Analysis: The concert ticket market is on trial in a current court case in the US, but the real problem extends well beyond Ticketmaster
By Catarina Marvão, UCD
If you've ever tried to get tickets for an in-demand live show in Ireland, you didn't just buy a concert ticket, but entered a system where prices moved, queues stalled and options quietly disappeared. As a jury in New York currently deliberates on the fate of Live Nation, the global entertainment giant who've owned Ticketmaster since 2010, that experience is at the centre of one of the most significant antitrust cases in years.
The case itself centres on allegations by the US Department of Justice that Live Nation used its position to maintain dominance in concert promotion and ticketing. The claim is not just that the company is large, but that it has used its control over key parts of the live music industry — including promotion, control of venues and ticketing through Ticketmaster — to limit competition. It includes accusations that venues are discouraged from switching to rival ticketing platforms if they want continued access to major tours. Live Nation disputes these claims, arguing that the industry remains competitive.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, Ticketmaster are one of the companies who prompted the most complaints to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission in 2024
Notably, the legal path has not been straightforward. In early March, Live Nation reached a settlement with the DOJ, but several states chose to continue the case independently and push it to trial. This is highly unusual and suggests that concerns about how this market operates are not easily resolved through negotiated commitments alone. The jury’s task is now to decide whether this conduct crosses the line from scale into anti-competitive behaviour.
Consumer choice
This case is not just about high prices or frustrating queues, but about something more fundamental: why competition is not working in a market where, on paper, it should. The live music industry certainly appears to be competitive. There are many venues, different promoters and several ticketing platforms aside from Ticketmaster such as AXS, Eventbrite, SeatGeek etc. If there is competition, prices should be pushed down and consumers are not locked into a single provider.
But the reality is different. Live Nation promotes tours, operates venues, manages acts and sells the tickets to the very events it puts on. Competition weakens when the same company sits across these layers.
From the Wall Street Journal, how Live Nation is devouring the live music industry
If you want the biggest artists, you need the biggest promoters. If you want those promoters, you often end up within the same ticketing system. By the time tickets go on sale, most of the meaningful choices have already been made.
The price of your ticket
This structure is most visible in pricing. Tickets for some events can appear on Ticketmaster at one price, then rise sharply through "dynamic pricing". Fees appear late in the process. Two fans may pay very different amounts for the same event within minutes. When firms don’t face (strong) competition, pricing becomes strategic — adjusted in real time, and tailored to demand.
A simple test of competition is this: if you don’t like the price, can you go somewhere else? In the live music market, the answer is often no.
For many Irish consumers, the Oasis tickets' fiasco in 2024 made this impossible to ignore. Prices surged well beyond initial expectations. Availability disappeared quickly. For most fans, there was no meaningful alternative as no rival platform were offering the same tickets under different conditions. The frustration wasn't just about cost, but about a lack of control.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, why are some people happy to pay 'dynamic' prices to see a band like Oasis?
Why competition struggles to emerge
It is tempting to think that a new entrant could simply offer a better service and disrupt the market, and this is where the structure matters. But a competing platform does not just need lower fees or better technology. It needs access to major venues, relationships with top artists, promoters and agents and a large base of users — and all of this at the same time. Without artists, venues won’t switch. Without venues or artists, consumers won’t join. Without consumers, artists and venues won’t move. This coordination problem makes entry difficult, even when consumers are unhappy.
The Live Nation case matters because it recognises that the issue is about structure and not simply dominance in one market. When a firm operates across promotion, venues and ticketing, it can shape how competition unfolds across the entire ecosystem.
This kind of vertically integrated structure is becoming more common in digital platforms, marketplaces and app ecosystems. Apple controls the App Store and the terms on which apps reach users. Amazon runs a marketplace while competing against the sellers on it. Google combines dominance in search and control over advertising and its own services.
From NBC's Today Show, internal messages show two ticketing employees at Live Nation joking about trying to "gouge" fans with high ticket prices and charges
What needs to change?
We know that the experience buying tickets for our favourite live act feels frustrating, but could it realistically feel any different in today's market? If competition cannot reach the consumer at the point of purchase, then the problem isn’t the checkout page but everything that came before it.
The outcome of the US court case could range from changing behaviour to changing structure. Rules about pricing transparency or contract terms may provide clarity, but will not necessarily lower prices. More fundamental remedies, such as separating different parts of the business, are more difficult, but they go directly to the source of the problem.
Follow RTÉ Brainstorm on WhatsApp and Instagram for more stories and updates
Dr. Catarina Marvão is an Assistant Professor in the School of Business at UCD, affiliated Faculty at the Stockholm School of Economics and a Research Affiliate at the Central Bank of Ireland.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
