Saint Louis University Law Journal Saint Louis University Law Journal
Volume 51
Number 1
Fall 2006
Article 10
2006
The Myth & Mystery of Personal Seat Licenses and Season The Myth & Mystery of Personal Seat Licenses and Season
Tickets: Licenses or More? Tickets: Licenses or More?
Danette R. Davis
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj
Part of the Law Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Danette R. Davis,
The Myth & Mystery of Personal Seat Licenses and Season Tickets: Licenses or More?
,
51 St. Louis U. L.J. (2006).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol51/iss1/10
This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Commons. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Saint Louis University Law Journal by an authorized editor of Scholarship Commons. For more
information, please contact Susie Lee.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
241
THE MYTH & MYSTERY OF PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES AND
SEASON TICKETS: LICENSES OR MORE?
I
NTRODUCTION
Professional sports have been a source of entertainment to Americans for
decades.
1
Sports is a multi-billion dollar industry
2
with franchises gaining
revenue from ticket sales, parking, concessions, broadcasting contracts,
licensing, and merchandise. In fact, the average family of four spends $164.43
at a Major League Baseball game
3
and $329.82 at a National Football League
game.
4
As the business of the sports industry expands, more and more professional
teams are marketing season tickets and seat licenses to fans. Indeed, season
tickets have become a hot commodity among fans. In some sports franchises,
thousands of fans sign up on waiting lists just for the right to purchase season
1. Robert Taylor Bowling, Comment, Sports Aggravated: The Fan’s Guide to the
Franchise Relocation Problem in Professional Sports, 28 S
TETSON L. REV. 645, 645 (1999).
2. Richard M. Nichols, Agent, Lawyer, Agent/Lawyer . . . Who Can Best Represent Student
Athletes?, E
NT. & SPORTS LAW, Fall 1996, at 1; see also GLENN M. WONG, ESSENTIALS OF
SPORTS LAW 3 (3d ed. 2002). “Professional sports leagues make up a large share of the more
than $150 billion sports industry in the United States.” Id. In fact, in 2005 the NFL reported $5.7
billion in revenues. Karl Taro Greenfeld, The Big Man, S
PORTS ILLUSTRATED, Jan. 23, 2006, at
58.
3. Team Marketing Report, Fan Cost Index: Major League Baseball 2005,
http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_mlb2005.cfm (last visited Nov. 12, 2006).
4. Alan Snel, $363.85: Taking the Family to Raymond James Stadium to See the Bucs
These Days Comes with Its Own Sticker Shock, T
AMPA TRIB., Sept. 8, 2005, at 1. This average
cost index is “made up of the prices of four average-price tickets, two small draft beers, four
small soft drinks, four regular hot dogs, parking for one car, two game programs and two of the
cheapest adult-size adjustable caps.” Id.; see also Team Marketing Report, Fan Cost Index:
National Football League 2005, http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nfl_05.cfm
(last visited Nov. 12, 2006). Additionally, costs for professional sports fans have steadily
climbed over time. In fact, the average cost has increased markedly since the Team Marketing
Report’s inception in the 1991 professional sports seasons. In 1991, the average family of four
spent $79.41 at a MLB game and $151.33 at a NFL game, representing an increase in the average
cost in excess of 100 percent in both leagues. See Team Marketing Report, Fan Cost Index:
Major League Baseball 1991, http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_mlb1991.cfm
(last visited Nov. 12, 2006); Team Marketing Report, Fan Cost Index: National Football League
1991, http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nfl_91.cfm (last visited Nov. 12, 2006).
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
242 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 51:241
tickets.
5
The increased interest in season tickets results in legal issues arising
from the purchase of season tickets and/or ownership of seat licenses.
Professional sports fans make substantial investments in their preferred
team through time watching games and following team news, money spent to
purchase season tickets and seat licenses, and of course, emotions involved in
the ups and downs of following the team over several years.
6
Professional
sports teams raise large revenue through their sale of season tickets and seat
licenses. For these reasons, it is important to both the fan and the team to
understand the rights that result from the purchase of season tickets and seat
licenses.
This Comment will discuss a fundamental issue of fans’ rights: the
property rights arising from seat licenses and the season ticket holder status.
Traditionally, sports franchises that sell seat licenses and season tickets classify
them in total as a license. However, careful analysis reveals that holders of
personal seat licenses and season tickets have greater interests in these
properties than a traditional licensee. Accordingly, the season ticket holder
status and the personal seat license should be afforded more consideration than
a license.
Part I of this Comment defines season tickets and personal seat licenses
and discusses characteristics common to each. Part II presents the legal
background surrounding season ticket holder claims. Part III analyzes the
property traits of season ticket holder status and personal seat licenses and
argues for free ability to alienate these property interests. Finally, Part IV
discusses the need for uniform treatment of these property interests and
possible issues with the implementation of procedures for achieving
uniformity.
I.
WHAT ARE SEASON TICKETS AND PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES?
Professional sports franchises market season ticket packages that give the
purchaser the right to a specific seat in the franchise stadium for every regular
season game that franchise plays in the stadium.
7
Additionally, season ticket
5. James T. Reese et al., National Football League Ticket Transfer Policies: Legal and
Policy Issues, 14 J.
LEGAL ASPECTS OF SPORT 163, 165–66 (2004).
6. When the Cleveland Browns announced their plans to leave Cleveland, their fans
emotions were deeply affected. Terrence Monmaney, Feeling Blue over the Browns: Why Do
Sports Fans Such as Cleveland’s Become so Distraught when Their Teams Leave Town?
Researchers Cite ‘Reflected Glory,’ Self-Esteem and Even Hormones, L.A.
TIMES, Jan. 27, 1996,
at A1. In fact, many Browns fans experienced depression and anxiety as a result of the team’s
relocation. Id. Psychologists believed this emotional and psychological distress was the result of
a deep tradition of Browns football for fans in the Cleveland area. Id.
7. Mark Levengood, Comment, Unregistered Securities in the National Football League:
Can the Securities Act of 1933 Protect Season Ticket Holders and Personal Seat License
Holders?, 11 V
ILL. SPORTS & ENT. L.J. 411, 414 (2004).
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
2006] THE MYTH & MYSTERY OF PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES AND SEASON TICKETS 243
packages generally give the purchaser rights to purchase tickets for the same
seat during highly sought after games.
8
For instance, most professional sports
fans that purchase season ticket packages enjoy the extraordinary right to
purchase tickets to post-season games, as well as All-Star Games played in the
stadium.
9
Additionally, they have the right to purchase individual and group
tickets to regular season games prior to their availability to the general
public.
10
The prices of such packages vary widely between stadiums and
according to seat locations.
11
In recent years, sports franchises have conditioned the purchase of season
tickets, especially for premium seating, on the fan’s purchase of a personal, or
private, seat license (PSL).
12
The rights conveyed by the PSL vary among
different franchises.
13
However, the seat license typically gives the purchaser a
right to buy season tickets in a premium seat location in the future.
14
Often,
these licenses also give the purchaser the right of first refusal for post-season
tickets and the right to transfer the PSL.
15
The term of the PSL also varies
from franchise to franchise.
16
In some cases, the PSL has an indefinite term
and will only terminate if the license holder violates the license agreement,
most notably by choosing to not purchase tickets for a season.
17
However, in
other cases, the seat licenses are valid for a term of years.
18
Like season
8. See St. Louis Cardinals 2006 Season Ticket Overview, http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/
NASApp/mlb/stl/ticketing/season_overview.jsp (last visited Nov. 12, 2006).
9. Id.; S
T. LOUIS RAMS 2006 SEASON TICKET GUIDE, Ticket Policies & Information (St.
Louis Rams, St. Louis, MO 2006), available at http://www.stlouisrams.com/Tickets/
seasonticketguide; San Diego Padres 2006 Season Tickets (on file with The Saint Louis
University Law Journal).
10. New York Yankees Ticket Licensees, http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/
nyy/ticketing/sth_faq.jsp (last visited Nov. 12, 2006); Letter from Michael Hall, Director, Group
Ticket Sales, St. Louis Cardinals LLC to Season Ticket Holders (Dec. 21, 2005) (on file with
author).
11. Levengood, supra note 7, at 414.
12. Id. Often, the requirement that premium seat holders purchase PSLs occurs when the
franchise relocates or constructs a new stadium. See Doug Moore, Deal Makes Cards Owners of
Stadium: Team Will Contribute Extra Money for New Ballpark, S
T. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, Dec.
24, 2003, at A11; Sam Walker, Craving Cash, Teams Ask Ticket Holders to Pay Twice, W
ALL ST.
J., Jul. 10, 1998, at B1.
13. Levengood, supra note 7, at 415.
14. Bowling, supra note 1, at 680.
15. Levengood, supra note 7, at 415.
16. Id.
17. Id.; W
ONG, supra note 2, at 10. The team also reserves the right to revoke tickets
privileges based on misconduct of the license holder, such as scalping and unsportsmanlike
conduct. G
REEN BAY PACKERS SEASON TICKETS, Season Ticket Holder Policies (on file with
The Saint Louis University Law Journal); S
T. LOUIS RAMS 2006 SEASON TICKET GUIDE, Ticket
Policies & Information
(St. Louis Rams, St. Louis, MO), available at http://www.stlouis
rams.com/Tickets/seasonticketguide.
18. Levengood, supra note 7, at 415.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
244 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 51:241
tickets, the price of the PSLs will vary between stadiums and even between
seats within stadiums.
19
In a single stadium, seat licenses can range from
$1,000 per seat to several thousand dollars per seat for premium seats.
20
The personal seat license has become popular among professional sports
franchises because it provides an avenue for additional revenue and increased
profits to the team.
21
Team owners often utilize this large amount of additional
revenue to fund stadium renovations and new stadiums.
22
Team owners prefer
the use of PSLs as a revenue generator for stadium financing because it targets
fans that have an interest in the team, instead of burdening taxpayers through
public financing.
23
Moreover, this type of license agreement ensures the
franchise continued revenue through the form of guaranteed season ticket sales
by compelling license holders, who may not have purchased season tickets
every year, to purchase the tickets or lose their rights to future years through
termination of their license agreement.
24
II.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
A. Defining Property and Licenses
Because this Comment analyzes season tickets and PSLs based on United
States property law, consideration must be given to the framework of
democracy. Against that backdrop, it is critical to realize that property rights
in the U.S. have evolved over the past three centuries.
25
A democratic
government allows its participants to contribute to government through the
election process. Through suffrage, the democratic system forces evolution of
property rights as voters express their opinions on property issues and elected
19. Id. For example, to finance the St. Louis Cardinal’s new stadium, which opened in
Spring 2006, the club announced the inception of The Ballpark Founders program. See T
HE
BALLPARK FOUNDERS (St. Louis Cardinals, St. Louis, MO 2005). Seat licenses for premium
infield seats, under this program, ranged from $2,000 to $7,500 per seat. Id. at 6.
20. W
ONG, supra note 2, at 10.
21. Bowling, supra note 1, at 680; Alan J. Ostfield, Seat License Revenue in the National
Football League: Shareable or Not?, 5
SETON HALL J. SPORT L. 599, 599 (1995).
22. Bowling, supra note 1, at 681; Walker, supra note 12, at B1. For example, the Carolina
Panthers sold 61,000 PSLs and raised over $150 million to fund its new stadium. W
ONG, supra
note 2, at 10.
23. Bowling, supra note 1, at 681.
24. Ostfield, supra note 21, at 601; see also Paul L. B. McKenney & Eric M. Nemeth, The
Purchase and Sales of a Sports Team, 80-J
UN MICH. BAR J. 54, 59 (2001) (“[S]eason ticket
holders/sky box leases represent critical income streams to any club”).
25. Clearly, this discussion does not represent a complete history of property rights in
Western Democracy, but only attempts to demonstrate the correlation between a representative
government and the property rights system it endorses.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
2006] THE MYTH & MYSTERY OF PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES AND SEASON TICKETS 245
officials create and/or change laws to reflect social attitudes.
26
Furthermore,
the judicial system has molded the law of property. Courts find their
instruction in the democratically enacted Constitution of the United States of
America, which protects property through protecting individual rights,
27
and
through legislation. The judicial system supports the democratically devised
U.S. property law system by protecting property rights and facilitating the
exercise of these rights.
In a legal sense, the term “property” refers to a “right and interest in an
object.”
28
Property, in the legal community, is commonly regarded as a
“bundle of rights.”
29
In other words, it consists of a collection of individual
rights, including not only the right to possess and own the object, but also the
rights to use, enjoy, and dispose of the object.
30
On the other hand, a license is a restricted interest in an object or land. It
grants the holder the limited right to use and enjoy the object or land. As one
court has stated, “[a] license grants the licensee a right to enter upon the
licensor’s land and use it for a specific purpose, without giving up the
licensor’s legal possession and control over the property.”
31
Because the
licensor retains ownership, legal possession, and control of the object or land,
the licensee does not enjoy the right to dispose of the object in the manner he
or she prefers. Therefore, a classic license is personal to the licensee, and thus,
nontransferable and terminable upon the licensee’s death.
32
As a result, the
licensee has no right to convey the object or land through sale or succession.
B. The Contract
The team structures season tickets and personal seat licenses as license
contracts. Indeed, the team generally includes disclaimers in its contract terms
and policies acknowledging the limited interests the season ticket holders or
PSL owners receive.
33
Moreover, the team attempts to maintain control over
26. See GOTTFRIED DIETZE, IN DEFENSE OF PROPERTY 47 (1963); Securing Property
Rights: The Foundation of Markets, E
CON. REFORM TODAY 2, 4 (No. 1, 1996).
27. See generally U.S.
CONST. amends. V, XIV.
28. A
M. JUR. 2D Property § 1 (2005) (citing United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 323 U.S.
373 (1945)).
29. Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 793 P.2d 479, 509 (Cal. 1990) (Mosk, J., dissenting),
cert. denied, 499 U.S. 936 (1991).
30. Id.
31. Soderholm v. Chicago Nat’l League Ball Club, Inc., 587 N.E.2d 517, 520 (Ill. App. Ct.
1992), cert. denied, 596 N.E.2d 637 (Ill. 1992).
32. 53 C.J.S. Licenses § 136 (2005).
33. See, e.g., Chicago Bears, Information Regarding PSL Transfers, at B-3 (on file with The
Saint Louis University Law Journal) (“A PSL does not grant or provide Licensee with any
ownership or other equity interest in the Stadium . . . or the Team. The rights licensed under this
Agreement are revocable rights of personal privilege . . . . PSLs should not be viewed or acquired
as an investment.”); G
REEN BAY PACKERS SEASON TICKETS, supra note 17 (“Season tickets are
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
246 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 51:241
the season ticket holder’s status and renewal rights, as well as the PSL through
its policies and contract terms. In fact, the team may threaten revocation of the
season ticket holder’s status upon a violation of these policies.
34
Similarly, the
team reinforces the license structure of the contracts by limiting the fan’s
ability to transfer the season ticket holder’s status and the PSL.
35
C. Precedent Supports Team Ownership
Historically, courts presented with issues relating to season tickets and
personal seat licenses have treated season tickets as licenses and have
supported the team’s ownership of tickets.
36
This stems from the commonly
accepted rule that a single admission ticket to a place of amusement is “a mere
license to witness the performance, which the owner or proprietor may revoke
at will.”
37
In Soderholm v. Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc.,
38
Soderholm,
who held season tickets to Chicago Cubs baseball games, sought an injunction
compelling the franchise to sell him season tickets for future baseball
seasons.
39
Soderholm held eighteen season tickets in both his name and his
company’s name when the club heard “rumors” that he was scalping the
tickets.
40
After sending a letter warning Soderholm that scalping was cause for
revocable licenses that may be revoked, and admission refused, at the sole discretion of the
Packers.”); New York Yankees Ticket Licensees, supra note 10 (“There is no ‘ownership’ or
other property right in the Tickets, the Ticket Account, or the seat locations by Licensees.”); S
T.
LOUIS RAMS, REGULAR PATRON CPSL AGREEMENT 2 (2005) (“[R]ights licensed under this
Agreement are rights of personal privilege and do not . . . confer . . . any interest or estate in real
property”).
34. See supra note 17 and accompanying text.
35. See, e.g., G
REEN BAY PACKERS SEASON TICKETS, supra note 17 (limiting transfers to
spouse, blood relatives, and between a closely held corporation and its owners); New York
Yankees Ticket Licensees, supra note 10 (“The [Season] Ticket Account . . . shall not be . . .
transferred in any manner, whether voluntarily or by gift, bequest, or operation of law.”).
36. Reese et al., supra note 5, at 167; see, e.g., In re Harrell, 73 F.3d 218, 220 (9th Cir.
1996); In re Livingston, 28 F.Supp.2d 623, 625 (D. Colo. 1998); Bickett v. Buffalo Bills, Inc.,
472 N.Y.S.2d 245, 247 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983).
37. 27A A
M. JUR. 2D Entertainment & Sport Law § 43 (1996); see also Marrone v. Wash.
Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633, 636 (1913) (stating that a holder of a race-track admission ticket does
not have a right in rem and may be prevented from entering); People v. Waisvisz, 582 N.E.2d
1383, 1386 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991), appeal denied, 591 N.E.2d 30 (Ill. 1992) (“A ticket to a sporting
or entertainment event is a license which may be revoked at the will of its issuer. Moreover, an
event sponsor may impose restrictions on the transferability of tickets which it issues.”); Capital
Theatre Co. v. Compton, 54 S.W.2d 620, 621 (Ky. Ct. App. 1932) (stating that a theater ticket is a
revocable license); Finnesey v. Seattle Baseball Club, 210 P. 679, 681 (Wash. 1922) (“[A] ticket
of admission [to baseball park] is a mere license, revocable at the will of the proprietor, even after
the holder has entered the [park] and has taken the seat.”).
38. 587 N.E.2d 517 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992), cert. denied, 596 N.E.2d 637 (Ill. 1992).
39. Id. at 518.
40. Id.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
2006] THE MYTH & MYSTERY OF PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES AND SEASON TICKETS 247
revocation of season ticket holder status, the Cubs refused to offer the plaintiff
more than six tickets for the subsequent season.
41
The court held that season
tickets to watch the Chicago Cubs are a “series of revocable licenses,” and
therefore, the Cubs could refuse to sell season tickets to a ticket holder for
subsequent seasons.
42
The court based its finding on the fact that the ticket
only granted its holder entrance to the ball park on a specific time and date to
sit in a specific seat at the identified game.
43
Similarly, in In re Liebman,
44
a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor held season
tickets to Chicago Bulls basketball games.
45
The bankruptcy trustee presented
a motion to the court to sell the debtor’s renewal rights in these tickets.
46
The
Chicago Bulls contested this motion, arguing that the debtor had no property
interest in the right to renew his season tickets, but instead, only had an
expectation of the team’s offer to renew.
47
The bankruptcy court pointed out
that section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code defines property of the state as “all
legal or equitable interest of the debtor in the property as of the
commencement of the case,”
48
and that state law determines property
interests.
49
As a result, the court had to determine whether the Chapter 7
debtor had a property interest in his right to renew season tickets under Illinois
law.
50
The court noted that the manner in which the sports franchise treats the
renewal rights of season tickets was fundamental to its decision.
51
The court
found the Bulls clearly stated their policy regarding renewal rights—that the
“season tickets are offered on a one-year basis,” are a “revocable license,” and
are “not transferable”—in all pertinent material.
52
Even though the Bulls
automatically renewed season tickets if the ticket holder’s account was current,
the court found that a Bulls season ticket holder only had a revocable license to
purchase tickets and did not have an interest in property under Illinois law.
53
41. Id.
42. Id. at 520–21.
43. Soderholm, 587 N.E.2d at 521.
44. 208 B.R. 38 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1997).
45. Id. at 39.
46. Id.
47. Id.
48. Id.
49. In re Liebman, 208 B.R. at 39.
50. Id.
51. Id. at 40.
52. Id.
53. Id. at 41.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
248 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 51:241
D. Bankruptcy Courts Find a “Property Interest” in Season Tickets
While the commonly recognized rule regarding tickets leans toward
classifying the tickets as a revocable license, some courts find a more
substantial property interest in season tickets. This occurs particularly when
the seller posts vague season ticket policies and the seller fails to enforce its
policies consistently.
54
In In re I.D. Craig Service Corp.,
55
a dispute arose regarding the proper
ownership of Pittsburgh Steelers season tickets. The bankruptcy court found a
property interest existed in the renewal rights of season ticket holder status for
a professional football team.
56
There, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee was
granted a motion to sell season tickets for the 1990–1991 Pittsburgh Steelers
football games.
57
Accordingly, the trustee sold fourteen tickets to all
remaining games in the season by dividing the tickets into six groups.
58
Additionally, the bankruptcy trustee moved to sell the renewal rights in the
same tickets.
59
The trustee supported this motion by showing that, at the time,
the Pittsburgh Steelers had a transfer policy that allowed season ticket holders
to transfer tickets to another individual or company for a nominal fee.
60
Additionally, arguing that the renewal rights were property of the bankruptcy
estate, the trustee claimed the football team’s tradition of offering season
tickets to the ticket holder on an annual basis “evidences the existence of rights
in the holder to renew the season tickets.”
61
The seller of the season tickets, Sports, Inc., opposed the motions to sell
the tickets and the rights to future season tickets with several arguments. It
argued that the sale would violate state anti-scalping laws,
62
that the transfer
would be unfair to fans on the season ticket waiting list,
63
and that the transfer
to multiple groups violated its policy of limiting the number of ticket transfers
an account could execute in a given year.
64
Despite these arguments the
bankruptcy court confirmed the sale of the tickets and renewal rights.
65
54. Reese et al., supra note 5, at 167.
55. 138 B.R. 490 (Bankr. W.D. Penn. 1992).
56. Id. at 502.
57. Id. at 492. These season tickets were previously owned by the debtor, but during the
bankruptcy proceedings, were transferred to the trustee’s name as part of the debtor’s estate. Id.
at n.2.
58. Id.
59. Id.
60. In re I.D. Craig Service Corp., 138 B.R. at 492.
61. Id.
62. Id.
63. Id. at 497.
64. Id. at 492.
65. In re I.D. Craig Service Corp., 138 B.R. at 495.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
2006] THE MYTH & MYSTERY OF PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES AND SEASON TICKETS 249
The court discredited each of the seller’s arguments opposing the sale. The
court determined the separate sale of the season tickets and the right to future
season tickets did not violate the state’s anti-scalping law, which makes it
illegal to resell tickets or “evidence of the right of entry” at a price higher than
the face value of the ticket.
66
The tickets were not sold at a price higher than
face value, so sale of the tickets did not violate the statute.
67
Furthermore, the
court found the sale of the trustee’s season ticket holder status, which entails
the right to renew season tickets, is not subject to the anti-scalping laws
because it is not a ticket or “evidence of the right of entry to any place of
amusement.”
68
Rather, season ticket holder status evidences the “right to
receive the offer to purchase the season tickets.”
69
The court next refuted the argument that the transfer would be unfair to the
individuals on the season ticket waiting list by pointing out that the seller
provided no guarantee the tickets at issue would actually go to individuals on
the wait list if the transfers were barred.
70
The team had discretion in
allocating returned tickets; for example, the seller could distribute the tickets in
various ways other than through the season ticket waiting list.
71
Indeed, the
seller’s practice of transferring tickets based on the season ticket holder’s
request, which also bypassed the waiting list, supported this finding.
72
Finally, the court noted that while the seller’s transfer policy restricting
transfers to one-per-year per account may have existed in the early 1980’s to
ease bookkeeping, the policy had been abolished or ignored for the previous
five years.
73
The evidence showed that in recent years the team focused on
customer satisfaction and made exceptions to its policy, allowing several
complicated ticket transfers.
74
The seller argued each ticket had language indicating that, as a revocable
license, the seller was not bound to offer future season tickets for purchase.
75
However, the court reasoned that the seller cannot deny the trustee’s request to
transfer the season ticket holder status based on revocability of the tickets
because the tickets and the renewal rights were “separate and distinct
66. Id. at 499–500.
67. Id. at 499.
68. Id. at 500. The Pennsylvania anti-scalping law “prohibits the resale of any tickets of
admission, or any other evidence of the right of entry to any place of amusement, at a price higher
than the established price fixed by the owners of such place of amusement, without having first
obtained a license to so resell or engage in such business from the licensor.” Id. at 499 (quoting 4
PA. STAT. ANN. § 202).
69. Id. at 500.
70. In re I.D. Craig Service Corp., 138 B.R. at 497.
71. Id.
72. Id.
73. Id. at 499.
74. Id.
75. In re I.D. Craig Service Corp., 138 B.R. at 493.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
250 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 51:241
interests.”
76
Additionally, the seller’s language in ticket policies contradicted
its argument that the season tickets were revocable licenses.
77
The seller’s
annually distributed handbook had a transfer policy which stated that the
“season ticket holder of record may transfer ownership.”
78
Also, the handbook
referred to the season ticket holder as the “owner” on two occasions and
contained a section entitled “SEASON TICKET OWNERSHIP.”
79
Furthermore, the court found the ticket seller’s policies and practices
regarding season tickets created an expectancy interest in the renewal rights of
season ticket holders.
80
First, the seller, in accordance with its season ticket
renewal policy, automatically offered season ticket holders tickets to the
upcoming season of Pittsburgh Steelers home games on an annual basis,
allowing the purchaser to retain season ticket holder status as long as he
continued to purchase the season tickets.
81
This was evidenced by both its past
actions and its renewal policy, which was outlined in the season ticket holder
handbook.
82
Additionally, the court noted the sellers had never withheld an
offer to a current season ticket holder to renew season tickets.
83
As a result,
the season ticket holder reasonably expected that the right to renew season
tickets would continue indefinitely.
84
The court held that the trustee had a
property interest in the season ticket holder’s right to renew the season
tickets.
85
This was a result of the seller’s practice of encouraging the season
ticket holders’ expectation of annually renewing their status or to transfer their
status upon written request and payment of a five dollar fee.
86
Based on the
presence of interested purchasers of the season ticket holder status and the
existence of a waiting list for season tickets, the court found the renewal rights
present were valuable property of the bankruptcy estate which could be sold
under section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.
87
More recently, In re Platt
88
considered the ownership interest of season
tickets for the Boston Red Sox. In this case, a Chapter 11 trustee attempted to
76. Id. at 494.
77. Id. at 498 n.15.
78. Id. at 498 & n.15 (emphasis added).
79. Id. at 498 n.15.
80. In re I.D. Craig Service Corp., 138 B.R. at 495. Contra In re Harrell, 73 F.3d 218, 220
(9th Cir. 1996) (holding that under Arizona law, the Phoenix Suns season ticket holders’
expectation of renewal of the season tickets is not a property right when the renewal opportunity
is revocable).
81. In re I.D. Craig Service Corp., 138 B.R. at 493.
82. Id.
83. Id. at 497.
84. Id. at 502.
85. Id. at 495.
86. In re I.D. Craig Service Corp., at 495–96.
87. Id. at 495.
88. 292 B.R. 12 (Bankr. Mass. 2003).
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
2006] THE MYTH & MYSTERY OF PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES AND SEASON TICKETS 251
sell at public auction four season tickets to the Boston Red Sox 2003 baseball
season and the right to future renewals of season tickets.
89
The Red Sox
opposed the sale, arguing that the sale of the tickets violated anti-scalping laws
and conflicted with the Red Sox non-transfer policy.
90
But, the bankruptcy
court dismissed the anti-scalping argument, finding it did not apply to the
bankruptcy trustee, who was not “engaged in the business of reselling tickets
within the meaning of the statute.”
91
Additionally, the trustee argued the past practice by the Red Sox of
allowing parties to transfer season tickets created a reasonable expectation that
renewal rights could be sold as a property interest.
92
The court agreed with the
trustee, ruling that the Red Sox season tickets were property.
93
Because the
team automatically sent renewal letters to season ticket holders each year,
season ticket holders’ had reasonable expectations of renewal, prompting the
court to find a renewal right in the season tickets.
94
Moreover, the court found that the Red Sox allowed transfers of season
tickets between family members, in the case of corporate mergers or name
changes, and in “special courtes[y]” situations, without requiring any special
investigation into the truthfulness of transfers between family members and
corporations.
95
Furthermore, the team’s exceptions to its non-transfer policy
for such “special courtesies” were subject to the discretion of upper-level
management.
96
The court held that the practice of automatically renewing
season tickets and arbitrarily allowing the transfer of tickets created a property
interest in the season ticket holder.
97
The Red Sox ultimately won, however,
because the bankruptcy trustee failed to prove that the debtor, and therefore the
estate, owned the season tickets they were attempting to sell.
98
These cases “demonstrate that the legal trend in regard to ticket transfers in
professional sports appears to be favoring the ability of season ticket holders to
prevail in establishing property rights.”
99
While the team structures the
contract as a license, courts have begun to look beyond the contract terms to
the policies of the teams to find these property rights. In addition to contract
terms and team policies, these courts find weight in the intangible expectation
of renewal created by season ticket holder status.
89. Id. at 13–14.
90. Id. at 14.
91. Id. at 18 n.5 (quoting M
ASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 140, § 185A (1924)).
92. Id. at 14.
93. In re Platt, 292 B.R. at 17.
94. Id.
95. Id. at 18.
96. Id.
97. Id. at 17.
98. In re Platt, 292 B.R. at 17.
99. Reese et al., supra note 5, at 186.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
252 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 51:241
E. Courts Find Property Interest in Personal Seat Licenses
Similar to the analysis followed by courts with respect to season tickets,
courts are finding property interests in PSLs which are greater than the
interests common to a license. In Marinik v. Cascade Group,
100
a judgment
creditor secured orders from a municipal court in Cleveland to garnish personal
property of its debtor.
101
The garnishment orders resulted in the attachment of
two personal seat licenses for season tickets to the Cleveland Browns’ football
games and two sets of season tickets for the same team.
102
The debtor had
purchased the personal seat licenses for $1,000 per seat.
103
With the purchase,
the debtor gained a permanent right to purchase Browns season tickets on an
annual basis.
104
In spite of a transfer restriction policy prohibiting any transfer of the seat
licenses for a period after the purchase of the seat license, the magistrate found
that a personal seat license is “personal property that is vested in the owner and
that is alienable by the terms of the grantor’s document that creates the right in
the property owner.”
105
Following the In re I.D. Craig Serv. Corp.
106
decision,
the magistrate reasoned that a PSL does not merely constitute a license to
purchase season tickets to the sporting event, but it also provides “a valuable
expectancy interest in renewable rights to season tickets . . . a wholly separate
and distinct interest from game tickets.”
107
Because the PSLs were property of
the debtor and properly attached, the PSLs were to be transferred to the
judgment creditor,
108
resulting in a $2,000 reduction of the amount the debtor
owed to the judgment creditor.
109
100. 724 N.E.2d 877 (Ohio Mun. Ct. 1999).
101. Id. at 878.
102. Id.
103. Id. at 879.
104. Id. The personal seat licenses were sold in the late 1990s by the city of Cleveland to
finance the construction of a new stadium for the Browns: Cleveland Stadium. Id.
105. Marinik, 724 N.E.2d at 880.
106. 138 B.R. 490 (Bankr. W.D. Penn. 1992).
107. Marinik, 724 N.E.2d at 880.
108. Id. at 879.
109. Id. at 881. The personal seat licenses were valued at $2,000, or $1,000 per seat, after a
great deal of argument regarding their valuation. Id. at 879. While the fair market value of an
attached article is normally the value credited to the judgment-debtor’s account, the valuation of
the personal seat licenses was more difficult. Id. at 881. In Marinik, the fair market value of the
personal seat license was not ascertainable because the PSLs were subject to a transferability
restriction, limiting transfer of the PSL’s until May 1, 2000. Id. at 879. As a result, the parties
presented opinions about the present value of the seat licenses and the value after the
transferability restriction was lifted. Id. However, the magistrate found these opinions were too
speculative, and thus, valued the seat licenses at $1,000 each. Id. at 879–80. Due to the
transferability restriction, the only possible buyer at the time of attachment was the Cleveland
Browns. Id. at 881. The Cleveland Browns’ policy limited the club to paying a PSL holder, on
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
2006] THE MYTH & MYSTERY OF PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES AND SEASON TICKETS 253
These cases illustrate the divided opinions and lack of uniformity
regarding the proper treatment of ownership and rights bestowed upon season
ticket and PSL holders. For this reason, it is important to reach a more
conclusive determination.
III.
PROPERTY INTERESTS IN SEASON TICKETS AND PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES
Because the cases finding “property interests” in season tickets are mostly
in the context of bankruptcy and debt judgments, it is important for sports fans
and franchises alike to determine if the “property interest” analysis can be
carried into other contexts. For example, this analysis could play a role in
contract disputes that arise when the team relocates to a new stadium or
modifies their existing stadium, when a fan attempts to sell her rights with
respect to the season ticket or the PSL, or when a fan contests the team’s
revocation of the fan’s ticket purchasing rights.
Property, as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, is “the right to possess,
use, and enjoy a determinate thing” or “the right of ownership.”
110
Courts have
cited several factors to indicate property ownership.
111
These include:
dominion, control, title, possession, and right of disposition, as well as the
ability to exclude others from interfering with the property.
112
Property is an
aggregate of these rights and characteristics relating to ownership.
113
A
determination defining something as property involves careful analysis of the
implicit public policy considerations and concerns.
114
Possession is an ambiguous, yet key concept in property law. Possession
of property entails the power and intent to control such property
115
or “the
exercise of dominion over property.”
116
One is said to be in possession of
something when he has “apparent control” or the “power of excluding
others.”
117
Additionally, the right of disposition, to sell and transmit property, is an
important right that accompanies property ownership. This right indicates
control over the property by giving the property owner the ability to alter his or
repurchase of the PSL, the original contract price for the PSL, which in this case was $1,000 per
seat. Id. at 879–80.
110. B
LACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1232 (7th ed. 1999).
111. 73 C.J.S. Property § 44 Incidents of Ownership (2006).
112. Id.
113. In re Kimura, 969 F.2d 806, 810 (9th Cir. 1992).
114. See generally Moore v. Regents of Univ. Cal., 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990), cert. denied,
499 U.S. 936 (1991) (holding public policy demands that a patient’s excised cells are not the
property of the patient because finding such would constrain medical research and technology).
115. 63C A
M. JUR. 2D Property § 28 (2006).
116. B
LACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1183 (7th ed. 1999).
117. Id.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
254 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 51:241
her rights and entitlements.
118
If property rights “cannot be transferred, there is
no way of shifting a resource from a less productive to a more productive use
through voluntary exchange.”
119
The Restatement of the Law of Property defines each of these factors as a
single property interest.
120
The sum of all interests which a person could
legally have with respect to an item comprises “complete property” in the
item.
121
An individual who has complete property in a thing, either personal
items or land, is deemed “owner” of the thing.
122
If an individual does not
“own” the “complete property,” but retains rights and privileges with respect to
the property, then he holds an interest in the property.
123
A license, for
example, represents an incomplete form of property, or a property interest. It
grants the holder restricted rights in the property—usually the right to use the
property for a particular purpose—but it limits the right of the license holder to
devise or dispose of the property.
A. Season Tickets
With respect to season tickets, the season ticket holder clearly does not
have complete property ownership of the seat. The holder of season tickets
does have the right to sit in the seat and exclude others from the seat during the
event, and therefore, has possession of the seat when she attends the sporting
event. Nevertheless, she does not enjoy full possession or control over the seat
itself. For example, the season ticket holder’s rights in regard to the seat are
limited to the specific sporting event. A season ticket holder holds no right to
possess the seat or exclude others from the seat when that sporting event is
over, or even during other, non-sporting events in the stadium. Furthermore,
the season ticket holder is not entitled to make changes to the seat or physically
remove the seat from the stadium.
Indeed, these restrictions are placed on the season ticket holder as a matter
of public policy. The team and the public require uniformity among the seats
to ensure the viewing abilities of surrounding fans. Also, the team and the
public must limit the ability of the fan to enter the stadium and make use of the
118. Energy Oils, Inc. v. Mont. Power Co., 626 F.2d 731, 736 (9th Cir. 1980); Susannah L.
Baker, It’s All Fun and Games Until Somebody Declares Bankruptcy: A Debtor’s Right to Season
Ticket Holder Status, 14 B
ANKR. DEV. J. 159, 174 (1997); see OLIN L. BROWDER, JR. ET AL,
BASIC PROPERTY LAW 218 (4th ed. 1984).
119. R
OGER A. CUNNINGHAM ET AL., THE LAW OF PROPERTY 3 (2d ed. 1993).
120. Id. at
4 (citing RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY §§ 1–10 (1936)). The
Restatement is based on Wesley Hohfeld’s analysis of property and the “legal relations between
persons with respect to ‘things.’” Id. at 3.
121. Id. at 4.
122. Id.
123. Id. Interests include any “right, privilege, power or immunity or . . . ‘varying aggregates
of rights, privileges, powers, and immunities.’” Id.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
2006] THE MYTH & MYSTERY OF PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES AND SEASON TICKETS 255
seat to times in which a sporting event is taking place. It would be a drain on
the resources of the franchise and the community to require policing of the
stadium grounds and other services expected by the season ticket holder when
an event is not occurring.
On the other hand, a season ticket holder’s status and right to purchase
future tickets could be deemed more closely akin to property. A season ticket
holder gains status and the right to future season tickets when she contracts for
the tickets and pays her account. She uses and enjoys this status when she
purchases additional tickets and relocates to better seats. Additionally, renewal
of the season tickets each year gives her the right to enjoy the sporting events
in subsequent seasons. As long as the season ticket holder continues to renew
her season tickets on an annual basis, she excludes other fans from the season
ticket holder status.
However, the season ticket holder’s interest in her status and renewal
rights is subject to some caveats. The season ticket holder loses her status if
she fails to purchase season tickets for a year. Moreover, the season ticket
holder’s status, in some cases, may be revoked if the season ticket holder
violates team policies through activities such as conduct disrespectful to other
fans or scalping.
124
However, unless cause for revocation exists, teams often
automatically extend to the season ticket holder the opportunity for renewal.
The season ticket holder’s ability to transfer her season ticket status varies
from team to team. But generally, season ticket holders have limited rights to
transfer.
125
If the season ticket holder does enjoy the right to transfer his
account to another individual or entity, she often has no right to transfer status
or account seniority, which is of high importance to the season ticket holder
and the potential transferee.
126
These limitations greatly diminish the argument
that a season ticket holder owns her status. Yet, as the season ticket seller’s
policies for transfer of season ticket holder status relax and the ability to
transfer the season tickets increases, the season ticket holder status and the
rights to renew the status more closely resemble a complete property interest.
Undoubtedly, the season ticket holder’s interest does not completely
resemble full ownership interest in a property. Yet, Jeremy Bentham defined
property as the “‘expectation . . . of being able to draw such or such an
124. See, e.g., supra note 17 and accompanying text.
125. S
AN FRANCISCO 49ERS 2005 SEASON TICKET HOLDER HANDBOOK 2 (San Francisco
49ers, San Francisco, CA 2005).
As PSLs have become increasingly popular, a number of season
ticket holders are required to purchase PSLs for the right to purchase season tickets. As a result,
the season ticket holder who is also a PSL owner has greater ability to transfer renewal rights.
126. Id. The account seniority is important to season ticket holders because it factors into seat
relocation and upgrades, the number of post-season tickets to which a holder is entitled and
purchase of additional post-season tickets. G
REEN BAY PACKERS SEASON TICKETS, supra note
17.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
256 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 51:241
advantage from the thing’ in question, ‘according to the nature of the case.’”
127
In the case of season tickets, the season ticket holder, through the team’s
automatic renewal of status, holds the great expectation of being able to enjoy
the use of the season tickets and being able to take advantage of the right to
renew their season ticket holder status for years to come.
128
This expectation
gives force to the argument that season ticket holder status is more than a mere
license.
Furthermore, this expectation of renewal rights and perpetual enjoyment of
the status is a function of the fan’s loyalty to the team which has developed
over time, regardless of the changing team composition that results from
retirement, trade agreements, and free agency of players.
129
The fan is
encouraged, through franchise marketing and merchandising, to root for the
uniform and those who wear it.
130
As a result of this expectation and loyalty
created by the season ticket holder status, the team develops a profound bond
that links the fan to the franchise through successive generations.
131
Many
sports writers and psychologists have written about the phenomenon of fan
127. CUNNINGHAM ET AL., supra note 119, at 1 (quoting J. BENTHAM, THEORY OF
LEGISLATION 68 (1975)).
128. Courts often recognize this expectation when evaluating whether season tickets or PSLs
are property. See In re Platt, 292 B.R. 12, 17 (Bankr. Mass. 2003); Marinik v. Cascade Group,
724 N.E. 2d 877, 880 (Ohio Mun. Ct. 1999). This expectation has been recognized in federal
bankruptcy court:
The knowledge that they will have the first opportunity to renew their seats next season is
part of the inducement to fans to buy season tickets. Even if season ticket holders do not
attend all games or the team has a losing season, they realize that next year’s performance
might be better and they will have the first opportunity to buy tickets which are in very
high demand.
In re I.D. Craig Service Corp., 138 B.R. 490, 502 (Bankr. W.D. Penn. 1992).
129. See Chico Harlan, Why Do They Keep Coming Back? Some Fans Are Hopelessly
Devoted to the Pirates, a Team That in the Past 12 Years Has Had Little Hope, P
ITT. POST–
G
AZETTE, May 21, 2005, at E1.
[Baseball fans] attend games . . . for many reasons. Because they just love [the stadium].
Because of the drip-by-drip drama of a sport with no time limit. Because of a specific
player. Because of the chance to watch a particular opponent. Because baseball is a
summer sport. Because baseball is a family sport. Because baseball is an American sport.
Id.
130. For example, the Carolina Panthers market themselves as “the team of the Carolinas,
North and South.” Lorenzo Perez, Panther Pride Swells in Netland, T
HE NEWS & OBSERVER
(Raleigh, N.C.), Jan. 22, 2006, at A1; see also Dean Bonham & Don Hinchey, As Baby Boomers
Age, Sports Business Will Need a New Game Plan,
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, Nov. 5, 2005, at
6C (discussing new market strategies professional sports teams require to encourage team loyalty
in the next generation of sports fans).
131. See Monmaney, supra note 6, at A1. “Americans have a surprisingly complicated bond
with their home teams.” Id. Indeed, “[m]any people here look at football not just as a sport but as
a tradition. It has been a bonding process for fathers and sons, one of the few that the male ego
would allow. This has been a way of life for many people for many years.” Id.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
2006] THE MYTH & MYSTERY OF PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES AND SEASON TICKETS 257
loyalty
132
and the resulting expectation, which undercuts the team’s argument
that season tickets are merely a series of revocable licenses that are personal to
the holder.
B. Personal Seat Licenses
While, by name, PSLs are licenses, they are a strange form of license
because the PSL owner gains more rights than a traditional licensee. The
increased rights accompanying a personal seat license cut toward the fan’s
argument that PSLs are a complete property interest.
Similar to season tickets, the holder of a personal seat license has the
possession of the seat and the right to exclude others from the seat during the
sporting event. However, the PSL gives the holder a greater exclusion right by
providing the holder the exclusive right to purchase the season tickets for that
particular seat as long as the team plays in that stadium. Yet, the PSL holder is
subject to revocation, like the season ticket holder, based on failure to purchase
tickets for a year or based on conduct related violations.
The personal seat license holder often enjoys more rights of control than
the season ticket holder because she has a greater ability to transfer the PSL
and its accompanying ticket purchasing rights. While some PSL contracts only
give the license holder limited rights to transfer, such as rights to transfer to
family members only,
133
other contracts give complete authority to the holder
to transfer by gift, bequest, or sale to anyone.
134
Often, the PSL is limited to
one transfer per season, and the holder is restricted from transferring the PSL
for a short period, usually the first season.
135
Still, the ability to transfer the
PSL gives it more characteristics associated with complete property ownership.
Teams promoting personal seat licenses tout this feature of “ownership,”
giving the purchaser the impression that she is making an investment and the
expectation that the she gains permanent rights. For example, the St. Louis
Cardinals advertised that their Ballpark Founders program gives the seat
license holder “the right to maintain and control, for as long as [the holder
132. In fact, some experts say professional “[s]ports teams are one way of creating cultural
identity across lines of race, ethnic background and class.” Monmaney, supra note 6; see also
Jeff Baker, True to Their Team, T
HE OREGONIAN, Sept. 9, 2005, at 37 (“Sports is a meeting place
where people with nothing else in common can meet and relate to each other as equals.”); Beth
Gillin, Fantastic vs. Fanatical: The Devoted. The Johnny–come–latelies. And, Ahem, the Other
Extreme, T
HE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, Jan. 30, 2005, at A1.
133. G
REEN BAY PACKERS SEASON TICKETS, supra note 17.
134. T
HE BALLPARK FOUNDERS, supra note 19, at 1. The St. Louis Cardinals seat license
promotional materials state: “[T]he seat will effectively remain in your control, allowing you to
transfer, will or sell the ticket-purchasing right.” Id.; see also C
HICAGO BEARS, FOR SOME
THERE ARE NOT FOUR SEASONS THERE IS ONLY ONE 22 (Chicago Bears, Chicago, IL 2001)
(placing no restrictions on to whom the personal seat license may be transferred).
135. C
HICAGO BEARS, supra note 134, at 28.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
258 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 51:241
chooses], seats that offer the closest proximity to the field and the best views of
the game,” in addition to the rights to transfer in any manner.
136
Furthermore,
the Chicago Bears wrote in marketing information that a PSL “will cement
your affiliation and personal connection to the Chicago Bears—it is your one
chance to become a permanent part of the Bears’ future. Your PSL . . . gives
you permanent control of the rights to your new seats.”
137
Likewise, the
Cincinnati Bengals market their equivalent of PSLs, the Charter Ownership
Agreement (COA), by saying “COA’s transfer the ownership rights of the
season ticket locations from the team to the individual entering into the
ownership agreement. Once the COA is paid in full, the owner is granted
control of the season tickets.”
138
This marketing creates an expectation in the
PSL holder that she receives ownership interests when she purchases the PSL
and contradicts the team’s argument that a personal seat license is a revocable
license.
139
A personal seat license does not seem to fit the definition of a traditional
license, because licenses are personal to the holder, and therefore, typically
nontransferable, neither inter vivos nor upon death.
140
However, as previously
discussed, the typical seat license holder has the ability to transfer her license
and purchasing rights to another party.
141
C. Evaluating the Bundle
Season ticket holder status and personal seat licenses should be a freely
alienable property interest. Teams couch their arguments for limiting transfer
on the team’s right to revoke tickets.
142
However, the team’s right to revoke
based on fan conduct and the fan’s renewal right should not be analyzed
together when determining the fan’s ability to transfer the season ticket holder
status or the PSLs because the tickets and the status or license represent two
distinct interests.
143
Placing conduct-related restrictions on the season ticket
136. THE BALLPARK FOUNDERS, supra note 19, at 1 (emphasis added).
137. C
HICAGO BEARS, supra note 134, at 8.
138. Cincinnati Bengals, Charter Ownership Agreements, http://www.bengals.com/tickets/
coa.asp (last visited Nov. 12, 2006) (emphasis added).
139. In re I.D. Craig Service Corp., 138 B.R. 490, 502 (Bankr. W.D. Penn. 1992).
140. 53 C.J.S. Licenses § 136 (2006).
141. For example, the St. Louis Rams Charter Personal Seat License Agreement (CPSL)
limits the licensee’s right to transfer the CPSL during the first year following purchase. S
T.
LOUIS RAMS REGULAR PATRON CPSL AGREEMENT, supra note 33, at 2. The transferee may
only transfer in special circumstances, such as transfer upon “death, disability, employment
relocation,” transfer to an immediate family member or related business party, or transfer as a
result of a major business transaction, in which “acquisition of the CPSL is not the intent of the
transaction.” Id. After the first year of ownership, the licensee is only subject to a limitation on
the number of transfers made in a single year. Id.
142. See, e.g., In re I.D. Craig Service Corp., 138 B.R. at 493–94.
143. Id. at 494.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
2006] THE MYTH & MYSTERY OF PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES AND SEASON TICKETS 259
holder and/or personal seat license holder, violations of which could result in
revocation of tickets, should not break the bundle of rights that accompany the
interest. Indeed, restrictions are placed on both real and personal property for a
number of policy reasons.
144
In fact,
both law and contract may limit the right of an owner of real property to use
his parcel as he sees fit. Owners of various forms of personal property may
likewise be subject to restrictions on the time, place, and manner of their use.
Limitations on the disposition of real property . . . may be imposed. Finally,
some types of personal property may be sold but not given away, while others
may be given away but not sold.
145
Here, restricting the conduct of the fan while at the game comports with policy.
Yet, these restrictions should not destroy all rights, specifically transfer rights,
associated with season ticket holder status and personal seat licenses.
D. Why Limit Transferability?
In the mind of a fan, she has paid for the tickets, the season ticket status,
and the PSL. Therefore, it makes sense that the fan should be able to dispose
of these interests as she chooses. However, the team, through its policies,
greatly limits the ability of the fan to dispose of these tickets and the fan’s
status.
1. Scalping
Many teams try to prohibit the sale of individual tickets at a value above
the stated ticket price, as well as the transfer of the right to purchase future
season tickets by claiming it amounts to scalping. As demand for tickets to
professional sporting events increased, a network for ticket distribution
developed independent of the sports franchises.
146
Ticket sales through this
network involved sales through ticket brokers, commonly known as
scalpers.
147
Scalpers obtain tickets to sporting or entertainment events and
resell the tickets for profit, at a price higher than the original purchase price or
printed face value of the ticket.
148
Generally, they resell these tickets in the
secondary market to fans unable to purchase tickets directly from the team’s
144. Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 793 P.2d 479, 509 (Cal. 1990) (Mosk, J.,
dissenting), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 936 (1991).
145. Id. at 509–10 (discussing zoning and nuisance laws, condominium agreements, public
health and safety laws, and bankruptcy laws as examples of these restrictions).
146. See, e.g., Reese et al., supra note 5, at 171 (commenting on the increased demand for
NFL tickets).
147. Id.
148. 27A A
M. JUR. 2D Entertainment & Sports Law § 7 (2005).
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
260 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 51:241
ticketing agents.
149
Often, scalpers will maximize their profits by selling the
high-demand tickets to the fan who offers the most money for the ticket.
150
Ticket scalpers traditionally sell tickets on street corners near the event
venue due to the high concentration of potential buyers.
151
However, with the
rising popularity of the Internet, the traditional street-corner scalper is less
exploited.
152
Now, the Internet presents a number of opportunities for fans to
purchase tickets from ticket brokers or scalpers with greater ease and less
exposure to risks of violating anti-scalping laws.
153
Scalpers utilize various resources to obtain tickets, including legitimately
purchasing tickets directly from the team and purchasing tickets from other
fans that hold individual tickets or season tickets.
154
Furthermore, fans
purchasing season ticket packages and personal seat licenses have followed the
lead of the ticket brokers and have scalped their personal tickets when high-
demand games generated the potential for lucrative profits.
155
However, most
franchises discourage and attempt to prevent this practice by threatening, in
season ticket and PSL contracts with the fan, to revoke the ticket holder’s right
to purchase future tickets.
156
Scalping is prohibited and/or regulated in most states to protect fans who
wish to see their local sports team play by preventing fraud and price gouging
for high-demand games.
157
Also, some states ban scalping to prevent
“nuisance and harassment” of fans from scalpers selling on street corners near
event venues.
158
Moreover, as a policy matter, states have enacted anti-
scalping statutes to prevent loss of proceeds to sports franchises, event venues,
and the local economy.
159
149. Reese et al., supra note 5, at 171.
150. Id.
151. Daniel J. Glantz, For-Bid Scalping Online?: Anti-Scalping Legislation in an Internet
Society, 23 C
ARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 261, 262 (2005).
152. Id. at 262.
153. See id. at 262–65.
154. Reese et al., supra note 5, at 171. Often ticket scalpers purchase PSLs and season tickets
for high-demand, premium seats from the team’s ticketing agents. Id.
155. See id.
156. E.g., New York Yankees Ticket Licensees, supra note 10.
157. Glantz, supra note 151, at 274. In 2005, 29 states had statutes regulating the resale of
tickets. Id. at 266. While some states completely ban the resale of tickets above the printed face
value, other states limit the ticket resale by allowing only state-licensed ticket brokers to sell
tickets above face value. Id. at 285.
158. Glantz, supra note 151, at 274.
159. State v. Leary, 587 A.2d 85, 88 (Conn. 1991).
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
2006] THE MYTH & MYSTERY OF PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES AND SEASON TICKETS 261
Through these laws, the franchises attempt to prevent season ticket holders
from reselling their tickets and their status and renewal rights.
160
However,
while anti-scalping laws control the resale of admission tickets to sporting
events in most states, the sale of the right to annually purchase season tickets is
not the equivalent of the sale of the right to admission to such games.
161
As a
result, the sale of a season ticket holder’s status and renewal rights is not
subject to anti-scalping laws.
162
Sports franchises support state and local government enacted anti-scalping
laws by arguing that they are protecting the fan because ticket scalping results
in fans paying exorbitant prices for tickets, and like individual tickets, the sale
of season ticket holder status and renewal rights is unfair to the fan.
163
However, this argument, coming from the franchises, seems hypocritical
because the franchises are offering “premium seat” services. The franchises
are willing to charge excessive prices for tickets to the game and even require
that fans who wish to purchase premium seats, often the seats with better views
of the playing field or court, purchase personal seat licenses for the right to
purchase these tickets.
164
In fact, many teams only offer the premium seats to
PSL and season ticket holders,
165
so the fan that wishes to buy tickets in
premium seats to a single game has no opportunity to purchase them from the
team’s ticketing agents. Unfortunately, these policies are pricing some fans
out of the market for tickets because the fans are unable to pay both the high
price for seat rights, as well as the per-game price for the ticket.
166
Moreover, the teams’ argument that anti-scalping policies protect the fan
from paying high prices for tickets to high-demand games is translucent.
Teams themselves are charging higher prices per ticket to games which are
160. See, e.g., In re I.D. Craig Serv. Corp., 138 B.R. 490, 499–500 (Bankr. W.D. Penn. 1992)
(addressing the applicability of anti-scalping law to transfers of rights to repurchase or sell
tickets).
161. 27A A
M. JUR. 2D Entertainment & Sports Law § 7 (2005) (citing In re I.D. Craig Serv.
Corp., 138 B.R. at 500).
162. Id.
163. In fact, sports franchises often have policies stating that when the team learns a ticket
holder is scalping the tickets, the team may revoke the scalper’s rights to purchase tickets by
terminating the scalper’s ticket accounts. See New York Yankees Ticket Licensees, supra note
10. Furthermore, franchises are taking an active role in preventing scalping by working with
police and monitoring Internet auctions and online ticket brokerage sites. See id.
164. Some economists believe the requirement of purchasing PSLs is a way for the teams to
recover revenue that season ticket holders make from scalping tickets. Ike Brannon, Financing
Our Stadium, W
ASH. TIMES, Jan. 3, 2005, at A15.
165. Club Season Tickets, http://www.redskins.com/tickets/article.jsp?id=3375 (last visited
Nov. 12, 2006).
166. Walker, supra note 12, at B1. The seat license requirement is no trivial matter. In fact,
sports franchises require ticket holders to place deposits of up to $25,000 for the right to purchase
season tickets. Id.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
262 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 51:241
perceived to generate greater fan interest. Many sports franchises, especially
those affiliated with Major League Baseball, have selected “premium” or
“prime” dates on which they charge anywhere from $5 per ticket to $20 per
ticket above the regular ticket price.
167
Typically, teams designate premium
days based on a variety of factors, including weekend dates, inter-league
matches, such as the St. Louis Cardinals versus the New York Yankees and the
Chicago Cubs versus the Chicago White Sox, and long-established rivalries,
such as the New York Yankees versus the Boston Red Sox and the St. Louis
Cardinals versus the Chicago Cubs.
Furthermore, franchises often create venues where season ticket holders
may resell their tickets.
168
Through this secondary market, the team collects
profits, over their normal per-ticket profit, by facilitating the ticket transfer
between fans and charging the buyer and/or seller.
169
For example, the Seattle
Mariners reported that they charged the seller and the buyer 15% and 10% of
the final purchase price, respectively.
170
Through this practice, the team
profited between $150,000 and $200,000 in the 2002 season, in addition to the
printed face value that season ticket holders had already paid the club for the
tickets.
171
Similarly, while the San Francisco Giants have a stated policy
prohibiting resale of tickets near their stadium,
172
the Giants offer an online
service to season ticket holders which acts as a secondary market for reselling
tickets.
173
Through this service, ticket holders may resell their tickets at any
price, even above the printed price on the ticket.
174
When the ticket is
purchased, the buyer pays 10% of the sale price to the San Francisco Giants.
175
Clearly, these teams are taking advantage of the law and manipulating their
ticket scalping policies to their gain.
176
Franchises who offer secondary markets for ticket resale often also
prohibit ticket scalping in their season ticket holder policies.
177
The franchises
limit the season ticket holder’s ability to resell his or her tickets by claiming
167. See Wrigley Field Seating and Pricing, http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/chc/
ticketing/seating.jsp (last visited Nov. 12 2006); 2006
ST. LOUIS CARDINALS PARTY FACILITIES
& GROUP TICKETS (St. Louis Cardinals, St. Louis, MO 2006), at 10, 14.
168. Glantz, supra note 151, at 270.
169. Id. at 271.
170. Id.
171. Id. at 271–72.
172. Id. at 278. This anti-scalping policy conflicts with the California laws, which allow the
resale of tickets. Id.
173. Glantz, supra note 151, at 279; see The San Francisco Giants Ticket Policies,
http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/sf/ticketing/doubleplay.jsp (last visited Nov. 12,
2006).
174. Glantz, supra note 151, at 279.
175. Id.
176. Id.
177. E.g., New York Yankees Ticket Licenses, supra note 10.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
2006] THE MYTH & MYSTERY OF PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES AND SEASON TICKETS 263
that the tickets are revocable licenses and scalping is cause for revocation.
178
However, the secondary market for reselling tickets that the teams have created
is analogous to ticket scalping because, through this market, the season ticket
holders are selling over the internet, often in an auction type format, to
unknown buyers.
179
Through the secondary market, teams make transfer of the
tickets easier for season ticket holders, while generating additional profit for
the team. These policies contradict the teams’ alleged purpose behind the anti-
scalping policies of protecting the fans by showing the franchise’s intent to
maintain control over future revenues generated from the resale of tickets.
180
2. PSL Transfer Limitations
Similarly, teams who restrict the transferability of personal seat licenses
seem to do so out of monetary consideration. By restricting transfer to another
individual or entity, the personal seat license reverts back to the team when the
holder no longer wants to purchase season tickets or upon death of the owner.
As a result, the team is able to re-offer the PSL for purchase to another fan,
thereby gaining additional revenue, which the fan would have acquired upon
transfer.
Moreover, limiting the personal seat license holder’s ability to transfer for
a period following the purchase is motivated by money as well. Following
economic theory, if the PSL holder is allowed to transfer immediately after
purchase, then supply of available PSLs on the market would increase, thereby
decreasing the fair market value of the PSL and the price the team could
demand.
IV.
WHY SHOULD SEASON TICKETS AND PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES BE
CONSIDERED PROPERTY INTERESTS?
Historically, courts have analyzed season tickets and personal seat licenses
on a very fact-specific and jurisdiction-specific basis to determine if a property
interest exists. Courts often look at the policies of the sports organization or
seller of the season tickets regarding revocability of tickets, annual renewal of
season tickets, and transfer restrictions on season ticket holder status and
178. Id.
179. The secondary market resembles traditional street-corner ticket scalping in that the
street-corner scalper and the buyer are strangers who agree upon a price for the ticket exchange.
Similarly, in the newer Internet ticket scalping format, the buyer and seller never meet one
another, but agree on a price over the Internet.
180. The secondary ticket resale markets for season ticket holders make it much easier for a
ticket holder to resell the tickets. Through this avenue, the team provides the season ticket holder
with individualized accounts that allow the ticket seller to resell at any time. In some cases, the
season ticket holder even has the ability to set a reserve price. The San Francisco Giants Ticket
Policies, supra note 173. With the ease of this transaction, the teams have made it so that there
should be no motivation for the ticket holder to scalp in a traditional format.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
264 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 51:241
personal seat licenses, as well as exceptions to their policies.
181
Additionally,
courts have based their findings on state laws.
182
Because of this fact-specific
and jurisdiction-specific analysis, court holdings regarding season tickets have
conflicted. It seems courts faced with similar facts have different results on the
property interest issue.
Here, the lack of uniform treatment among courts concerning PSLs and
season tickets undercuts the property system. Courts addressing the issue are
faced with the difficult decision of which precedent to follow. This divergence
makes it difficult for ticket sellers and purchasers to predict how a court
addressing this issue may rule in the future. Each party should feel confident
in their agreements concerning season tickets and PSLs. Without this
confidence, the fan, as purchaser, and the franchise, as seller, cannot be
expected to invest in the upkeep of their relationship. Therefore, a need for
uniform treatment of the issues exists.
Because under state law factually similar cases reach different results, the
most recognizable way to generate uniform treatment of season ticket holder
status and personal seat licenses among the states is through federal law.
183
This may be achieved either by passing new federal legislation regarding
season ticket holder status and personal seat licenses or by applying currently
existing federal law to this arena. With the time required to pass legislation in
mind, it likely would be easier to classify season ticket holder status and
personal seat licenses in preexisting federal law.
Arguments have been made that seat licenses should be considered
securities, and therefore, fall under the protection of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
184
This analysis seems fitting, as the
purchase of a personal seat license invests money which is pooled together
with the money of other investors to finance the reconstruction or remodel of a
181. See supra Part II, C–E.
182. Compare In re I.D. Craig Serv. Corp., 138 B.R. 490, 495 (Bankr. W.D. Penn. 1992)
(holding expectancy interest in renewal rights is a property interest alienable by the bankruptcy
estate under Pennsylvania law), and In re Harrell, 73 F.3d 218, 220 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that,
under Arizona law, the expectation of renewal of the season tickets is not an alienable property
right when the opportunity to renew is revocable). As a result, courts in different states analogize
the season tickets and PSLs to different types of property interests. See, e.g., In re Harrell, 73
F.3d at 219–20 (comparing season tickets to a long-term lease); In re I.D. Craig Serv. Corp., 138
B.R. at 494–95 (comparing season tickets to a liquor license); Soderholm v. Chicago Nat’l
League Ball Club, Inc., 587 N.E.2d 517 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (comparing season tickets to a
revocable license).
183. The point of this Comment was not to develop a sure-fit solution, but rather, to recognize
the existing problem and the need for a solution.
184. Levengood, supra note 7, at 442–43. Classifying seat licenses as securities would also
protect the fan who purchases a PSL from the franchise by requiring the franchise to submit
financial information and material information, such as plans to relocate. Id. at 430.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
2006] THE MYTH & MYSTERY OF PERSONAL SEAT LICENSES AND SEASON TICKETS 265
stadium.
185
Through this investment, the purchaser expects to make a profit,
the extent to which is based on the success or failure of the team, if he or she
sells the seat license.
186
Regardless of the means in which uniformity is met, it is important that the
purchasers of season tickets and personal seat licenses enjoy more property
rights than those which accompany a traditional license. Specifically, it is
important to the purchaser that she may be able to recover her investment in
the team by transferring her interest in the season ticket holder status and/or
personal seat license.
Franchises will likely continue to fight the transfer issue, as they have in
previous cases. Additionally, they may attempt to draft around the fan’s rights
to transfer, making the success of this less likely. For example, in response to
the previously discussed cases finding an alienable property interest in season
ticket holder status and renewal rights, franchises, as sellers of season tickets,
adjusted their policies and contracts in an attempt to preclude similar cases in
the future. Indeed, the New York Yankees included a section in their policies
which cancels the season ticket holder’s account when she files for bankruptcy,
causing the season ticket holder to lose renewal rights.
187
In effect, this clause
bars the bankruptcy trustee’s ability to sell the season ticket holder status for
the benefit of the bankruptcy estate and creditors. The Green Bay Packers
have a similar clause, requiring the tickets to revert to the team upon
involuntary dissolution and barring the trustee’s claim of right.
188
Based on
these attempts to circumvent the court system and the rights of alienation, it is
necessary to implement a strategy that allows the organization to retain some
rights regarding transfer of season ticket holder status and personal seat
licenses, yet allows the fan to retain and enjoy her rights to transfer.
189
185. Id. at 435–37.
186. Id. at 437–38.
187. New York Yankees Ticket Licensees, supra note 10. The Yankees’ policies state:
In the event that the Yankees receive notice, or information that a person or business-
entity has filed for bankruptcy or an involuntary bankruptcy petition has been filed, at the
option of the Yankees, the Ticket Account will be canceled. The Ticket Account of a
bankrupt person or business-entity are [sic] revocable licenses and may not be transferred
under any circumstances and the Ticket Account should not be considered an asset of the
person, the business-entity, the bankrupt estate, or any trustee or receiver thereof. In the
event that a Ticket Account is canceled during the season, the Tickets associated with the
Ticket Account will remain the property of the Licensee; however, the Licensee will not
be offered an invoice for the relevant postseason or beyond.
Id.
188. Season Ticket Holder Policies, supra note 17.
189. The rights of the team could include controlling the price at which the season ticket
holder status or PSL sells, rather than allowing the fan to sell it at fair market value. Also,
perhaps the team should be provided the right of first refusal for the season ticket holder status or
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
266 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 51:241
CONCLUSION
Due to fans’ substantial investments and the franchises’ reliance on
revenues generated through season tickets and personal seat licenses, it is
important for both parties to discern the contractual rights and privileges. Yet,
conflicting holdings of courts about the rights and privileges of these interests
result in uncertainty. Season ticket holder status and personal seat licenses,
while regarded by the franchise as licenses, bestow upon the purchaser greater
rights and expectations than a license. While the fans’ conduct with regard to
tickets is subject to restrictions, this is not enough to break the fans’ bundle of
rights, and the fan’s expectation of perpetual renewal rights cannot be limited
by these restrictions. Therefore, season ticket holder status and personal seat
licenses are property interests that should be transferable between individuals
and/or businesses without restrictions.
D
ANETTE R. DAVIS*
PSL so that it may purchase this right if it is willing to match competitive offers at the fair market
value.
* J.D. Candidate, Saint Louis University School of Law, 2007. I would like to thank the editors
and staff of the Saint Louis University Law Journal for their diligent work on my Comment and
this issue. A special thanks to Professor Alan Weinberger for his advice and encouragement.
Finally, I gratefully acknowledge my husband, Joshua Davis, and my parents, Edward and Ronda
Logan, for their patience, love, and support in this and all my endeavors.
