Skip to comments.Seahawks Ban Californians from Buying Tickets to NFL Title Game
Posted on 01/13/2014 7:19:01 PM PST by This Just In
In what is emerging as the NFL most heated and best rivalry, the Seattle Seahawks will play host to the San Francisco 49ers on Sunday for a trip to the Super Bowl.
But fans from California won't be able to purchase tickets for the game at CenturyLink Field in Seattle, which is the loudest NFL stadium and arguably its most hostile.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Lawsuit? Restraint of trade?
way to stay classy Seattle
This news may be more interesting than the game. I find it rather humorous. Seattle vs California. :^)
This would make a win by SF sweet!
Typical leftist attitude toward free markets. Seattle metro is one screwed up area.
Sorry, but both are losers in my book. I’m a Cowboys fan (let the flaming begin). :^)
...and the irony is that Seattle is excluding fans from another leftist metro area. It’s overt racism — the libs don’t want SF-Oakland Negro and Mexican thugs causing trouble in stands packed with screaming white people.
While it may be loud, I suspect Seattle crowds are a lot more friendly to the visiting team than Philly fans are with a losing Eagles team.
You mean Philly inmates. My apologies to all you civil Philly fans. This excludes you.
Well that’s just un-sportsman like behavior. Flag and a 15 yard penalty on the Sealarks.
They are doing the same thing in Denver against the Pats fans!
What does this have to do with a leftist view of free markets? This IS a free market activity - a private business (the Seahawks) are choosing who they would, and would not, like to do business with.
Exactly. Niners fans in CA are banned from the game as they can purchase tickets through 3rd party vendors.
I like the move. It’ll be nice to have fewer annoying SF fans at the game. The Seahawks barely had any tickets to sell anyway, so why not give priority to their fan base? Other teams should do it too, unless they’re worried their own fans won’t buy the tickets.
Didn’t know Denver was doing the same as Seattle re limiting ticket sales. I live in Seattle and it doesn’t seem like good sportmenship to ban ticket sales by zip code. Agree they can do what they want. Go Hawks!!
Well I’m not inviting any Democrats over to watch the game, so I guess the Seaslugs can do whatever they want.
I mean this is America, ain’t it?
Correction to #14, “Niners fans are NOT banned from the game”
The story would be just as accurate to say ‘Seattle bans Obama from buying tickets for the game.’ As Obama’s ‘home’ address is outside the geographic region Seattle's Seahawks allow the limited (6,000 out of the 86,000 seat stadium) sale of tickets by the home team.
I wholeheartedly agree. Their stadium, their rules.
Your comments are in valid on this thread. You have a California zip code. /jk
Every team does this. Hardly a scandal.
Your comment is disqualified due to your SeaHawks fan status. :^)
Restraint of trade
I’d be curious to hear from a lawyer on this one, but I always understood “restraint of trade” to be a claim that would be brought by the business, not a potential customer.
Seattle San Francisco tickets for sale...get ‘em while I got ‘em. California residents only.
seaweed eating Seachickens hehe...
This would be true only if the Seattle Seahawks owned the Stadium. I believe the Stadium was built with tax money by the State of Washington and is owned and operated by the State. In that sense the Seattle Seahawks are a quasi-public entity. The Seahawks are just another example of crony capitalism at work. A marriage between the state and corporations.
Very few Major League sports teams own their own stadiums. I believe the LA Dodgers may be the only one left.
The Stadium belongs to the State of Washington.
A private company choosing which customers they want to serve is not a “restraint of trade.”
This is so gonna backfire on Seattle. This story is getting a lot of air time down here, as if the Niners weren’t fired up enough already. Now you got all the rich silicon valley folks ready to pay $1,000 for a ticket. Plenty of Seachoke fans will gladly sell their tickets for that much dope money. Besides, the ticket sales in Montana, Idaho, Nevada and even Oregon will be 90% Niner fans.
The tickets are for a game in a stadium owned and managed by the State of Washington. Hence the Seahawks are a quasi-public entity and bound by the same access rules that a government agency would be bound by.
I would agree with you if the Seahawks owned the Stadium, but they don't. It was bought and paid for with tax money.
Excellent point. They should call it The Peoples CenturyLink Field Stadium. An even better reason to stay home and watch the game off of the big screen.
That has absolutely no basis in the law. Yes, the stadium is publicly owned, but it is leased by the Seahawks for their games. As far as I know, the State of Washington has no role in ticket sales or policies, and does not benefit from such sales. The fact that it is a publicly-owned stadium does not mean that the team cannot decide who can/cannot buy tickets to the game.
Actually it does. The State cannot lease their property to companies that violate public policy. I am sure that the contract contains equal access provisions and other clauses that would prohibit them from engaging in discriminatory ticket sale practices.
In this case by deliberately denying access to Californians to a public arena owned by the State of Washington, there is a violation of the privileges and immunities clause as enunciated in Sáenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), specifically "the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger".
Saenz v. Roe is inapplicable. That case involved denying out-of-state people certain public benefits (if I recall correctly, it had something to do with welfare benefits for people who recently moved to the state). Here, the ‘benefit’ is, again, a product sold by a private company. The fact that the team leases a public stadium does not make the team a quasi-public entity.
You’re confusing freedom of association with free markets.
I would pay good money to watch either the Niners or Hawks play a team of lawyers.
Since every play would be challenged it would take forever.
No, I’m describing free enterprise within a free market.
“I find it rather humorous. Seattle vs California.”
Even worse. It’s Seattle, WA, OR, MT, ID, AK, HI and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta over California.
Since when did geography become a protected class?
Technically the Constitutional protections of geography were included in the ratification of the constitution in 1789. Additional protections were added when the 14th amendment was ratified.
The only question in this case would be whether the use of the Government owned and operated stadium by the Seahawks would require that the Seahawks provide the same protections to out of state visitors that would apply if the government itself were selling the tickets.
In this case since the rights of the Seahawks are in the form of a leaseholder to the seats, any sale of tickets would be in the form of a sub lease of government property and as such, the Seahawks would be held to the same standard that would apply to the State.
Since the State could not so flagrantly discriminate against the Citizens of California, the leaseholder to State property cannot do so either.
That is utter nonsense. Absent some provision in their lease agreement requiring the Seahawks to sell to all comers, there is no requirement to do so. Private companies do not become quasi-governmental entities simply because they lease public property.
I'm shocked that Freepers would support forcing a private company to sell their product to customers the company does not want to serve. Particularly where the compnay could make a strong argument that doing so would harm the company (stadium loudness/etc. has become a significant part of the Seahawks brand).
How long have you been an attorney?
I take that to mean you are not an attorney.
So you are talking about the way things ought to be rather than the way they are.
True, they ought to be able to sell tickets to just the people they want to sell them to, but the reality is that they are bound by all kinds of regulations and laws due to the fact that they are selling Public access to a government owned and operated facility.
That is the reality. It sucks, but that’s the situation we live under.
“True, they ought to be able to sell tickets to just the people they want to sell them to, but the reality is that they are bound by all kinds of regulations and laws due to the fact that they are selling Public access to a government owned and operated facility.”
In today’s litigious society, I’m sure we’ll see a lawsuit if there’s the slightest validity to what you’re saying. In fact, we may well see one even if there’s no validity to your position...
Regardless, I’m betting that suit is a losing proposition for the plaintiff.