Ed Sheeran has insisted that he had no control over the decision to remove Macklemore from the UK and US dates of his Loop Tour, saying the choice rested with the promoter and venues. But music-industry insiders and venue owners say the reality is more nuanced — and that superstars who sell out stadiums typically wield significant influence over who joins them onstage.
Promoters provide the purse, headliners provide the pull
The modern stadium tour is a commercial behemoth. Promoters such as Messina Touring Group, which handled Sheeran’s tour, put up the money, organise ticketing and liaise with venues. That financial stake gives them substantial authority, particularly over logistics and risk assessment.
Ray Waddell of the Oak View Group describes the promoter as the business engine of a tour: they "put up the money, pay all of the acts, deal with the venue" and therefore have the leverage to take major decisions. Yet, he adds, the promoter will generally try to accommodate the headliner’s wishes.
"If you’re paying for everything, yes you can make that call," said Mr Waddell. "But almost without exception the promoter wants to do what the artists want."
That duality — fiscal authority on the one hand, relational influence on the other — is where the question of responsibility for Macklemore’s removal becomes contested. Sheeran said in a public statement that he had tried "to build a bridge" with colleagues but that the promoter and venues made the final call.
Headliners often retain approval rights
Entertainment lawyer Dean Sheldon Serwin told industry outlets that, broadly speaking, "that superstar headliner is going to have approval over everything." In practice, mega-headliners often negotiate rider clauses and line-up approvals into their contracts, giving them a say over support acts, production, and other show elements.
At the same time, venue owners and other stakeholders can exert pressure. Robert Kraft, owner of Gillette Stadium — one of the remaining venues on the Loop Tour schedule — publicly stated that Macklemore had been dropped because of recent comments and a history, in Kraft’s words, of "antisemitic rhetoric and imagery." Kraft’s intervention underlines how venue-level concerns about reputational risk or local regulations can be decisive.
What happened on the Loop Tour and why it matters
Macklemore was removed from the tour after he made pro-Palestinian remarks during a performance at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. Following his removal, four supporting acts reportedly quit in solidarity — a move that has amplified attention on how and why the decision was made.
The episode raises several wider questions for the live-music business and for artists: who ultimately controls artistic line-ups on stadium tours, how responsibility is shared among headliners, promoters and venues, and how reputational concerns shape commercial decisions.
- Promoter: Provides funding, sells tickets, liaises with venues; may have contractual authority to remove acts.
- Headliner: Often negotiates approval rights and can exercise considerable influence over the supporting lineup.
- Venue owner: Can veto acts on reputational or contractual grounds; local stakeholders may influence decisions.
- Supporting acts: Dependent on the tour for exposure and payment; may take principled stands (e.g. quitting in solidarity).
| Stakeholder | Primary leverage |
|---|---|
| Promoter | Financial risk, ticketing, contractual authority |
| Headliner | Market demand, contractual approvals, artistic control |
| Venue | Local control, reputational concerns, facility rules |
Industry figures stress that the ideal arrangement is a pragmatic partnership: promoters want strong line-ups that sell tickets, while headliners want supporting acts that fit their brand and satisfy fans. But when controversy erupts, those relationships are tested.
For audiences and performers alike, the episode is a reminder that touring is not only about music but also about contracts, commerce and public perception. As the Loop Tour continues, observers will be watching how responsibility is allocated and whether the handling of this dispute prompts changes in how line-ups are agreed and announced.
The story also leaves open questions about transparency and accountability: when a high-profile act is removed, who should explain the decision and on what basis — the promoter who risks the finances, the venue owner guarding its reputation, or the headline artist who wields cultural influence?
Whatever the outcome, the incident has shone a light on the complex power dynamics behind stadium shows — and on how the music business navigates the fraught intersection of art, politics and commerce.
