Consumer Affordability and Pricing Concessions Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 3, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to make concessions more affordable for patrons and increase opportunities for small businesses at publicly funded stadiums by regulating pricing and access, with enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Consumer Affordability and Pricing Concessions Act," mandates that stadiums receiving public funding with a capacity of at least 10,000 seats must limit concession prices to no more than 7 percent above the market rate. It also requires these "covered stadiums" to encourage small businesses to lease concession locations and prohibits them from charging small businesses a fee for the right to sell concessions.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that publicly funded stadiums, which benefit from taxpayer money, have a responsibility to ensure affordability for the public, especially regarding basic amenities like food and beverages. They contend that concession prices at these venues are often exorbitant, creating an unfair burden on attendees, and that this bill would protect consumers while fostering a more competitive environment for small businesses.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that such price controls interfere with free market principles and could reduce revenue for stadiums and concessionaires, potentially impacting the quality or variety of offerings. They may also contend that defining "market rate" and enforcing the 7% cap could be administratively complex and lead to unintended consequences for stadium operations and event costs.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for public consideration of its implications.
Section 2(a)(1)(A)
Encourage Small Business Concessions Access
This provision requires publicly funded stadiums with at least 10,000 seats, to the extent possible, to ensure that their commercial leases for concessions services encourage providers to make locations available for lease or sublicense to small businesses. This aims to increase participation of small businesses in stadium concession operations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision promotes economic opportunity and diversity by giving small, local businesses a chance to compete in a market often dominated by large corporations, potentially leading to more unique offerings for patrons.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this could add administrative burden to stadium operators and concessionaires, potentially complicating lease negotiations and management, without a clear mandate for success. The "to the extent possible" clause might also be seen as too weak to be effective.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire to support small businesses with the operational realities and existing contractual agreements of large venues.
Section 2(a)(1)(B)
Concession Price Limitation
This provision mandates that the price of concessions sold at covered stadiums cannot exceed 7 percent above the "market rate." Market rate is defined as the price of a comparable good or service in the nearest metropolitan area. This aims to curb perceived price gouging at publicly funded venues.
Section 2(a)(2)
No Fees for Small Business Concession Rights
This provision prohibits covered stadiums from charging small businesses a fee for the right to sell concessions to patrons. However, it clarifies that this does not prevent agreements for reimbursement of actual operating costs, utility charges, equipment purchases, improvements, or commercial lease agreements.
Section 2(b)
FTC Enforcement Authority
This provision designates a violation of the bill's rules (concession price cap, small business access encouragement, and fee prohibition) as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It grants the FTC the authority to enforce these provisions using its existing powers and means.
Defines a "covered stadium" as a venue that receives "public funding" and has a capacity of at least 10,000 seats, explicitly excluding venues at institutions of higher education.
Section 2(c)(4)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms in a dedicated section.
Case for: Supporters would argue this definition clearly delineates the scope of the bill, focusing on large, professional-level venues that often receive significant public subsidies, while exempting collegiate sports facilities which may have different operational models and funding structures.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding college venues creates an arbitrary distinction, as many university stadiums also receive public funding and charge high concession prices, potentially leaving a loophole for similar issues to persist in those settings.
Estimated impact: Limits the applicability of the bill to a specific subset of sports and entertainment venues, potentially hundreds across the US.
Defines "public funding" broadly to include Federal grants, subsidies, tax exemptions, tax abatements, and tax-exempt bond issuances.
Section 2(c)(6)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice.
Case for: Proponents would argue this broad definition ensures that any stadium benefiting from significant taxpayer support, regardless of the specific mechanism, is subject to the bill's consumer protection and small business provisions. It prevents stadiums from claiming they are not "publicly funded" by relying on specific types of funding.
Case against: Opponents might argue that including tax exemptions and abatements as "public funding" is an overly expansive interpretation, potentially capturing a much wider array of venues than intended or creating administrative complexity in determining eligibility.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the number of venues considered "covered stadiums" beyond those receiving direct grants, encompassing many professional sports facilities.
Defines "market rate" as the price of a comparable good or service sold or offered for sale in the nearest metropolitan area (as determined by the Office of Management and Budget).
Section 2(c)(5)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice.
Case for: Supporters argue this provides a clear, objective benchmark for pricing, preventing stadiums from setting artificially high "market rates" based on their unique captive audience. Using OMB-defined metropolitan areas provides a standardized geographical reference.
Case against: Critics would argue that "comparable good or service" is subjective and difficult to define precisely, especially for unique stadium offerings. They might also contend that comparing prices in a general metropolitan area ignores the higher operational costs and unique demand dynamics within a stadium, making the comparison unfair and potentially leading to disputes and enforcement challenges.
Estimated impact: This definition is central to the enforceability and economic impact of the 7% price cap, directly influencing stadium revenue and consumer costs.