Celtic ticket income barely fell as revenue crashed—are fans carrying more of the burden?

Celtic ticket income barely moved while the club’s overall revenue fell sharply. For me, that raises a question the board should take seriously: are supporters carrying a greater share of the burden without gaining a stronger voice?

The starting point is Celtic’s published results for the year ended 30 June 2026. These figures appeared in September. The fresh angle comes from comparing ticketing with the wider business.

Total revenue fell 22.7%. Ticketing fell just 1.4%.

That difference deserves more attention than another familiar argument about how much money sits in the bank.

What Celtic ticket income reveals

The revenue note provides the comparison:

Measure	2024/25	2025/26
Ticketing revenue	£49.789m	£49.096m
Total revenue	£143.597m	£111.032m
Ticketing share of revenue	34.7%	44.2%

I calculated those shares by dividing ticketing revenue by total revenue for each year. Neither figure measures profit or the proportion of spending financed by supporters.

Nor does the comparison establish that individual fans paid more. Prices, ticket mix and the fixture programme can affect receipts. The category also cannot tell us what every household contributed.

However, the central finding remains clear: ticketing supplied a much larger slice of a smaller revenue total.

When other income weakened, that stream held remarkably steady. I think the people behind it deserve more than a passing thank-you.

Loyalty deserves influence

In the same announcement, Brian Wilson described supporters as the “lifeblood of the Club”.

I agree. Yet that description should carry consequences for how Celtic treats the support. If our commitment helps provide stability, our concerns deserve a serious place in discussions about the club’s direction.

Nobody buys a season ticket expecting to choose the team. Equally, asking how recruitment works, what European progress means and who reviews failure is perfectly reasonable.

Those questions become harder to dismiss when ticket income remains resilient through a substantial revenue decline.

As we argued after the Greenock meeting with supporters, accountability needs something people can assess. A conversation should produce clear commitments and a way to check progress.

The club’s official Greenock statement quoted Wilson saying supporters’ messages would be “taken on board and learned from”.

Then show us what changes because of them.

Supporter consultation should reach decisions while they are still open. Explain the choices, listen to the objections and publish the reasoning afterwards. Asking people for their views carries little value if nobody can identify where those views made a difference.

What does Celtic give back?

For me, the answer starts with a credible football plan. Explain the priorities, identify who carries responsibility and report honestly when the approach falls short.

Our earlier piece asking whether changing the manager would fix enough addressed the wider structure. Supporters deserve to understand that structure before another setback brings another explanation.

Of course, revenue fluctuates. A larger ticketing share alone cannot prove poor management. Nevertheless, it strengthens the case for treating supporter trust as something Celtic must earn continually.

I want ambition that matches the commitment people make to this club. I also want communication that respects their ability to understand difficult decisions.

The board can praise our loyalty. The figures show why it matters.

If supporters provide such dependable backing, why should meaningful influence still feel like something we have to argue for?

Key takeaways

• Ticketing held steady compared with the wider revenue decline.
• Its share rose from roughly 35% to 44%.
• That supports an argument for greater accountability, without proving fans individually paid more.