Hundreds of millions of people attend sporting events annually, making the views of fans toward stadium security a good proxy for public attitudes towards event security—and a new survey suggests that those attitudes are changing. Concern over safety at large events appears to have altered public opinion toward security technology—and most people say they are willing to pay a surcharge to feel safer, according to the survey released in September. The security measure that fans rate highest is the presence of venue security staff.
Key Points
- A survey of regular attendees to sporting events found that the most appreciated security measure by fans is the presence of venue security staff (the presence of law enforcement ranked second highest); a clear preference for visible security measures was also identified.
- Most people who attend stadium events say security is an issue they think about and nearly 70% said they would support being charged a nominal security ticket fee to generate funds for security budgets.
- Technologies like body-worn cameras for venue security staff and facial recognition were welcomed by the fans surveyed, suggesting previous concerns regarding privacy might be waning.
Attending live sporting events is a huge and growing form of entertainment. The Indianapolis 500, a car race in the US for example, draws crowds in excess of 400,000. The global sports event market grew 7.86% in 2023 and 8.23% annual growth is predicted through 2026, according to one market study (Sporting Events Market by Revenue Stream, Event Type, and Geography—Forecast and Analysis 2022-2026).
Live sports are also impassioned events, and charged emotions can boil over. This summer, for example, matches of the Union of European Football Association’s Champions League between a Greek and Crotian team were accompanied by brawls involving bats, iron bars, and incendiary devices. More than 100 football fans faced criminal charges in an Athens court in August after the fatal stabbing of a Greek man outside a stadium before one qualifying match.
Stadium security—for sports, concerts, festivals, and other events—is necessary to control crowds and prevent an attack targeting a large gathering of people. But how much security do people want to see? Do they want visible or invisible security measures? Are they willing to embrace new security technologies that have traditionally sparked privacy concerns?
A survey by The National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security (NCS4) at the University of Mississippi in the US indicates an ardent desire among event attendees for enhanced security. Nearly 70% agreed or strongly agreed that they consider safety and security measures when attending an event. “Although spectators’ desire to attend live sporting events is based on several factors, their overall experience and sense of personal safety will significantly determine whether they return,” the survey report concluded (Spectator Sports Safety and Security Survey—2023 Industry Research Report, NCS4, Sept. 2023).
Critically, the survey asked about venues charging a nominal security ticket fee to generate funds for security budgets. Of the 400 survey participants, nearly 70% said they would be willing to pay a security ticket fee of up to $5.00 to offset safety and security costs (30.3% said they were not interested in an additional per-ticket charge for safety and security).
- 8.5% would support a $0.50 per-ticket fee.
- 19.8% would support a $1.00 fee.
- 20.8% would support a $2.00 fee.
- 20.8% would support a $5.00 fee.
That so many attendees at large events are willing to pay more for security reflects the growing concern about their safety and the negative experiences that many people have had. Two out of three fans say they have seen disruptive behavior, 38% have witnessed or been a victim of a violent act inside the stadium, and 35% have seen or been a victim of violence outside a venue. The greatest concerns among fans surveyed are theft (which 21% of fans have seen or experienced) and the presence of weapons. Crowd crush and entry/exit panic are also concerns, the study shows.
Fans want more security, but what kind?
Venues have options when it comes to security. They can make security visible, such as with uniformed security officers, or attempt to implement security in ways that people can’t see. The survey found a clear preference, with 73% of fans surveyed expressing a preference for visible security measures. “Spectators tend to consider safety and security when attending a sporting event and prefer security measures to be visible. Visible security measures increase spectators’ sense of safety, reinforcing the need for the presence of law enforcement and security staff.”
Traditionally, many event planners have argued against a strong visible security presence, but many now believe that visible security is beneficial to an event’s success because it allays attendee fears. In addition to providing peace of mind to attendees at large events, uniformed or visible security personnel can more easily offer support to event attendees, such as giving directions and answering questions.
There are also indications that visible security is more effective as a deterrent. One study in a retail context, for example, found that uniformed loss prevention agents are a more effective loss prevention strategy for reducing the rate of shrinkage by 5.4% (Comparative Study of Uniformed/Undercover Loss Prevention Agents in Reducing Shrinkage in Retail Businesses, Rustam Zakirov, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2017).
Overall, the highest rated security measure by fans is the presence of venue security staff (the presence of law enforcement ranked second highest). Other findings worth noting:
- 50.2% of participants preferred an entry screening method that requires people to pass through individually rather than a screening method that allows many people to pass through at once (31%).
- Out of 29 different safety concerns of fans, inadequate security personnel ranked fifth, tied with inadequate safety screening.
- A clear majority of event attendees said it makes them feel safe to be able to report an incident inside the venue.
- Participants highly supported venue security staff presence, law enforcement presence, walk-through screening detection technologies, security wands, visible security cameras, and designated entry gates.
What about advanced technology tools?
The survey suggested that people are warming up to security technologies that have been a source of privacy concerns. For example, 77.1% “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement: “I am comfortable with security personnel wearing body cameras.” And more than half of the survey participants (52.3%) indicated they would welcome facial authentication/validation as part of venue entry.
Adoption of facial recognition technology is happening all over. Grocers in the UK are working with tech companies to integrate facial recognition at self-checkout to verify ages for alcohol purchases. London's Metropolitan Police rolled out “live” facial recognition across London a few years ago to reduce serious crime. Rather than keeping track of a physical ticket, guests at Universal Studios Singapore will be registered into its facial recognition systems for identification.
The ick factor that some people associate with recognition technologies has clearly waned. People routinely use their face to unlock and securely sign-in to their phones or computers or use face authentication to access mobile applications. A 2019 survey by the Center for Data Innovation in the US found little support for strict limits on facial recognition technology, especially if it meant airports would be unable to use it to screen passengers. Concerned about fraud in online transactions, 93 percent of consumers in Brazil say they’d like more sophisticated security in the form of facial recognition, according to Experian's Global Identity and Fraud Report (Feb. 2020). As it often the case with security technologies, normalization through regular, positive interaction with facial recognition appears to be helping erase negative public sentiment.