Topline:
We already knew that Democrat Tom Steyer, a billionaire running for California governor, is rich. But how rich?
The backstory: A 2019 state law, designed to better inform California voters, requires candidates for governor to release their federal tax returns to qualify for the June primary ballot.
Why now: Among major candidates, only Chad Bianco, Matt Mahan, Katie Porter and Tony Thurmond have already filed their 2025 tax returns.
Read on for highlights ...
We already knew that Democrat Tom Steyer, a billionaire running for California governor, is rich. But how rich?
In 2024, Steyer and his wife, Kat Taylor, reported a total income of $39 million, thanks to the duo’s massive investments in the global stock market. That’s more than all nine of his major opponents in the governor’s race and their partners made that year combined, according to their federal tax returns released this week.
A 2019 state law, designed to better inform California voters, requires candidates for governor to release their federal tax returns to qualify for the June primary ballot. Among major candidates, only Chad Bianco, Matt Mahan, Katie Porter and Tony Thurmond have already filed their 2025 tax returns.
Here are some highlights:
Income: Steyer and his wife reported $39 million in 2024, primarily from massive investments in the global stock market. They also made $6 million in passive income in Luxembourg, Netherlands, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands in 2024. They collected $38,000 in royalties from other properties and earned $23,000 from TomKat Ranch, their 1,800-acre cattle ranch in Pescadero.
Federal taxes paid: $5.4 million in 2024 — 54 times the average annual California household income.
Their earnings swing with the market: In 2021, they reported $160 million in income from investments and paid $39 million in taxes. But in 2022, they made a paltry $8 million and paid $1 million.
The couple regularly file tax returns in dozens of states each year (19 in 2024) and pay taxes abroad, too. Steyer also has a United Kingdom bank account, which at one point had a balance of $61 million in 2024.
The pair are big on philanthropy, donating $18 million in 2024, including $3 million in stock to Yale University and $1.5 million in stock to TomKat Foundation, the couple’s philanthropic nonprofit.
Income: Hilton and his wife earned $7.5 million in 2024, including $250,000 from Fox News and $6.7 million his wife, Rachel Whetstone, made as chief communications officer at Netflix. The couple also earned $360,000 from global investments but reported a net $3,000 loss in capital gains.
The couple received another $25,000 that year in rent from three properties in London, including two flats in the trendy Camden area. Hilton, a Republican, reported losing more than $226,000 on his media company, CR Productions.
Federal taxes paid: $2.8 million in 2024.
Income: Swalwell and his wife made $461,000 in 2024, including his $184,000 congressional salary and $247,000 from his wife Brittany’s consulting work. The couple had a $41,000 home mortgage interest deduction in 2024. Rivals have challenged the Democrat’s California residency, though he lists a Bay Area rental as his primary residence.
Federal taxes paid: $83,000 in 2024.
Income: $300,000 in 2025, nearly all from her salary as a law professor at the University of California-Irvine. Porter, a Democrat, also collects royalties from book sales: She made $140,000 in 2023 from books she authored, including two textbooks and her memoir, I Swear: Politics Is Messier Than My Minivan, published that year. She earned $18,000 in 2024 and $3,500 last year in royalties.
Federal taxes paid: $58,000 in 2025.
Income: $590,000 in 2025, jointly with his wife Denise Bianco. Bianco’s return doesn’t break down the Republican’s wages, but his base salary as sheriff was $348,000 in 2024, after the Riverside County Board of Supervisors gave him a 27% pay raise that May.
He was already the highest-paid sheriff in the state in 2023, earning more than $593,000 in total compensation, which includes benefits such as a pension and health care coverage.
Federal taxes paid: $127,000 in 2025.
Income: $490,000 in 2024, jointly with his UC Davis physician wife Carolyn Reyes. That includes Becerra’s nearly $250,000 salary at the time as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary in the Biden administration. The couple leased out four single-family homes that made them a net profit of $110,000.
Federal taxes paid: $116,000 in 2024.
Income: $309,000 in 2025 — $203,000 as superintendent of public instruction and $18,000 from Integrated Community Services, a San Rafael-based disability supportive service where he worked as a supportive living aide, one of several side jobs the Democrat has held. Wife Vanessa Wiarco earned $87,000 as community engagement manager with KVCR Public Media at San Bernardino Community College.
Federal taxes paid: $52,000 in 2025.
Income: $1.4 million in 2024, most of which came from Actum, a business consulting firm with offices worldwide, including Los Angeles and Sacramento, and his own firm, Antonio Villaraigosa LLC. He also collected a $125,000 pension as the former Democratic mayor of Los Angeles. He and his wife, Patricia, filed their taxes separately.
Federal taxes paid: $462,000 in 2024.
Income: $211,000 in 2024, almost all of which came from pensions and Social Security benefits. Yee, a Democrat, reported $1,300 in consulting and teaching income, and her husband, Steven Jacobs, is a rabbi with no reported income. The couple received $54,000 from selling a timeshare in October 2024. In 2021, the couple also reported $3,400 in gambling income in 2021.
Yee, who was California's controller until January 2023, received an annual salary of roughly $157,000 in 2022 and $13,000 in 2023, when the job ended in January.
Federal taxes paid: $24,000 in 2024.
Income: $507,000 in 2025, including his San Jose mayoral salary of $226,000 and his wife Silvia Scandar Mahan’s salary of $267,000 as president of Cristo Rey San Jose High School. In 2024, the couple claimed $14,000 in clean energy credits for using solar-powered electricity.
Federal taxes paid: $99,000 in 2025.
CalMatters’ Jeanne Kuang and Juliet Williams contributed reporting.
Topline:
As Santa Ana reckons with a $16 million budget shortfall, the police and city officials on Tuesday reported that around $500,000 was spent responding to anti-ICE protests last summer — and that legal claims filed by protesters could push that cost even higher.
About those costs: Around $400,000 of that amount was spent over four days last year — June 9, 10, 11 and 14 — when residents descended on the downtown area to protest ramped up immigration enforcement actions under the Trump administration.
Additional costs: City Attorney Sonia Carvalho said during Tuesday’s City Council meeting that the city has received four claims and one lawsuit stemming from the police department’s actions during the protests. It’s unclear how much the claims could end up costing the city.
As Santa Ana reckons with a $16 million budget shortfall, the police and city officials on Tuesday reported that around $500,000 was spent responding to anti-ICE protests last summer — and that legal claims filed by protesters could push that cost even higher.
Around $400,000 of that amount was spent over four days last year — June 9, 10, 11 and 14 — when residents descended on the downtown area to protest ramped up immigration enforcement actions under the Trump administration.
City Attorney Sonia Carvalho said during Tuesday’s City Council meeting that the city has received four claims and one lawsuit stemming from the police department’s actions during the protests.
It’s unclear how much the claims could end up costing the city.
Robert Rodriguez, Santa Ana’s police chief, said officers were sent out during the first day of protests after Carvalho received a call from the Department of Justice.
”It wasn't in a threatening manner, but it was basically if your department cannot provide the security that we need, then we're going to bring in federal resources,” she said. “We had a discussion about what that might look like in terms of safety for our community and what that would mean to people in our community.”
That’s when the police department made the decision to send in officers.
Rodriguez said the department was “ trying to create some distance between our community and the federal officers.”
Last June, protesters took to the streets across Southern California calling out the ramped up immigration sweeps across the region. This prompted the Trump administration to send in the military and the National Guard, further inflaming tensions.
But the ensuing local police response during the protests also drew the ire of residents and community members, particularly in Los Angeles and Santa Ana.
One councilmember in Santa Ana, Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, said during a council meeting last year that police officers shot at him using rubber bullets during anti-ICE protests.
Topline:
A measure to roll back two kinds of taxes is slated to go before voters in November. The measure would affect cities and taxpayers across the state, but Los Angeles and its controversial “mansion tax” is the prime target.
More details: Branded the “Local Taxpayer Protection Act” by its sponsor, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the newly eligible measure would both sharply cap municipal transfer taxes — fees slapped on real estate sales — and make it harder for voter-sponsored campaigns to raise taxes in local elections.
Why the fight is also about L.A.: The focus of the debate, and arguably the primary target of the proposition, is Los Angeles and its controversial “mansion tax,” known as Measure ULA. Since becoming law in 2023, the voter-backed policy has levied a 4% tax on real estate sales over $5 million and 5.5% on those above $10 million — thresholds that have since inched up to match inflation. The tax has raised more than $1 billion in three years. Last week, the city announced a $360 million award for future affordable housing projects.
Read on... for more on why the "mansion tax" is at the center of it.
California's secretary of state announced Tuesday that a tax-chopping proposition — one backers have spent years trying to put before voters — is now officially eligible for the November ballot. Come fall, anti-tax advocates and real estate developers may have reason to rejoice; city governments, public sector unions and the city of Los Angeles could have reason to worry.
The qualification announcement for a real estate-oriented constitutional amendment also gives California's Democratic lawmakers reason to start frantically negotiating toward a deal to keep the measure off the ballot entirely, even though the measure’s backers publicly say they aren’t interested.
Branded the “Local Taxpayer Protection Act” by its sponsor, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the newly eligible measure would both sharply cap municipal transfer taxes — fees slapped on real estate sales — and make it harder for voter-sponsored campaigns to raise taxes in local elections.
The measure would hit cities like Berkeley, San Mateo and Alameda — which rely on transfer taxes for a significant share of their funding — especially hard. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, it would cost local governments “a couple of billion dollars” per year, with taxpayers collectively saving just as much.
But the focus of the debate, and arguably the primary target of the proposition, is Los Angeles and its controversial “mansion tax,” known as Measure ULA.
Since becoming law in 2023, the voter-backed policy has levied a 4% tax on real estate sales over $5 million and 5.5% on those above $10 million — thresholds that have since inched up to match inflation. The tax has raised more than $1 billion in three years. Last week, the city announced a $360 million award for future affordable housing projects.
But real estate interests, some elected officials in Los Angeles and a growing number of academics say the tax has triggered a sharp slowdown in new construction, including of affordable housing, across the city, compared to neighboring cities. The levy falls not just on mansions, but apartments, condos, multi-use and commercial developments, too.
The resulting ire among developers, investors and business groups over the Los Angeles tax fueled the statewide proposition campaign, said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a conservative group best known for its landmark property tax limiting measure Proposition 13. “I think ULA was not just the straw that broke the camel’s back, but the redwood tree that broke the camel’s back,” he said.
The statewide proposition would trim transfer taxes to just one-twentieth of 1% of a real estate sale’s value. Measure ULA’s top rate is 100 times higher. It would also require some voter-initiated tax measures to clear a two-thirds threshold rather than a simple majority. In Los Angeles, measure ULA passed with 58%.
If the tax-chopping proposition passes, Measure ULA is first on the block.
But that’s a big “if.” More than 57% of likely voters, including a majority of Republicans, opposed the initiative when shown its title as it would appear on the ballot, according to a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California.
There’s also a chance the measure won’t even make it onto the ballot.
Under California election law, sponsors can still yank a measure back after gathering enough valid signatures before the official qualification deadline of June 25. In prior election cycles, that window has become a bonanza of backroom dealing in Sacramento as Democratic lawmakers scramble to muscle unwanted measures off the upcoming ballot and deal-hungry interest groups line up to extract concessions.
A notable example: In 2018, the soda industry funded a ballot measure that would have made it harder for local governments across the state to raise taxes. They pulled it at the last minute, but only after lawmakers begrudgingly agreed to pass a 13-year ban on new soda taxes.
At the end of last year’s legislative session, a group of Southern California Democrats, working alongside Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and former state Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, launched a last-minute effort to exempt new apartment developments from the L.A. tax, while adding some new flexibility on how the money could be spent. The bill had a broader purpose too: It would have only taken effect if the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association removed its measure.
In the face of pushback from both business groups on one side and arch defenders of Measure ULA on the other, the effort fizzled. But now that the Howard Jarvis measure is officially headed for the ballot, Sacramento legislators may feel newly inspired to deal. Even if the electoral odds are ultimately stacked against the proposition, Democratic lawmakers and left-leaning campaign funders would be happy to avoid a costly defensive campaign.
In the meantime, changes may be coming out of Los Angeles itself.
Earlier this year, Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is hoping to unseat Bass as mayor, introduced a measure that would have put a series of Measure ULA changes on the June ballot. By exempting new development, it reflected many of the changes proposed in last year’s unsuccessful state bill. But a majority of the council punted.
The council instead delegated the question to a select committee chaired by Councilmember Ysabel Jurado, tasking it with recommending changes to the tax. Some of those changes would require voter approval and could go before voters in November, on the same ballot as the Howard Jarvis proposition.
The committee will also consider a set of tweaks to the law proposed by city staff that would clarify that nonprofit affordable developers are exempt from the tax, while making it easier for developers to pair ULA funds with other sources of funding. City staff say those changes could happen without going back to voters.
Tenant rights groups, some affordable housing developers and trade unions support those changes, but are urging the committee to otherwise leave the tax alone. A coalition of developers, “Yes in My Backyard” advocates and unionized carpenters has popped up to urge the city to consider a broad “fix” — before state lawmakers or anti-tax advocates do that work for them.
“We think it's really important to show that we can drive reform locally,” said Sarah Dusseault, a former city homelessness official who is now co-leading the “Mend It, Don’t End It” campaign. Making those changes locally “will go a long way to prevent more drastic measures.”
Measure ULA’s defenders counter that nothing the city or the state does will be enough to convince the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to pull its measure.
“We’ve tried to negotiate with the funders of the measure and, both publicly and privately, they’ve been consistent that they have no intention to pull the measure,” said Joe Donlin, director of the United to House L.A. coalition. “They don't want to change taxes, they want to eliminate them.”
Coupal, from Howard Jarvis, agreed that the proposition is not a bargaining chip. “The folks on our side cannot envision any kind of deal that would give us the kind of solace that we would need,” he said.
But campaigns are expensive. Though the proposition campaign has been led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, much of the funding has come from the California Business Roundtable, a coalition of major businesses in California, along with a smattering of commercial real estate companies, developers and landlord groups in Los Angeles. For now, the business roundtable says this dispute should be settled by voters. In the coming months, would any of them be willing to cut a deal with desperate Democrats in exchange for dropping their support?
Some legislators in both Sacramento and Los Angeles are eager to find out.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Topline:
Three ships came under fire in the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday, putting the possibility of any peace talks in jeopardy, after a senior Iranian official said that President Trump's last-minute ceasefire extension "means nothing."
More details: The first ship was attacked and damaged by Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, the British military's United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said, though no injuries were reported.
The backstory: The attacks come after President Trump indefinitely extended the ceasefire with Iran at the 11th hour, ahead of its expiration. Trump said he was doing so at the request of mediating country Pakistan and it would give Tehran time to present a "unified proposal."
Read on... for more updates on the war.
Three ships came under fire in the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday, putting the possibility of any peace talks in jeopardy, after a senior Iranian official said that President Trump's last-minute ceasefire extension "means nothing."
The first ship was attacked and damaged by Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, the British military's United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said, though no injuries were reported.
"The Master of a Container Ship reported that the vessel was approached by 1 IRGC gun boat," according to UKMTO.
No warning was given, but it "then fired upon the vessel which has caused heavy damage to the bridge," the center said in a report.
Iran's semiofficial Tasnim News Agency confirmed the incident, saying the container ship had "ignored repeated warnings."
The UKMTO did not immediately say who was responsible for the attack on the second cargo vessel, only that there was no damage or injuries.
Iran's semi-official Fars news agency also reported Iran's Navy had attacked a third ship, the Euphoria. Iranian media reported that the Iranian navy had "seized" the two other vessels, which it identified as the MSC Francesca and the "Epaminodes," likely referring to the Epaminondas.
The attacks come after President Trump indefinitely extended the ceasefire with Iran at the 11th hour, ahead of its expiration. Trump said he was doing so at the request of mediating country Pakistan and it would give Tehran time to present a "unified proposal."
That's after a U.S. delegation had been slated to travel to Islamabad for a second round of peace talks, a plan that dissolved after Iran said it would not be attending.
Mahdi Mohammadi, an adviser to Iran's main negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, posted on X: "Trump's ceasefire extension means nothing, the losing side cannot dictate terms."
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said earlier that "blockading Iranian ports is an act of war and thus a violation of the ceasefire." He added that the U.S. seizure of an Iranian ship on Sunday was "an even greater violation."
Here are more developments on day 54 of the Middle East war:
Iran's economy | U.K.-France conference | International reaction | Fuel struggles | Points of contention
Despite Iran's refusal to attend negotiations this week, Trump says the country is in dire economic straits.
"Iran is collapsing financially! They want the Strait of Hormuz opened immediately- Starving for cash! Losing 500 Million Dollars a day. Military and Police complaining that they are not getting paid. SOS!!!," he posted on Truth Social late Tuesday.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent posted on X on Tuesday that under Trump's orders the U.S. Navy will continue the blockade of Iran's ports.
"In a matter of days, Kharg Island storage will be full and the fragile Iranian oil wells will be shut in. Constraining Iran's maritime trade directly targets the regime's primary revenue lifelines," he said.
He also said his office would continue to "systematically degrade Tehran's ability to generate, move, and repatriate funds."
The United Kingdom and France are hosting a two-day conference starting Wednesday aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz. One of the challenges is to remove undersea mines Iran is believed to have planted there.
Military planners from more than 30 countries are meeting at a Royal Air Force base north of London to put together a multinational mission to safeguard the Strait of Hormuz amid global concerns over oil and energy prices.
A poll in the U.K. shows 1 in 10 people are already stockpiling fuel.
British defense officials have previously floated the idea of deploying autonomous mine-hunting systems from motherships sent to the Gulf. But they caution that whatever plan they come up with at this two-day conference will only take effect after what they call a sustained ceasefire between Iran and the U.S.
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres cautiously welcomed Trump's announcement of a ceasefire extension.
"This is an important step toward de-escalation and creating critical space for diplomacy and confidence-building between Iran and the United States," he said in a statement shared by his spokesperson.
"We encourage all parties to build on this momentum, refrain from actions that could undermine the cease-fire, and engage constructively in negotiations to reach a sustainable and lasting resolution."
China warned that the Middle East is at a "critical stage."
"The paramount priority remains to make every effort to prevent a resumption of hostilities," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told a news briefing Wednesday.
Kaja Kallas, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said in an online statement: "Daily U-turns, whether the Strait of Hormuz is open or closed, are reckless. Transit through the Strait must remain free of charge."
She said the EU was widening sanctions on Tehran, adding "none of us want to see a nuclear-armed Iran."
Meanwhile, the war and strait blockade are continuing to rattle global markets and push up costs, with the airline industry particularly hard hit.
On Tuesday, German airline Lufthansa said that because the price of jet-fuel had doubled since the start of the war, it was cutting 20,000 flights through October in an attempt to save fuel.
United Airlines has also been impacted, with Reuters news agency reporting the Chicago-based carrier had forecast second-quarter and full-year profits below Wall Street estimates.
Meanwhile, the Department of Transportation says it is taking "a look" at Spirit Airlines at the request of Trump. Spirit filed for bankruptcy protection in August for the second time in less than a year.
Now soaring fuel costs tied to the Iran war are adding more uncertainty about the carrier's ability to keep operating. It's not the only one:last week a trade association for low-cost carriers sent a letter to Congress asking for temporary tax relief.
For officials in Washington, the main points of contention remain control over the Strait of Hormuz and the future of Iran's nuclear program.
The Trump administration has said it wants commercial shipping through the strategic waterway to be fully restored. Around 20% of the world's crude oil and natural gas typically passes through the strait.
After the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, Iran began to exert control over the Strait of Hormuz. It has prevented most commercial ships from transiting and has collected steep tolls from some of the few that did.
Vice President Vance said the first round of ceasefire talks held over a week ago broke down because Iran would not commit to forgoing a nuclear weapon.
"The simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon," Vance said.
For Tehran, the key demands for extending the ceasefire include an end to the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports and guarantees that the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah will not resume.
Israel and Lebanon agreed on a 10-day ceasefire last week, pausing fighting between Israel's military and the Iran-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Israel and Lebanon are due to hold fresh talks in Washington on Thursday.
Lauren Frayer in Glasgow, Scotland, Joel Rose in Washington, Jane Arraf in Amman, Jordan, and Kate Bartlett in Johannesburg contributed to reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR
Topline:
Re-sale policies for past Olympic Games and the coming World Cup's eye-popping price tags could provide hints as to what's coming for the L.A. Olympics ticket re-sale market.
What we know: Officials with Olympics organizing committee LA28 have been tight-lipped about how the official resale market will work, saying only that it will launch in 2027 and have an "official marketplace" by AXS and Eventim and other platforms including Ticketmaster and Sports Illustrated Tickets.
How has it worked in the past? The International Olympic Committee told LAist that host committees and host country's laws dictate rules around ticket re-sale — and in the U.S., major hikes in ticket prices on secondary markets are the norm.
Read on...for more on how secondary ticket markets worked in Paris in 2024, and what it all could mean for L.A. in 2028.
In the flurry of ticket-buying that engulfed Los Angeles when Olympics sales started earlier this month, questions about the coming re-sale market loomed large.
As locals balked at ticket prices that averaged in the hundreds and went as high as $5,500, some wondered if re-sale would push costs for prospective fans even higher. Others wanted to know if they'd be able to easily recoup their money for the tickets they had splurged on. And then there was that 24% service fee — would that be charged on the resale market, too?
Officials with Olympics organizing committee LA28 have been tight-lipped about how the official resale market will work, saying only that it will launch in 2027 and have an "official marketplace" by AXS and Eventim and other platforms, including Ticketmaster and Sports Illustrated Tickets.
But re-sale policies for past Olympic Games and the coming World Cup's eye-popping price tags could provide hints as to what's coming for the L.A. Olympics ticket market.
If these touchstones are any indication, fans could see even higher prices when the L.A. Olympics re-sale market opens next year. And fees — both ubiquitous and loathed across live music and sports events — will likely keep popping up every time a ticket sells or re-sells.
The International Olympic Committee told LAist that host committees and host country's laws dictate rules around ticket re-sale — and in the U.S., major hikes in ticket prices on secondary markets are the norm.
The two most recent Olympic Games did not allow tickets to be re-sold for a profit on official platforms, in compliance with Italian and French local laws, according to the I.O.C. Instead, Olympics organizers in Milano Cortina in 2026 and Paris in 2024 provided a re-sale market where fans could put up their tickets at face value.
In Paris and Milan, ticket re-sellers came out in the red after being charged a 5% service fee to re-sell the ticket. LAist reviewed one person's receipt from the Paris Games who re-sold two 100 euro tickets to an archery event for €200, and got back €190. A number of fans struggled to re-sell their tickets, according to news reports.
"A lack of demand in the secondary market has left many holding tickets they cannot sell, while organisers have continued to release more tickets," the Financial Times reported just before the 2024 Olympics began.
Tickets that were re-sold included a fee for 10% of the ticket value for the new purchaser.
Olympics tickets have been re-sold for higher prices when the host country allows it, though.
At the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver, Canadians could re-sell their tickets at any price, according to the New York Times. An article from the time declared, "Olympic Ticket Business Gets a Taste of Internet Capitalism." The Vancouver organizing committee also charged a fee on each transaction.
The L.A. Games seem poised to look more like Vancouver than Paris, since the L.A. lacks the ticket regulations of recent European hosts. In all recent cases, organizers charged fees on resold tickets, indicating the 24% service fee on 2028 tickets could be on secondary markets, too.
At a Los Angeles City Council meeting last week, LA28 CEO Reynold Hoover said he didn't know how much of that fee would be going back to LA28. Hoover has repeatedly pointed out to critics that LA28 needs to deliver the Olympic Games under budget, otherwise taxpayers in L.A. and California will end up paying for cost overruns.
Ticket sales for this summer's World Cup provide another window into where Olympics ticket prices could go.
FIFA decided not to cap re-sale prices in the U.S. and Canada for 2026 — a change in policy compared to past World Cup tournaments, according to The Athletic. (In Mexico, ticket re-sales are limited at their face value). That led tickets to be listed for way higher than their original price on the resale market, with FIFA making 30% in fees on each ticket that was re-sold.
The price tag for tickets to this summer's tournament has stoked indignation in fans and local officials alike. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani even launched an effort during his campaign asking FIFA to cap resale prices.
FIFA has also caught flak for increasing ticket prices using dynamic pricing, adjusting ticket prices based on demand. A Congressional coalition led by L.A. Democrat Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove wrote FIFA President Gianni Infantino a letter in March asking him to change course on ticket prices.
"The extreme high demand for World Cup tickets should not be a green light for price gouging at the expense of the people who make the World Cup the most-watched sporting event in the world," the coalition asserted.
Infantino has defended the prices, calling the U.S. market "very special."
The spotlight on Olympics tickets comes as ticket sales and the companies that control them in the U.S. face growing scrutiny.
Just this month, a jury found that Live Nation and Ticketmaster, which merged in 2010, overcharged customers and acted as a monopoly. California was one of dozens of states that sued the company.
" What we've seen is the public reaching their own breaking point," said Morgan Harper, with the American Economic Liberties Project, a progressive group that has pushed to break up Ticketmaster and Live Nation. "The prices were getting so high that people were like, 'Wait a second. Is it now also gonna be unaffordable to even go to a concert?'"
In California, lawmakers are considering legislation to limit ticket prices, including one bill to cap re-sale at just 10% above face value. Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-SF) introduced the bill, which is aimed at preventing price gouging. In an interesting twist, Live Nation has backed the bill, and critics say it will ratchet up prices by limiting competition.
Even if that bill passes, it won't apply to L.A. in 2028. The legislation specifically excludes sports and the Olympic Games.
