Do Artists Owe Fans a World Tour?

For many, a concert is less about the music itself than the communion it creates. It is the long-awaited night when an idol might catch your eye for a second or two, and when the voices of strangers merge into something that feels like belonging. Oh, and a sore throat.

Yet that collective euphoria often conceals a more complicated truth. The demand for more cities, more dates, and more access inevitably collides with the limits of the very figures fans idolize. In an age of social media, where music is omnipresent and artists are expected to exist everywhere at once, touring has become the stage where this moral tension plays out more than ever.

Are artists truly obliged to exhaust themselves for their fans, or is it time for audiences to accept that boundaries are an essential part of artistry? Ariana Grande’s recent tour announcement is a vivid illustration of this tension. After years away from the road, her “Eternal Sunshine Tour” promises a triumphant return. Fans anticipated an expansive global stadium arena run. Instead, she revealed 27 arena (most arenas have a seating capacity of up to 20,000 seats) dates, mostly in North America, with just a small London residency for all of Europe next summer. The rest of the world has been left out entirely. 

The reaction is a mixture of joy at her comeback, and disappointment at how limited it feels. Grande has her reasons. She is balancing music with an acting career and protecting her well-being after years of relentless output. On TikTok and Twitter, entitlement over tour tickets is everywhere. Viral “don’t touch my tickets” videos and stan tweets frame access as proof of loyalty, turning concerts into a gatekeeping exercise over who is “worthy” to attend. What starts as excitement often hardens into demands, blurring the line between admiration and possession.

If Grande’s reasons are both personal and professional, Bad Bunny’s choice to exclude the United States comes from a different place entirely. His 2025-2026 “Debí Tirar Más Fotos” World Tour spans Latin America, Europe, Australia, and Japan, but notably leaves out the U.S., a market where he has sold out stadiums with ease. For many American fans, the exclusion feels like a betrayal. Why leave behind an audience that has embraced him so fully? 

His response is unapologetic. He argues that another U.S. run is unnecessary, pointing out that he has already toured the country extensively and wants to shift his focus elsewhere. But beneath the logistics lies a deeper statement. Bad Bunny has long challenged the assumption that global success must pass through American stages, calling attention to the colonial undertones of U.S. cultural dominance. By refusing to center his tour around the United States, he asserts that an artist can thrive without American validation. 

Moreover, artists often announce a “world tour” when, in practice, it amounts to the United States and a few major European capitals, with little attention beyond that. For fans in other regions, like Asia and Oceania, the promise of a world tour can feel less like inclusion and more like erasure.

That frustration is understandable. The geography of live music is brutally uneven. If you live in Los Angeles, London, or Paris, you are almost guaranteed opportunities to see major tours (although even Paris was left out of Grande’s upcoming tour). But if you live in Bogotá, Abu Dhabi, or Sydney, your chances shrink dramatically. When artists announce “world tours” that barely leave the West, fans outside those hubs feel not just disappointed but disrespected. They are reminded that even in an era of global streaming and fan devotion, the infrastructure of live performance is still clustered in a few privileged regions. A skipped city becomes an insult, and a short itinerary is interpreted as a sign that the artist does not care.

And yet, behind the scenes, the logistics are messy. Touring is expensive. The routes depend on venue availability, promoter partnerships, and financial feasibility. It is not simply a matter of will, but fans do not always see that nuance. Moreover, artists are not service providers with infinite capacity. They are people who get tired, who juggle careers, who need to set limits. The belief that they owe fans more, always more, risks turning admiration into ownership. And when that happens, fandom starts to erode the very thing it claims to cherish.

This is not meant as a blanket defense of artists and their status. I do believe artists carry a responsibility to their fans. They are doing something they love, a dream many aspire to, and it is the fans who ultimately elevate or diminish them. The power rests in the audience’s hands. Still, perspective matters. Idolizing artists can be thrilling, and most of us do it; but there is a difference between admiration and expectation. Children are being denied food and aid, costs of living are rising, layoffs are increasing, and people are facing struggles that reach far beyond tour announcements. At the end of the day, music is only one part of life, and there are limits to what anyone can give, no matter how adored they are.

The question, then, is how to find balance. Neither side is wrong. Fans who feel left out are justified in their frustration, but the leap from frustration to entitlement is where the relationship turns toxic. Artists, meanwhile, should feel empowered to take risks, to draw lines, to resist the pressure to give everything to everyone. If fans want their favorite artists to thrive, they must learn to accept that sometimes less is more. The boundary between fandom and artist is delicate, but it is essential. Without it, the music stops.

If you enjoyed this article, sign up to our newsletter and follow us on Instagram and LinkedIn to stay up to date with Gen Admission 🎶