Sign up to FREE email alerts from Mirror - Arsenal FC Subscribe Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

The best thing to happen this week has been the highlighting of ticket prices in football.

Make no mistake - it's not just an Arsenal issue even though this Sunday's game with Manchester City has put it on the agenda.

City returned 912 tickets - priced at £62 - from their allocation of 3,000 for the game at the Emirates. I must admit that I find that remarkable.

That City fans are staying away from a crucial game against one of their biggest rivals in a game which has significance in the title race.

Football is like a drug. Following your team is expensive but it's also addictive. The other team not to sell out at the Emirates on a regular basis has been Wigan. Not a major shock as they have a small fan base.

Newcastle didn't either last month. They, like City, have some of the best and most passionate fans in the Premier League. But it was December 29, just after Christmas and three days after another costly trip to Manchester United.

It is expensive being a football fan. Ridiculously so. It's getting out of hand. And most bloggers, tweeters and supporters point to Arsenal as being one of the most expensive.

But the great irony is that Arsenal changed their pricing policy after consulting with the fans. The upshot is that there is no right or wrong way of doing it. Just what is deemed to be the fairest way - and not everyone will think it's fair.

Those meetings between the club and different fan groups led to a restructuring of price bands for general admission tickets which doesn't include the 35,000 season tickets within the 60,000 capacity at the Emirates.

The theory being that big games always sell out. People want to see the big event. But people were staying away for the smaller games. So, balance out the cost. Charge less for the lesser teams and more for the bigger teams.

(Image: Getty Images)

Now, rival fans will probably say that's fair enough for Arsenal to do that for their fans, but why punish us? Apart from the fact that you have to, under Premier League rules, charge the same price for the same ticket be it home or away fan.

Arsenal couldn't reduce the price for City fans even if they wanted to. Interestingly, those 912 tickets which were returned to Arsenal (all in one block to allow segregation) were resold to Arsenal fans within hours. They were priced at £62 as they were Grade A tickets.

A Grade A game - against the likes of Chelsea, Manchester United and City - costs between £62 and £126. The game against Chelsea back in September became the most expensive in Premier League history with match day income believed to top £6m. We highlighted it at the time here.

But the flip side is that some fans will actually pay less to watch their team this season under the new grading system. For example, Norwich paid £35 per ticket last season and Arsenal say they will pay £25.50 this year.

Now, I don't think £25.50 is too bad. It's a long way from when I first started going to football on my own. I paid £1 under the junior membership. You didn't have to stand in any specific enclosure either. Seats weren't much more when my dad took me in the early 1970s.

Football, like everything else, has been hit by inflation, multi-million pound contracts, the demand for superstar signings and new stadia. It's life. It's also the same for the cinema and theatre.

I was shocked by the price to go and see the new James Bond move in the West End. Then I was thinking about the new Les Miserables film. The price ranges from £16 to £22. For a film. Anne Hathaway is very attractive. But I'd much rather watch Sergio Aguero, if I'm honest.

Theatre tickets are even more expensive. And gigs, too. But no football fan wants to be at the theatre when one of the biggest games of the season is on. Arsenal versus Man City falls into that category.

That's why, with market forces, it's odd that City haven't sold out. Apparently they didn't sell out at QPR either. If their fans, like they say, are staging a boycott to raise the issue then that is admirable.

But Paul Matz, of the Arsenal Independent Supporters' Association, said: "It's not the first time that City have not sold their full allocation, and previously City were not a category A club, so ticket prices were only half the cost.

"City have got where they are by importing a sugar daddy, rather than through their own efforts, mirroring what happened at Chelsea a few years ago, so it's bound to take a while before the level of their fan base catches up."

That's a harsh indictment. But you will never get sympathy from rival fans. That's a fact of life. City blow everyone out of the water when it comes to wages and transfer fees.

But their fans complain when other clubs have to put up prices to compete because they don't have a wealthy owner.

One journalist, a Southampton fan, tweeted on Wednesday that he paid £52 for his ticket at the Etihad earlier in the season. When I re-tweeted that, I instantly got told that it's not tit-for-tat and that it should be a general complaint about ticket prices.

The very nature of Twitter is tit-for-tat. If you point something out then someone else will say: "yeah, but your team did that in 1982." So does that make it all right? No, of course not. We shouldn't just carry on because someone else got it wrong in the past.

Ticket prices are wrong in these difficult times. But they're wrong because fans want better players who demand bigger contracts and command bigger transfer fees.

We could all go back to it being in the 1980s when players got paid a tiny of fraction of what they get today. But the same fans moaning about prices today wouldn't stomach it.

Very few clubs are wealthy and make a profit. Those that do should take a look at pricing. I'd be surprised if Arsenal put their prices up next season. Maybe they will. But the impression I get is that they may well be frozen. That would be a good step.

As a gesture of gratitude to their fans, Arsenal rewarded their travelling supporters at Wigan last month. For the past ten years, Arsenal have taken up their maximum allocation and the fans have always sold out. At Wigan, fans were given a £10 token as by way of thank you.

Arsenal took 4,000 to Bradford, 4,500 to Wigan and 3,300 to Swansea. Arsenal's season tickets are renowned for being expensive. They do actually put seven cup credits for the Champions League and FA Cup on there as well.

The League Cup was removed when Arsene Wenger started fielding weakened teams. Tickets are often sold for those games at £10. If the cup credit is not used there is a deferral system for the next season. Many clubs just put on 19 league games.

The restrictions on tickets also throw up an interesting stat on the Emirates. In the Premier League you can only offer five per cent or 3,000 tickets to the away club (whichever is less). In the FA Cup, you can offer 15 per cent.

So, which club has brought the most fans to the Emirates? Plymouth Argyle. They brought 9,000 fans in the cup.

The Swansea game earlier in the season was when the Black Scarf Movement held their protest walk. That game was a category C game so general admission was at its cheapest.

But the FA Cup replay will be a category B as all cup games are classed as category B. The problem with the grading system is that it is not foolproof.

I'm not also about to get into the debate about which fans are the best. Personally, I've always admired Newcastle. They're noisy, loyal and supportive. But they didn't sell all their allocation at the Emirates. That doesn't make them bad - just proves it's incredibly expensive.

The Black Scarf Movement have written to Arsenal chief executive Ivan Gazidis and make some great points. One of the conclusions is: "We call for, at the very least, a freeze on all ticket prices for the 2013-14 season."

The letter also says: "It appears that the full implications of last year's ticketing review are starting to hit home. From the season's start, the new ticket pricing structure was viewed with great cynicism. For many, it was a perceived case of giving with one hand, taking back (and then some) with the other.

"Of course reduced ticket prices for the lesser games are welcome, yet the flip side is the ever more extortionate pricing for our more glamorous fixtures. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any football fan who considers the club's Category A prices (£62 to £126) reasonable."

Kevin Parker, the general secretary of the Manchester City Supporters Club, went even further. He said: "To charge £62 to watch it is ridiculous, but to charge that amount when people can see it live on TV is crazy. It just shows that football clubs are out of touch with reality.

"There are a combination of things at play here. Some people cannot afford the price, especially as it is just after Christmas, and there are some who just refuse to pay £62.

"This is also the first time in a long while that I remember City fans saying to me they could pay the money but are refusing to do so. That is a brave decision to take. Soon, though, fans will vote more strongly with their feet and clubs like Arsenal will have to decide what to do about ticket prices."

Of course you will then immediately get the Southampton fan who went to Manchester City in August pointing out that he paid £52.

All the big clubs charge a lot of money. Why? Market forces. It is expensive to recruit and pay players. Arsenal fans will jump on that. But just check out the wage bill which has kept the club in the Champions League year after year.

But market forces is also about clubs being able to sell out. If one fan thinks £62 is too much, don't worry because another fan will pay it. That's the reality.

It's harsh on away fans - especially with travel thrown in. But charging one price for one set of fans and another for the away end would be harsh on the home supporters.

The conclusion is that fans will never agree. They'll have a degree of sympathy - but only so much. Just look at what the Arsenal Independent Supporters' Association said about Manchester City's "sugar daddy" for proof of that.