From a 79,000 won fan meet-and-greet ticket to 2.4 million won: Monetizing the opportunity to buy, not the performance
Distinguishing second-hand reselling from cornering the market: Disgorgement of illegal profits, taxation, and sales transparency hold the key
A ticket to a fan meet-and-greet originally priced at 79,000 won was resold for 2.4 million won. Neither the stage had changed nor had the services provided to attendees expanded. The only things that changed were the owner of the ticket and its price.
On November 6, the Cyber Crime Investigation Unit of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency announced that it had referred 12 individuals to prosecutors without detention on charges of illicitly purchasing and reselling performance and sports tickets using automated macro programs. The tickets traded by the group totaled 3,069, spanning idol concerts, musicals, fan meetings, professional baseball games, and other sporting events. Viewing the 416.57 million won in revenue earned by the suspects as criminal proceeds, the police applied for pre-indictment confiscation and tracking preservation orders.
Understanding ticket scalping merely as "selling expensive tickets in secret" misses the essence of the problem. Reselling tickets obtained by disrupting fair purchasing procedures at exorbitant prices is not creating a performance; it is collecting a toll at the bottleneck leading to the event. The reason illegal scalping must be cracked down on is not simply because the prices are offensively high, but because it degrades both the intrinsic value created by the industry and the purchasing opportunities of consumers.
A Hit Show's Box Office Success Is Different from a Scalper's Profit
When tickets for popular shows sell out quickly and trade at high premiums, it may appear to be a sign of strong demand. However, a distinction must be drawn between a performance's popularity and the profits siphoned off by capitalizing on that popularity.
[Photo caption: Spectators filling a venue. Stock image unrelated to the specific event or incident mentioned in the article. / Courtesy of Wendy Wei/Pexels]
Production companies, cast members, and stage, sound, and lighting crews participate in creating the performance. In contrast, the premium added in the process of pre-empting tickets and reselling them does not, in itself, enhance the quality of the show or increase seating capacity. It is merely an additional cost borne solely by consumers whose access to normal viewing opportunities has been blocked.
If consumers spend more on scalped ticket premiums out of a limited entertainment budget, their capacity to attend other shows or purchase cultural products decreases. Those unable to afford the extra expenditure may give up on attending altogether. While empirical research is required to determine the exact extent to which scalping shrinks the broader performance industry, high scalped prices cannot be directly interpreted as industry growth.
The problem does not disappear simply because seats are ultimately filled. For industry sustainability, focus must be placed not just on who paid a higher price once, but on how diverse an audience can return for the next performance.
Beyond 'Using Macros': Looking at Unfair Trading Itself
[Photo caption: An AI-generated image representing a scenario where a user searches for tickets on a resale platform after a show sells out on official ticketing sites.]
Regulatory frameworks are also beginning to view the scalping problem beyond mere technical anomalies in booking processes.
Revised amendments to the Performance Art Promotion Act and the National Sports Promotion Act, which took effect on August 28 this year, respectively regulate illegal purchases bypassing technical security measures for resale purposes, as well as habitual and commercial illegal sales. Macro usage is no longer the sole criterion for punishment. Fines of up to 50 times the sales amount can be imposed on illegal sales meeting certain conditions, and the confiscation or tracking of criminal proceeds is also permitted.
Therefore, diagnosing the current situation as lacking regulation no longer holds true. What needs to be examined now is whether the strengthened regulatory framework functions effectively in actual secondary markets.
Simply increasing the number of crackdown cases is insufficient. Illegally earned funds must be substantially disgorged, habitual fraudulent purchases blocked, and resale platforms prevented from hosting ongoing operations by the same sellers. If the expected profits from violations outweigh the potential losses from enforcement, crackdowns risk being treated merely as a cost of doing business.
The Same Question Left by Luxury 'Open Runs'
Ticket scalping and luxury resale cannot be treated identically under the law. However, both raise a common issue: secondary markets capitalizing on cornering purchasing opportunities operate right in front of primary markets where consumers buy goods for actual use.
The "open runs"—queuing before store openings—outside Rolex boutiques exemplify this dynamic. Although the fervor has somewhat cooled, open runs were a common sight when the resale prices of Rolex watches soared to more than double their official retail prices.
[Photo caption: People waiting in line to enter a Louis Vuitton store in Paris, France. / Courtesy of Melanie Klepper/Unsplash]
Of course, it cannot be assumed that everyone participating in an open run queued up solely for resale purposes. However, when resale profit margins are substantial, speculative buyers seeking arbitrage enter the market alongside genuine end-users. As a result, consumers who actually want the watch are forced either to bear additional waiting time and repeated visit costs on top of the retail price, or pay a hefty premium in the secondary market.
When goods are scarce, it is natural that not everyone can buy them immediately. Nor does holding cash grant an automatic right to guarantee immediate purchase of a specific item. What matters more, therefore, is the criteria by which scarce goods are allocated. Whether through waiting lines, lotteries, or reservations, consumers must be able to understand the process and participate under uniform standards.
If allocation criteria for purchasing opportunities are opaque, consumers struggle to assess transaction terms based solely on price tags. Market fairness depends not only on price, but also on how the opportunity to buy at that price is granted.
Distinguishing Second-Hand Markets from 'Pre-emption Markets'
Second-hand trading transfers used goods to those who need them and provides buyers with options across various price points. Distribution services providing storage, inspection, authenticity verification, and transaction safety generate legitimate costs and value. Therefore, reselling at a profit cannot be considered inherently unfair simply because arbitrage exists.
Similarly, premiums attached to scarce items or goods trading at a discount ("negative premiums") due to falling demand do not in themselves constitute illegal acts or evidence of market failure. The freedom to dispose of owned property must be respected.
However, circulating existing pre-owned goods and mass cornering brand-new inventory to restrict access for genuine buyers before demanding a premium serve fundamentally different economic functions. The latter should not be disguised under the guise of "invigorating the second-hand market."
The criterion for evaluation should be how the premium was created rather than its mere existence: whether it represents compensation for legitimate distribution services or a toll collected by bypassing purchasing protocols and cornering supply to diminish options for others.
Labeling Transactions as 'Private' Does Not Erase Tax Liabilities
Taxation is an inescapable topic when discussing accountability in secondary markets. However, asserting that all ticket scalpers or luxury resellers evade taxes is an unverified claim. Individual tax compliance must be established through transaction records and tax authorities' audits.
What is clear is that operating under the guise of online peer-to-peer transactions does not exempt sellers from commercial obligations. South Korea's National Tax Service advises that individuals engaging in continuous and repetitive sales or brokering over social media and online platforms must register as businesses and fulfill statutory tax obligations. One-off asset disposals are legally distinct from repeated purchasing and reselling activities.
If individuals generate commercial revenues while masquerading as private sellers liquidating used items, tax compliance and consumer protection oversight must be rigorously enforced. This is also a matter of fairness toward registered businesses paying taxes in good faith.
At the same time, paying taxes does not legitimize illegal ticket scalping. Tax compliance and transaction legality are separate legal determinations.
Brand Purchase Limits Alone Cannot Solve the Issue
Measures by luxury brands to restrict purchase quantities or alter reservation systems can help improve access for genuine buyers. Indeed, luxury houses have implemented appointment systems and purchase quotas to counter open runs and scalpers.
However, corporate sales policies cannot replace public regulatory frameworks entirely. Beyond setting purchase limits, authorities must address how to identify repetitive commercial trading, enforce taxation, and hold perpetrators accountable for illegal procurement and consumer detriment.
Conversely, imposing price caps on all reselling activities or banning private property disposals outright is not a solution. Restricting legitimate second-hand distribution would ultimately curtail consumer choice. A balanced approach is needed: strictly penalizing illegal pre-emption and deceptive practices while establishing transparent vendor registration, tax compliance, and disclosure obligations for legitimate trades.
Capitalism is a system driven by the pursuit of profit. Yet, the mere generation of profit does not legitimize every method used to acquire it. Earnings accrued from supplying superior goods and services cannot be equated with profits extracted by blocking access to products created by others.
The core issue surrounding ticket scalping and aggressive pre-emptive reselling is not merely "how expensive a resale price can be." It is whether such markets expand consumer choice or eliminate options that were originally within reach.
