Thursday, December 23, 2010

Raise it, not cut it

You love football. You paid for watching the semifinal. Your fave team won. Next week there will be the final match. Which one is more likely: your willingness to pay for watching the final is higher or lower than that for the semifinal? Yes, higher. So more expensive ticket, not cheaper, makes more sense.

Now, you are a sportman. You always struggle to win. You did win and got an appreciation (be it trophy, money, etc.), so you deserved to play in a higher level. Do you expect more or less appreciation should you win? Yes, more. But where does the money to buy trophy come from? Assume, just assume, partly comes from the ticket sale. What is the implication? Yes, ticket price for final should be higher than that for semifinal.

Finally, you hear that the ticket price for the next game is lowered. Do you expect longer or shorter line at the ticket booth? Yes, longer. If you could afford the semi, would you be paying a premium for whoever promises you to stand in line on your behalf? I would. What is the implication? Black market. If black market is not possible, what would be the stadium look like? Crowded like hell, and possibly with some fights over seat here and there. You would need extra security forces. Which means extra cost.

All the three hypothetical scenarios above are, well, hypothetical. You could of course find them and the likes in any intro level economics.

The president, who ordered the football association to cut the price for final match is, by the way, an economist. He should've flunked his intro class.


  1. Actually I prefer they lower the price, so I can watch supporters fights in the end...

    you can watch people boxing, throwing things after the football, 3 sports for the same price... *interesting deal*


  2. At least with lower price, there will be better equality, ie the poor who can get the ticket can watch.

    If the price is too high, only the rich can watch the match.

    I think that's the president's aim.