James Copley: Why Sunderland’s latest commercial deal under Tom Burwell leaves me uncomfortable

In modern football, supporters are increasingly asked to pay for the chance to buy a ticket – a tax on hope with no guarantee of success. Yet those able to spend considerably more can seemingly bypass that uncertainty altogether. That is the uncomfortable truth beneath Sunderland’s new partnership with P1 Travel.

There is a sensible argument behind the decision. Sunderland must grow revenue if they are to establish themselves in the Premier League, compete in Europe and support Florent Ghisolfi’s work. The dreaded Squad Cost Ratio makes that increasingly important.

A deal that makes commercial sense

Under Tom Burwell, Sunderland are trying to turn progress into lasting commercial strength. The partnership also gives supporters travelling from overseas an official route to matches rather than leaving them to navigate inflated resale sites or potentially fraudulent tickets.

I do not begrudge international supporters their opportunity and the more people who discover the club, the better. But global growth cannot come at the expense of Sunderland’s core support, nor should the ability to pay considerably more provide an easier route into a stadium where ordinary members are asked to enter a ballot and hope.

A second route through the turnstiles

Sunderland have stressed that the number of tickets available through their own ballot will not be affected by the P1 partnership. That assurance matters, but it does not alter the basic reality that somebody willing to spend £128 for the Fulham game can access a different route into the Stadium of Light.

An ordinary Black Cats Member pays for membership, enters the ballot and accepts they may be unsuccessful. Another supporter can pay considerably more and remove that uncertainty. The £128 package includes a premium seat in Block P5, a two-course meal and two drinks at the Karbon Grill inside the Hilton hotel. Crucially, the hospitality takes place away from the Stadium of Light.

Strip away the marketing, and this is essentially a general admission ticket with off-site hospitality bolted on. The main attraction remains access to the match, making it feel less like a genuine premium experience and more like an ordinary seat repackaged to provide a more expensive route around the ballot. At a time when demand massively exceeds supply, that distinction matters. When one supporter must enter a ballot and hope, while another can pay more for greater certainty, the system inevitably begins to look two-tiered.

Where have the tickets come from?

That leads to the most obvious question: where have these seats come from? If Sunderland’s ballot allocation has not been reduced, the tickets offered through P1 must have been drawn from elsewhere inside a stadium already struggling to meet demand. Have they come from an expanded hospitality allocation, or have seats previously reserved for another purpose been repackaged?

It seems unlikely Sunderland have significantly reduced their existing hospitality operation. Those areas regularly sold out last season, and demand should only increase after a seventh-place Premier League finish and qualification for Europe.

Supporters deserve a clear explanation of how the P1 allocation compares with last season and whether any other group has lost access as a result. There may be a perfectly reasonable answer, but providing it would help build trust around an arrangement that was always likely to attract scrutiny.

West Ham’s experience warrants caution

Sunderland must be judged on their own implementation, but concerns raised during P1 Travel’s work with West Ham should not simply be ignored. On March 10, 2023, the supporter account West Ham Football claimed P1 was offering VIP-tier tickets for £23 while a season-ticket holder had paid £70 for what was described as a similar seat. The account said the following day that the issue had been resolved after West Ham spoke to P1 Travel.

Further concerns emerged on May 1, 2025. West Ham supporter Gary Prince claimed P1 was selling Band Four tickets for a match against Tottenham for £59, cheaper than the price available to Claret Members. He also raised concerns over away supporters potentially accessing those tickets.

I have not seen a confirmed outcome to that complaint, so it would be wrong to present it as established wrongdoing. It does, however, highlight what Sunderland must monitor: packages should not undercut members, away supporters must not enter home sections, and hospitality must remain distinct from repackaged general admission.

Is expansion becoming impossible to ignore?

This deal also feeds into a wider conversation about the Stadium of Light. Sunderland had around 15,000 people on their previous season-ticket waiting list before the new membership system was introduced. Demand for individual tickets is enormous, and hospitality was already performing strongly.

Expansion would be hugely expensive and cannot be approached recklessly. One remarkable season back in the Premier League should not trigger a major project based on the assumption that demand will remain at its current level forever.

Another season or two of proven top-flight stability may be needed before expansion becomes financially responsible. But Sunderland cannot indefinitely solve overwhelming demand by dividing the same seats into increasingly expensive categories.

Growth cannot leave loyal supporters behind

I understand why Sunderland have entered this partnership. I understand the need to grow revenue, attract international supporters and provide a secure route for those travelling considerable distances. But understanding the economics does not remove the unease.

Sunderland’s greatest asset has always been the relationship between the club, city and supporters. Commercial progress should strengthen that connection, not create a culture in which loyalty places somebody in a lottery while greater wealth opens a side entrance.

The partnership deserves the opportunity to work, but supporters are entitled to ask difficult questions now. How many tickets are involved? Where have they come from? Can they be discounted below members’ prices? What checks will prevent away supporters entering home sections?

Growing Sunderland is important and opening the club to the world should be welcomed. But the people who carried it through the years when global audiences were not interested cannot be made to feel they are being pushed further away from their own seats.

Football tourism is not the problem – Sunderland’s timing is

These arrangements are not unusual. Match-break packages, official travel partners and hospitality bundles are now commonplace across Europe and beyond because football tourism has become a huge industry. Clubs know supporters will travel considerable distances for one game and are increasingly willing to pay a premium for certainty, convenience and an official route into the stadium.

There is also an element of hypocrisy in my discomfort. I have never used one of these packages, largely because my job requires me to be with Sunderland most weekends, but I would not rule out using something similar for a trip to Dortmund or Barcelona. I have friends who have done exactly that and had brilliant experiences. There is nothing inherently wrong with travelling to watch another club or paying for a package that makes the trip easier.

The problem is the timing and Sunderland’s current circumstances. Demand already massively exceeds supply, members are paying for the chance to enter a ballot, and thousands of supporters want season tickets. Against that backdrop, introducing a more expensive route which appears to offer greater certainty was always going to feel uncomfortable.

Football tourism is not the enemy and international supporters should be welcomed. But when local and long-standing fans are already struggling to get through the door, creating another pathway for those able to pay more risks sending the wrong message entirely.