Why City fans are unhappy

Last week Manchester City announced an average season ticket price rise of five per cent — with some as high as 11 per cent

During conversations between The Athletic and supporters’ groups, complaints about the club’s ticket costs have crossed over into other concerns, including:

Limited impact of fan feedback at the club
Increased ticket prices and controversial sales criteria for matches
Flat atmospheres at the Etihad Stadium
A boycott of the official ticket resale platform
Concerns about the new ‘flexi-gold’ season ticket initiative
Increase to a minimum-attendance clause on season tickets

All four main City fan groups — the Official Supporters Club, the 1894 Group, MCFC Fans Foodbank Support (FFS) and City Matters, the club’s fan engagement programme — voiced their opposition to the increases.

Justifying the decision to increase the cost of season tickets, City pointed out that they offer season tickets starting at £120 for under-18s, enabling younger fans easier access to matches.

The increase in prices is put down to rising operating costs connected to inflation and City say that, on average, the price increases amount to £2.30 per match for adult season ticket holders and under £1 for juniors.

That is a price that most fans are prepared to pay, begrudgingly or otherwise. Many believe that the quality of football — with the team winning three Premier League titles in a row, and a treble of trophies last season — justifies the rise.

It is a common view among the fanbase that, with those record profits in mind, City could have frozen ticket prices because the impact on supporters far outweighs the impact on the club.

A spokesperson for 1894 says: “They’re making a huge profit and this would have been an easy win to keep fans onside.

Some estimates suggest that even if every season ticket went up by £50, the club would stand to generate just under £2m in extra income, which represents about 0.25 per cent of total revenues and is deemed, by some fans, insignificant compared to the goodwill that freezing prices would generate.

In the boardroom, where executives are charged with growing revenues, that kind of increase would be welcomed, and the reality behind City’s decision is that they are running a business.

Despite income from prize money and sponsorships soaring, City still make less money from matchdays than their rivals. That is likely to be the case for some time yet given the London clubs can charge far greater sums due to the economics of living in the capital. As for United and Liverpool, they have massive global fanbases that City cannot yet rival.

The other reality of the situation is that many other Premier League clubs have announced price increases for next season, knowing that most fans will pay if they have the money. Those who can’t afford to go to City matches any more, or attempt to make a stand for better conditions, as demonstrated at Wembley last summer, will be replaced by those who can.

A week on from the decision to increase prices, there is also annoyance among supporters that City are yet to explain their decision or engage in further conversation about

Wolves get raw deal from FFP

I used to see a lifelong Wolves fan for lunch once a month. He was approaching ninety, but still went to games. Sadly he passed away the other week. As football finance guru Kieran Maguire has noted, Wolves continue to be constrained by financial fair play rules. Radio 4 this morning described them as this year's 'crisis club' and the pessimists have certainly been piling in. Martin Samuel wrote sympathetically in the Sunday Times yesterday, saying that the Premier League drives talent away with regulatory red tape: 'Why could Al-Hilal sign Neves? Because Wolves needed the money. And why did Wolves need the money? Because the club had to comply with an artificial construct known as financial fair play. So Wolves are going skint, yes? No. There is no suggestion that Wolves are in financial trouble, only that they are failing to meet the rigours of FFP. Wolves’ owners appear to have the money to run the club, and invest in the club, and in fact came up with a pow

Gold standard ground boosts Tottenham's income

The gold standard in European football grounds is the Tottenham Hotspur stadium in north London, a £1bn construction project completed in 2019. Its impact on the club’s finances has become increasingly clear as the effects of the pandemic have faded. Previously, the average fan would spend less than £2 inside the ground on a typical match day, but now that figure is about £16, thanks to new facilities including the longest bar in Europe and an on-site microbrewery. Capacity has gone up from 36,000 at the club’s previous home of White Hart Lane to 62,000. The new stadium — built on land adjacent to White Hart Lane — has opened the door to a broad range of other events that have helped to push commercial income up from €117mn in 2018 to €215mn in 2022. Last year, Tottenham hosted US singer Beyoncé for five nights on her global Renaissance tour, two NFL matches, as well as rugby games and heavyweight boxing bouts. Money brought in from football has gone up too. Match day income is

Charlton takeover approved

The long awaited takeover of Charlton Athletic by SE7 Partners from Thomas Sandgaard has been approved: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/se7-partners-obtain-efl-approval-for-charlton-athletic-takeover/ Charlton have had unhappy experiences with owners for over a decade, so how this works out will remain to be seen. There is certainly potential there, but will it be realised? This interview with Charlie Methven gives detail not available elsewhere: https://thecharltondossier.com/charlie-methven-on-the-record/

The Political Economy of Football V2

Search This Blog