Lionel Messi to MLS?.. The Saga Starts Part 1 [R]

I'm just kidding about the "ethical issue" thing, mostly, but yes, if there's any ethics involved it would be selling your tickets for an outrageous price ("market price" or not) when you know that it's very unlikely that Messi will play or even make the trip. Let's face it, hardcore fans are gonna know that it's unlikely he's gonna play. More casual fans think that they are going to see Messi play and therefore they are willing to spend over $1000 a ticket.

So here we have an impedance mismatch about the value of the ticket. You know that the real value of the ticket is much lower than market rate but you're willing to sell them to the unsuspecting buyer, who has an inflated sense of the value of the ticket. It would be like if I sold you my Subaru for high blue book value because you were really excited to have a Subaru but I didn't tell bother to tell you about the all the problems with the transmission and the engine.

Of course this is all done via anonymous impersonal technology. There is no face to face interaction. Imagine if it were a face to face transaction:

Casual fan guy: "Yeah, I want to buy your tickets! I can't wait to see Lionel Messi!!!!!!"

Ned: "Well, full disclosure, it's actually unlikely that he'll play. He hasn't been traveling to a lot of away games, it's mid-week, cross-country, non-conference opponent, small stadium, and he's having nagging injury problems".

Casual fan guy: "Oh, wow, I had no idea. Well, OK, I think I'll pass then."

But <philosophy> does the impersonality of the transaction exonerate one from the underlying ethics of the transaction? </philosophy>

At the end of the day, the most likely scenario is that the people who bought your tickets are gonna be pissed about the whole affair, and you'll have pocketed $1500 for their misery.

 

Says the guy who buys a ticket for 1 seat and then sits somewhere else that happens to be unoccupied.

 

Only for half the game. And who is harmed by that? It's an open seat. It's not like some fan paid for the seat and I stole it from them.

 

FWIW on the philosophical debate, I just listed my tickets at the recommended price from ticket master (I don't know their criteria, but there are still some insane prices out there).

 

Philosophy aside, I don't know how this doesn't end poorly in terms of Quakes PR. I'm assuming people are paying these prices because they expect to see Messi. One way it doesn't end poorly is if he plays, but I think that's doubtful.

 

1. I understand you were kidding, I am not taking offense.
2. I assume you are saying that if I sold my $100 tickets for $110 each (so I could recoup the "seller's fee) it would cost the buyer about $120 (because he would have to pay Ticketmaster a "buyer's fee") that that would be OK - no ethics because there is no profit.
3. However, the buyer would be paying $120 expecting to see Messi just as much as the $750 per seat guy was expecting to see Messi.
4. If I carried out the $120 buyer transaction "knowing" (as a "hardcore fan" would) that Messi won't be there, that would be just as bad "ethically", wouldn't it? The buyer would still be disappointed and upset that there was no Messi. Ethics would apply to the seller not the buyer. The buyer's disappointment is a separate discussion.,
5. Of course, we can agree and assume $750 is more likely to bother someone than $120 would. Plus we have to factor in one's income level to perhaps modify the amount of disappointment.
6. I do agree with you that no matter what is charged, if Messi doesn't show up it is bad for the Front Office.The Quakes are using Messi to sell non-season tickets to attract fans. In fact, they are saying that the only to guarantee a Messi game ticket is to buy season tickets.

 

A “regular” price to see Messi is a nice hypothetical but it’s just that. The whole “moral dilemma” is about the “impedance mismatch” of the value of the ticket - what you know the value to be and what the buyer thinks the value is. The price is just a reflection of the inflated value.

In the end the whole thing is a kind of charade. The Quakes are playing Inter Miami. Casual fan: wait doesn’t Messi plays on Inter Miami!!? We’re not gonna say anything more and if the ticket values go way up and he doesn’t show up, hey that’s life! How can we know *for sure* that he won’t show up? Wink wink. We are absolved from responsibility and we made a bunch of money! We can weather the bad PR! Hey how about a discount on season tickets next year!! You just got burned by a business / league how about investing *more* of your money in our league as a “reward”! Thank you sir may I have another?

 

Perhaps it was a seat that was paid for by someone who did not show up for that game for some reason. So it is possible, ethically, that you are profiting from someone else's misery.

It is possible you are now blocking the view of someone behind you, someone who paid to be in that area.

And others who paid to be in that (possibly more expensive) section might be unhappy to have you there. For example, there are sections in the stadium where you must show your ticket before you can be seated there; the contract between stadium and buyer is that a certain amount is owed for the privilege of being in that area (no matter how many other people may or may not show up for that game).

From the Front Office point or view, I assume they might also state that allowing people to pay a smaller fee and then later move to a more expensive seat causes harm because, if successful, it would encourage others to do the same thing. That would cost the operator more money that way.

Of course, the best answer is for the team to put together a successful team that sells out games. The examples above are just to explore whether or not the person who moved to a new section has an ethical ambiguities or not. You may not have "stolen" from the holder of the empty seat, but it may come at a price to others in that section, or to the ultimate owner of every seat, the team which sells tickets to those seats.

 

No the seat that I choose to move to is a lower value seat than the one I have and I choose a section that is fairly empty. This is by design. I don’t want to take anyone’s seat. Of course I’d immediately give it up but I want to avoid inconveniencing anyone. The seat is generally a handful of rows from the top. Nobody really blocks anyone’s view at PPP anyway and I’m average height. And any “blockage” that could occur there is balanced by the “unblockage” at my original seat. In fact “net blockage” at the stadium is actually reduced because I’m in a less crowded section. Finally as a fan on the Quakes end I’m adding to the noise as the Quakes attack, making victory more likely for the Quakes and thereby increasing the value of the Quakes franchise.

 

PS: I "knew" that Cade Cowell was not going to work out well. The Quakes got a lot of compliments for executing a good bit of business. Were they unethical?

 

Then I absolve you of sin, my son.

 

1) Nobody knows with any kind of certainty how a 19 / 20 year old player will pan out, not with the level of relative certainty that we think Messi will not play. 2) The Quakes are not withholding any information about Cade. The games are all available for them to watch and evaluate.

 

They don't say anything about guaranteeing a Messi game ticket. They do have promotions about the Miami game.

 

It could be a problem if everyone just started moving around in the stadium at will i.e. it could set a bad precedent. But I’m careful with how I do it so as to try to avoid impact on other people.

 

So basically the Quakes are playing their own little game of Simon Says with fans. "Gotcha! You're out (of $1200)! We never said Messi!!"

 

They don't say Messi because it would be actual false advertising to "guarantee a Messi game ticket." They have Miami game tickets to sell, and the demand for a Miami game is what it is. If they offered the tickets at ordinary non-dynamic prices, they would mostly be purchased by 3rd-party reseller bots who would then put them up according to prices aligned with supply and demand, and those resellers would then get all of the profit.

 

We've already been thru this before. My point is that at the end of the day, unless Messi plays, against the odds, there are going to be a lot of very unhappy customers. You can choose to try to do something to prevent it or alleviate it, or you can just have a lot of unhappy customers and it's fine. Doesn't seem like good business to me even if it's happening because your customers are insufficiently in the know. Yes, in order to prevent "lots of unhappy customers" they would have to think / act outside the box a bit. But those are the choices. As a business, you should be in the business of making your customers happy, not unhappy, whether or not you technically "did anything wrong or unethical".

 

I received this today guaranteeing an Inter Miami match, not a player :
FREE STEVE AOKI CONCERT

We're hosting a free block party on May 13 featuring a live musical performance by global superstar Steve Aoki in Downtown San Jose's SoFA District ahead of our match vs. Inter Miami CF on May 14. Guarantee your spot at the match on May 14 with Season Ticketsstarting at $25 per match or $425 for the entire season.

 

Yes they have never mentioned Messi in regard to the match as far as I know. But that doesn’t mean that people are not buying tickets with the expectation that he’ll play and it doesn’t mean they won’t be disappointed and in many cases angry if he doesn’t play. Of course they could also direct their ire at Inter Miami too. Or just the league in general. “They hype Messi so hard but half the time he doesn’t even play. What a Mickey Mouse league!"

 

Wow you did great, congrats Ned! I wonder why the Messi tix are finally starting to move…

 

Technically Jazzy if u were going to be completely ethical, you should pay for both seats. Saying that no one’s using it is not the same as paying for that seat.

but rather than debate, my point is that it is silly to say that STHs cashing in on the Messi game lack in ethics and will disappoint potential fans so much that those ticket buyers may not watch MLS again. Those buyers are buying an experience and paying a high price probably elevates it for them. After spending probably $100k on the Quakes over the last 25ish years, I am not worrying about my ethics!

 

I'm not preventing anyone from using that seat who would have paid for it. It's not like I'm blocking it out on TicketMaster and then not paying. My occuping a different seat is balanced by my vacating another seat. In fact the Quakes should be paying me for always being on the Quakes attacking side of the field and generating noise to inspire the team to score a goal. Effectively, I'm offering super low-key cheerleading services for the team for no charge! Maybe it's the Quakes who have the ethics problem here!

"...will disappoint potential fans so much that those ticket buyers may not watch MLS again" is a strawman. That could happen, but more generally what will happen is that many, many people will likely be very disappointed and some very angry. How do I know this? It's already played out multiple times over the course of Messi's MLS career - people paying high $ expecting to see Messi and then he doesn't show, and they're mad. We're can't pretend that this is a new and unique situation and we don't know what will happen.

I'm mostly kidding about the ethics thing, but at the end of the day you, as a hardcore fan, know the real value of the ticket and the more casual fan does not. It's like my Subaru analogy. You're selling a Subaru to a Subaru fan but not telling him / her about all the engine problems. It's a mismatch in the perceived value of the product where you know the true value and the buyer does not.

Wait, you're saying that the paying of high ticket prices will serve to elevate their game experience? "Well, it's a boring game and Messi didn't show up, but we paid big bucks for these tickets so I'm having a great time!". It's amazing to see the rationalizations people come up for just engaging in a little bit of capitalistic opportunism. It's good old-fashioned capitalistic opportunism, just own it! It's fine!

 

Argentina last night without Messi had already qualified for the WC and still dismantled Brazil 4-1.

Honestly, I don't think they will need a 39-year-old Leo at all in June 2026.

 

We would have scored 2-3 more goals with Messi. Next yrs WC will be Messi's 6th and a record that no one has achieved. Ronaldo will be the only other player to do so with Portugal.
Plus you'd have to be crazy not to have a player the caliber of Messi coming off the bench to finish off opponents. Free kick, assisting or just simply scoring.
I'm sure Messi & Ronaldo will both bow out at next yrs WC.

 

>> It's amazing to see the rationalizations people come up for just engaging in a little bit of capitalistic opportunism. It's good old-fashioned capitalistic opportunism, just own it! It's fine!​

@JazzyJ, it’s pretty obvious that those of us selling our tix are pretty happy to do so and clearly “own” our capitalistic MLS moment.