Jan 28, 2025
On January 21, The Capitol Forum held a conference call with National Independent Venue Association Executive Director Stephen Parker to discuss the potential impact on live music and other forms of live entertainment from structural changes to the Live Nation Ticketmaster business model from the DOJ’s Sherman Act Section 2 suit against the company. The full transcript, which has been modified slightly for accuracy, can be found below.
TEDDY DOWNEY: Good morning and welcome to our conference call on the “Importance of the DOJ Live Nation Suit to Independent Venues”. I’m Teddy Downey, Executive Editor here at The Capitol Forum. And today’s guest is National Independent Venue Association Executive Director Stephen Parker. Stephen, thank you so much for doing this today.
STEPHEN PARKER: Teddy, thanks for the opportunity. It’s great to be here.
TEDDY DOWNEY: And before we get started, I just wanted to mention, if you want to submit a question, type it into the questions pane in the control panel. Or you can email us at editorial@thecapitolforum.com and we’ll collect questions. And we’ll try to get to them at the end of the interview. And Stephen, if you wouldn’t mind just giving our audience an overview of your organization, I think that’d be a great place to start.
STEPHEN PARKER: For sure. Well, my name is Stephen Parker, as Teddy said. I run an incredible organization of mostly volunteers. It’s called the National Independent Venue Association. We were formed in April of 2020 in the midst of closures that were plaguing the world due to the COVID-19 pandemic. But they were particularly plaguing independent venues, promoters, performing arts centers and festivals across the country.
So, a group of volunteers started an organization, whose sole purpose was to make sure that there were governmental resources and a seat at the table, to ensure that independent venues and promoters and festivals could ultimately reopen when it was safe to do so. After eight months of our existence, we were the driving force behind the passage of Save Our Stages, which was signed into law by President Trump in December of 2020. And it led to $16.25 billion in resources and in funding to live performance spaces across the country. And to this day, it’s still the largest arts investment in U.S. history.
Since 2020, we’ve existed as something that really our sector has not had before, which is an advocacy voice nationally for live performance. And we represent venues and promoters, whether you’re for-profit or nonprofit, and we exist to make sure that there’s a seat at the table continually, at the federal, state and local level, for our sector to ultimately be able to continue to do what we do best, which is to make sure that artists have a stage to perform on in every community. Teddy, I think you’re muted.
TEDDY DOWNEY: Thanks, sorry. You guys have enjoyed incredible success in a really short period of time. I mean, rarely in legislation can you see a new organization have this much success. So, I mean, you guys are doing something right. Kudos to you and congratulations on that.
And we’re here today to talk about DOJ and a group of states suing Live Nation under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and would love to—maybe a good place to start would be if you could give us a quick summary of the litigation. A lot of our audience here is familiar with it. But if you could give us a quick summary, I think that would be great.
STEPHEN PARKER: Sure. So, I think, one, I just want to preface this entire conversation by saying I am not an attorney. My job is to make sure that I’m telling the story of independent venues and promoters and festivals across the country and that’s what I’ll do today.
I also just want to level set up front and say that one of the things that all live performance music organizations need to do is to make sure that the value of music and performance continues to be upheld. And we believe that artists should be paid. We believe that they should make as much as they can. We also believe that they should be treated fairly. Because ultimately, live performance in America does not exist without them.
And when I say performance—and we’re going to talk a lot about music. We’re going to talk a lot about concerts and performances. But broadly, when I say music, just know that I mean anybody who performs their art on stage is who we’re talking about here.
The other thing I would say, just to level set at the beginning, is that there are lots of different types of people who put on shows. There are venues that aren’t promoters. There are venues who are promoters. There are promoters who do not have venues. There are festivals who just put on one festival year. There are also festivals that are put on by promoters who have venues and promoters who don’t. There are performing arts centers that are nonprofit, that only do shows, performances, within the confines of their spaces. But in some cases, especially if they’re affiliated as part of a community, they may put on festivals of their own. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The diversity of our industry is so expansive and what works best for one promoter or one venue may not work best for another.
But I think the important thing to note is when I’m talking today, you should understand, everybody on this call should understand, that I am here talking on behalf of small businesses and nonprofits. We do not have shareholders. We are not traded on the stock market. We are here to make sure that communities have a stage, or many, where they can go and experience the joy of performance, both from people in their community, but also from up-and-coming artists coming through, but also from more established acts that hopefully we can convince to come to our communities, whether they be rural or urban.
So, thank you for letting me expound on that so people know. I think the case against Live Nation is strong. There are five claims in the Live Nation suit that the U.S. Department of Justice brought against them in May of 2024. The first claim is that they monopolized the primary ticketing services market. The second claim is that they have unlawful exclusive dealing, particularly around their long-term exclusive deals. The third claim is that they have unlawful tying, and you’re going to hear me talk a lot about tying today.
And it’s going to involve a lot of examples from outside of the case itself. And then there’s the monopolization through the use of large amphitheaters, which we believe it’s a lot more than large amphitheaters. And then there’s the monopolization of their concert promotion services in general, which we think is probably the largest issue that is endangering independent venues across the country.
TEDDY DOWNEY: So, we’ve got a quick summary of the case. Can you talk about why—I think with the new president just taking over, it’d also be helpful to talk about why this is—why has your association had so much success? Why is this issue, a bipartisan issue, likely to continue to appeal to a broad swath of the public? I think that’s kind of an important context as well before we kind of get into some of the weeds here.
STEPHEN PARKER: I was at a show in 2023 that was promoted by Live Nation in a room that they exclusively book. And it was a comedy show. It was Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. And in a room that was, in a show that was, sold by Ticketmaster and two artists that were getting checks from Ticketmaster and Live Nation. They made a joke about how Ticketmaster is the most unpopular brand in America. And that’s from the same country that has companies that make river poison. That was the joke.
I think that epitomizes to me kind of what this brand and what this organization is doing and how fans, and really the American populace, thinks that there’s something that needs to be done. Yes, people may not buy tickets to shows every day, but people live for live shows. They live for live music. This is how so many fans choose to spend their disposable income. This is why they work hard every day in their jobs is to be able to go to a show.
And I think, as we think about this hard-earned money that fans are funneling into the system, it’s important to note that this is not a system that works on their behalf. And as we look at why this is so bipartisan, I think the fact that, yes, this case was brought by a U.S. Department of Justice that was under the control of the Democratic president, there are now 40 state attorneys general that have joined this case, fully signed onto every word of it. And more than half of those attorneys general are Republican. This is bipartisan.
There is no reason for this case to go away. It is important to the public. In the newfound populism that this president rode into office on, this is the most populous case perhaps there is, that state attorneys general on both sides of the aisle and the U.S. Department of Justice, regardless of which president is in control of it, should bring.
And I’ll also just say that 40 state AGs is near unanimity. I am not an attorney, and I don’t have access to expensive legal databases, but in my quick searching, there are very few cases that meet that 40 state AG threshold. The ones that come close are the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement against the big tobacco companies in the 90s, opioid litigation against pharma, drug price fixing litigation brought by the DOJ and state AGs. And that’s about it.
The company that this case is in terms of winnable cases that had been brought by state AGs and the U.S. Department of Justice, in terms of the number of states and the amount of resources that’s been put behind it, is significant. And I don’t think that should be ignored.
And that is certainly not something that we should continue to listen to Live Nation on when they say that this is not unusual. Yes, it’s usual. The near unanimity of state AGs and the U.S. Department of Justice pursuing this case shows that there is great evidence that they’re using unlawful tactics.
TEDDY DOWNEY: And you mentioned so many of the moving pieces in the industry. It is a very complex industry in terms of who is doing what and who is negotiating with whom. And my experience is that Live Nation, Ticketmaster, takes full advantage of that when they’re negotiating and sort of manipulating different players. But it would be great to have you talk about what is broken—you touched on this earlier—what is broken in this ecosystem, the live music ecosystem? What is broken about it? What doesn’t work? And then how does this lawsuit potentially fix that? And then after we sort of talk about the ecosystem as a whole, I would love to specifically focus on your members.
STEPHEN PARKER: Sure.
TEDDY DOWNEY: But I think one of the hurdles here is just because of the complexity of the ecosystem, it’s hard to see how every single layer of it is sort of broken. And I’m sure you have a simpler way of cutting through that complexity and explaining it, but it would be great to hear your view on that.
STEPHEN PARKER: Absolutely. So, if we just look at the facts of the case, here’s where the case says that it’s broken. One, the price of concert tickets. And again, I want to go back to what I said before, artists need to be paid. Their costs are going up. The cost of gas going up for the American public means the cost of gas and touring is going up for artists. The cost of airlines going up means that that’s going up for artists. I think we should not underestimate how much harder it is to tour when you’re an artist. And we need to make sure that those artists are taken care of. Because, again, without the artists, we don’t have shows.
So, with that, I think it’s important to note that ticket prices are going up. And there is a real reason for that in terms of costs going up for venues and promoters and artists, but there’s also the inflated reasons that things are going up. And we’re not here to talk about the secondary market, but a study in 2022 by Bloomberg showed that tickets on the secondary market went up 100 percent from 2019 to 2022. They only went up 10 percent on the primary market.
And so, I think it’s important to note that Live Nation is not the only problem here. The secondary market is a huge problem and they are not Live Nation’s competition. The secondary market is primarily competing with fans to get tickets at face value. And then they’re forcing fans to turn around and buy those tickets at exorbitant prices because they couldn’t get to them in time or those fans didn’t have access to illegal bots like many of those secondary resellers have.
And so, as we look at Live Nation, the other thing is if you compare the prices of independent venues to Live Nation venues, our prices are dramatically lower. And that’s not just me saying that. Go to Pollstar and look at the data.
And so, as we look at what’s broken, I think, to the fan, it is the price of tickets. But if you look at what ultimately the case says around what it means for competition, competition is what breeds innovation. Competition is what breeds fair pricing.
And I think if you look at the case and based on some of the examples I’m going to share with you later on in this program, I think you’ll see that combined with what’s in the case and the examples that I have from our members, there is no competition right now. We are barely hanging on. We have closures every week for independent venues and promoters across the country. We have performing arts centers that are struggling. We are not an industry that is making money. We are an industry that does this because we love what we do. And we love to see the fans enter our space, listening to our favorite artists, and have them discover them just like we did.
Our motivations are much different than Live Nation’s. And I think the fact that we’re still here is a testament to how resilient our members are, not the fact that somehow we’re breaking through and competing with Live Nation. That could not be further from the truth.
TEDDY DOWNEY: And I want to come back to the secondary market because some of those people would love to compete in the primary market. So, potentially the secondary market issues could be addressed by actually creating real competition and entry in the primary market. But let’s leave that aside for a second. What is broken about how Live Nation –
STEPHEN PARKER: Can we actually stick with that. Teddy? Because I think that’s an important point. And it’s one that we couldn’t disagree with more. The perverse foundation on which so many of the resale market and platforms are built means that it would be very hard for them to be the real competition, the real replacement, for Live Nation should they be broken up or taken over.
TEDDY DOWNEY: But let’s take a quick look at the history here. StubHub wanted to be a competitor to Ticketmaster, right? Or not StubHub, sorry, SeatGeek, right? SeatGeek wanted to be a competitor to Ticketmaster, but they couldn’t. It’s not feasible. They’re too dominant to actually enter successfully.
And so, what did they do? They get into this other thing, which is sort of like the whole premise of the secondary market, I think one could argue, is just a race to the bottom, right? It’s a set of competitions that is not in the interest of the musicians, the fans, really anybody, the venues.
I mean, it’s just, you’ve got these unregulated brokers and bots and there are no rules. So, we could get into that. It’s just that my point was more if you set fair rules in the primary market and you give those companies a legitimate opportunity to compete in the primary ticketing market, which is not all of them, but some of them wanted to get into that market, it potentially could be easier to say, hey, we’re banning a lot of this conduct that you’re currently engaged in.
STEPHEN PARKER: Sure.
TEDDY DOWNEY: Or otherwise, regulating this in a completely different way. And you know what? If you want business, here’s a way to compete fairly, either in the primary or the secondary market. But if you just look at each of them in isolation, I feel like it’s a disservice to some of these companies that actually at one point wanted to, I think, do the right thing, which is compete fairly in the primary ticketing market. And that’s all I’m saying.
STEPHEN PARKER: Sure, for sure.
TEDDY DOWNEY: And one of the questions from the audience here is actually what about the Chamber of Progress and the Sports Fan Coalition? I don’t know anything about the Sports Fan Coalition, but I’ve heard that Chamber of Progress represents some of these secondary market players. Chamber of Progress is wholly a conflict of interest. I mean, the history of that organization, in the past, is very fraught, I think, and disingenuous. So, anyway, we can come back to this or we can address all of that now.
STEPHEN PARKER: Well, I think it would be good to address it now. And I will say, you are absolutely right. And let’s go in order that you went in terms of my response. So, one, I grew up and I learned a very important philosophy, which is don’t judge people by their words, judge them by their deeds.
And so, we are still judging SeatGeek by their deeds. And I think it’s TBD on whether they are going to be able to gain the trust of independent venues and the venues that are not Live Nation in this market. But I can tell you, we have enough evidence on StubHub and Vivid Seats and some of these other secondaries. They are out there undermining the small businesses and nonprofits that makeup independent live entertainment in this country. They are out there pushing legislation that would take money out of the pockets of artists and put it into scalpers’ pockets.
So, we know that those two companies—I mean, I don’t want to speak for my members. I don’t want to speak for independent venues and promoters across the country. It is hard for me to see how they will ever get the trust of our members given all of the predatory things that they have done to fans and to venues over the last decade or more. And so, we’ll leave that for everybody else to judge and we’ll see if they’ll change their ways. But for the moment with what they’re doing, no way.
The other thing I would flag is that there are independent ticketing companies that aren’t talked about. There are the ETix of the world. There are the DICE of the world and the See Tickets and the Tixrs and the Eventbrites of the world. Those are all companies that are doing good and working with independent venues and promoters and in it for the right reasons and charging reasonable fees. And I think we don’t talk about them enough. And I think those are the true competitors that can fill in the gap if Live Nation is broken up. And we’ll see if others like SeatGeek can do that as well.
The other piece is on the Chamber of Progress and Sports Fans Coalition. Those are funded ticket broker and resale platform operations. They do not represent fans. They do not represent progress. They are out there pushing, in many cases, disinformation. A report was put out – a “report”—was put out by the Chamber of Progress in December that was dangerous. It was untrue. It said that people out there pursuing consumer protections to make sure that tickets aren’t price gouged are basically just Live Nation. That’s ridiculous. They called our organization just a “Live Nation show organization”. I am on a webinar right now talking about how Live Nation should be broken up. That is the biggest testament to how Chamber of Progress lies.
TEDDY DOWNEY: I could not be any less surprised that Chamber of Progress put out an inaccurate report, just given my coverage of them over the years.
STEPHEN PARKER: So, anyway, hopefully that answers your question. I could not agree with you more. I just disagree with the sentiment that secondaries are the competition to Live Nation. They are not.
TEDDY DOWNEY: Yeah, maybe I misspoke there. Not that they are the competition. My point, more broadly, is there is no competition, really, in a real sense for Live Nation and Ticketmaster. Obviously, there are.
STEPHEN PARKER: And that is true. That’s why we’re here.
TEDDY DOWNEY: Yeah, that’s why we’re here. So, it’s really about the premise of the conversation, right? The laws around the secondary market are not really there. And so, what you have is a race to the bottom. And so, I want to talk about the primary market. Because ideally you solve for that, it becomes easier to regulate the secondary market. But maybe that’s not even a good premise. But that’s how I’ve thought about it. They’re distinct markets. And we’re talking about the second two cases on Live Nation.
And so, I want to get back to this idea of how difficult it is as an independent venue. You mentioned how many are going out of business to survive (a) at all, but (b) without Live Nation. And does that get at the heart? Or if you can talk about that, maybe that’s one way to talk about Live Nation’s power over your members and then in the ecosystem. And then we can kind of continue to talk about how that plays into what kind of remedies you want from the lawsuit.
STEPHEN PARKER: For sure. The case is strong. What’s currently in the complaint, we will amen and echo. Here are some things that are not the case. And I was talking to some attorneys last week, and I think one of them who is certainly an expert in antitrust, I am not, said that Live Nation may be the most obvious monopolist in the country right now. And here are some more reasons why, beyond the complaint.
Our venues and promoters are talking about how they’re not getting shows because they’re not Ticketmaster venues. There are reports, and all of these are—I’m not going to share anything on this call that I’ve only heard from one or two venues or promoters. These are things that I’ve heard widely. We’ve heard about Live Nation in multiple regions spreading misinformation on third-party rooms, as in rooms that they work with sometimes, telling agents that the only way to promote shows there is if Live Nation is there with them. That’s unspeakably bad.
We see artists confirming deals and then being pressured into going with a Live Nation venue after they’ve already confirmed their deals in an independent venue or with an independent promoter. We see Live Nation being able to take losses on their promotions business. And this is talked about in the complaint. But I just want to talk—there’s a big difference between seeing this in a case and viewing this nationally. This is also the case in each region, in each city, in each locality. Live Nation is able to take losses on their promotions business because of all the other revenue they have, particularly from Ticketmaster.
My members don’t own ticketing companies. They cannot collect fees in order to make up losses on their shows. And when they do collect ticketing fees, which is every case when a ticket is sold, because that’s how you pay for security, barely. That’s how you pay for production. That’s how you pay for making sure that you can pay your rent and your mortgage and your insurance and your PRO fees. That fee does not even come close to covering all their costs.
But for Live Nation, they have passive income through all of their Ticketmaster accounts, whether they’re at our venues or at other venues, that helps them take losses on their promotions business. And that’s not just us saying that. The case says that as well.
We have situations in multiple regions where we’ve heard from venues and promoters that the artists get pressure, after a show is already confirmed and announced, to allow Live Nation to come in and co-promote with an independent venue, whether they work with that venue or not. A show. And in many cases, if not all cases, Live Nation does no work and they get half the profit and they take no risk. That’s insanity. That’s insanity.
We have reports across the country of agents calling independent venues and saying, hey, Live Nation put us on this festival bill in this city, which means I need to give them this one, even though we want to go with you. That’s tying. I’m not a legal expert, but that to me seems like tying.
TEDDY DOWNEY: In a different city? So, they’re in one city and then you’re doing something in another city or the same city?
STEPHEN PARKER: The same city. All or nothing touring agreements. An artist signs a touring agreement with Live Nation, they handle everything, but when they want to deviate to a venue that they really want to play or that they played coming up, the answer—not in every case, and I think that’s important, not in every case, but in many cases—is no. No.
And then there’s something we’re seeing from across the country, which is Live Nation’s buying up local and regional promoters. In many cases, these artists may not realize that they are signing an agreement for a show with Live Nation because it is not transparent whether they have a majority stake, a minority stake. It’s rough.
And I think we should talk in more detail about this. But I think governments, particularly local governments, are helping perpetuate the monopoly. They are giving resources that they would never give to an independent venue or an independent promoter that has operated in their city or their state or their region for generations in order to go with Live Nation and give them public benefits, taxpayer benefits, in order to say that they’ve got a large promoter like Live Nation.
And this is happening after the lawsuit. We have cities that have given Live Nation sweetheart deals that they would never give to independent venues or promoters in their community after the federal government has called them a monopoly.
TEDDY DOWNEY: Can we talk about that for a second? Because we’ve done some reporting on the municipalities, like a municipally owned stage or park, giving some kind of exclusive agreement to Live Nation to manage the park. That just seems very out of the ordinary given that it should be a public park. Entering some kind of exclusive agreement seems like there are a whole host of issues with that from a public interest standpoint. But are you talking about, like, tax benefits? And maybe you can give an example. Just because I don’t think we’ve really written about that in terms of municipalities showering benefits on Live Nation.
STEPHEN PARKER: Sure. I think it’s hard to track the specifics. We know that Live Nation is getting benefits. We also know that, in many cases, there’s not a true procurement process. And it must be legal. We don’t think cities would break the law. But in some cases, Live Nation is getting the rights to run a municipally owned venue or government owned venue without anybody getting a fair shot to apply for it.
An example of one where there is a fair procurement process now is Ascend Amphitheater in Nashville. It is a beautiful space. It is right on the water in Nashville. It’s right off of Broadway, which is where we have a lot of independent venues and places where music are performed.
But there’s also an amphitheater there that sells major shows. Ascend is going through a recompete right now to figure out if Live Nation should continue to operate that as they have for the last ten years. We don’t have a result yet, but we know that independent promoters have applied to use that. It has not been an open amphitheater. It is a public space. It is paid for with taxpayer dollars. And Live Nation is likely getting public benefit in order to operate it, in addition to being able to use that space and compete with the independent venues and promoters there in the city. So, we hope that the city does the right thing and chooses a way for independent venues and promoters to be able to use that space. It should not be closed to just a monopoly.
The other example is from Portland, Oregon. A few months ago, Portland, Oregon, I mean, for more than a year, the Portland, Oregon grassroots music community, artists, venues, promoters, fans, have been engaged in a battle with Live Nation. And a few months ago, the Portland, Oregon Economic Development Agency, or a Portland, Oregon Economic Development Agency, and the city council signed off on a deal to give Live Nation land at a dramatically reduced price, when the value of the land, at least according to some experts, was much higher than what they ultimately sold it to Live Nation for.
There are examples throughout the country of Live Nation getting sweetheart deals. Some have said no and stopped that. LA said no to Live Nation. You can’t manage the Greek theater. Irving, California, said, no. We’re not going to let you manage that anymore. We are seeing some start to say no. But we’re also seeing more say yes to Live Nation and give them benefits.
What we’re asking for is a fair procurement process. We’re also asking for there to be some consideration by state and local governments for what will happen to the music ecosystem or the performance ecosystem when Live Nation comes in. There have been no steps taken when Live Nation comes in to have any sort of repair of what the impacts will be. And ultimately, when they come in, we’re seeing them struggle. It is harder to book for venues that would compete with them. It is harder to keep your doors open. It is harder to compete for a finite number of fans with a finite number of dollars in their bank accounts.
And so, we think governments, unfortunately, are part of the problem here. And maybe they don’t mean to be, but they need to understand that they’re siding with a monopolist and they’re going with a company that is primarily going to deliver the profits back to shareholders, internationally and in New York, not their community.
TEDDY DOWNEY: We’ve done some reporting about how after discovery, DOJ and the states could add evidence, add to the complaint. You’ve mentioned a few things here. Anything else that you hope that is added to sort of fill out the narrative, fill in some of the facts, of how Live Nation exerts its power in the market?
STEPHEN PARKER: I mean, the biggest thing is we really appreciate the artist teams that work so hard to make sure that the artists are taken care of. The agents, the managers, they fight hard for their artists. They fight hard for their artists. Those artists, I don’t care whether you’re the biggest artist in the world or the smallest artist that’s just getting started, you are sacrificing to be on the road. And because of the nature of how the music industry and the performance spaces work now, you only get paid when you’re on the road now.
And one, it’s a shame that we’re at that place when it comes to kind of the value of music and performance and rights. But two, we want to play a positive role in making sure that those artists get every dollar that they need. And I think just thinking about how much pressure there is on these agents and managers to buy Live Nation, they are just trying to do the right thing by the artist. I think we need to think about that more. And we need to think about how they’re taken care of and how that pressure shouldn’t be on them. They should be able to freely choose.
And I’ll also just say that, besides that, the other thing that’s really alarming is just how we can’t compete. Right now, we cannot do national tour deals. We are independent venues. We do not have the ability to do national tour deals. Which means that as long as Live Nation can pay those upfront bonuses to artists—and in many cases millions of dollars—and give them a national tour deal and not let them have some exceptions of performing at independent venues or perform with independent promoters or performing arts centers, that is going to continue to diminish the ability of our sector to survive.
And I would encourage everybody to go watch a viral video by an artist named Jon Bellion. He talked about how he got a million dollar advance from Live Nation and they called him rich. And then he found out that they were making $4 million a show. And all of the fees that were being built in that he had to pay like towels, artist hospitality, and a host of other expenses, were all coming out of what he was making. You know, we want artists to be taken care of. And in some cases, we just can’t compete. In many cases, we just can’t compete in terms of how artists are being paid. And we don’t blame those artists for going with the most money. But in many cases, when they take that money, it’s not actually real. And I think that’s important to remember in this case as well.
TEDDY DOWNEY: Yeah, we’ve done a lot of reporting on how they do those big upfront payments. And again, it goes back to not just the money not being real, but you take maybe even a loss on one part of the business and you have so many other areas to make up for it. The accounting just is nearly impossible as an outsider to really get to the bottom of.
So perhaps in discovery, that story can get a little bit tighter and potentially make its way into the complaint. We’ve spent a lot of time over the years looking at predatory pricing, predatory conduct, and that’s not always the easiest allegation to bring. But on the other hand, it looks like a pretty good draw and judge, and maybe some of these types of points can be brought up.
STEPHEN PARKER: Yeah, I think the core tenant here you asked, and let me hone in a little bit more. The case in the complaint talks about artist management, and they talk about how Live Nation manages 400 artists. I think it’s more than that. But it’s important to note that even if Live Nation is not managing these artists, they are. Because these touring agreements are essentially management deals. They are managing that tour for that artist. And I think it’s important to note that artist management, whether it’s the traditional model or you’re going to sign one deal with me and I’m going to put you all over the country wherever I want, it’s the same thing. And I think as the U.S. Department of Justice and the state attorneys general move this case forward, it is important to note that there is so much more to be uncovered on the artist management front.
TEDDY DOWNEY: And we’ve talked about how broke the industry is, the case. What do you want to see from a remedy standpoint? And would that actually get us to a healthy live performance ecosystem? And sort of dream big here. I want to hear here’s everything that would need to happen to actually have competition, healthy, robust competition, and an environment in which your venues could thrive without worrying, without fear, effectively, of retribution.
STEPHEN PARKER: I mean, retaliation and kind of fear is real. I would be lying to you if I was not uneasy right now on this event, on this webinar. This is not just an inconvenience. This is a matter of continuing to exist or not continuing to exist. And there is real fear among our members and non-members that I talk to that me speaking out like this is going to lead to Live Nation putting them out of business, whether it’s real or not. And I think that fear is really important to remember.
I am concerned. I’m concerned not just about our members, but about NEVA. We need to continue to exist to fight for them. And we could never compete against Live Nation, ever. And when I say that, I mean just in the public debate.
And so, from where I sit, remedies need to be really cut and dry. Let’s talk about remedies that I don’t think will work.
A settlement that allows Live Nation to continue in its current form post-2010 will not work.
Another consent decree that allows for Live Nation to continue to own Ticketmaster will not work. Another consent decree that allows Live Nation to continue to have national tours with artist management will not work. It will not fix things.
There have been some really, dare I say, creative, but also very harmful solutions proposed by secondary companies, particularly in California last year, that would have given secondary companies access to not only Ticketmaster and Live Nation data, but also data from independent venues across the country. That is not going to work. We will fight that with every ounce of our being.
And then what I would just note is that there is no capital market for independent live entertainment in the country. Yes, Ticketmaster championed and modernized the exclusive ticketing agreement, but I’ll also just note that exclusive ticketing agreements are used widely beyond Ticketmaster. And so, while the court may consider limiting the use of exclusive ticketing agreements with Live Nation and Ticketmaster, we are happy to have a discussion with any courts or the justice system that are considering doing that.
But it’s important that these stay unless the federal government or states want to start a bank just for live entertainment, because this is our source of capital, not just from Ticketmaster, but from all those independent ticketing companies, from one of those secondary companies that is entering the primary space. And so, I think it’s important to note that whatever exclusive ticketing contract arrangements are made needs to be very narrow in scope because of the importance of this capital that those ticketing companies bring to us.
But as far as the basics of what a remedy should look like, Live Nation needs to be broken up, at least in the two companies. There are arguments out there from some organizations, like the American Economic Liberties Project, that there should be more than two companies. We would entertain that.
The other piece that I think is really important is how are the harms addressed? How is the devastation—that some communities and some sectors and some artists have undertaken—how are they paid back?
I talked about the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement earlier today. What happens? This is a $22 billion a year company or more. Record profits every single quarter. Record. How are they going to make people whole if ultimately they’re broken up and this DOJ case and 40 state AG cases go their way? Or go our way? I think those are the remedies that we would look at.
Then I would also just say that beyond remedies that would be done through the legal realm, the UK Parliament has an official position that there should be a levy on large shows to take care of grassroots or independent venues and promoters that are in economic uncertainty right now. That can’t be done nationally in our country just due to our system of federalism, but that is certainly something that should be looked at state by state to make sure that large promoters like Live Nation cannot continue to harm us and there is a fund available if they do.
TEDDY DOWNEY: We talked about the remedies. Let’s assume there’s a breakup and the tour management, the venue management, and then the ticketing all get separated. What else do you need to make sure that those—Ticketmaster are still what? Ninety percent or more of the market? Obviously, it’s a lot harder to do comprehensive damage to an ecosystem, a market ecosystem, with just one monopoly. You can sort of get your fees there, but it’s just not nearly as problematic.
But what does healthy competition look like? What else do you need besides the breakup to ensure entry and robust competition—like we said, on the merits, fair competition—where there’s not races to the bottom? Let’s leave out the secondary market for now. But in the primary market, what do you really want to see?
Or would a breakup be enough? With the structural piece, you mentioned the damages or some kind of fund to put independent venues back on their feet. But in terms of the competition, how do you get to real competition in all those different markets?
STEPHEN PARKER: The honest answer is it’s hard to tell. But let’s talk about the principles, what it should look like broadly. One, venues should be able to choose. They should not be forced into anything because they think it’s going to help them get a show. They should choose the best ticketing company no matter what. And that’s going to involve capital so that they can continue to do business and continue to compete with large promoters. And so, I think venues and promoters should be able to continue to compete, not based on fear of getting a show or not, but choosing the best ticketing company available and the best financial situation for them based on what that ticketing company is offering them.
TEDDY DOWNEY: Can we stay on this for one second, the ticketing? Getting upfront money for exclusive ticketing, is it like having access to bank financing or some kind of access to small business? Like having a real robust banking system? Are we so far beyond that even being a possibility? Just throwing that out.
STEPHEN PARKER: Capital financing and loans are really hard for small businesses broadly.
TEDDY DOWNEY: Yeah, they are.
STEPHEN PARKER: There are local small business administrations, state small business administrations, federal small business administrations. And ultimately, in some cases, it’s really hard to qualify for small business, especially if you’re getting started, but also if you want to scale and expand. In some cases, if you have multiple venues, small venues, you have a better chance of surviving than if you just have one small venue. When it comes to starting anew, expansion or just keeping yourself afloat, in many cases, it has been very hard for the financial services systems—not in many cases—in most cases, it’s been very hard for the financial services systems to support the small businesses and nonprofits that make up our sector. The so ticketing companies have filled the gap, and they filled a much-needed gap.
I think it’s important to note that there are some more federal programs that are out there, and we’re trying to help our venues connect with them. And we need to figure that out. That’s a whole other webinar that probably doesn’t have to do with competition antitrust. It just has to do with education.
TEDDY DOWNEY: It’s part of the complexity and sort of collapse of the ecosystem. It’s part of that story. If we’re thinking about what does robust competition look like and more independence, more opportunity, better entry, more various types of entry, robust funding, access to banking seems relevant.
STEPHEN PARKER: Right now, with high interest rates, it makes it even harder for us to access those funds. Again, there are government programs, and we want to get better at helping our members access them. But in the end, it still needs to be paid back. If that interest rate is higher than they are able to sustain, then they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.
You can continue to operate on the money that’s coming in from the tickets that you’re selling. But that doesn’t give you enough money to book the artists and pay them in advance in order to make sure that you can get the acts that are going to ultimately sell tickets. It’s a vicious cycle that’s been hard for us to break through. I don’t think any one company—I know this is about Live Nation. That’s not a judgment on them. It’s just an issue with the sector that we’ve got to figure out collectively.
TEDDY DOWNEY: Right. I mean, you guys lobbied for funding to survive the pandemic. So, it’s not that far off to have a special lending program. But let’s continue. What else do you need? I want to know what a real competitive environment looks like.
STEPHEN PARKER: I mean, I think we’ve already mostly covered it. It’s making sure that we can choose a ticketing company on what’s best for us based on ticketing. It’s making sure that there’s real competition in the promotions department, and that we have a fair shot without national touring agreements. It’s making sure that national touring agreements can’t systematically exclude independent venues and promoters. It’s making sure that, because of tying, that agents feel comfortable sending their artists to our venues if we offer the best price and give them the best situation. And in many cases, that’s been really hard based on the forced co-production or copromotion that I’ve talked about already. But also because of kind of the pressure that’s been applied, where even after we have confirmed deals or holds, those go away because of the pressure that Live Nation can apply.
And some of these are choices. I’m not saying that it’s always because of pressure. Sometimes it’s just the best deal, and we need to acknowledge that. But in some cases, it’s not. In many cases, it’s not, just based on what we’re being told. And I think we need to evaluate both of those possibilities and see what we can do to improve the system.
But also, I just want to be clear here, we want—the whole sector is unsustainable except for Live Nation. Period. And that’s the case for artists as well. Unless you’re in the top 0.01 percent, the whole sector is unsustainable. And if it’s unsustainable for everybody but Live Nation, then clearly there’s a problem. And that should be the standard. What can we do to make the sector sustainable for most, not just Live Nation?
TEDDY DOWNEY: Can we talk about artists for a second? Maybe this is a good way to close out. By the way, getting back to the fear question, I’ve never reported on an industry where it is harder to get people on the record. That’s one of the reasons we were so enthusiastic to do this call. It is so, so hard to get people to talk, in particular musicians. And even at the high end, some of the things that we’ve heard are, even when they’re getting huge advances from Live Nation, artists don’t like the ecosystem because they have no choice over where they can play. And it’s sort of like that lack of independence in how they do their tour is something they really don’t like. And so, even when they’re getting all this money up front, they would like a more competitive, more choice, as well. Is that something that you hear as well? And what would a competitive open market look like when it comes to being a musician?
And the other thing we heard about was, as you mentioned earlier, just being a smaller musician, it’s so hard to break through now. It’s so hard to get noticed. It’s so hard to rise through the ranks. And it’s so hard to make money on tours. Whereas, as you mentioned before, this was the only way to make money. And now, even that, if you’re a smaller artist, is really difficult. Can you talk a little bit about that imbalance and sort of what a competitive environment would really look like if you’re a musician?
STEPHEN PARKER: Yeah, I mean, I don’t speak for musicians. They are everything to what we do. And artists, I don’t speak for them. But I would say that—and this is where we sound a little bit like Live Nation, even though we are diametrically opposed to them. The artist should be able to choose the terms of how their tickets are sold and the face value of what their ticket is sold for. And I think the biggest threat to that is the secondary market and the fact that they’re tearing down the ability of artists to choose in states across the country. That is the biggest threat to artists.
And then the secondary threat of Live Nation is just, you know, is what they’re getting from Live Nation real in terms of the dollars that they’re promised? And is it not predatory?
And ultimately, it’s up to them. And I’ve never seen a Live Nation artist agreement. I think the fact that I can only point to Jon Bellion in that viral video that’s gone crazy on social media, and then an artist like Kid Rock, who deserves a lot of credit for continuing to call for the breakup of Live Nation, means that there continues to be fear not just among my members, including me even being here today talking about this, but also fear among artists. And I want to respect them and only kind of call out those that are—Zach Bryan’s another one. I think you should ask them.
But I will say, from our perspective, artists should choose. In the end, it is a negotiation between the venue and the artist. And sometimes, those negotiations can get fierce. But in the end, the artist has a lot of leverage. And we want to work with them to make sure that they choose our stages over others.
TEDDY DOWNEY: Yeah. Well, we’re out of time here. But I want to ask is there anything I missed? Is there any points that you want to make? What’ve covered a lot of ground. It’s a very complex industry. Live Nation exerts a lot of influence throughout the ecosystem.
STEPHEN PARKER: I think the big thing is this. Despite what Live Nation says and how this case is unusual, it’s not. There’s no reason for this case to not continue. There’s no reason for it to not continue. It is bipartisan. There is evidence from fans. There’s evidence from venues. There’s evidence from other companies that work in this space with them that what they’re doing is unlawful.
There is an opportunity for state attorneys general, the new Attorney General, Pam Bondi, the new president, President Trump, to secure a huge victory for most of the American public who goes to live shows, if this case were to continue to be prosecuted and ultimately, they were able to secure a victory against Live Nation. This case is grassroots America at its best. It is making sure that those who are vulnerable are taken care of.
And in the case of Live Nation and the people that are harmed by them, based on the case and based on what I’ve shared with you today, it means that this case has to continue. And from our perspective, we expect it to. And we’re happy to provide any resources, additional information, where possible, protecting our members to make sure that it does.
And I’ll just say the most important thing, for any state AGs or DOJ officials that may listen to this, is resources. This has to be resourced. Live Nation will have nearly unlimited resources at their disposal to fight this. Which means that we need to make sure that, as a country, we are working to present the best case with the most resources in order to push back against them.
TEDDY DOWNEY: Well, Stephen, I think it takes a lot of courage to come on and talk about this publicly. Like I said, I’ve never seen—never had a harder time getting people to talk on the record about this issue and this case in particular. And I can’t thank you enough for coming on and having this conversation.
STEPHEN PARKER: Thanks. Appreciate it, Teddy. Talk soon.
TEDDY DOWNEY: Thanks to everyone for joining us today. This concludes the call. Bye-bye.
