Broker sues after Colts cancel season-ticket renewal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Pennsylvania ticket broker is suing the Indianapolis Colts over their revocation of his season tickets—a legal skirmish other brokers say appears to be fallout from efforts by the team to gain greater control over the secondary market and thin the ranks of resellers.

In the suit filed March 21 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Yehuda Frager claims the Colts declined to let him renew the same 94 tickets he bought in 2015 for the upcoming season. Frager said he paid more than $75,000 for the tickets.

Frager’s lawyer, Chicago attorney Matthew Topic, said season tickets are the property of the season-ticket holder, and that the team has no legal right to withhold them.

“This is a dispute the Colts should be able to work out with my client,” Topic told IBJ. “I would hope the Colts could come to an amicable resolution with my client.”

Sources close to the team said the Colts are taking a hard line with out-of-town ticket brokers and an amicable resolution is unlikely.

Colts officials declined to comment on the dispute or their ticket-sales policies.

Some local brokers said they heard Frager’s tickets were redistributed to another broker and that this might be the team’s first step in trying to more tightly control the secondary market by allowing fewer—and possibly just one—ticket broker to handle secondary sales.

“The Colts are in the process of revoking tickets from resellers, especially those out of town,” said Renny Harrison, owner of Carmel-based Fanfare Tickets. “They’re in the process of consolidating accounts.”

It’s not uncommon for sports teams and leagues to try to exert control over the secondary market. Every major U.S. sports league—including the NFL—has a league-sanctioned ticket exchange. The NFL’s ticket exchange is run by Ticketmaster.

Many teams also have an exchange. The Colts set up theirs in 2008.

“Teams want to control the floor,” Harrison said. “They don’t want to see a glut of tickets selling for $5 or $10.”

He questioned the logic of the Colts’ move.

“Just putting the tickets in the hands of two or three guys doesn’t mean they’ve become more valuable,” he said. “That’s determined by the play on the field.”

Sports marketers said putting a limit on how low a preferred ticket broker can sell tickets might help the team sell more through the box office.

In the long run, the Colts’ changes are bad for fans, said Mike Peduto, president of locally based Circle City Tickets.

“Ticket brokers add liquidity to the market,” said Peduto, whose firm started in 1985.

“We’re a marketplace people can trust, and it’s an efficiency issue for a lot of Colts fans to use us,” he added. “I think any move to cut out ticket resellers could really be bad for public relations for the team.”

Harrison said he’s even heard that some Colts fans who often sell their tickets have had their tickets revoked by the team.

“The one thing I would have an issue with would be the Colts soliciting everyone to resell their tickets through their platform or the league’s platform, then they’re taking that data and using it against you,” Harrison said.

“There’s some threshold that gets your tickets taken away based on data they get through their own exchange. And they never tell you what the threshold is.

“The Colts exchange is a good, safe platform, but I’m guessing I’m never going to sell another ticket on it again.”

Harrison said Frager’s lawsuit has “potential,” but he called it a “long shot” that Frager will win.

Daniel B. Fitzgerald, a Connecticut-based attorney specializing in sports law, said unhappy ticket brokers cut out by the Colts have little hope of getting tickets back.

“A ticket to a sporting event constitutes a revocable license,” he said.

A revocable license provides the license holder with a limited spectrum of rights such as the right to attend the game, sit in the assigned seat, and use the stadium facilities made available to the public, he said.

“Those rights can essentially be revoked by the team at any time and for any reason,” Fitzgerald said.

The terms of the license—usually found on the back of the ticket—are intentionally broad, “providing the team with the power to take any action it deems necessary to promote the intended atmosphere,” Fitzgerald said. 

“Are the terms overly broad and unfair? Possibly,” he said. “But by purchasing a ticket, the fan agrees to adhere to these terms.”


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: Here are the two research papers: 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.