One company dominates NZ’s live music scene – how do we encourage competition?
- Written by Dave Carter, Associate Professor, School of Music and Screen Arts, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University
The recent United States federal court finding that music industry giant Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster acted as a monopoly and overcharged ticket buyers has resonated globally.
In Aotearoa New Zealand, Live Nation and Ticketmaster have been highly successful in acquiring controlling interests in ticketing, festival and events businesses – raising questions about what the US verdict might mean for the local industry.
The case dates back to 2024, when the US Department of Justice (under President Joe Biden) brought a lawsuit against Live Nation for “unfairly wielding its power over concert promotion, artist management, venue operations and ticketing services to shut out competition”.
In the wake of reported lobbying, the department settled with Live Nation in the second week of the trial, a decision criticised as a “slap on the wrist” and a “sweetheart deal”. However, 33 states involved in the lawsuit elected to continue. At the end of the trial, the jury found Live Nation and Ticketmaster had:
“unlawfully acquired monopoly power and caused anti-competitive effects in multiple markets” including ticketing services to major concert venues
unlawfully tied artist promotion services to the artists hiring large venues
and had harmed competition, resulting in an increase in ticket prices for audiences.
Market power
The origins of this go back to 2009, when Ticketmaster (established in 1976) and newcomer Live Nation were allowed to merge, forming Live Nation Entertainment.
The vertically integrated powerhouse became a dominant player in artist management, ticketing, festivals, tour promotion and venue ownership.
CEO Michael Rapino described the business model as relying on high volume, low margin concert activity that generates a “river of nickels” across the supply chain, including ticketing and sponsorship.
Since the merger there have been growing complaints about Live Nation’s model from artists, venue owners and audiences. Some performers, including The Cure and Olivia Dean, have openly criticised its ticketing practices. Venue competitors have said they were threatened with losing shows if they refused to use Ticketmaster. Even fans have sued for price gouging.
After the US verdict, Australian industry groups, promoters and the Green party called for an investigation by the Competition and Consumer Commission about the market power wielded by Live Nation and Ticketmaster.
Live Nation Australia has tried to distance itself from its parent company’s actions, arguing it does not own or ticket the majority of large music venues.
That is not the case in New Zealand, however, where Live Nation and Ticketmaster have acquired substantial interests across the live performance sector.
Live Nation’s 2026 annual report lists a chain of subsidiaries in New Zealand representing venues, festivals, promotion, artist management touring and ticketing, summarised in the chart below.
Ticketmaster, which also owns Australian company Moshtix, has agreements with councils across New Zealand (including Venues Wellington, Auckland Live, Venues Ōtautahi, Dunedin Venues and Rotorua Events and Venues) covering a majority of the country’s thousand-plus capacity venues.
Live Nation’s vertically integrated model and consolidation of market share mean potential competitors would need similar scale to be viable.
Transparent ticketing
The US case against Live Nation Entertainment was ultimately about the risks of monopoly, market failure and regulatory capture by a dominant player. Those risks need greater scrutiny in New Zealand, too, particularly in relation to ticketing.
Last year, Consumer NZ collected 10,000 signatures on a petition asking for greater transparency of ticket prices through changes to the Fair Trading Act. This would require retailers to disclose things such as service charges and booking and credit card fees upfront.
Australian regulations already require disclosure of these “outside charges”. But this hasn’t necessarily resulted in a better deal for consumers, partly because so-called “inside charges” – allowing ticket sellers, promoters, venues and other parties to include service fees in a ticket’s face value – are not disclosed.
This is a widespread practice, but reporting by the Guardian in March showed Ticketmaster in the US offset losses from the banning of “surpise” booking fees by raising inside charges in other parts of the supply chain.
Fix The Tix, a US fan and music industry advocacy group, is lobbying for legislation that would require full itemisation of ticket fees and charges, price and fee caps on resold tickets, with strong civil penalties for breaches.
Similar action in New Zealand could improve transparency in concert and event ticketing, but would need the Commerce Commission or a competitor to demonstrate Live Nation/Ticketmaster’s dominance had decreased competition in the market.
Alternatively, local councils could explore mandating at least two ticketing providers for the venues they own, control or operate. This would allow a potential competitor to Ticketmaster to enter the market at scale.
Introducing competition at this level would encourage ticketing companies to compete for business from promoters and artists, with potential flow-on benefits for consumers.
More competition can only be good for music lovers and the local industry. The challenge now is how to achieve it.
Authors: Dave Carter, Associate Professor, School of Music and Screen Arts, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University
