The away price cap – or subsidised travel for away fans?

Us football supporters are not mere spectators. We are the foundation stone and beating heart of every club.  We are the people who create atmosphere, who buy tickets, replica strips and other merchandise, helping sustain our clubs, local businesses and communities financially.

At times like these, where there is a genuine cost-of-living crisis for many, we still make amazing efforts to get to matches.  The opportunity cost may be not having a pie or another pint, but we still get there and support our team. Consequently, we understand why there is a demand from some for away prices to be capped.  One of the reasons cited for this is because ‘it works in England.’

The demand that because a price cap works in England it should be introduced in Scotland ignores the fact that south of the border clubs derive far more of their income from TV and other sources than we do in Scotland. Here, the SFU, as the largest fans’ group in the country, recognises the realities facing clubs which rely on matchday revenue to fund facilities, youth programmes, women’s teams, para-football and community initiatives.  Clubs operate in vastly different circumstances across Scotland, with matchday income and local financial support (advertising, hospitality, etc.) being the single biggest component of their income. Then, there is the simple fact that different stadium sizes, local markets and fan demographics, not to mention operating costs, all vary. To impose a statutory price limit on organisations whose costs are not the same in every case does not seem practical to us. In most instances, Scottish clubs have limited room for manoeuvre and anything that may reduce their principal source of income is not welcome. 

At a recent, major club’s AGM, the question of a price cap was brought up. The CEO explained why he and the board were against this – it would reduce the amount of income available to them, which meant less money for players and consequently would make it more difficult for what fans really want – success on the playing field.  Those present at that meeting, with only a handful of exceptions, understood and accepted the CEO’s argument.

Our own CEO is a former Chair of a Premier Club. He has inside knowledge of the difficulties of reducing prices in an attempt to get more fans into the stadium. In his view, while there may be a temporary uplift for a game or two, in the long-term it doesn’t work. As much as anything, gate income depends on an uncontrollable variable, success on the field.  If that latter is not there, crowds dwindle, at home and away, thus reducing the income to all clubs.

In more general terms, we believe supporters value fairness, transparency and engagement.  This means that pricing needs to be fair, clearly explained and proportionate.  Football is an industry where survival is difficult, as the history of clubs that have gone under or teetered on the edge demonstrates. Most fans understand, however reluctantly, that maximising revenue when clubs with big away supports visit is done for reasons of finance – money that helps sustain the existence of their clubs. 

The SFU’s role is to ensure that fans’ views are heard and considered. We advocate for policies that balance affordability with sustainability, recognising that financially healthy clubs are in the long-term interests of the game.  It’s a constant balancing act, but one that needs hard work and constant attention.

We offer the following guiding principles for policy:

1.    Flexibility.  Clubs need discretion to set prices in line with local realities.

2.    Equity. Visiting fans should not be unfairly disadvantaged.

3.    Engagement. Fans should have a voice in shaping policies affecting their experience.

4.    Sustainability. Pricing must enable clubs to continue to invest in teams, facilities and community programmes.

To put this in context for supporters, we are well aware that attending away fixtures involves considerable additional costs over and above the price of the ticket.  Travel, accommodation and other expenses (parking, a pie and Bovril and a few pints of beer costs almost as much – if not more - as entry to the ground).  Are these to be capped too? Certainly, anything that might help should be explored. For example, we would be supportive of exploring whether public transport can be subsidised for supporters, albeit with the rider that someone (i.e. fans, via our taxes) is ultimately paying for this.  Overall, the SFU emphasises that supporters’ interests are best served by policies that reinforce, rather than constrain, the relationship between clubs and fans.

Finally, we note there will undoubtedly be a lot of data in existence which will allow clubs and the football authorities more generally to calculate the likely impact of a change to a maximum away ticket price.  These numbers should be crunched by statisticians to see whether in fact the introduction of such a measure would result in increased or reduced revenue for clubs in general.  If the former (and it’s sustainable), then by all means let’s consider this further. If the latter, then let’s look at alternatives, such as the subsidised travel for away fans.

Alastair Blair, Ops Director, the SFU

If you would like to join the debate, join the Scottish Football Union, the largest fans’ group in the country.  You can join (it’s free!) at this link: www.thesfu.co.uk