Supporter Tax

Recently, Arsenal sold out the 60,000 capacity Emirates Stadium for their Champions League match with PSV Eindhoven. Tickets went on sale for a limited period to Silver Members, with Red Members being offered the remainder, which sold out within hours.

By contrast, tickets were still available to purchase for Chelsea’s game with Porto just two days before the game. A situation which is not unusual. Yet, the tickets were available to “members only”. The purpose of this seems lost from the fans perspective. Why is a membership scheme required to police a non-existent demand and ensure tickets are fairly distributed?

Clearly with tickets on sale for such a long period of time, no member could possibly be upset if a fan was able to walk into the ground off the street at that late stage.

But what if the club can insist that fans spend an extra and unnecessary £40 before they can buy that ticket? In effect, a “supporter tax” is being levied upon each person entering the ground during the course of the season.

Even in todays “football goes global” environment, its hard to imagine that there are people buying a membership pack for any other reason than to allow them to buy tickets for a football match. Certainly, given the cost in comparison to the content of some of these packs (“limited edition DVD”, a “pictorial history book”), the clubs presumably have the same opinion.

Any club where a fan can buy a membership card from the Premiership Champions at the start of the season, having never owned one before, then simply walk up and buy tickets to 4 league matches and a champions league quarter final during the course of the year, is a club that doesn’t need a membership system.

In the troubled 80s, many clubs ran such schemes simply as a means to avoid hooliganism. It was an attempt to ensure that away fans did not end up in home areas. But even then, the system would only work if all tickets were sold “members only”. Today, Chelsea will offer tickets on general sale for matches which are seen as less marketable. The strategy certainly does not seem to be one of safety.

As with much of the undesirable aspects of football consumerism these days, the catalyst for the modern-day membership system has been us fans.

Fans value “Loyalty” and “Commitment”. But how can it be equated? Who is most loyal? Who has shown the most commitment? Who deserves that highly sought after ticket for the cup final?

The clubs themselves have never had any need to worry about any of this. If the seats get sold, who cares? But the fans care and they are prepared to unconditionally give money to the club, so the clubs themselves have tried to help. Thus, the membership scheme, and a system which has now engendered abuse.

Arsenal fans will presumably value their membership scheme for ensuring that those that have invested time and money over the course of the season are protected by the club to ensure that they get tickets for the big games. Yet the contrast with the approach of Chelsea seems to demonstrate where the scheme has gone amiss.