Save Our Seniors: Why Tottenham’s Concessions Fight Is Far From Over

By Martin Cloake and Kat Law

Tottenham Hotspur have bigger problems than their Senior Concessions policy right now, but Club CEO Vinai Venkatesham’s open letter in the programme before the West Ham game this weekend means we need to respond. 

To recap, in March 2024, an estimated 10,000 Spurs fans turned their backs to the pitch on the 65^th minute of our game against Luton Town to protest against the Club’s policy on Senior Concessions, which included a decision to stop issuing new concessions to the over-65’s. It remains the largest protest ever staged at our new stadium.

Since then, fan organisations have put the case in detail to the Club to change that policy and to treat our senior fans fairly. But little to no progress has been made, and so we are going to have to resume campaigning. This will be a challenge, because – by dragging out discussions and applying some sleight of hand to the application of its policy – the Club has taken the momentum out of the campaign and convinced some fans that the issue is resolved. In his letter to fans, the CEO clearly excluded seniors from a commitment to review concession policies.

So, we are going to set out the reasons why the issue is not resolved, illustrate why the Club’s policy remains wrong on practical, financial and moral grounds, and call on fans to step up once more to secure justice for our senior fans.

Cap on senior tickets

In the Club’s announcement about ticket pricing for the 2025/26 season, it said that, after speaking to the Trust and the Fan Advisory Board, “we have agreed that there should be ongoing availability of new Senior Concession Season Tickets for future seasons within the parameters of the current balance of tickets.” This was greeted by some fan representatives and many fans as a step forward. But it wasn’t. Instead, it was the kind of disingenuous move we hoped we’d seen the last of when the ‘old regime’ at board level changed.

The key part of that quote is “within the parameters of the current balance of tickets”. And what that means in practice is that, while in theory you might be able to get a Senior Concession, it is so unlikely you will that the prospect of getting a Senior Concession is virtually non-existent.

That is because Senior Concessions are restricted to certain parts of the ground, and there is also a cap on the number of Senior Concessions the Club is prepared to offer. Interestingly, after years of denying there was a cap on Senior Concessions, the Club has now confirmed to fan representatives that there is one – it’s 10% of the total number of season tickets, so roughly 4,000.

One of the many unpalatable things about this policy is that it directly breaks a promise made by the Club to its fans when we moved stadiums. Fans were told they should future-proof their chances of getting a concession by choosing seats in specific parts of the stadium. Many did, after hard decisions about moving from long-established communities in the stands, or away from other family members. Those fans who did move in the hope of retaining the ability to claim the Senior Concession now find they have done so for nothing because the Club has gone back on its word. It is a shabby way to treat some of our most loyal fans.

Divide and rule

In the minutes of the 8 December 2025 meeting of the Club’s Fan Advisory Board, this bullet point appeared:

“FAB and Club are consulting on the process for issuing any new Senior Concession Season Tickets in future seasons; also, emphasis placed on attracting younger fans to maintain future engagement.”

We’re told the consultation is about the method to be used to decide how to allocate the extremely low or non-existent number of Senior Concessions that become available season by season. But even more worrying is the statement in the same sentence that “emphasis” is being placed on “attracting younger fans to maintain future engagement”.

This is nothing less than an attempt to divide and rule, by setting up a false tension between younger and older fans. And it reveals a fundamental lack of knowledge about the current crowd demographic and patterns of support.

A sustainable football club grows its fanbase through overlap, continuity, and balance, not replacement. The question is not whether juniors matter more than seniors, but how to maintain a crowd that is financially resilient, atmospherically strong, and generationally continuous.

Changing patterns of work and hard economics means that the fans of ‘tomorrow’ (younger fans) are more often brought to games by the fans of ‘yesterday’ – their grandparents. The bonds created by family days out at the football remain strong and play an important part in strengthening the depth of support and attachment people feel to the Club. These bonds are being broken.

You do not grow fans of tomorrow by excluding the fans who bring them today.

There is a moral case here as much as anything. Senior fans are not a special interest group – they are the foundation of the Club’s support. Many seniors are on fixed incomes and are disproportionately affected by rising costs. Celebrating loyalty rhetorically while restricting it financially is a moral inconsistency. A community institution has a moral obligation to maintain access for those who have supported it longest.

Financial v demographic fears

Since this campaign began, we have tried to find out if the Club’s position is based on financial fears (the stadium will become flooded with fans paying concessionary prices) or demographic fears (the stadium will become flooded with older fans). To address the latter point it is worth remembering that the Club has existed since 1882, during which time natural population patterns have ensured a good spread of ages have continued to attend matches.

It’s true that the age profile of English football crowds has risen in the last 30 years, a product of increased prices and the increased formalisation of support. But any worries the Club may have about the effect on support of an ageing crowd seem to be offset if those older fans are paying full price.

As well as the moral arguments against the Club’s Senior Concessions policy, there are some hard economic arguments. The Club appears to working on the assumption that the stadium will always sell out. Attendances this season so far should have shown that this is a dangerously complacent view, and unless our home form picks up soon that will become even more obvious.

Not all matches sell equally, factors such as kick-off time, quality of opposition, form or even the weather have an effect. But season tickets are priced, sold and bought before any of these variables are known. Add in the fact that Seniors renew at a high rate and it is clear that seniors are insurance for the games that do not sell themselves.

There is a view that the Club wants to attract more one-off fans rather than regulars, because regulars don’t spend as much in the ground. But again, the economics don’t stack up. A senior attending 19 matches with modest spend often contributes more total value than a higher‑spending fan attending 5 – 6 matches. And seniors often enable other spending – many juniors and working‑age fans attend because a senior subsidises the trip or anchors the routine. Removing the senior often removes the junior ticket and its associated spend. Lower spend per visit does not equal lower economic value.

Finally, the fear of “a stadium full of OAPs” having a detrimental effect on atmosphere misunderstands how atmosphere is generated. It depends on a number of factors, including seat density, emotional investment and cultural continuity. Many senior fans are consistent attenders who maintain chants and rituals and provide stability rather than the churn a rotating crowd of casual attendees provides. Atmosphere campaigns that fuel the narrative that only younger fans contribute to the atmosphere do little other than provide cover for the Club’s attack on seniors and fundamentally misunderstand the dynamics of the crowd.

A football club grows by adding generations, not replacing them. Expanding senior concessions within existing controls is:

• morally right;
• financially resilient;
• atmospherically positive.

It does not trade tomorrow for yesterday – it ensures the club still has both.

Since launching in spring 2024, Save Our Seniors has been supported by both the Fan Advisory Board and the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust – support we greatly appreciate. Throughout, we have provided detailed evidence and proposals to help those bodies argue the case for senior supporters in their formal discussions with the Club, and we are grateful to the FAB for tabling a number of those proposals.

The Club has still failed to explain the rationale behind its policy and continues to obscure and evade when clarity is required. It is now refusing to engage directly with Save Our Seniors, even after both the FAB and Trust suggested a meeting. We will be raising this with the Independent Football Regulator, as we do not believe refusing to meet experienced representatives of a defined supporter group meets either the spirit or the letter of fan-engagement requirements under the new legislation.

The responsibility now rests with all of us. In 2024, 10,000 supporters took action at the Luton game – the largest protest ever held at the new stadium. Securing change will require that level of visibility and pressure again. The Club has shown it is prepared to dig in despite the weakness of its position, and it will only move when it is forced to reconsider.

Please share this article within your Spurs networks, speak up publicly, contact us if you can help, and let the Club know directly what you think about the treatment of its longest-serving supporters.

Football clubs are built across generations. This one should be no different.

Thank you for standing with us.

Martin Cloake

Katrina Law

On behalf of Save Our Seniors

X @SaveOurSenior66

[email protected]