Did Live Nation Pull Billie Eilish to Punish a Venue?

In the competitive world of major venue ticketing, the choice of a service provider is often framed as a simple business decision based on technology and financial terms. However, recent testimony in a high-profile antitrust trial suggests a more complex reality, where the immense power of a dominant promoter can allegedly sway that choice through intimidation. The central question is whether venues face severe professional consequences for selecting a ticketing partner outside the industry giant.

John Abbamondi, then-CEO of BSE Global which operated Brooklyn’s Barclays Center, found himself in a difficult position in 2021. His company had evaluated proposals for a new ticketing contract, concluding that Ticketmaster’s offer was economically inferior to bids from competitors like SeatGeek. The technology from these rivals was also seen as superior. Abbamondi’s team decided to switch to SeatGeek. The tense call to inform Live Nation Entertainment CEO Michael Rapino of this decision was played in court. Abbamondi testified that Rapino grew angry, dropping an expletive and suggesting the arena had never intended to renew with Ticketmaster. Rapino also pointedly mentioned the new UBS Arena in Queens as a potential home for Live Nation shows, a comment Abbamondi interpreted as a “not-so-veiled” threat to pull concerts.

Following the switch to SeatGeek in October 2021, Abbamondi stated the venue “saw a dramatic decline in Live Nation shows.” A key example was pop star Billie Eilish. After canceling a 2020 Barclays show due to the pandemic, her 2021 tour routed to the new UBS Arena instead. When Barclays inquired, they were told it was the artist’s choice, but Abbamondi noted other promoters did not similarly reduce their bookings. Abbamondi was fired in 2022, and less than a year later, Barclays Center returned to using Ticketmaster.

A similar pattern emerged with the Minnesota Wild hockey team and their arena, the Xcel Energy Center. Chief Revenue Officer Mitch Helgerson testified that while switching to SeatGeek would have netted the venue an extra $1 million annually, a Ticketmaster executive warned that Live Nation could move all its concerts to a competing venue if they changed vendors. “We took it as a credible threat,” Helgerson said, explaining that losing those shows would be “catastrophic.” SeatGeek even offered a unique safeguard dubbed “Live Nation retaliation insurance,” promising compensation if shows were diverted. Despite the financial upside and this insurance, the perceived risk was too great, and the arena renewed with Ticketmaster.

Live Nation’s legal team challenged these narratives during cross-examination. They highlighted the inherent risks and operational hurdles of changing ticketing platforms, noting SeatGeek’s system, while flexible, was less user-friendly. They also pointed to a contractual dispute between Barclays and Ticketmaster over the term length, which contributed to the strained call. Abbamondi acknowledged he was not fired because of the SeatGeek deal and that he is personal friends with a SeatGeek co-founder.

The trial also revealed informal pressures. A text from Live Nation executive Patti Kim, a friend of Abbamondi’s, advised him to “think about the bigger relationship” with Live Nation beyond just the check size, punctuated with a winking emoji. Abbamondi interpreted this as a friendly nudge about the real-world implications of his decision.

The jury must now weigh whether these interactions represent hardball business negotiations or the anti-competitive conduct of a monopoly, with potential penalties including a corporate breakup hanging in the balance. The testimony paints a picture where venues feel compelled to choose a ticketing service not on its own merits, but out of fear of losing access to the vital pipeline of concerts controlled by its corporate sibling.

(Source: The Verge)