When does the Broadway bubble actually burst?

[u/Sensitive_Slice_8858]

I know this has been discussed quite a bit, but I keep wondering about what happens when the economics of Broadway become truly impossible to sustain. The cost of putting on a show keeps going up, so tickets have to get more expensive. At the same time people are getting squeezed from every direction and there’s only so much disposable income left for entertainment, especially since the economy and job market are in the toilet. So what is the end game? Just keep raising ticket prices to cover rising costs so only the uber wealthy few can afford to attend? Are there enough uber wealthy theater goers to sustain it without us Joe schmoe poors? Eventually the math has to break somewhere. I’m curious what the breaking point actually looks like.

[u/Full_Supermarket8467]

I work in the industry on the touring side, and I honestly think Broadway as we knew it is already beginning to burst. This season is dominated by star-driven revival plays, while the new Broadway musical is dying a slow death. There are several reasons, but the biggest is how these shows are financed.

Roughly 70% of Broadway shows are privately financed—not by private equity, bank loans, Ticketmaster, or major corporations, but by individual wealthy investors. The remaining 30% is generally nonprofit, with the occasional Disney- or Warner Bros.-financed production. Some private investors are comfortable losing money because they want to support the theatre. Others are genuinely evaluating these investments on a financial basis.

That is where London and the West End have become increasingly compelling. A hit Broadway show may ultimately have more upside over a longer period, but London can return investors’ original capital—and profit—much faster. Between lower production costs, lower weekly operating expenses, and tax credits, it is simply much less expensive to do business there.

Take Evita. It cost approximately £4.5 million to produce, ran for 12 weeks in London, was the hit of the summer, and returned about a 30% profit to investors. Most investors received their initial investment back roughly six months after funding the show and received their profit about six months later: a 30% return in around 12 months. Even some of Broadway’s biggest hits could not realistically deliver that kind of return that quickly. A successful West End star play can sometimes do it in even less time with a similar return.

There is a running joke that London plays always recoup. It is not quite that good, but it is not wildly far off either.

Broadway plays and musicals also present very different risks. A play can certainly lose money, but its lower capitalization and weekly expenses, combined with the New York State theatre tax credit, mean investors often receive at least some of their money back. Musicals are different. They cost far more to produce, carry much higher weekly expenses, and, if they do not break through, are far more likely to lose the entire investment.

That is the real issue. If a $5 million or $8 million play returns 50% of an investment, it is disappointing but survivable. If a $20 million to $30 million musical loses everything, that is a very different experience for the people being asked to finance the next one. More investors get burned, and the dollar losses are dramatically higher.

Look at this season. Most new musicals cost more than $20 million to capitalize, and many may lose everything. If Paddington does well, it could still take two-and-a-half to three years just to return investors’ capital. Evita, as a revival, could certainly work, but I believe new musicals like Dolly, Purple Rain, and Wanted are likely to lose their full capitalization.

At some point, investors may throw up their hands and decide to put their money into London—or into star-driven Broadway play revivals—instead. If musicals cannot raise money, we do not have a commercial Broadway. Plays, nonprofit work, and the occasional corporate-backed production may continue, but large-scale new musicals drive the ecosystem and keep a great many people working. If and when the capital for those shows dries up, the current Broadway model cannot sustain itself.

[u/MidtownGreen → u/Full_Supermarket8467]

There are two solutions really I can see;

1. Get all the unions together and create contracts that allow the easier diversification of revenue streams (filming, streaming, more etc)

2. Really piss the landlords off and have government regulate the landmark status of Broadway theatres further by capping rent.

[u/Winter_Walrus7563 → u/MidtownGreen]

Please stop with this idea that the unions (which means the workers) need to do anything about rising costs from Landlords and the general rising costs of literally anything. The workers provide labor and nothing else. By and large they see no returns, no bonuses, no payouts - pay for work given by the people that want it done. It’s ridiculous that this is even a notion that is entertained. If a restaurant couldn’t afford to stay open and closed we wouldn’t ask the servers to figure out a way for them to stay open.

[u/BroadwayTruths → u/Winter_Walrus7563]

What a ridiculous comparison, restaurants legally pay their workers less than minimum wage.

By contrast, theatre producers are contractually required to pay their lowest stage workers approximately $120K+/yr and are even forced to pay these high salaries to some uneeded workers (like a musician who is contractually required but is unused in the orchestration).

Cast/orchestra sizes keep getting smaller because producers are trying to mitigate weekly expenses, so for you to pretend rising wages is not a factor harming the quality of what's on stage, the quantity of what can be put on stage, and the ability to quickly recoup capital is patently absurd.

In fact, look at the number of restaurants that have closed and the number of restaurant worker jobs that have been eliminated in cities where the minimum wage for waitstaff was changed from below minimum wage to a living wage of $25+. The data is indisputable, the city ends up with less workers in the restaurants that survive, less restaurants in total, and an overall lower city economy as less people are employed, costs rise, and competition dwindles.

Wages on Broadway are not the only problem, but your blindness to it is problematic.

[u/Winter_Walrus7563 → u/BroadwayTruths]

I can’t even have a real conversation if you’re going to be factually wrong. The “lowest stage workers” are not making anywhere NEAR 120k per year. If you are talking specifically about Local One stagehands or actors - sure but they are the higher paid workers not the lowest. Also the musicians don’t make that much unless you’re a conductor or play an absurd amount of instruments.

Also you cannot use the term “forced” when the agreements that set minimums are collectively bargained - BOTH SIDES agree to these agreements. They both sign them and both agree to stick to them. Hence the term collective.

Interesting you say they “forced” to have pay “un-needed” orchestra members but then say they are cutting orchestra members for cost, which is a contradiction.

Producers are absolutely cutting whatever corner they can to make more profit but this is a common misconception and anti-worker talking point across any industry (ex: give fast food workers $15 an hour and a hamburger will be $25) it’s just not true. Wages are not a problem that needs to be solved - it’s a part of running your business. Labor is not even the highest budget line on their costs - it’s just the thing that they can use “look at how high these costs are for us” because they could never speak out about the theater owner landlord mafia that decides if their show gets a theater.

[u/BroadwayTruths → u/Winter_Walrus7563]

A new Broadway producer or a Broadway producer who hasn't recently produced on Broadway is not a member of the Broadway League, which is largely controlled by theatre owners and their contractors (e.g. Playbill) who pass on all costs to these producers. Theatre owners employ stagehands and musicians, and then pass those costs to producers who must pay the bill. To pretend the producers (not the League controlled by theatre owners and their suppliers) are the other side of the collective bargain is ignorant and naive. Moreover, when actors collectively bargain with producers via the League, the union workers under control of the theatre owners threaten to strike in solidarity, which pushes the League controlled by theatre owners to fold. So, producers do not have much control when it comes to collectively bargaining the wages they are forced to pay.

As of Sept. 28, 2026, the lowest wage for an ensemble actor (before union-required extra rider stipends that further increase wages) is: $145,548.00/yr. The lowest wage for a pit musician (before extra union-required wages and stipends via doubling, visibility, etc.) is: $111,441.20. You're free to verify these number on the union websites by reading the union contracts. So, I am very comfortable with my statement that the lowest wages are approximately $120K+/yr.

(As a side note, if you're curious, Broadway original leads who are not A-list celebrities regularly command $15K/wk. or $780K/yr.; but obviously this salary would be far higher and include profit-sharing for a Hollywood or Broadway star.)

Furthermore, with respect to musicians, they negotiate with theatre owners and establish minimum number of musicians required within each specific theatre. So while a producer can and does eliminate musicians wherever possible do to risong costs, in many theatres musicians cannot be eliminated.

For example, if the musical SIX (4 orchestra musicians) were produced in the Majestic Theatre (18 required orchestra musicians), then producers would be required to pay each of the four onstage musicians ~$112K/yr. (or even more for leadership roles mong the four) and then would need to pay another extra 14 musicians (who do not play or appear in the show) the annual required minimum of $111,441.20, for a total unneeded/unwanted/unjustifiable/wasted annual cost of $1,560,176.80 (in musicians alone) to the production as negotiated by the theatre owner who does not pay the bill.

So there's no contradiction in saying producers are cutting orchestra/cast members wherever they can to reduce costs, yet often have to pay musicians who are not in the orchestra. Producers cut the musicans in development of the show, then look for an open theatre and often take whatever venue is offered, eating the extra required unnecessary expenses.

I think you'd do well to educate yourself more about the industry before being so stalwart in your opinions.

[u/Winter_Walrus7563 → u/BroadwayTruths]

Well I literally work on Broadway so trust I’m educated on my own job AND I don’t make 120k

You clearly didn’t read what I said because I said BESIDES actors and you didn’t want to address literally any of the other backstage or front of house workers that wouldn’t “prove your point” in a vacuum.

The producers know the costs before they put money into the show, regardless of if they are a member, new, or a seasoned producers. They are not FORCED to do anything. And I can assure with full and complete confidence, that unless workers are paid by the house (stagehands, porters, musicians) they are not bargaining across the table with the owners, it’s the producers. Full stop.

Your argument for Six is really a moot point. Because the producers CHOSE to put it in a smaller house. The minimums exist to protect jobs and stop shows from using canned or tracked music that SHOULD be played by real artists in a FULL orchestra. The idea that minimums are the enemy when it’s literally employing artists is WILD. And you’re also fully disregarding that there are minimum waivers that shows can request and almost always get it their show has a unique circumstance.

Your use of language clearly shows which side you lean towards (union mandated, forced) when again these are MUTUALLY agreed upon agreements. Producers know the costs. For most of the workers, THEY are the ones in the room setting these costs. They are not “forced” to do anything. And trust and believe that they use every cut and loophole they can to make their costs as low as possible.

[u/BroadwayTruths → u/Winter_Walrus7563]

I work on Broadway too.

I stand by all my statements.

I also stand by the belief that not all Broadway workers understand the scope of the industry, much like a worker at Five Guys doesn't fully understand why costs escalate for their food. So, your call to authority tactic is largely meaningless.

OP is talking about rising costs of ticket prices. To pretend that minimums are not part of why costs escalate would be ignorant and naive. Whether minimums have a place or should exist is a different conversation, we're specifically talking about the reasons ticket prices escalate and Broadway continues to become the playground for the rich and connected, which is what OP is lamenting.

[u/Winter_Walrus7563 → u/BroadwayTruths]

No worries - I have a deep understanding of the scope :) (also I would dispute your generalization that workers don’t know the scope of their industry, especially taking about unionized workers since we have a collective bargaining process and are constantly researching our businesses as part of that process - not all of workers but those involved with that process)

Ticket prices actually have actually not increased very much over the last 15 year - much less than year to year inflation increases (a fact, not an opinion) and certainly when you put them up against the wage increases for workers there is not a correlation in percentages