Third-party secondary ticketing platforms invest heavily in shaping how resale is discussed in public. That includes search advertising, policy engagement, and the commissioning of research papers framed around consumer rights, access, and market efficiency. This is not unusual. It is how mature industries with significant resources operate.
What is worth examining, however, is how selectively that evidence gets used once it enters public debate. Reports are cited in fragments — particular findings highlighted to support a position, while equally relevant sections go unmentioned.
The aim here is to add balance. By revisiting the same source material, it is possible to surface findings that third-party secondary platforms may have chosen not to emphasise.
Same reports. Different quotes.
The Waterson Review (2016): what else it found
The Waterson Review is frequently referenced in arguments against further regulation of the UK secondary ticketing market. Much is made of Professor Waterson's statement that he did "not advocate further legislation."
The wider findings receive far less attention.
The review found that secondary platforms were "seemingly falling short" of their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act. Around 25% of buyers surveyed believed they were purchasing from an official source when using a secondary platform, a significant transparency failure.
The report also identified financial practices that directly incentivised professional reselling: platforms were paying sellers before events took place, reducing the risk for those acquiring inventory at scale rather than reselling tickets they genuinely could not use.
Waterson went further, recommending that if compliance did not improve within a reasonable timeframe, the government should consider requiring high-volume sellers to be licensed — a recommendation that has resurfaced repeatedly in subsequent policy debates.
CMA Secondary Ticketing Report (2021): beyond the headline figure
The CMA's 2021 market study is often cited for its estimate that the UK secondary ticketing market was worth approximately £350 million annually, a figure used to frame the sector as a significant contributor to the live events economy.
The same report contained findings that paint a more complex picture.
The CMA identified persistent mark-ups above 50% on many tickets, with Trading Standards investigations uncovering resale prices up to six times the original face value. The top 200 resellers represented around half of the total market by value, a concentration suggesting that much of the sector's activity is driven by professional inventory acquisition rather than genuine fan-to-fan exchange.
The report noted that millions of pounds of public money had already been spent on enforcement activity against secondary ticketing platforms. Despite this, the CMA found continued non-compliance with consumer law across the sector.
The CMA also set out stronger regulatory options, including a licensing requirement for secondary platforms to operate in the UK, financial penalties for non-compliance, and website takedown powers. These recommendations were revisited when the UK government launched its 2024 consultation on resale reform, a process that led to the November 2025 ban on resale above face value.
Source: CMA Recommendations on Secondary Ticketing — Government Response