artists will come and play not just one night at Wembley, but two or three every every summer.”

Stokes said this demand has also prompted the scale of shows that we’ve become used to seeing, featuring expensive production and pyrotechnics.

Pic: iStock
Image:
Pic: iStock

Not being felt evenly

While a night out seeing a platinum-selling artist is likely to be an expensive affair, industry figures are also keen to point out that the escalation in ticket prices isn’t necessarily happening at a lower level.

Collins said that while major stars were putting on arena shows, there would be plenty of other live music taking place at the same time, “from the free pub gig to the £10 ticket at the grassroots venue, to the £30 mid-cap”.

“There’s an absolute range of opportunities for people to experience live music, from free through to experiencing the biggest stars on the planet,” he said.

But concertgoers choosing to save their cash for artists they’re more familiar with may have led to a “suppression” of prices for lesser-known acts, Hanner noted.

“Everyone’s short of disposable income because there’s a cost of living crisis. [Artists’ and promoters’] core costs are going up as well, so it’s more expensive for everyone. That fear of pricing people out is just being compounded,” he said.

“I think [that] has definitely led to prices being suppressed [at the lower level], when really they should have been going up.”

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Prince William tells John Cleese his kids have just discovered Fawlty Towers

Published

on

By

Prince William tells John Cleese his kids have just discovered Fawlty Towers

Prince William wasn’t close to being born when Fawlty Towers first aired – but now even his children have fallen in love with it.

The Prince of Wales, 43, revealed his kids’ love of the classic British sitcom – which first aired in 1975 – during a conversation with star John Cleese.

The pair shared a few words at the Tusk Conservation Awards at London’s Savoy Hotel on Wednesday night, which honoured those safeguarding the habitats and animals of Africa.

William told Cleese they were having “a lot of family laughs” watching the show, and his children “love it”.

The Prince of Wales and John Cleese were among those attending the Tusk Conservation Awards. Pics: PA
Image:
The Prince of Wales and John Cleese were among those attending the Tusk Conservation Awards. Pics: PA

The future king said he has also been “reminiscing” on the series and enjoying it “all over again”.

“It’s brilliant,” he added.

After their chat, Cleese said of Fawlty Towers: “I always explain it’s about ‘who’s scared of who’ and kids pick that up immediately. And mine, all those years ago, grew up watching it.”

Read more from Sky News:
Reeves facing more questions over budget
Trump condemns ‘monstrous’ shooting in DC

The veteran comic actor – an ambassador of the trust – was joined by his wife Jennifer Wade, and fellow ambassador Ronnie Wood, the Rolling Stones guitarist.

Other guests were Zara Tindall and husband Mike, and William’s cousins Lady Amelia and Lady Eliza Spencer.

Winners included Laban Mwangi, a head ranger working in Kenya; Rahima Njaidi, who has established a Tanzanian community-led forest conservation network; and Kumara Wakjira, who was honoured for his work in Ethiopia.

William said they “should inspire us to drive change”.

He added: “If we all want to continue to enjoy and benefit from the wonders of the natural world we must not be the generation that stands by as wildlife and biodiversity disappears.

“What we choose to do will have an impact on future generations, and tonight we must choose to do more.”

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Sexual assault civil trials against Kevin Spacey set for next year

Published

on

By

Sexual assault civil trials against Kevin Spacey set for next year

Kevin Spacey is set to face civil trials at the High Court later next year, over separate lawsuits filed by three men who have accused him of sexual assault.

A man called Ruari Cannon, who has waived his right to anonymity, and two other claimants who have not, alleged they were abused by the Hollywood actor at times between 2000 and 2015.

They are taking legal action at the High Court against Spacey, while Mr Cannon is also bringing action against London’s Old Vic theatre. The actor was artistic director there between 2004 and 2015.

Spacey, 66, has denied allegations of wrongdoing. He has formally denied two of the claims and is yet to file a defence to the court in the third, which was submitted in September.

In 2023, Spacey was acquitted of nine sex offences relating to four men in a criminal trial.

At a preliminary hearing for the civil cases at the High Court on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Lambert set a provisional three-week window for all three to be heard there in October 2026.

She said it is still to be determined whether the claims are heard in a single trial, or in three consecutive trials.

Lawyers had made arguments for and against hearing the cases together.

Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel KC, representing Mr Cannon and the other two claimants, known as LNP and GHI, said in written submissions that hearing the cases together would prevent Spacey and witnesses from having to give evidence more than once.

William McCormick KC, representing Spacey, said the case brought by the man known as LNP should be heard in the county court, separate from that of Mr Cannon and the third man.

Kevin Spacey pictured in Venice in August 2025. Pic: Invision/AP
Image:
Kevin Spacey pictured in Venice in August 2025. Pic: Invision/AP

In written submissions, he said: “On a rational analysis, the only common feature is Kevin Spacey.

“The fact that he met, or in the case of Cannon, is said to have met, each claimant in the context of his work at the Old Vic takes matters no further.

“The circumstances of the alleged assaults are markedly different and occur many years apart.”

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Why seven household names – including Prince Harry – are suing one of Britain’s biggest media groups

Published

on

By

Why seven household names - including Prince Harry - are suing one of Britain's biggest media groups

Prince Harry and six other household names are suing the publishers of the Daily Mail newspaper over alleged unlawful information gathering dating back 30 years.

The case has been ongoing since 2022 and is just one of several Harry has filed against media organisations since 2019 over alleged breaches of privacy, unlawful practices and false stories.

Associated Newspapers (ANL) – which also publishes The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline – strongly denies any wrongdoing.

A full trial is not expected to start at London’s High Court until January, but a pre-trial hearing, which helps manage the case and resolve any outstanding issues, is set to take place today.

Here is everything you need to know about the case.

What’s alleged?

The alleged unlawful acts are said to have taken place from 1993 to 2011, including the publisher hiring private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside cars and homes and paying police officials for inside information.

When bringing the lawsuit in 2022, lawyers for the claimants said they had become aware of “highly distressing” evidence revealing they had been victims of “abhorrent criminal activity” and “gross breaches of privacy” by Associated Newspapers.

Associated Newspapers denies the allegations, describing them as “preposterous smears”, and claims the legal action is “a fishing expedition by [the] claimants and their lawyers”.

The accusations include:

• The hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside people’s cars and homes;

• The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen into and record people’s live, private telephone calls while they were taking place;

• The payment of police officials, with corrupt links to private investigators, for inside, sensitive information;

• The impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception;

• The accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation.

Pic: iStock
Image:
Pic: iStock

Who else is involved?

While Prince Harry is one of the key players, as a group litigation, he is not the only claimant.

The others include:

• Actress Elizabeth Hurley
• Actress Sadie Frost
• Sir Elton John and his husband, filmmaker David Furnish
• Baroness Doreen Lawrence, mother of Stephen Lawrence
• Former Liberal Democrat politician Sir Simon Hughes

Sadie Frost. Pic: PA
Image:
Sadie Frost. Pic: PA

Baroness Doreen Lawrence. Pic: AP
Image:
Baroness Doreen Lawrence. Pic: AP

They all allege they have been victims of “abhorrent criminal activity” and “gross breaches of privacy” by ANL.

David Sherborne is the lawyer representing all the claimants.

Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish (below). Pic: AP
Image:
Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish (below). Pic: AP

Pic: AP
Image:
Pic: AP

What happened in 2023?

During a preliminary hearing in March 2023, Judge Matthew Nicklin was tasked with ruling whether the case can proceed to trial.

ANL had asked for the case to be struck out entirely, arguing the legal challenges against it were brought “far too late”, but David Sherborne called for the publisher’s application to be dismissed.

Lawyers for the publishers said the claims fell outside the statute of limitations – a law indicating that privacy claims should be brought with six years – and the claimants should have known, or could have found out, they had a potential case before October 2016.

Prince Harry at the High Court in 2023
Image:
Prince Harry at the High Court in 2023

They also argued some aspects of the cases should be thrown out as they breach orders made by Lord Justice Leveson as part of his 2011 inquiry into media standards.

During the hearing, a number of the claimants attended the High Court, including Prince Harry, to the surprise of the British media.

Witness statements from all seven claimants were also released. The duke’s statement said he is bringing the claim “because I love my country” and remains “deeply concerned” by the “unchecked power, influence and criminality” of the publisher.

“If the most influential newspaper company can successfully evade justice, then in my opinion the whole country is doomed,” he said.

On 10 November 2023, Mr Justice Nicklin gave the go-ahead for the case to go to trial, saying ANL had “not been able to deliver a ‘knockout blow’ to the claims of any of these claimants”.

What’s happened since?

Earlier this year, lawyers for the claimants sought to amend their case to add a swathe of new allegations for the trial.

They argued that they should be allowed to rely on evidence that they said showed the Mail was involved in targeting Kate, the Princess of Wales.

However, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled this allegation was brought too late before trial.

In a further development in November, the High Court heard that a key witness in the case, private investigator Gavin Burrows, claimed his signature on a statement confirming alleged hacking had taken place, was forged.

Lawyer David Sherborne is representing all the claimants
Image:
Lawyer David Sherborne is representing all the claimants

In the statement from 2021, Mr Burrows allegedly claimed to have hacked voicemails, tapped landlines, and accessed financial and medical information at the request of a journalist at the Mail On Sunday.

The statement was important, as five of the seven claimants involved in the case told the court they embarked on legal action against ANL based on evidence apparently obtained by Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows previously retracted his statement in 2023, but the court heard he reiterated the denial to ANL’s lawyers in September this year.

It is now up to the claimant’s lawyer Mr Sherborne to decide if he still wants to call Mr Burrows as a witness for the trial.

Mr Justice Nicklin previously said if Mr Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

Could the case end before going to trial?

In short, yes.

During pre-trial reviews, cases can either be settled or dismissed from court in both civil and criminal cases, meaning no trial will take place.

This happened in Harry’s case against News Group Newspapers (NGN), which publishes The Sun. The duke made similar accusations about NGN, which involved unlawful information gathering by journalists and private investigators.

Before an up-to 10-week trial began earlier this year, it was announced both sides had “reached an agreement” and that NGN had offered an apology to Harry and would pay “substantial damages”.

The settlement was reported to be worth more than £10m, mostly in legal fees.

Another of Harry’s legal cases, this time against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) over accusations of historical phone hacking, did go to trial.

The trial saw Harry take to the witness box, making him the first senior royal to give evidence in a courtroom since the 19th century.

In December 2023, the Honourable Mr Justice Fancourt concluded that the duke’s phone had been hacked “to a modest extent” between 2003 and 2009, and 15 of 33 articles he complained about were the product of unlawful techniques.

He was awarded £140,600 in damages. During a further hearing in February 2024 a settlement was reached between Harry and MGN over the remaining parts of his claim.

If the ANL trial does go ahead early next year, it is unknown if Harry will travel to London to attend.

Continue Reading

Trending