UK Concert Ticketing Industry Faces Scrutiny Over Opaque Fee Structures and Consumer Protection Concerns

The UK live entertainment sector is confronting renewed pressure over pricing transparency, following revelations that major ticket sellers are applying questionable fees to recently constructed venues. Gigantic, a prominent ticketing platform, has issued refunds to purchasers of Gorillaz concert tickets after enquiries by the Guardian exposed both the application of a restoration fee to a venue opened in 2019 and a 3% overcharge on booking fees.

The case centres on tickets sold for a June 2026 performance at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, where buyers were charged a £1 restoration levy despite the facility’s completion just six years ago. Similar charges appeared for Manchester’s Co-op Live arena, which commenced operations in 2024. The practice raises questions about the legitimacy of restoration fees when applied to venues requiring minimal refurbishment.

Upon investigation, Gigantic’s website was amended to clarify that the fee supports grassroots venues through the Music Venue Trust’s Live Trust donation scheme. However, this explanation emerged only after journalistic scrutiny, highlighting systemic failures in upfront disclosure. The incident also revealed that the ticketing platform had charged 13% in booking fees rather than the advertised 10%, resulting in approximately £3 additional cost per ticket.

Kilimanjaro Live, the tour’s promoter, confirmed the error and committed to refunding affected purchasers. The episode demonstrates how the proliferation of ancillary charges creates environments where pricing discrepancies can evade consumer detection. Research conducted by Which? in 2024 established that supplementary fees, including delivery, transaction, booking, service, and order processing charges, can inflate concert and festival ticket costs by up to 25%.

Consumer awareness remains inadequate despite the scale of additional charges. The 2025 Music Fans’ Voice survey revealed that only 35% of respondents understood the full cost structure before reaching the checkout stage, whilst merely 34% could identify the purpose of individual fees. This knowledge deficit suggests that current disclosure practices fail to meet basic transparency standards expected in consumer transactions.

Recent ticket purchases illustrate the magnitude of fee accumulation. A transaction for three tickets to see Pitbull at BST Hyde Park in July 2026 carried a face value of £329.85 but attracted a £3 transaction fee, £3 sustainability levy, and £37.50 service fee, bringing the total to £373.35. Similarly, general admission tickets for Haim at Co-op Live, priced at £51.75, incurred an £8 service fee, £2.35 handling fee, and £2.95 facility fee, resulting in a final cost of £65.05.

The explanations provided for these charges often lack substance. When consumers sought clarification on Co-op Live’s facility fee, the website stated it “keeps the venue running, helping us to improve our services and experiences for all fans”, offering no specific breakdown of how funds would be allocated. Such vague justifications do little to satisfy legitimate consumer demands for accountability in pricing.

A limited number of independent venues have responded to market pressure by implementing transparent fee structures. The Clapham Grand in London and Saint Luke’s in Glasgow now publish detailed expense breakdowns, specifying how restoration levies and additional charges will be deployed. Some venues indicate at the point of purchase that fees will fund specific improvements, such as new flooring installations.

Mark Davyd, chief executive officer of the Music Venue Trust, attributes the complexity of fee structures to the number of intermediaries involved in ticket distribution. Each party in the supply chain imposes charges they deem necessary for service delivery. Davyd argues that granular transparency holds less value for consumers than a comprehensive total cost displayed at the initial point of contact. He contends that achieving this requires regulatory intervention and a fundamental restructuring of contractual arrangements across the industry.

The Competition and Markets Authority has initiated what it describes as a major consumer protection initiative targeting online pricing practices across multiple sectors, including entertainment. The regulatory body is examining “drip pricing”, where initial prices exclude fees that are progressively disclosed during the purchasing process. A 2023 government report identified drip pricing in 93% of event ticketing businesses surveyed, marking the practice as endemic to the sector.

The CMA has commenced investigations into eight companies regarding their pricing methodologies, with StubHub and Viagogo under scrutiny for their treatment of mandatory additional charges. The authority is evaluating whether these platforms adequately disclose fees upfront and whether their practices comply with consumer protection legislation. The regulator has emphasised that no conclusions have been reached regarding potential legal violations.

The ticketing sector’s opacity presents both reputational and regulatory risks for operators. As consumer advocacy groups intensify pressure for reform and regulatory authorities expand enforcement activities, companies that fail to adopt transparent pricing models may face sanctions and market disadvantages. The outcome of the CMA’s investigations could establish precedents that reshape commercial practices across the live entertainment industry, potentially mandating all-inclusive pricing displays or stricter disclosure requirements at earlier stages of the transaction process.