How The Live Nation Verdict Could Impact The Indie Sector  

As the live industry awaits the penalty phase following last week’s ruling in a States trial that found Live Nation and Ticketmaster operated as a monopoly, many independent promoters and venues were seemingly encouraged by the verdict.

Hours after the ruling on April 15, National Independent Venue Association (NIVA) Executive Director Stephen Parker told Pollstar, “This is perhaps the biggest day in live entertainment history,” explaining that “there’s an actual recognition of what artists, most independent venues, and overwhelmingly fans, believes is a problem, and that is: things have not gotten better since Live Nation’s merger. They have gotten exceedingly worse and that’s because of the lack of competition.”

Houston-based promoter Darryl Austin has been promoting shows since 1991 and during the past 35 years he’s held roles in just about every sector of the industry including serving as an artist manager, a club promoter, a director of a 2,800-seat theater, a small venue owner, and working for a record label. He was part of the original Black Promoters Association and a 1998 lawsuit that saw the BPA file a $750 million lawsuit against eight talent agencies and 27 concert promotion companies alleging antitrust and civil rights violations, including nine affiliated with Cellar Door Companies – many of which would eventually be rolled up by co-defendant SFX Entertainment, the precursor to Live Nation.

Austin sent in a lengthy statement to Pollstar praising last week’s Live Nation verdict as “a major validation of what independent promoters, venues, artists, and fans have been saying for years: market power in this business can be used to squeeze competition at every level.”

He went on to say: “I’ve personally experienced LN using its ‘power and control’ blocking or constraining my ability to operate as an independent promoter; including specific instances where Live Nation/Ticketmaster used venue control and ticketing leverage to exclude me from bookings or retaliate. The verdict validates that the harms are structural, not isolated. The injury is not limited to one bad contract, one high fee, or one denied booking. It raises the promoter’s cost of capital, interferes with artist relationships, distorts venue access, weakens bargaining leverage, and can  force independents to accept unfair terms just to stay alive. For promoters who live show-to show, platform retaliation can jeopardize payroll, deposits, marketing, vendor payments, and future routing credibility. That is why this verdict resonates so strongly beyond fans buying tickets. As an independent concert promoter, the Live Nation verdict is a landmark moment for every promoter, venue operator, artist representative, and entrepreneur who has had to navigate a marketplace dominated by a single vertically integrated giant. When one company can influence ticketing, venue access, routing, promotion, and the flow of settlement money, the market stops  functioning as a true free market. …” 

During the penalty phase U.S. District Court Judge Arun Subramanian will determine the remedies, which could include divestment by Live Nation as well as a reversal of the 2010 merger with Ticketmaster. As previously reported, those moves, if they come to pass, are all but certain to be contested by Live Nation, which asserted during the trial that it operated within the bounds of the law and denied that it has ever pressured venues to sign exclusivity arrangements with Ticketmaster in exchange for shows from the company’s top tours.

In a statement released April 15 Live Nation wrote: “The jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter. Pending motions will determine whether the liability and damages rulings stand. Live Nation will soon renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the Court deferred until after the jury returned its verdict. That motion addresses all liability theories. The Court previously noted that Live Nation’s motion raises serious issues. There is also a pending motion to strike the damages testimony on which the jury’s award was based. The Court deferred ruling on that motion as well, while noting significant concerns with the damages expert’s analysis. Of course, Live Nation can and will appeal any unfavorable rulings on these motions. …” 

NIVA issued its own statement April 15 declaring that “Live Nation and Ticketmaster must be broken up now. Ticketmaster should not be permitted to participate in the ticket resale market. Live Nation should not be able to promote more than 50% of artists’ tours. And the damages paid to the states should be remitted to the independent venues, promoters, festivals, and fans that have suffered under Live Nation’s monopolistic reign over the last 15 years.”

Parker later told Pollstar that breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster would undoubtedly benefit independent venues, promoters, and festivals; the resulting competition in theory would benefit artists.

“The facts of the case, the jury’s verdict, and Attorneys General support this outcome – and more,” Parker said. “The only danger is failing to go far enough to address Live Nation’s illegal monopoly. In addition to splintering off Ticketmaster, this trial illustrated how Live Nation’s artist management, control over tour promotion, and venue management are key leverage that further its monopolization. All of which should be structurally separated and dramatically limited through legal remedies to rein in Live Nation’s anticompetitive practices.”

That said, in Live Nation’s interdependent flywheel model in which touring, ticketing, sponsorship and ancillary revenues allow the promoter to overpay for tours, future payouts to some artists could decrease. It’s the same for the upfront payments Ticketmaster makes to venues in exchange for exclusive contracts, which could similarly decrease.

Live Nation, as the initial DOJ settlement indicated, may have to divest themselves of some entities, including their amphitheaters (See Live Nation Gives Up Exclusivity, Not Presence At 13 Amphitheaters). Live Nation, has 460 venues “in operation” and owns a total of 24 venues in North America and 16 internationally, along with 301 in North America and 111 internationally that the company either leases, operates or has exclusive booking rights to, as of Dec. 31, 2025 and according to Live Nation’s annual report. Of these, LN owns 10 amphitheaters, has an equity interest in 2 more and operates 66.

Looking at the smallest of these rooms, the clubs where artists build up their following and hone their stage presence, Live Nation owns 11 and either leases, operates or has exclusive booking rights at another 113. 

Clubs are often where indies thrive, especially in major markets like New York and Minneapolis, but looking at Pollstar’s 2025 Yearend Worldwide Clubs Ticket Sales chart, Live Nation had a large presence in the Top 10 including MGM Music Hall at Fenway in Boston (No. 1), MTELUS in Montreal (No. 2, booked by Evenko, which has a partnership with Live Nation), Echostage (No. 4), Rooftop Pier 17 in New York (booked by Live Nation), House of Blues Boston and Wind Creek Event Center in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (booked by Live Nation). That said, many non-Live Nation clubs don’t report their box office reports.

Last year NIVA launched its 2025 NIVA conference by unveiling the results of its first-ever comprehensive national economic impact study, The State of Live, which detailed how 64% of independent stages operated without profitability in 2024 – while also playing a significant role in the economy with indie live venues, festivals and promoters contributing $86.2 billion directly to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) last year alone.

NIVA, in its post-verdict statement, called on the court to reduce LN’s exclusivity on tours to 50% of the dates. If that were implemented it could help smaller promoters obtain more shows. At the same time, the upfront payments ticketers pay to venues for exclusive contracts, could result in lower payments, which could negatively impact venues.

During the “State Of Independents” panel at Pollstar Live! last week, High Road Touring founder and NITO co-founder Frank Riley said the independent venue world was “under dire threat. Clubs are going away, and I don’t know if they’re ever going to be replaced. Ticket prices, surcharges are too high. It’s hurting music, which should be the most populous art form on the planet, yet it is increasingly kept away from people.”

The National Independent Talent Organization (NITO), the trade group for U.S. independent agents and managers and the thousands of artists they represent, issued this statement in response to the verdict: “Now that a federal jury of ordinary Americans determined that Live Nation and its subsidiary, Ticketmaster, maintained monopoly power in ticketing, we urge Judge Subramanian to focus on remedies that guarantee an open market with greater transparency, reduced fees, and more options for both fans and artists. This is a positive step forward that can benefit all stakeholders.” 

Of course, NITO doesn’t speak for all indie agents and managers. 

Jarred Arfa, EVP and Head of Global Music for Independent Artist Group – whose roster includes Billy Joel, Metallica, Mary J Blige, Mötley Crüe, Neil Young and The Strokes, among many others – told Pollstar: “I think it was a disappointing outcome. I believe the government has a profound misunderstanding of how the business works. The idea that possibly breaking the companies up will have any impact on ticket prices is a fallacy. Regardless of the final outcome I think Ticketmaster is still the best ticketing system for high volume onsales and as a tool to maximize artist revenue. Live Nation has some of the best touring personnel in the business. Even if there was increased competition on the promoter side you aren’t going to rush to trust promoters with your headline artists that don’t have the expertise and experience that Live Nation has.”

Several agents, managers and indie promoters that Pollstar reached out to declined to comment, perhaps a reflection of the hot button topic and also that many will continue to work with the promoter giant because its been an effective partner in producing shows and generating revenues for the industry.
 
Alec Ellin, the CEO of Laylo, a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) platform that has worked with artists like Sabrina Carpenter and Odesza, along with Outside Lands, among other clients, offered another perspective on the Live Nation verdict via a post on his LinkedIn page. 

“Live Nation lost the antitrust case this week and the remedies trial is up next. Most of the reaction has been ‘break them up,’ but I’m not sure that’s right,” Ellin wrote. “The numbers tell a different story. Ticketing is 12% of Live Nation’s revenue and 37% of their operating profit. Concerts are 83% of revenue and 3% of profit. The picture people have in their head of a monopolist getting rich off live music is wrong. They’re running concerts at near-zero margin and funding the whole operation with ticketing fees. That bundle is what let them invest in venues, tours, and the logistics that move 159 million fans through 55,000 events a year. Break the bundle and some of that investment capacity goes with it.

“Someone still has to underwrite the risk of a global stadium tour. Someone still has to build and operate the venues. At the same time, the bundle created real problems that the jury correctly identified. Venues felt locked in, new ticketing entrants couldn’t compete on merit, and artists had less leverage over their own fan data than they should have.”

He added, “A forced breakup might help fans in year one and hurt the touring economy in year five. Or it might unlock a decade of innovation that the current structure was suppressing. I genuinely don’t know which, and I don’t think anyone else does either, including the people declaring victory this week. …”