logo
Who really owns the music festival you're heading to this summer?

Who really owns the music festival you're heading to this summer?

Irish Times02-06-2025
Anyone who works in the kind of music festivals that don't have billion-dollar entities behind them, will tell you how challenging it is to make things financially sustainable right now. Costs for almost everything a festival needs to run have gone up. Trends in ticket sales are still fluctuating since the pandemic, with big-event experiences sucking up audiences over smaller events. Money needs to be found somewhere, and for years, the experience at many large music festivals is akin to being in a mall where the visual noise of brand 'activations' is as loud as the main stage.
We are deep in festival and outdoor concert season. This summer, what that means is asking questions about ownership, sponsorship, and line-ups. A rolling wave of artist and cultural boycotts related to
Palestinian solidarity
is simultaneously exposing the role of private equity in festivals: who owns what, and who funds what.
Some lines of ownership are relatively simple. Coachella, for example, is run by Goldenvoice, which is a branch of AEG Presents, which is the live arm of Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), which is part of the Anschutz Corporation, which began as an oil well drilling company.
The name of Philip Anschutz – the billionaire owner of the entity and son of its founder Fred Anschutz –
popped up in the 2017 hearings
of the now US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. According to the New York Times, in 2006
Anschutz successfully lobbied
a Colorado senator and the White House in George W Bush's era to nominate Judge Gorsuch to the federal appeals court in Denver. In the 2017 hearings, then-Senator Patrick Leahy noted Anschutz financed uber-conservative groups such as the
Federalist Society
and the
Heritage Foundation
. Rock and roll.
READ MORE
Other lines of ownership, and where various parent companies invest their money, are more opaque. Currently under fire is Superstruct Entertainment. Superstruct operates in what it calls 'the experiential economy', and owns multiple festivals including the massive Sónar in Barcelona, which it bought in 2024, and the equally large Hungarian festival, Sziget. Last January, Superstruct bought the hugely popular electronic music brand, Boiler Room, from the ticketing platform Dice. It also owns the UK LGBTQ+ festival Mighty Hoopla, and the Dutch electronic music festival DGTL.
[
How Live Nation calls the tune for the live music industry
Opens in new window
]
In June 2024, Superstruct was
sold
by the private equity firm Providence Equity Partners to another private equity firm,
KKR
, for €1.3 billion. KKR's portfolio is worth around €620 billion. Its investments include the Israeli data analytics company Optimal+, and the Israeli data centre company Global Technical Realty. In 2019, KKR bought Novaria Group, a manufacturer of aerospace hardware, an acquisition
characterised by the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute
as 'betting big on the US defence industry and aerospace engineered parts are part of that theme'. In 2023, KKR bought Circor International,
described as
'one of the world's leading providers of mission critical flow control products and services for the Industrial and Aerospace & Defense markets'.
Discontent around the KKR-Superstruct relationship has been brewing for some time. Now artists are taking a stand. The London festival, Field Day, bought by Superstruct in 2023, saw 15 artists pull out due to the KKR links. At the time of writing, 28 artists have pulled out of Sónar. Spain's culture minster, Ernest Urtasun,
said that KKR is 'not welcome in Spain'
, citing policy that companies with alleged economic interests in illegal settlements in Palestine 'cannot operate normally in the European Union'.
Superstruct's sale to KKR was beyond the control of various festivals under this umbrella, and they have said as much. But the lack of autonomy festivals have over whose portfolio they ultimately end up in is a recurring theme. Individual consumers experience the same issue. The difference now is that artists and music fans are becoming more aware of financial flows in the context of the
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement
and Palestine solidarity more generally, especially at a moment when artists are core to such activism.
This is before we even get into the US antitrust lawsuit concerning
Live Nation
(long-merged with Ticketmaster), heading to trial next March. Last month, Live Nation
added a new figure to its board of directors, Richard Grenell
, Donald Trump's special presidential envoy for special missions. In Trump's first term, Grenell was ambassador to Germany, a tenure that led Martin Schultz (the former leader of the Social Democratic Party) to
characterise his behaviour
as 'not like a diplomat, but like a far-right colonial officer'.
[
Occupied Territories Bill: what's in it, how it has changed and what the implications might be
Opens in new window
]
The consciousness of artists and fans is being raised. This moment is about many things. It's about a younger generation and the artists they admire drawing a line. It's about the claustrophobia of capitalism, a system within which escape from ownership and practices whose values you disagree with often feels stiflingly impossible, rendering consumers inadvertently complicit as their spend downstream filters up to god knows what. It's about the billionaire class. It's about shape-shifting conglomerates, private equity, and their Hungry Hippo approach to gobbling up companies and brands digested in heaving portfolios.
But it's also about a new generation querying financial flows and their beneficiaries. It's about the BDS movement becoming more and more mainstreamed. And ultimately, it's about something that has always been the case: big money is rarely clean.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Median CEO pay at top US companies surges to $19m per year
Median CEO pay at top US companies surges to $19m per year

Irish Times

timean hour ago

  • Irish Times

Median CEO pay at top US companies surges to $19m per year

Pay for S&P 500 chief executives rose by 7.7 per cent last year as packages at the US's biggest companies keep increasing. Median total pay for S&P bosses rose to $19 million (€16.3 million) last year. The jump in median chief executive pay was higher than a 7.2 per cent rise in 2023, according to Farient Advisors, a pay consultancy, and marked the quickest pace of growth since an 11.5 per cent gain in 2021. Total pay for the broader American workforce increased 3.6 per cent in the 12 months that ended December 2024, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 'We're still seeing executive pay increases above the inflationary rate as well as above typical rank-and-file employees,' said Eric Hoffmann, chief data officer at Farient Advisors. READ MORE The highest paid S&P 500 CEO last year was Rick Smith of Taser maker Axon Enterprise, who raked in $164.5 million mostly from stock awards after meeting targets over several years, according to data provided by MyLogIQ. Brian Niccol, chief executive of Starbucks, was second with $95.8 million in total last year, mostly from stock awards. His pay package included a $5 million sign-on bonus and two one-off stock awards that ranged from $75 million to $80 million to cover forfeited cash and unvested equity he accrued while running Chipotle. Axon did not respond to a request for comment and Starbucks declined to comment. In the UK, median pay for chief executives of the 100 most valuable London-listed companies rose 6.8 per cent to £4.58 million in 2024-25 year on year, according to the High Pay Centre's annual survey released on Sunday. This is the highest level on record, and the fourth successive year that bosses' pay has increased. The level of pay for S&P 500 executives has drawn scrutiny from groups that question whether it is exacerbating inequality. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, a national trade union, flagged Niccol's pay package as an example of the widest pay gap between the top executive and median employee of one of the biggest US companies. Niccol's annual pay was more than 6,666 times greater than the total pay for the median employee, a part-time barista, who earns about $15,000 a year, according to company filings. 'We just see ever-growing income inequality in this country, and it's becoming harder and harder for workers to make ends meet,' said Carin Zelenko, director of capital strategies at AFL-CIO. Sarah Anderson, global economy project director for the non-profit research group Institute for Policy Studies, said the widening gap between chief executive and worker pay was bad for democracy. 'This gap between CEO and worker pay is a key driver of rising inequality and concentration of wealth at the top. We're seeing more and more signs of how ultra-wealthy people have too much influence over our political system,' she said. Still, the larger pay ratio between an employee and a chief executive may also reflect a company's business model. A retail boss is likely to have a wider pay ratio than a technology chief executive who usually hires engineers who are full-time workers. Nvidia, the most valuable US company, reported a chief executive to median employee pay ratio of 166 to 1, with its median employee earning $301,233 compared with CEO Jensen Huang's total pay of $49.9 million in 2024. Meanwhile, shareholder support for executive pay packages has remained strong. ISS-Corporate found that the median shareholder support for executive pay packages has remained between 92.4 per cent and 92.6 per cent for the past five years. Jun Frank, head of compensation and governance services at ISS-Corporate, said US economic uncertainty may affect executive pay trends in the future. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025

Four key takeaways from Trump's White House summit on Ukraine
Four key takeaways from Trump's White House summit on Ukraine

Irish Times

time8 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Four key takeaways from Trump's White House summit on Ukraine

Donald Trump has hosted leaders from across Europe as part of a flurry of diplomacy to find a path to peace in Ukraine. Coming just days after a disappointing summit with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Alaska, the pressure was on to make headway in a years-long conflict that the US president once said he could solve in 24 hours. Below are some key points arising from the US president's range of bilateral and multilateral talks with the leaders of Ukraine, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Finland, the European Union and Nato. A meeting between Zelenskiy and Putin ... could it finally happen? A bilateral meeting between Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Vladimir Putin is something the Russian president has always resisted, urging for a list of preconditions to be met first, but the possibility may now be nearer than ever. READ MORE Donald Trump said after the White House talks: 'I called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy. After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself.' According to German chancellor Friedrich Merz , Putin told Trump in a call during Monday's White House meeting that he was ready to meet Zelenskiy 'within the next two weeks'. For his part, Zelenskiy reiterated on Monday that he was ready for talks with Putin. Both Merz and the Finnish president, Alexander Stubbs, offered some pointed language on the topic, saying in separate press conferences that it remained to be seen if the Russian president had the 'courage' to go ahead with the meeting. Stubbs said: 'Putin is rarely to be trusted.' So far, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov has said only that Putin was open to the 'idea' of such direct talks. Need for security guarantees agreed – but details unclear Although Trump poured cold water on the importance of a ceasefire, he did offer hope on US involvement in helping guarantee Ukraine's future security. After welcoming Zelenskiy to the White House, he said: 'When it comes to security, there's going to be a lot of help', even if European countries need to be 'a first line of defence'. Later, Trump said in a post that these guarantees would be 'co-ordinated' with the US. On Monday morning, Zelenskiy described security guarantees as 'a key issue, a starting point towards ending the war' and appreciated Trump's indication that the US was ready to be part of that guarantee. Zelenskiy said those guarantees would be 'formalised in some way in the next week or 10 days', which can prove to be a long time when it comes to diplomacy involving Trump's White House. Trump believes he is very good at solving conflicts The US president's desire for a Nobel peace prize is well known – who can forget the 'Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity' established as part of a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan this month – and it seemed clearly in his mind during his Oval Office meeting with Zelenskiy. The 'peacemaker-in-chief' said he had ended six wars since he became president, with his administration claiming to have helped settle the conflicts between Israel and Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, Cambodia and Thailand, India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo, and Egypt and Ethiopia. A potential boost for the US arms industry Trump's approach to foreign crises is peppered with efforts to find a way to establish economic opportunity for US industry, and Ukraine may be no different if a deal is finalised. Zelenskiy has, after all, previously had to negotiate the US president's desire for Ukraine's critical minerals as part of his rivalry with China. On Monday, Zelenskiy indicated the price of obtaining security guarantees from the US included a pledge to buy $90bn of US weapons, primarily aircraft and air defence systems. He added that the US would also buy into Ukraine's drone program, an area in which it has made significant strides since Russia's full-scale invasion began. - Guardian

Short sellers ridicule fund managers' vanishing attention spans
Short sellers ridicule fund managers' vanishing attention spans

Irish Times

time10 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Short sellers ridicule fund managers' vanishing attention spans

A new study of short sellers paints an unflattering portrait of the professional investors entrusted with others' money . The study, Short Sellers' Information Acquisition, interviews nine prominent short sellers and analyses 820 short reports. It confirms shorts are informed and skilled, yet much of their work simply re-examines public filings overlooked by other professionals, exposing how often investing experts miss the obvious. Their edge lies less in uncovering new facts than in presenting evidence clearly. 'The best points come first', says Blue Orca Capital's Soren Aandahl. READ MORE 'The collective attention span of market participants is horrible and has gotten worse over time. A few years ago, I would write an 80-page short report. Today, I laugh at that. No one gives a flying rat's ass about 80 pages.' Concurring, another interviewee says less powerful information 'dilutes the powerful information. Let's say there's evidence of fraud, but then you add some minor issues – it makes the fraud evidence less powerful'. Reports must be concise, their points distilled to survive a skim-happy readership. Muddy Waters Capital's Carson Block describes his audience as 'hostile … They want you to be wrong'. Shorts must 'break through this hostility and make them realise they've been misled by the company's management'. For short sellers, the challenge is less uncovering fraud than navigating a market that can be lazy, inattentive, and too quick to trust company claims.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store