Which? has published findings that mislead the consumers they aim to protect. The analysis is built on a flawed premise: that listed prices on our marketplace reflect actual sales. This is not the case. The highest-priced listings on any marketplace are, by definition, those that have not yet sold. Listings priced out of line with demand are unlikely to convert unless prices are reduced. In other words, asking prices are not a reliable indicator of what people actually pay. The conclusions drawn from listings alone, rather than confirmed transactions, makes Which?’s findings inherently unreliable.
It is comparable to walking into a car dealership, adding up all the sticker prices, and presenting that total as the dealer’s profit without any evidence that a single car was sold. Such numbers may appear persuasive but without proof of actual sales they are meaningless.
This is concerning because consumers rely on organisations like Which? to distinguish clearly between evidence and assumption. When that distinction is blurred, it risks undermining trust and misinforming the public.
“Which? has drawn conclusions from cherry-picked data – aiming to write their own narrative – which is misleading, opaque and irresponsible”, said Frankie Mulqueen, Head of Government Relations at viagogo. “Listing prices are not transaction prices, and presenting them as such gives a distorted picture of what fans actually choose to pay.
“More importantly, this analysis ignores how the market really functions. The overwhelming majority of tickets (94%) are sold through primary platforms, where pricing and access are tightly controlled. Focusing on resale misses the root cause of the problem.
“Fans benefit from having safe, transparent resale options. Undermining those options based on flawed assumptions risks reducing choice and pushing consumers towards less secure alternatives.“
Key facts
- As of September 2025, nearly 30% of UK events on viagogo had average transaction prices under £50, and 84% under £100.
- Primary ticketing, dominated primarily by Ticketmaster, accounts for around 94% of the UK market, while resale represents roughly 6%.
- Since 2005, primary ticket prices in the UK have increased by approximately 280%.
- The UK’s proposed resale price cap is a gift for Ticketmaster and ignores the biggest issues fans face: dynamic pricing, bot abuse and broken queues.
- Price caps will push demand to social media where fans have no protection and cement Ticketmaster’s monopoly, giving it more power to control and raise prices.
- In Ireland, where price caps are in place, ticket fraud is four times higher than in the UK and prices are higher driven by a lack of competition that leaves a single dominant provider controlling supply. Ireland is now one of the most expensive markets to buy tickets in Europe.
Industry and Expert Opinions
- UK Finance – Represents 300 financial services including Lloyds, NatWest, HSBC and Barclays and has raised warnings against ticket price caps – Don’t cap resale prices of tickets, banks warn
“Any increase in fraud and scams as a result of an introduction of price caps and a migration of tout activity to unregulated online marketplaces will expose consumers to not only the financial burden of being a victim of fraud, but also the emotional harm of being defrauded.”
- Matthew Sinclair, Economist and Senior Director CCIA UK:
“It is worrying that regulation of the ticketing market, which is likely to leave consumers with fewer options and more exposed to fraud, might go ahead premised on what looks like obviously faulty analysis. It is entirely common for sellers in all kinds of online marketplaces to test the market before making a final sale at a price consumers can afford. Instead of exaggerating issues in secondary marketplaces, pushing regulation with worrying risks for the wider digital economy, the campaign would genuinely speak for the interests of consumers if it advocated for more balanced measures. The Government should encourage the original sellers of tickets, secondary marketplaces, and others involved to all do their bit to make buying and selling tickets a fairer and safer experience.”
- Dr Nicola Harding, Criminologist:
“Any serious assessment of ticket resale has to be based on actual sales, not just ambitious asking prices. The figures cited here appear to be built from listing data for a small group of high‑demand tours, then treated as if every ticket sells at the maximum advertised markup. That is a big leap, and not one supported by real‑world evidence where many tickets either never sell or are repriced closer to, or even below, face value.
The analysis also ignores the role of dynamic pricing on the primary market. In many cases we simply do not know a stable ‘face value’ for a specific ticket, because the primary price moves. Without transparency and interoperability from primary platforms, it is hard to see how any secondary marketplace could meaningfully police a price cap above face value. The most problematic pricing practices originate upstream in the primary market; secondary listings are often speculative reflections of that, not the root cause.”
- Prof. Michael Waterson, Emeritus Professor of Economics – Led UK government’s independent review into secondary ticketing:
“The history of price caps in other spheres is not a propitious one, particularly where the set of sellers is not well defined; people find their way around them. There is a question of who would enforce the cap and what resources they would employ.”
- Dave Eborne, Head of Fraud Operations at Revolut:
“Capping resale prices doesn’t necessarily prevent ticket scams from taking place altogether. This approach simply provides another platform for them to thrive, costing sports fans and local economies through increases in reported fraud. More intelligent, transparent regulation of the resale market, along with robust consumer education on the warning signs of ticket scams, are the only real solutions to protect fans amid the scramble.”
- Robert Shrimsley, Lead Political columnist at The Financial Times:
“Even as a concertgoing, computer-using supporter of a lowly football club, I have to wonder if it is the job of government to save me from disappointment, irritation or overpaying. The correct value of a concert ticket is what I am prepared to pay for it. If I cannot watch QPR, listen to Oasis or use a single cable, life will go on.“
- Saqib Bhatti MP for Meriden and Solihull East:
“New plans to crack down on online ticket touting “spivs” could push fans into a black market, a shadow minister has warned.
He warned proposed ticket resale price caps – limiting resale prices to a maximum 30% of the original retail price – could see “more money flowing into the pockets of ticket touts”.