Proponents of secondary ticket platforms argue that companies like StubHub provide a vital service by creating a liquid and secure market for fans. Without these platforms, individuals who are unable to attend an event would have no safe way to recoup their investment, and fans who missed the initial sale would have no reliable way to purchase tickets. The existence of a secondary market ensures that tickets do not go to waste and that fans have options even after an event sells out.
From this viewpoint, the focus on scalping often ignores the reality of supply and demand. When an event is highly popular, the market value of a ticket naturally rises above the face value set by promoters. Platforms like StubHub simply reflect this market reality by allowing prices to fluctuate based on what buyers are willing to pay. By providing a centralized, verified platform, these companies protect consumers from the risks of fraud that were common in the era of street-corner scalpers.
Furthermore, supporters emphasize that these platforms invest heavily in technology to ensure that transactions are safe and that tickets are guaranteed. They argue that blaming the platform for high prices is a misdirection of anger that should be directed at the primary ticketing systems or the event organizers themselves. If the secondary market were heavily restricted, it would likely drive ticket sales to unregulated, less secure channels where consumers would have even less protection.
Ultimately, the argument is that a free market for tickets benefits the majority of participants by offering flexibility and security. Rather than imposing heavy-handed regulations that could stifle the market, proponents suggest that the industry should focus on improving transparency in the primary market. By maintaining a robust secondary marketplace, StubHub and similar companies ensure that fans have the freedom to buy and sell tickets in a way that matches the modern digital economy.