This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
February 28, 2009
Ticketgate: Day six, Yankee fans held hostage
The Great New York Yankees ticket controversy hits the New York Times today, with Richard Sandomir reporting on more tales of woe from longtime ticket plan holders who are upset with the seats they're being offered in the new stadium. Included are both fans who were offered worse seats for higher prices (including one who seems to have lucked into Jay Jaffe's $85 behind-the-foul-pole plan that the Yankees swear doesn't exist), and fans who were offered worse seats at lower prices. Embattled Yanks COO Lonn Trost blamed fans for not reading the "relocation guide" the team sent out last fall, apparently referring to a line warning that seats offered "will not likely be comparable to your current seat location" — which, in angry fans' defense, is a bit of an understatement for being moved from the third-base line to the bleachers.
At least, though, the unhappy bleacher resident can be glad he wasn't relocated to the auxiliary seating section in Astoria.
You know, I know this will sound insensitive one at least one level, but I have to ask: why keep going? We went through two rounds of this kind of thing last year when the Giants and Jets announced their plans for PSL Stadium, and while I understand the desire of people who have been going to the games for years to continue doing so, I do think it's fair, though perhaps harsh, to ask season-ticket holders why they would keep going if this is how their loyalty is going to be rewarded. TV coverage of sports is so good these days that you really don't lose much as opposed to seeing the game in person (though admittedly, you do lose more with baseball than with football), but the greater point is that I know if I were on the receiving end of this kind of shoddy treatment, I'd tell the teams to kiss off, at least as far as attending games goes.
As with any other commercial transaction, the sports consumer has one very clear and immutable way to make their pleasure or displeasure with teams and leagues quite clear: voting with their wallet. I understand it means giving up a cherished source of enjoyment, at least in terms of going to the games, but really, the way fans have been treated the past several years, doesn't one at some point have to ask when enough is enough, and finally just cut bait? This is the way their going to treat you? Screw 'em. Stay home and watch it on the TV service you're also paying for, or go to a bar if you want to watch with friends. But, and I say this as even someone who does love going to games when I can, just wash your hands of it, if this is how their going to "reward" your long-time loyalty. Go to a few games a year maybe, but other than that, just refuse to play their game from now on. They can dictate the terms under which we get to attend games, but only we can decide whether to play along.
Posted by Tom on March 1, 2009 05:01 AM
FYI, the wrong link was provided here initially for the Sandomir article. It should be:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/sports/baseball/28sandomir.html?ref=baseball
Posted by Neil on March 2, 2009 09:18 AM
Pro sports are going to have to learn these two words: Open system
Constant relocation threats and actual relocation just aren't sustainable. If people stop investing so much emotional input into these sports teams and start treating them as just another entertainment option then look out!
The British and Europeans do it better! Promotion/relegation. Clubs that are in the given communities for 100+ years. Clubs that are actually...clubs and not franchises, like we have here.
Posted by Transic on March 3, 2009 11:35 PM