Talk:StubHub/Archive 1

Source? Cite? Name? Anything?
Please:
 * Avoid ad homimem attacks.
 * Avoid multiple reverts without discussion.
 * Don't vandalise other user's pages.
 * Don't blank other people's comments/discussion.
 * Avoid original research. What you're saying is your own coinage, with no source or reference or support for it. If what you say is true and encyclopedic, please back it up.

Ben-w 23:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not my own coinage. That is why you are trying to suppress it!

You stop vandalising!!!

(above unsigned comments by User:Brian02139


 * If it is not your own coinage, please provide a source or citation. Otherwise, it looks like original research. Ben-w 00:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence: http://www.adotas.com/2006/04/adtech-conversations-dre-madden-marketing-manager-strategy-new-development-stubhubcom/

Brian02139 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What is that supposed to be evidence of? That some woman works in their marketing department? What? Ben-w 16:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed edit
Brian, the edit you keep making is potentially damaging/defamatory. You must find a reliable source who says exactly what you are saying, or else leave it out. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't post the allegations on this talk page or anywhere else on this website until you have a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a source;

 Brian02139


 * Where does that source say what you've been adding to the page? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Ax-grinding"
The disputed edit is at least partially true but it is not well written and not NPOV. It does not provide a fair description of what the bill is, for one thing. Adding a controversy section is just lazy. You can write a good article about their business model (providing centralized ticket reselling services without the uncertainty of the guy on the corner), note that it runs afoul of scalping laws in many states (that limit reselling premiums) and note that they are involved in lobbying Florida to change the law; while keeping it NPOV. Thatcher131 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * At the least, the cited source is an editorial... it should at least be cited to the Sun-Sentinel article which the editorial cites . In addition, I'm not sure if it's encyclopedic; does every act of the Florida legislature (or any other state or locality) bear mention on the page of whoever is affected by it or benefits from it? Maybe this should wait to see if Jeb signs off on it or not? KWH 03:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill Analysis
(I know this is WP:OR but maybe it lends some insight)

I read the bill in question; the language is rather difficult, but the operative provisions of the bill appear to be:


 * Nobody can buy more tickets with intent to resell than the 'maximum limit' set by the original ticket seller.
 * Resale price is still limited to original price + $1 for:
 * Train/plane/bus tickets
 * Multi-day or multi-event tickets to amusement parks, etc.
 * All other tickets offered through a website
 * The reseller is exempt from the +$1 rule IF:
 * The reseller is a travel agency selling train/plane/bus tickets (etc)
 * The reseller is a website, and the website is authorized by the original ticket seller
 * The reseller is a website, and they must:
 * Offer refunds if the event is cancelled, the ticket is not delivered to the purchaser, or the purchaser is denied admission to the event (unless it is their fault)
 * Make clear that they are not the original seller
 * Nobody can buy or sell tickets on the venue property without consent of the property owner
 * Everyone must pay their sales taxes.


 * So actually, my take on it is that it places the bulk of control in the hand of the original ticket seller - if they don't want their tickets massively scalped, they can set a limit of 3-4 tickets per person. If they don't set a limit, then the advantage actually belongs to offline ticket agencies - they're not restricted on one-day event tickets (concerts and sports) whatsoever, and don't need to even offer a refund. Websites are now able to 'scalp', or charge more than the +$1, but only if they take on the responsibility of offering a refund, so they might be at a comparative disadvantage. KWH 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the two advantages for the State of Florida appear to be:


 * The state pushes off enforcement of the provision to the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, so it becomes something which people file a civil case over, rather than criminal enforcement.
 * The state now gets sales tax on the website (and other) transactions. KWH 04:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the details of the proposed Florida law are encyclopedic for this article, but it should certainly say that Stubhub's business model is to legitimize scalping and that they have been lobbying state legislatures to change or repeal scalping laws. It seems like one editor wants it to say nothing and the other wants a highly POV version (that still doesn't clerly explain what is going on). Thatcher131 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fast rewrite
I did a fast rewrite. Hopefully it will stick for a while. I can get a better source for the Sun Sentinel article maybe; its on a pay archive now. And other assertions in the article need specific footnote to the references. Maybe tomorrow if no one does it first. Thatcher131 05:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Better rewrite
I took KWH's version and added more business info from reading the sources. Added proper footnotes to the sources. Thatcher131 13:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

POV-check
Since the article keeps getting reverted to a stub, I posted this POV-check with two questions.


 * Should the article include additional information added by such as the fact that in Boston, some scalpers were sued, which might hurt stubhub's business (Flmarinas seems to want to add excess negative information about scalping).


 * Should the article be stubbed back, as and  want, so that it doesn't even describe the company's business.?  Thanks. Thatcher131 20:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131, The article shouldn't be stubbed back!!

I think you did a very good job with the article. It is very fair and balanced.

The Boston article shows how this website is furiously lobbying for law changes because it's business model is at risk. The Florida article shows that the leisure and entertainment industries are opposed to the bill.

It is important to keep the article the way you wrote it. Thanks, Flmarinas 21:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Boston article doesn't say anything about Stubhub. KWH 03:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I took it back out. By the way, the article on ticket scalping is pretty dreadful.  If Flmarinas is interested in the topic there's a lot of work needed there.  Obviously I don't think the article should be stubbed either, but I want to get some demonstration of that in case "somone" stubs it again. Thatcher131 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Windows phone app
OK, I've got to gripe with some of that restoration. The app "makes it easier to buy tickets"? The cite (which appears to be a recycled PR puff, given that an independent source might not feel the need to tell us that Windows Phone "is the only phone that features Microsoft[R] Office, Xbox LIVE[R]") says "easy". Presumably actually it makes it possible on the phone, with whether or not it is easier depending on whether one also has a computer with a sensible-size screen to hand.

Stated plainly, I don't think this is an independent source; I think it's a puff piece. Hence I think we should confine ourselves to what appear to be non-obvious features; tagging bands (not "favourite" - manifestly one could equally well tag Millwall FC to as to arrange not to be in any town full of their fans at any time, for example) to be alerted to later events, not searching by location. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"presents a catalog in which fans can search events based on their preference and location, view and notes upcoming events." -not sure how that reads as a puff piece. I think that information is quite useful to people, and if anything hands on description is undercooked in the article if anything.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it reads as a puff piece for other reasons, see above (and "seamlessly glide through the vast StubHub catalogue", did an uninvolved third party really write that?), but also because the idea that a ticket buying app lets you search for tickets based on such criteria is presented as somehow remarkable. What else would it do, list every ticket anywhere in the world? (Conversely, say, that the versions for other phones let you find local restaurants - OK, that's not fundamental to a ticket purchasing application. Neither is the tagging bands to be alerted to later gigs, which is why I left it in but elided "favourite").Pinkbeast (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I've put it in a footnote.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Same as before; not totally convinced but will leave it be. Thanks for signing my comment - no idea how I came to forget to. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit request - StubHub facts and context
The StubHub topic is now several years outdated, with large holes in the history section. Could an unbiased editor please review the following requests, and consider adding said details to the page?

I'm not married to wording, and tried to keep the sentences both simple and neutral as a starting point. Instead of using the home website, I also attempted to find verifiable third party references as Wikipedia requests - the New York Times, the Sports Business Journal, and the smaller music industry publication IQ Magazine. Thank you! Alex.SHVGG (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

1) Could these office and employee stats be added to the page please?

In early 2022, StubHub Holdings had offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Ireland, Switzerland, Taiwan, and China. StubHub Holdings employed 650 full-time people, with a third of those employees at Viagogo.

2) Could these facts be added before the StubHub/Viagogo merger content in history, to provide readers with a sense of scale?

In late 2019, StubHub disclosed having sold $4.75 billion in tickets in 2018 with $1.1 billion in annual fees, and sold tickets in 44 countries, particularly the United States.

3) Currently the information on the Viagogo merger in the StubHub history section is two years old, reading like this: "On November 25, 2019, the competing service Viagogo—which was founded by Baker and has a major presence in Europe—announced that it would acquire StubHub for $4.05 billion. Viagogo was established by Baker after he left the company.[52]" Could these related details be added after that?

Through the merger, StubHub and Viagogo would become owned by the new entity StubHub Holdings.

In February 2020, Viagogo agreed to purchase StubHub for $4 billion. In September 2021, the UK Competition & Markets Authority gave Viagogo permission to complete the acquisition. As part of the deal, StubHub agreed to sell its business outside of North America, including its UK business, to Digital Fuel Capital LLC.

4) Add IPO detail to history please?

In January 2022, it was reported that StubHub Holdings was considering an IPO and had filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
 * Yes check.svg Done PK650 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Ownership
This article now relates only to the StubHub company in the US and Canada. In the rest of the world it is a separate company with different ownership. AJHingston (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request - StubHub legislation section
1) In the page's legislation section, the Florida law paragraph is left hanging with only one perspective and was never updated from when it was first added, about ten days before the bill passed. Could this summary of an article by The Ledger on the matter be added to that section please, or something similar?

The bill's sponsor argued its passage would modernize the state's ticketing industry. The bill passed in June 2006, resulting in 35 states having no restrictions on ticket resale.

2) Also, could the present tense be fixed earlier in the paragraph to past tense? Thank you! Alex.SHVGG (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Let me know if I forgot any verb! PK650 (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, looks great! Alex.SHVGG (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request - new StubHub president
Could the new president be added to the page, and also added to the inbox? Thank you! Alex.SHVGG (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Here's content that can be used:

In July 2022, Nayaab Islam was appointed StubHub president.
 * Yes check.svg Done PK650 (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Request to change structure, etc.
I had 6 requests concerning polishing old material on the page, and some (I would argue) inappropriate structural features I would like to request changed by an editor without a potential conflict of interest. Alex.SHVGG (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

1) Could the history section be sequestered into subsections? I might recommend:

===2000-2007=== ===2008-2013=== ===2014-2022===

2) Could the following controversies section, which focuses far more on the individual "superscalper" than StubHub's involvement, be modified to better reflect the two sources? This is the original (overlinking not mine):

==Controversies== ===Investigations=== One of StubHub's top sellers in the ticket reselling industry is a thirty-year-old man from Montreal, Canada, Julien Lavallée, who has been called a "superscalper". In November 2017 journalists from International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) (including the Toronto Star and CBC-Radio), Canada revealed that they had received detailed documents about Lavallée's "global scalping business" as part of a "massive cache of offshore corporation records" known as the Paradise Papers. According to a November 9, 2017 article published in The Toronto Star, Lavallée was able to expand his business using "exploitative tactics" that "gam[e] the ticket marketplace and put entertainment beyond the reach of millions of fans who can’t compete with large-scale scalping operations." Lavallée started his business in 2010, from his family's home address in Boucherville, Quebec. He now operates his multimillion-dollar "bulk reselling business" out of an office in Montreal. The leaked documents included Lavallée's business records that showed that along with StubHub, he also used Vivid Seats and Ticketmaster as "'main channels' to scalp his tickets". Prior to October 2017, Lavallée used his company, I Want Ticket Inc, which was "registered on the British Isle of Man, to post on StubHub in the U.K." In August 2017, StubHub's London office was raided as part of a "broader investigation into four main ticket resale sites [touts] in Britain: Get Me In, Seatwave, Viagogo and StubHub" by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Lavallée uses StubHub's website and is one of StubHub's Top Sellers. According to the Toronto Star and the CBC News, Lavallée drew the attention of U.K.’s National Trading Standards (NTS) and CMA when he succeeded in controlling 310 seats for three of Adele's shows in London in 2016 for a total transaction of over $50,000 in less than a half an hour.

I would recommend:

After a UK law was passed in 2017 that targeted sellers using software to purchase tickets, the CMA sent out information requests to all four platforms asking for information on sellers. When StubHub refused the request the CMA instead pursued a warrant, raiding StubHub's London office in August 2017 and confiscating records related to touts selling mass quantities of tickets. By November 2017, no charges had been laid against StubHub.

In late 2017, the Canadian press, using a "superscalper" exposed in the Paradise Papers as an example, reported that highly successful touts on StubHub were being openly incentivized for high sales volumes, arguing that StubHub was potentially incentivizing bot operators in the process.

3) Could the "Criticism/Investigations" headings be removed to fit in with WP:CSECTION, and the content inside be moved up into the "History" section?

4) Could the bots issue in "Legislation" be reworded to have some relation to StubHub? This is the current prose:

In 2016, the United States Senate commerce committee introduced legislation called the Better Online Ticket Sales, or BOTS, Act which was later signed into law in December 2016 by President Obama. This law makes using bots to purchase tickets under certain circumstances illegal and holds bot owners liable for obtained tickets.

I would recommend this version, with a source added as well to the first part of the sentence:

In the United States, StubHub expressed support of the 2016 Better Online Tickets Sales Act, a law prohibiting the use of bots to purchase tickets under certain circumstances.

5) The items in "Legislation" work just as well in "History" and I think are more useful to readers there by a long shot. Could the section heading be removed, and the Florida law be added to "History" around 2006, and the Better Online Ticket Sales sentences be moved to around 2016?

6) Could the section "Sports partnerships" be renamed "Partnerships," since it has a whole variety of mentioned sponsorship types? Maybe "Sports" could be made a subsection, since most of the content is currently oriented that direction (although outdated by a decade or so).
 * Hi. I've started with some of your requests. I'm still going through 2 and 3, because I think the language can be improved yet some more, but I expect to have something ready very soon. PK650 (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I think I've tackled all of your requests. I felt like I had to tweak the second one, as some of the information you requested be removed was actually relevant and appropriately cited. PK650 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Ownership
The article fails to recognise that Stubhub in North America and in the rest of the world are separate operations with different ownership. Most of the information, including the lede, are historical. Stubhub International is owned by Digital Fuel Capital LLC and operates under the Stubhub brand in Europe. Suggest splitting. AJHingston (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit request - StubHub cleanup in 2023
The StubHub page is still chaotic - could someone screen these requests for neutrality and common sense, and consider applying them please? Thank you! Alex.SHVGG (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Introduction
1) Could the very first sentence, which currently inaccurately calls the company American-only, be updated to the following, with a new Sports Business link?

StubHub is a multinational ticket marketplace and ticket resale company. Active in the United States and Canada, it currently operates as a brand owned by StubHub Holdings, which also owns the ticketing site Viagogo.

2) Could "both former Stanford Business School students and investment bankers" be removed for being redundant to history, and not really that uber important for the lead?

3) I'm also of the opinion that "just before the COVID-19 pandemic halted ticket sales, Viagogo, led by Stubhub founder Eric Baker" is now rather out-of-context and unnecessary detail in the lead, could it be removed as well in favor of more pertinent details?

4) Could this be added to the bottom of the lead, and a version also added to the bottom of the "Sports" section in "Partnerships" lower on the page?

The company maintains official marketing and ticketing partnerships with sports and entertainment groups such as Major League Baseball, the UCLA Bruins, and Virginia Tech.

5) Could the following sentence be updated and expanded upon? From:

It provides services for buyers and sellers of tickets for sports, concerts, theater, and other live entertainment events

to:

StubHub provides an international ticket marketplace for buyers and sellers of tickets for sports, concerts, theater and other live entertainment events

6) This detail is outdated and now would be more appropriate for history, could it be moved into history in the 2015 range with new wording? Part of it is already mirrored there.

While the company does not currently disclose its financials, in 2015 it had over 16 million unique visitors and nearly 10 million live events per month.

Infobox changes
Some items in the infobox are outdated.

1) Could headquarters (SF) be changed to New York, New York - perhaps move Stanford to the 'founded' row, so it reads "2000; 22 years ago in Stanford, California"?

2) Could "Ticket exchange" in the industry row be moved into a new "Services" row, and then replaced with Ticket marketplace to be more accurate to industry terms?

3) Could Viagogo as parent company be replaced with the more specific StubHold Holdings please?

New "Research and market data" section
1) Touring stats don't have much to do with StubHub's operations, but the press does regularly report on StubHub's data reports - so maybe create a section about the reports themselves, instead of letting the history fill up with random ticket stats from a decade ago? :) I was thinking a new "Research and market data" section at the bottom of the page could be filled with these three details:


 * the "Viva Forever!" Spice Girls detail
 * the detail from 2009 about Masters badges
 * the 2013 Adele detail about being the best-selling British act

2) Could this detail then be added?

StubHub revealed in May 2022 that ticket sales were 25% higher for the 2022 summer concert season than before the pandemic in 2019, attributing the change to a doubling of events compared to 2019, a plethora of reunion and farewell shows.

Moving glut of 2006 sports details to "Partnerships"
I would argue the coverage in early history of sports teams contracts/legality disputes is... very detailed, far more than the page needs, especially considering the conflicts are 16 years old in some cases. Instead of moving them off the page, though, could they be moved down into the "Sports" section under "Partnerships"? The level of detail in relation to sports will, I assume, be relevant to sports fans who hone in on the section.

1) This is the content I would recommend (possibly polishing somewhat, like removing the tabloid?) plopping into "Sports" :

In 2006, more than 100 New York Yankees season-ticket holders suspected of reselling their regular-season seats on StubHub received letters denying them the right to buy playoff tickets and barring them from buying season tickets for the 2007 season.

In 2006, the New England Patriots sued StubHub to bar it from reselling the team's tickets as fans reportedly showed up at games with phony or voided tickets bought over StubHub. While some were counterfeits, others were voided tickets sold by fans after they had their season-ticket privileges revoked. On July 6, 2007, a Suffolk Superior Court judge allowed StubHub to proceed with its lawsuit against the New England Patriots. StubHub accused the Patriots of attempted monopolization, conspiracy to restrain trade, and unfair trade practices. On October 19, 2007, a court upheld an order forcing StubHub to turn over a list of all New England Patriots season ticket holders since 2002 who had used the site. The Patriots stated that they may strip the season ticket holders of their seats. On January 26, 2009, the Massachusetts Superior Court rejected StubHub's argument that it was not liable for its sellers' behavior per 47 USC 230. NPS LLC v. StubHub, Inc., 2009 WL 995483 (Massachusetts Super. Ct. January 26, 2009).

2) So the overall press coverage is still mentioned in history, perhaps this could be left in "History" as an event placeholder?

Also in 2006, StubHub became involved in several disputes over the resale of season sports tickets in New England, involving the New England Patriots and New York Yankees.

3) Also, for being so detailed and out-dated, can the dispute with the Yankees (shown below) over zoning be moved to the "Sports partnerships" subsection please? Same with the related MLB bargaining? Also, can the New York Post be removed for being so tabloidy?

In December 2012, it was reported that the New York Yankees, the Los Angeles Angels, and the Chicago Cubs had dropped StubHub and declined a new five-year deal, which MLB Advanced Media had signed. The Chicago Cubs later opted back into the partnership. In March 2013, the Yankees sued StubHub, claiming that the sale of their tickets violates New York scalping laws. The Yankees claim that StubHub had opened a ticket office within 1,500 feet of Yankee Stadium, but StubHub defended itself, arguing that it wasn't a ticket sales office, but a printing station for tickets purchased online. The New York Post stated that the "Yankees are using the state's anti-scalping law to keep legal ticket reseller StubHub away from the Stadium, but when it comes to traditional illegal scalpers outside their gates, the team is giving them an intentional walk." A spokesman for the Yankees stated that there should be no double standard and that the state's anti-scalping law should be universally enforced. As of April 16, a settlement was still being reached in the Bronx Supreme Court.

Canadian scalper and broadening topic to bots
The page has a great deal of content about a specific Canadian scalper, and is extremely wordy and redundant in explaining to readers what a bot is, which is fairly obvious - I can't help but feel that content can be greatly condensed? Also, is the name of one scalper necessary to include in relation to the larger investigations and bot discussions?

Here is the related content floating in history right now:

In 2016, the United States Senate commerce committee introduced legislation called the Better Online Ticket Sales, or BOTS, Act which was later signed into law in December 2016 by President Obama. This law makes using bots to purchase tickets under certain circumstances illegal and holds bot owners liable for obtained tickets. StubHub expressed support for the legislation.

One of StubHub's top sellers (as of 2017) in the ticket reselling industry is a thirty-year-old man from Montreal, Canada, Julien Lavallée, According to a November 9, 2017 article published in The Toronto Star, Lavallée was able to expand his business using "exploitative tactics" that "gam[e] the ticket marketplace and put entertainment beyond the reach of millions of fans who can’t compete with large-scale scalping operations." The leaked documents included Lavallée's business records that showed that along with StubHub, he also used Vivid Seats and Ticketmaster as "'main channels' to scalp his tickets". Prior to October 2017, Lavallée used his company, I Want Ticket Inc, which was "registered on the British Isle of Man, to post on StubHub in the U.K."

A UK law was passed in 2017 that targeted sellers using software to purchase tickets. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) then sent out information requests to all four major UK platforms (Get Me In, Seatwave, Viagogo and StubHub) in August that year asking for information on sellers. When StubHub refused the request the CMA instead pursued a warrant, raiding StubHub's London office in August 2017 and confiscating records related to touts selling mass quantities of tickets. By November 2017, no charges had been laid against StubHub. According to the Toronto Star and the CBC News, Lavallée drew the attention of U.K.’s National Trading Standards (NTS) and CMA when he succeeded in controlling 310 seats for three of Adele's shows in London in 2016 for a total transaction of over $50,000 in less than a half an hour.

In late 2017, the Canadian press, using a "superscalper", Lavallée, exposed in the Paradise Papers as an example, reported that highly successful touts on StubHub were being openly incentivized for high sales volumes, arguing that StubHub was potentially incentivizing bot operators in the process.

It would be great to remove the scalper details to focus on StubHub, and condense and slightly reword (and add one .gov source) to create:

Ticket-buying bots had become an international political issue by 2016. In the US, StubHub expressed support of the 2016 Better Online Tickets Sales Act, a law prohibiting the use of bots to purchase tickets under certain circumstances. In June 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched a compliance review of the four main secondary ticketing platform websites in the UK, including Viagogo, StubHub, GetMeIn, and Seatwave. After a UK law was passed in 2017 that targeted sellers using software to purchase tickets, the CMA sent out information requests to all four platforms asking for information on sellers. When StubHub refused the request the CMA instead pursued a warrant, raiding StubHub's London office in August 2017 and confiscating records related to touts selling mass quantities of tickets. By November 2017, no charges had been laid against StubHub.

In late 2017, the Canadian press, using a "superscalper" exposed in the Paradise Papers as an example, reported that highly successful touts on StubHub were being openly incentivized for high sales volumes, arguing that StubHub was potentially incentivizing bot operators in the process.

Superbowl stats for context
Possible to add a version of this to stats section? I left it a bit long to make trimming easy, but also think this version is relevant for recent major events:

For the Super Bowl in February 2023, StubHub, Ticketmaster and SeatGeek were official NFL resale partners for authenticated tickets. With ticket prices for the game fluctuating significantly on StubHub in the days prior, according to Reuters, sales spiked 15% in the 24 hours before the game.


 * Hi, Alex.SHVGG, I've reviewed this request, and I've only done the changes related to the legal issues. A new section holds them, rather than being in the history section or in the partnerships section. I've not done the introduction or infobox changes as they were in the April edit request response. The new section for market data is ❌; see my response to that below. SWinxy (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)