Fan organisations call for a halt on Premier League ticket price rises

I'm sure clubs will find a way round it anyway with different 'extras' added in to make a non-standard retail price, and some (eg, Man City) may even sue the Premier League for restriction of trade given the rules concerning wages-to-turnover ratios.

I remember listening to Talk Sport, and Manchester City fans were getting slaughtered by the callers and the presenters because they never sold out a Champions League game at the Etihad.

The working class people of Manchester, people who had stuck with their football club through many a dark day, were actually getting slaughtered because not enough of them were prepared to pay over £50 to watch their team play.

The presenters and a few of the fans of our neighbours and City's neighbours were ringing up to give City fans stick but I suppose those two clubs are different because they have a lot more day trippers who are trying to tick off another of their bucket list items.

To make sure that the powers that be listen, then all's I think that is needed is a little bit of solidarity but I wouldn't hold my breath though because I think the Premier League is awash with greed.

For many a long year on this website we've had fans bemoaning that the football they watch is no longer a sport and has become a business. In truth, it began as a sport in the late 19th Century but quickly transitioned into a business. It's been a business ever since... and businesses have to make money -- a fundamental truth this socialist government is doing its best to convince us is not the case, and that they can be bled dry.

Charging ticket prices for what the market will bear is a basic principle of the free market economy (aka capitalism) that must be an affront to the working class fans who are asking these businesses to give them special treatment in the form of a little welfare and social levelling-up by freezing the prices they have to pay.

They may be successful in their quest but it appears that demand exceeds supply with typically high attendance numbers at all Premier League games, so prices will naturally reflect this reality.

But the less reliant the clubs become on their matchday income, the more a case might be made for social welfare price control of this nature. I can see them doing it for a limited portion of their home ground capacity. while charging as much as the market will bear for 'premium' seating and hospitality.

Which socialist government is this, Michael? Stay out of politics if the limit of your understanding is to call the Labour government 'socialist'. Are you mad, or American. Or both?

First time I've posted on the new betting site. Quite possibly the last.

A lot turns on how one defines socialism. A number of historians quoted Herbert Morrison's argument that 'socialism is what a Labour government does'. It confirms the view that the party has never been doctrinaire or ideological. Indeed, its ideology is best described (as some historians do) as 'Labourism' rather than 'Socialism'.

Other historians view Labour as social democratic in essence. Daniel Pitt (Sheffield) views the ideology of Labour as complex, made up of a variety of elements: 'conservatism, trade unionism, social democracy and modern liberalism'. Andrew Seaton (UCL) also observes that these ideologies have never been fixed but are adapted and revised in different historical circumstances.

Stephen Brooke argues that 'The 1945 government came closest to fulfilling the commitments in its own manifesto that were explicitly democratic socialist' but later governments had to hide socialist moves through forms of governance that were not explicitly socialist. The focus of the Wilson and Blair governments on education and on child poverty (see below) might be viewed as part of this process.

New Labour practised mild forms of redistribution by stealth and depoliticised some economic levers (such as making the Bank of England independent).

On the whole, historians tended to feel Labour has not been truly socialist. Instead, from the 1950s, Labour has broadly subscribed to Tony Crosland's revisionism in The Future of Socialism (1956) that nationalisation was less important as a vehicle for socialism than the promotion of equality.

Micheal is right though in saying that business is there just to pay more taxes to them and not make a profit. And labour convinced enough voters to believe they still had socialist ideals -- they haven't, and are as corrupt as the Tories.

I tend to agree with your last sentence. But, if we are to follow our dreams, perhaps Labour 365 or similar is the way forward.

Or could that lose many members?

Agree, it depends on the definition of Socialism Democracism.

That 1945 German regime, altough a unique & evil stain on history, was closely aligned politically with the Baviarian Social Democrats in their Bavarian stronghold. Fundamentally conservative, which continues today alongside it's Bavarian sister party.

Possibly the closest example in the UK, is the Tory - DUP relationship.

The worst has to be the National Socialist Workers Party, sounds left wing but was obviously the Nazis. Christian Democrats? Christian Social Union?

Like all political parties apart from the Greens, [remember Petra Kelly in the '80s?] everyone is in it to make money.

Apart from Andy Burnham, we hope.

I can't see an organised drop in prices across the board though, the demand is too great. We no longer have them by the balls. The bigger the game becomes, the less they need us.

Just look at West Ham, the board there no longer even address their fans, they talk to the wider football community. If the atmosphere in West Ham's ground is dire, as long as they don't get relegated, the Board will put up with non-West Ham fans buying the tickets.

The 'less reliant' bit in my last paragraph @3 was my clumsy attempt to reflect what I think is a valid point in the FSA letter, that the massive and continued rise in non-matchday income could allow the clubs to be a little more generous to those fans who may be struggling financially.

But then I forget we're talking here to a whole generation that would pride itself on 'bunking in' whenever they could. Perhaps this is a reaction to how much more difficult that feat of selfish theft is to accomplish these days!

Your turn to Germany has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution or otherwise of British socialism. Why even mention Adolf and the gang in this particular context?

You've moved us a million miles from ticket prices! But I hope that for you and everyone else that ticket prices are put on hold, but I doubt it. I think the Premier League can intervene.

Am I right, Danny, in thinking that it was the Premier League who imposed the £30 away ticket or am I just imagining or forgetting?

Now as for politics... (Think I'll steer clear of that one!)

It could start a whole new discussion or take this article down a different route, “so you can then move it onto a different page” when you use the word 'selfish' to describe a person who will go to any lengths (except being ripped off) to make sure they get into the ground to watch their football team.

Remember when we used to get to cup finals years ago? Remember when the people who rarely went the game always ended up with cup final tickets?

I do, and their lack of shame at turning up like seasoned veterans, when some seasoned veterans were not so lucky, used to make me feel sick.

Paul@11, the movement was called “twenty is plenty” (£20) for all away fans, when you consider the cost of the expenditure for the whole day, but the clubs, held out for £30.

Greedy bastards that they are, it wasn't long before a lot of clubs started reducing the ticket allocation for away fans.

My son and his friends were staying in Cologne and got free travel to a Schalke game in Gelsenkirchen, and he was telling me a German lad on the train, on hearing their accent, said I suppose it doesn't matter anyway because you scousers hate paying for things you don't have to!

(I made that last bit up for Michael, but the kid had studied in Liverpool, and was laughing because he reckoned that a German company owned a large part of our railways, but they weren't being as generous to the English in our homeland.)

I think the requirement for 10% or at least 3,000 tickets to be made available for away fans has stood for a long time.

Premier League rules prevent clubs from reducing the away allocation (outside of safety requirements) for reasons like wanting more home fans to pay for higher priced tickets.

You have just brought me one another reason why the game isn't fair, because PSR is all about percentages but those percentages change when it comes to the bigger stadiums, and the mandatory 3,000 away fans suddenly becomes the law.

It is a mandatory requirement among Premier League clubs. I don't think you have any proof for what you are claiming.

This is just a case of you trying to justify your perennial claims of 'greed', which quite frankly are becoming tiresome.

I certainly get your point about City, prices and the "Emptyhad". But at the same time, I lived in Manchester for a few years in the 90s. They used to get around 30,000 every week. Then they dropped down two divisions and still got around 30,000 every week.

That is their core and they're loyal but they never really even in the topflight had long lines of people locked out seeking tickets. Their fan base is loyal but not as big as say Everton's.

So I think the empty seats are ones designed for fairweather fans they hoped to attract rather than being empty ones loyal fans forsook due to price hikes.

The problem with taxing the businesses is that some at the lower end will indeed suffer and there is no guarantee that the survivors will make up the loss on their finances by an equal suffering of the work force. Instead, it's likely to be the average Joe who takes the hit in both cases.

Society in general needs some judicious socialism to reduce wealth inequality, and the same principle could be applied to football supporters by reserving the bulk of ticket prices at a truly affordable level rather than constantly allowing unfettered ‘supply and demand' price out a section of society.

Mind you, I think they should have applied that principle to house prices decades ago and then all of us who aren't property developers, large-scale landlords, builders or bankers would be more comfortably off in general and probably able to spend more on our entertainment budget.

You do know that Walton, Liverpool 4, is one of the most deprived areas in the country? As a 16-year-old in 1984-85 I (and my parents) did not have the money to afford the sum of around £2.50 for each game and I am proud to say that I 'bunked in' to around 50% of Everton away games that season.

Once waged, I stopped that particular 'feat of selfish theft' and have paid my way, more or less, since. And I can safely say that for the last 40 years EFC have stolen more money from me that I ever did from them.

I don’t have to prove anything because whatever will be, will be, and I was just pointing out that the paltry sum of 3000 away fans, at the biggest grounds, is just like PSR itself, and another thing that suits the bigger clubs.

Honestly Michael, I was genuinely trying to get a little bit of sensible debate going on your website, because it’ has never been so tiresome! For old times sake, I tried my best but I don’t think I will be trying any harder.

Interesting Kieran, but I’m not sure that Everton, have got a much “bigger hardcore fanbase” than Manchester City. It’s not something I’ve ever seen for myself, if I’m being honest, although I do think that Everton, have got an amazing away following, which is possibly second to none, when you consider the rewards they have had over the last thirty years.