isnt

The sentence of Valencia Court against Madrid Salvaje It’s not just about snacks. It is an assault won by consumers in a larger war: that of maintaining cultural experiences without every moment being designed for the purchase and sale of services. A ray of hope in the battle between “leisure as a business” as opposed to “leisure as a social right” that defines our era in an increasingly clear way. The battle for free entertainment. The judgmentwhich comes after the lawsuit from FACUA-Consumers in Action, is the first judicial resolution in Spain which establishes the abusive nature of these prohibitions at music festivals. But its importance transcends the anecdotal, since what is at stake is not only the right to bring a sandwich to a concert, but something more structural: the battle to maintain cultural spaces that are not completely immersed in transactional dynamics. A chronology of victories. A series of rulings can be traced that serve as a preamble to this latest judicial decision and that have paved the way to reach this point. For example, in 2001the María Cristina multiplexes in Toledo lost a lawsuit that certified that prohibiting entry with external products was an “irrational restriction on the consumer’s ability to choose.” There was already talk of “tied sales”: indirectly imposing services that the client had not requested. In 2022 another milestone arrived: the law was enacted that requires all hospitality establishments to offer free tap water. Although the official justification was environmental (reducing single-use packaging), it also served as a basis for this issue of forced consumption. Since then, the fines have increased: Yelmo Cines, for example, was fined 30,001 euros by the Basque Consumer Institute for prohibiting food from abroad. Spanish legal doctrine already makes it clear: if the main activity is showing films or scheduling concerts, hospitality is accessory. Beyond the sandwich. What happens at festivals is a symptom of a deeper mutation: leisure is being colonized by logic that transforms the cultural experience into a financial asset. It is understood if we look at the case of Live Nation, owners of Ticketmaster. In 2024, US Attorney General Merrick Garland defined like this the business model: “Live Nation uses illegal anti-competitive conduct to exert monopolistic control over the live events industry at the expense of fans, artists, small promoters and venue operators.” That is: you control the 70% of the ticketing market in the United States60% of concert promotion, and exclusive contracts with 75% of the large venues (the numbers are comparable in other countries of the world). In this way, each business segment feeds and reinforces the others. Ticket revenue is used to tie artists into exclusive promotional contracts, allowing for long-term ticketing exclusives, with more commission income… and perpetuating itself ad infinitum. By controlling the entire distribution and business chain you earn more money. Parallel trends. This transformation of leisure does not come from nowhere. It is intertwined with a couple of trends that redefine current leisure. On the one hand, the shrinkflation cultural (untranslatable, but here it goes: shrinking inflation), reduce the size of the product while maintaining or even increasing the price. General admission prices to American festivals they rose 55% between 2014 and 2024. And it’s not just that it costs more: it’s that you receive less. What was once included (being able to bring your own food, access to free drinking water, reasonable personal space) is now sold as a “privilege” or outright prohibited. Furthermore, in 2006, Spirit Airlines introduced the “unbundling” model: a cheap ticket that only includes one seat. Luggage, seat selection and priority boarding became extras that, as in 2024 had generated billions of dollars in baggage and seat selection fees. In other words: the unbundling did not reduce the cost of flying, but rather fragmented the final price into multiple hidden charges. Because ultra-low-cost airlines operate with very tight margins in base notes, recovering profitability through peaks that represent up to 47% of income. Festivals follow the same recipe: tickets that barely cover fixed expenses, while the real margins come from drinks and food. And since now live performances are essential for the survival of the music industryit makes sense that all efforts are focused on making it profitable. A crucial moment. After decades of unstoppable advance in the commodification of every aspect of entertainment (from cinema to sports stadiums, passing through theme parks), this judicial ruling indicates that perhaps the pendulum is beginning to swing in the opposite direction, at least in certain details. Consumers may not have completely lost the battle for “leisure as leisure” to the relentless “leisure as business” model that has been theorized for decades (Joseph Pine and James Gilmore spoke in 1998 of“the experience economy” and, even further back, the German sociologists Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer once defined visionary “colonization of free time) Extirpating leisure from capitalism. In 1944, the political economist Karl Polanyi published ‘The Great Transformation’where he argued that land, work and money are essential elements of life that They should never have become commodities. When the market attempts to subordinate “the very substance of society to the laws of the market,” society reacts spontaneously to protect itself from its own disintegration. So this judicial resolution is about being able to enter the next MadCool with a sandwich, but also about something more. Header | James Jeremy Beckers in Unsplash