Is seat hopping at a sporting event a sin?


#1

I go to a lot of Red Sox games at Fenway Park, and I’ll usually get a cheap seat and eventually move my way down to the front, around the infield. Is this stealing?


#2

If you are asking the question, you know that you are doing something that violates your moral code. So, just don't do it. Asking strangers on the internet isn't the way to go about it. If you are genuinely confused, seek the advice of your parish priest.


#3

:confused: No he doesn’t. He’s asking if it does.


#4

[quote="Inego_de_Loyola, post:3, topic:316119"]
:confused: No he doesn't. He's asking if it does.

[/quote]

Sorry! I think I may have just become impatient with questions that involve the question "is this a sin". I figure if one is questioning it, then an awareness is saying not to do (fill in the blank). However, please forgive my abruptness and lack of charity. :o


#5

[quote="JDGaney, post:1, topic:316119"]
I go to a lot of Red Sox games at Fenway Park, and I'll usually get a cheap seat and eventually move my way down to the front, around the infield. Is this stealing?

[/quote]

To some degree, I'd say. "The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one's neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods." So not directly stealing (unless you prevent someone who paid more to sit there), but in theory that seat is someone else's good, and he did not allow you to sit there ;)

Such prudence against sin is commendable. "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much".


#6

I would say if the seat is not held up like bank robbery, and the person doesn’t return, I say stay, cause he was probably doing the same thing. And if he does come back, then tell him that you were keeping his seat warm, and return to yours.:smiley:


#7

Judge not lest you......
Tell you what, why not set this question aside, until we have eliminated or at least progressed against those sins we Know are sins? I would say that in addressing those sins known to be sins we might obtain the insight needed to answer this question wholly or should I say Holy ! Just a thought. I have great hope that we might obtain a "better seat in heaven" than the one some of us pay very litle for in this life.


#8

[quote="grasscutter, post:4, topic:316119"]
Sorry! I think I may have just become impatient with questions that involve the question "is this a sin". I figure if one is questioning it, then an awareness is saying not to do (fill in the blank). However, please forgive my abruptness and lack of charity. :o

[/quote]

LoL. You were a bit abrupt. But I find what you said preferable, and truly more charitable, to the "hell-is-empty" brigade.

OP--I've done the same thing. But it probably is a sin. Probably venial--but could envision worse I suppose.


#9

If nobody was sitting there in the first place, I think it would be natural to want to move there. At least, for most people. But would it be a sin? Only if you were taking the seat of someone who was there ahead of you. I guess. :shrug:


#10

No, it's not a sin. The seat is empty and clearly has not been sold. The club is not losing any $ on it. If anything, they get a benefit, since your "ballpark experience" is improved and you become more likely to return.

Also, most stadiums/ballclubs allow this since they don't want their expensive seats empty. They want the good seats filled somehow. In Las Vegas showrooms, sometimes good seats are given to lesser payers to make the room look full. It's referred to as "dressing the room."

Upgrade to the better seats! Catholicism need not equal "sitting timidly and fearfully and letting life pass you by."


#11

No I don’t think it is a sin. I think it’s a sin for the teams to charge $8 for a beer.


#12

[quote="PolarGuy, post:10, topic:316119"]
No, it's not a sin. The seat is empty and clearly has not been sold. The club is not losing any $ on it. If anything, they get a benefit, since your "ballpark experience" is improved and you become more likely to return.

Also, most stadiums/ballclubs allow this since they don't want their expensive seats empty. They want the good seats filled somehow. In Las Vegas showrooms, sometimes good seats are given to lesser payers to make the room look full. It's referred to as "dressing the room."

Upgrade to the better seats! Catholicism need not equal "sitting timidly and fearfully and letting life pass you by."

[/quote]

But the question is whether or not taking theoretical profit from the company is sinful, not whether the company takes direct harm for it. He paid for a lesser seat and then moved to one that was of higher quality.

Look at it his way: if he were to go to a jewelry shop and order a fake-diamond necklace for his wife and, upon receiving his purchase, he decided to take a display jewel instead, one that they would never sell, would it be sinful? Of course it would.

The company paid good money to produce that good and you would be shortchanging them for it, which is no different than stealing, and is certainly lying, since you purchase one seat and then take a more expensive one.

[quote="ffg, post:11, topic:316119"]
No I don't think it is a sin. I think it's a sin for the teams to charge $8 for a beer.

[/quote]

I guess that this falls under the category of caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. They aren't making you pay for beer, they're saying "house rules, if you want ours, you pay this much." It certainly doesn't mitigate taking a more expensive seat, nor does it justify it.


#13

[quote="Aeden, post:12, topic:316119"]
But the question is whether or not taking theoretical profit from the company is sinful, not whether the company takes direct harm for it. He paid for a lesser seat and then moved to one that was of higher quality.

Look at it his way: if he were to go to a jewelry shop and order a fake-diamond necklace for his wife and, upon receiving his purchase, he decided to take a display jewel instead, one that they would never sell, would it be sinful? Of course it would.

The company paid good money to produce that good and you would be shortchanging them for it, which is no different than stealing, and is certainly lying, since you purchase one seat and then take a more expensive one.

[/quote]

I'm not dug in firmly either way on this one. But for sake of discussion, the jewelry example is not perfectly analogous as that deals with a consumable good and the seller is robbed of the opportunity to ever sell it at the price it should be sold at. With the seats, the seller is not being robbed of the opportunity to sell it at the higher price as if there was a buyer at that price the fan couldn't get the seat or would have to move when the proper ticket holder comes along. And the seller is not robbed of the opportunity to sell the seats for more at a subsequent event which is different than the discrete piece of jewelry. And the sellers total investment nor total revenue is altered by one taking an empty better seat. The seller is not robbed of profit because the market clearly isn't bearing out his desired price, particularly if there are a lot of empties. Again, this is a very different scenario than taking a discrete/consumable/movable good.

The market may price such conduct into the transaction. Perhaps buyers would not be willing to buy a ticket at all, or only for much less money, in the absence of the possibility of better empty seats and the availing to them being fair game.


#14

Aeden, you analogy is totally wrong because -- unlike with jewelry -- the seat can't be sold after the game and clearly has a value of zero once the game is over. The upgraded seat is going to waste.

Worse, the advice itself -- that upgrading is a sin -- is counterproductive because it is the sort of advice that sees sin everywhere. Look, most acts are not morally good, nor are they sinful: They are simply morally neutral. Just as its theologically wrong to say there is no sin, its equally bad theology to find some weird "six-degrees-of-separation-to-make it-sinful" where no sin exists. Heck, ANY morally neutral action can be declared sinful by saying, "you could have made better use of your time than to do the morally neutral act!" Telling OP that jumping to a better seat in Fenway is a sin is seeing sin where there is none, and caters to the stereotype that Catholics are anti-fun, sin-obsessed loons.

If the person comes with a ticket to the seat you jump into...leave that seat.

I'm proud to say I've "upgraded" seats at many ballparks, and have "full and deliberate intent of the will" to do so again.


#15

The theft is a purely theoretical one, but let’s leave that one to the sidelines, at the very least, you must agree that it is lying, no? You buy one seat and take one of better value, that, surely, is lying at the very least.


#16

No, I do not agree at all, and saying that seathopping = lying is precisely finding sin by “six degrees of separation” where none really exists. With all due respect, you are looking under every rock for some sin, any sin that “seathopping at the ballpark” falls under. Seathopping is morally neutral - no more, no less, and we ought not worry about it.


#17

[quote="PolarGuy, post:16, topic:316119"]
No, I do not agree at all, and saying that seathopping = lying is precisely finding sin by "six degrees of separation" where none really exists. With all due respect, you are looking under every rock for some sin, any sin that "seathopping at the ballpark" falls under. Seathopping is morally neutral - no more, no less, and we ought not worry about it.

[/quote]

How is it not lying? When you purchase a seat, you give them money for a very specific seat. Buying one seat, while intending to take a different seat is lying, because the purchase is telling the ballpark that you are going to have the seat you bought, not the one you took instead.


#18

Sorry, it's not lying, and it's up to you to prove otherwise.

Next time you're at the ballpark, look at your ticket. Does it say, "you may not move seats."? No, it doesn't, because a ticket is not a ticket to one seat, it's legally a license to enter the park for a set period of time.

Next time you go, I hope the back of my head doesn't block your view.:D


#19

[quote="PolarGuy, post:18, topic:316119"]
Sorry, it's not lying, and it's up to you to prove otherwise.

Next time you're at the ballpark, look at your ticket. Does it say, "you may not move seats."? No, it doesn't, because a ticket is not a ticket to one seat, it's legally a license to enter the park for a set period of time.

Next time you go, I hope the back of my head doesn't block your view.:D

[/quote]

You get a ticket to enter the ballpark, however, the tickets are priced differently based on the area you are buying a seat. Thus, you buy a ticket to the game, under the pretense that you are sitting in a given area. Your ticket does let you enter the stadium, but your purchase is priced based on which area in the stadium you are sitting. It doesn't say "you may not move seats," it says "you can sit here," because you bought a ticket there. Moving around within the area you bought a ticket is probably morally neutral, but moving to a different area is breaking a deal, and buying a ticket for one area, but intending to sit in another is breaking a deal and lying while making said deal.


#20

If you want to feel morally superior because you sit in the cheap seats, fine....but the fact remains that it's absolutely insane to see sin in seatjumping.

Perhaps the Catechism should be revised to forbid seatjumping.

I guess if you come here long enough, literally everything will be sinful to someone...


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.