From the point of view of the promoters, concerts are a two-sided marketplace. Two-sided marketplaces are notoriously difficult for small players to compete in. You need to attract good acts so people will buy tickets, but to attract the top acts you need to show that you can sell lots of tickets.

Ticketmaster avoided the two-sided market problem until they reached scale. They were just a website where you buy tickets, an IT appliance for promoters.

But then Ticketmaster started buying out promoters, and that short circuited the entire system. Fans can't buy tickets from a different storefront because their favorite artists are only booking performances with ticketmaster-controlled venues. Top talent can't book high-grossing venues that aren't owned by ticketmaster, because Ticketmaster owns the promoters.

Scalpers are a symptom, the disease is consolidation of competitive markets by corporations. This kind of situation is precisely why antitrust law exists.

Just tried searching for a long-form article I read in recent years. Wish I could find it, but obviously the facts are not a secret. It explained in depth all the problems with the monopoly, but it also pointed out something very surprising to me. A few artists have spoken out angrily on behalf of their fans. However, the fact is, the artists in general do financially benefit from Ticketmaster's way of doing things. Part of Ticketmaster's business model is taking the heat from the fans who don't like paying all the extra fees so that the anger is not directed at the artists. If an artist wants to set the floor at $150 but knows fans might be upset, they can drop the price 30% and TicketMaster can help them make up the difference in fees, and Ticketmaster has nothing to lose. The artists get to keep their reputation intact instead of appearing greedy to fans.

Fixed the last sentence for you: "This kind of situation is exactly why lobbying exists"

Well put