Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Jürges, Hendrik / Ludwig, Sandra

Ed. by Auriol, Emmanuelle / Brunner, Johann / Fleck, Robert / Mastrobuoni, Giovanni / Mendola, Mariapia / Requate, Till / de Vries, Frans / Zulehner, Christine

4 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.306
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.492

CiteScore 2017: 0.50

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.414
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.531

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 13, Issue 2


Volume 6 (2006)

Volume 4 (2004)

Volume 2 (2002)

Volume 1 (2001)

Ticket Pricing and Scalping: A Game Theoretical Approach

Nelson Sá / Evsen Turkay
Published Online: 2013-09-06 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2013-0042


Ticket scalping is frequently related to the economic puzzle of underpricing by promoters. It is also disputed whether event promoters benefit from scalper participation or not. Our article explores two questions: can promoters benefit from scalpers’ activities and what are the resulting consumer welfare effects? We address these questions by developing a three period game where the secondary market is supported by an auction mechanism, interacting with primary market decisions. We find that participation by scalpers can lead to underpricing in the primary market and that this may benefit small or credit-constrained promoters. This requires the scalper’s discount factor to be higher than the promoter’s discount factor. The necessary premium on the discount factor increases with the fraction of early buyers and decreases with market size. Finally, the effect of scalper participation on aggregate consumer welfare is shown to be positive for a large enough market size or discount rate for the scalper.

Keywords: secondary markets; scalping; ticket pricing; consumer welfare


  • Becker, G. 1991. “A Note on Restaurant Pricing and Other Examples of Social Influences on Price.” Journal of Political Economy 99(5):1109–16.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bhave, A., and E. Budish. 2013. “Primary-Market Auctions for Event Tickets: Eliminating the Rents of ‘Bob the Broker’,” Working Paper.Google Scholar

  • Budnik, D., and J. Baron. 2011. Ticket Masters: The Rise of the Concert Industry and How the Public Got Scalped, 1st edn. Toronto, ON: ECW Press.Google Scholar

  • Carroll, J. 2011. “Is This the End of Unforeseen Circumstances?” The Irish Times, August 23. http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/ontherecord/2011/08/23/is-this-the-end-of-unforeseen-circumstances/.

  • Ciliberto, F., and C. Schenone. 2012. “Bankruptcy and Product-Market Competition: Evidence from the Airline Industry.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 30(6):564–77.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Courty, P. 2000. “An Economic Guide to Ticket Pricing in the Entertainment Industry.” Louvain Economic Review 66:167–92.Google Scholar

  • Courty, P. 2003a. “Some Economics of Ticket Resale.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17(2):85–97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Courty, P. 2003b. “Ticket Pricing Under Demand Uncertainty.” Journal of Law and Economics 46(2):627–52.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Depken, C. 2006. “Another Look at Anti-Scalping Laws: Theory and Evidence.” Public Choice 130(1):55–77.Google Scholar

  • DeSerpa, A., and R. Faith. 1996. “‘Bru-u-u-uce’: The Simple Economics of Mob Goods.” Public Choice 89(1/2):77–91.Google Scholar

  • Diamond, T. 1982. “Ticket Scalping: A New Look at an Old Problem.” University of Miami Law Review 37:71–92.Google Scholar

  • eBay. 2010. “Ticket Scalping: Ticket Onselling and Consumers Submission to the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council,” Australian Government, The Treasury. http://archive.treasury.gov.au/documents/1879/PDF/ebay_101007.pdf.

  • Elfenbein, D. 2006. “Do Anti-Ticket Scalping Laws Make a Difference Online? Evidence From Internet Sales on NFL Tickets”, Washington University Working Paper.Google Scholar

  • Happel, S., and M. Jennings. 1995. “The Folly of Anti-Scalping Laws.” Cato Journal 15(1):65–99.Google Scholar

  • Happel, S., and M. Jennings. 2002. “Creating a Futures Market for Major Event Tickets: Problems and Prospects.” Cato Journal 21(2):443–61.Google Scholar

  • Hendel, I. 1996. “Competition under Financial Distress.” Journal of Industrial Economics 44(3):309–24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hendel, I. 1997. “Aggressive Pricing as a Source of Funding.” Economics Letters 57(3):275–81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Karp, L., and J. Perloff. 2005. “When Promoters Like Scalpers.” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 14(2):477–508.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Krishna, V. 2009. Auction Theory. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Leslie, P., and A. Sorensen. 2009. “The Welfare Effects of Ticket Resale,” NBER Working Papers 15476.Google Scholar

  • Mulpuru, S. 2008. “The Future of US Online Secondary Ticket Sales, 2007 to 2012,” Discussion paper, Forrester Research.Google Scholar

  • Pukier, B. 1992. “Exiled on Main Street: A Ticket Scalper’s Dilemma.” University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review 50(2):280–300.Google Scholar

  • Rabe, S. 1991. “Ticket Scalping: Free Market Mirage.” American Journal of Criminal Law 19(1):57–69.Google Scholar

  • Rosen, S., and A. Rosenfield. 1997. “Ticket Pricing.” Journal of Law and Economics 40(2):351–76.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simon, S. 2004. “If You Can’t Beat ‘em, Join ‘em: Implications for New York’s Scalping Law on Light of Recent Developments in the Ticket Business.” Fordham Law Review 72(4):1171–218.Google Scholar

  • Swofford, J. 1999. “Arbitrage, Speculation, and Public Policy toward Ticket Scalping.” Public Finance Review 27(5):531–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Taraborrelli, J. R. 2009. Michael Jackson: The Magic, the Madness, the Whole Story, 1958–2009. New York: Grand Central Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Thiel, S. 1993. “Two Cheers for Touts.” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 40(4):447–55.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weber, R. 1983. “Multiple-Object Auctions.” In Auctions, Bidding and Contracting: Uses and Theory, edited by M. S. R. Engelbrecht-Wiggans and R. M. Stark. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

  • Williams, A. 1994. “Do Anti-Scalping Laws Make a Difference?” Managerial and Decision Economics 15(5):503–09.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2013-02-28

Accepted: 2013-08-20

Published Online: 2013-09-06

The distinction between a broker and a scalper is straightforward. The former is an officially licensed business, whereas the latter acts informally, frequently on an individual basis. Nonetheless, their conduct is fundamentally identical in that both seek a profit through secondary market exchanges. For the remainder of the article, we shall treat both agents in the same way.

New York State laws illustrate this point well. Prior to 1984, resale for more than two dollars above face value was illegal in New York. This limit was gradually increased until the state introduced a 3-year experiment in 2007 completely deregulating ticket resale.

In a study of 103 rock concerts held in the summer of 2004, Leslie and Sorensen (2009) show that most events offered tickets at only two price levels. Ideally, the promoter would like to employ price discrimination to its fullest possible extent, precluding the scalper from exploring any arbitrage opportunities. Transaction costs in operating secondary markets are one possible reason why this does not always happen. Negative reputation effects might also discourage the promoter from engaging in excessive discrimination.

For an analysis of how a monopolist can explore individual demand uncertainty in ticket markets, see for instance Courty (2003b).

Krishna (2009) shows that first-price and second-price sequential auctions yield the same results for sellers. Besides, they both entail the same level of analytical complexity. Weber (1983) also shows that simultaneous and sequential auctions with risk-neutral bidders holding independent private values yield the same expected payoff as long as there is no time discounting within the auction period (the third period in our model).

Heterogeneous discount rates for buyers might enable their endogenous allocation to primary and secondary markets. However, it would not be possible to uniquely associate each group to one particular type of discount rate, much less with uniformly distributed sub-populations, thus compromising the analytical tractability of this model.

It should nonetheless be noted that resale dynamics are likely to vary depending on whether a single event (our example) or a season ticket are involved. The ability to resell is frequently more valued in the second case since the ticket holder may not be able or willing to attend every individual game.

This vital principle may be found in Gold v. DiCarlo, 235 F. Supp. 817 at 820 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). There, resale prices regulation is deemed constitutionally acceptable because it affects the price the public is forced to pay, thus making it a proper venue for the exercise of state police power.

Citation Information: The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages 627–653, ISSN (Online) 1935-1682, ISSN (Print) 2194-6108, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2013-0042.

Export Citation

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in