By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
American entertainment unions are pressing Congress to establish a federal film and television production tax credit after a newly released study found that the share of major Hollywood studio spending associated with movies filmed in the United States fell from 74% in 1999 to 42% in 2024, marking a substantial change in where American entertainment projects are produced.
The findings, released Oct. 5, reveal a parallel shift in television production, where the U.S.-associated share of major studio spending declined from 94% to 64% over the same 25-year period. The changes occurred despite substantial growth in overall production budgets, indicating that the expansion of the entertainment industry has not translated into a corresponding increase in America’s share of production activity.
The analysis commissioned by seven major entertainment unions was conducted by EY Quantitative Economics and Statistics, which examined production locations, expenditures and employment across scripted film and television projects financed by major U.S.-based studios between 1999 and 2024.
The report’s figures measure spending associated with productions filmed partially or primarily in the United States, rather than a precise accounting of every dollar physically spent domestically. That distinction is significant because a production filmed in multiple countries may incur expenses in several locations.
Nevertheless, the results demonstrate that a substantially smaller proportion of major studio production spending is now connected to projects with significant U.S. filming activity.
The study arrives as the entertainment industry seeks federal assistance to compete against countries that have invested heavily in financial incentives, production facilities and skilled labor.
On Tuesday, Oct. 6, union representatives joined federal lawmakers in Glendale, California, to promote the Motion Picture, Television and Entertainment Revitalization Act, bipartisan legislation introduced Sept. 24 that would establish a 20% federal tax credit for qualifying film and television productions.
According to an Oct. 7 announcement from SAG-AFTRA, supporters estimate the proposed incentive could help create 143,000 jobs nationwide.
The legislation is designed to work alongside existing state production incentives, allowing qualifying projects to combine federal and state benefits when determining where to film.
Supporters argue that such an arrangement would make U.S. locations more competitive with international production markets that already provide substantial tax relief and other financial assistance.
The legislation’s introduction follows mounting concern among unions representing actors, directors, writers, production technicians and other entertainment workers about declining domestic employment opportunities.
The organizations commissioning the EY study included the Directors Guild of America, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Laborers’ International Union of North America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Writers Guild of America East and the Writers Guild of America West.
Together, the unions represent workers across numerous occupations involved in producing motion pictures and television programs, including performers, camera operators, editors, electricians, carpenters, set designers, drivers, production assistants and technical specialists.
Their research was intended to measure how production location decisions have changed over time and what those changes mean for the domestic workforce.
The findings extend beyond the percentage of studio budgets associated with American filming locations.
In 1999, approximately 66% of major U.S. studio films examined in the study were produced partially or primarily in the United States. By 2024, that proportion had fallen to 54%.
The decline was considerably larger when measured by the employment associated with those productions.
The percentage of cast and crew members working on major studio films produced partially or primarily in the United States dropped from 72% to 43% during the 25-year period, a decrease of 29 percentage points.
That reduction reflects a substantial shift in the geographical distribution of work associated with major American film productions.
Although Hollywood studios continue to finance and distribute movies internationally, the locations where those projects are physically produced determine which local workers, contractors and service providers receive much of the associated employment and business activity.
The pattern was especially pronounced among high-budget films.
For the 25 most expensive movies produced by major U.S. studios, the share of production spending associated with U.S. locations declined by approximately 40% between 1999 and 2024.
The report emphasized that spending on major motion pictures is concentrated among a relatively small number of costly productions.
“This highlights that production budgets are heavily concentrated within a small subset of films,” the researchers wrote. “Patterns observed within this group generally reflect the broader analysis trends, albeit with a somewhat larger decline.”
Large-budget productions frequently require extensive construction, specialized equipment, visual effects services, transportation networks and substantial numbers of workers.
When such projects move abroad, the economic consequences can extend beyond the immediate cast and crew to businesses supplying building materials, catering, accommodations, transportation and other production-related services.
Television underwent a similarly significant transformation, although the industry’s expansion during the streaming era complicates comparisons across different periods.
In 1999, approximately 96% of television episodes produced by major U.S. studios were filmed partially or primarily within the country. That figure had declined to 70% by 2024.
The share of cast and crew associated with U.S.-based television productions also fell, dropping from 86% to 58%.
The spending figures showed a decline of 30 percentage points, with the U.S.-associated share falling from 94% to 64%.
Those changes occurred as streaming services reshaped television production, expanding the number and variety of scripted programs while altering how episodes are financed, produced and distributed.
The report specifically cautioned that changes in television production models complicate direct comparisons between programming produced in 1999 and shows made for contemporary streaming platforms.
“The rise of streaming fundamentally altered production scale, budgets, season lengths, and release models, creating discontinuities in what constitutes a comparable television series across periods,” the researchers explained.
Streaming services increased demand for original programming while introducing shorter seasons, larger episode budgets and production strategies designed for international audiences.
At the same time, the expansion of international filming infrastructure created additional options for U.S. studios deciding where to produce new projects.
The EY analysis sought to account for differences in production scale by examining films and television episodes that exceeded specific budget thresholds.
As the New York Post explained in its coverage of the findings, the study included feature films with budgets of at least $5 million, adjusted to 2025 dollars.
For television, the minimum threshold was $1 million per episode for programs running approximately 40 minutes or less and $1.7 million per episode for longer productions.
Those criteria concentrated the research on projects large enough to have meaningful flexibility when choosing between domestic and foreign filming locations.
Major studio film spending rose from approximately $3 billion in 1999 to $7 billion in 2024, while television production spending increased from $933 million to $8.4 billion over the same period.
The growth demonstrates that Hollywood’s international expansion occurred alongside significant increases in overall production expenditures.
The central concern raised by the unions is therefore not simply that studios are spending less money, but that an increasing proportion of their projects and employment opportunities are associated with production outside the United States.
The research did not independently establish the specific reasons behind every production relocation. However, industry representatives have repeatedly identified foreign tax credits, favorable exchange rates, lower operating costs and expanding overseas infrastructure as factors influencing location decisions.
The United Kingdom has been among the most prominent international destinations for American film and television projects.
British production facilities have attracted major Hollywood investments through a combination of established crews, modern soundstages and government-backed financial incentives.
Canada has also developed a substantial production industry serving American studios, particularly in British Columbia and Ontario.
Other jurisdictions, including Australia and parts of continental Europe, have expanded incentive programs intended to attract international productions and the employment opportunities associated with them.
As those markets have developed, American studios have gained access to additional filming locations capable of accommodating technically demanding projects that previously might have been produced primarily in California or other parts of the United States.
California has responded by expanding its own film and television tax credit program, but entertainment industry representatives argue that state incentives alone cannot offset the financial advantages offered by competing countries.
Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California has become a prominent advocate for federal intervention, warning that the decline in domestic production is affecting thousands of entertainment workers and their families.
Speaking earlier this year at Burbank City Hall, Schiff said approximately 45% of American films and scripted television programs were being produced abroad, compared with 33% in 2022.
That represented an increase of 12 percentage points in the share of productions filmed outside the United States.
Schiff also cited the loss of more than 42,000 entertainment industry jobs, describing the consequences for workers whose careers depend on a consistent supply of domestic production opportunities.
He attributed part of the shift to productions being “lured abroad” by “foreign governments that have invested aggressively in building their own film industries.”
While acknowledging California’s efforts to expand production incentives, Schiff argued that the federal government must establish a nationwide program capable of competing internationally.
“State programs cannot simply substitute for the kind of global, federal and competitive tax incentives that are needed to bring production back to American soil and stop its offshoring,” Schiff said. “The urgency could not be greater.”
Federal incentives would differ from existing state programs because they could apply to eligible productions throughout the United States, potentially benefiting regional entertainment industries beyond Los Angeles and New York.
Supporters contend that a national credit would allow studios to evaluate U.S. locations with a more competitive baseline of financial assistance before considering additional state-level incentives.
The proposed policy would also carry federal budget implications, since tax credits reduce certain government revenues in exchange for encouraging qualifying economic activity.
Whether the resulting employment, business spending and associated tax receipts would offset those costs would depend on the program’s structure, participation levels and the extent to which it attracts productions that otherwise would have taken place abroad.
The industry’s current difficulties are not confined to productions relocating overseas.
The entertainment sector has also experienced disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2023 Hollywood labor strikes, changes in streaming investment and broader corporate efforts to reduce spending.
Those factors have contributed to fluctuations in employment and production activity, complicating efforts to determine how much of the recent slowdown can be attributed specifically to international competition.
Even so, the newly released study documents a substantial long-term change in where major U.S. studios choose to produce their content.
A separate assessment of high-budget film and television production also found that American locations continue to attract considerable investment despite losing market share.
The Los Angeles Times previously reported that the United States remained the largest destination for major production spending even as competition from other countries intensified.
According to industry tracking firm ProdPro, U.S. production spending totaled approximately $12.15 billion in the period examined, although the figure represented a 20% decline from 2024.
The United Kingdom remained a major competitor, supported by expanded tax incentives, experienced production workers and growing studio capacity.
Those findings illustrate that the United States continues to maintain substantial production infrastructure while facing increasing competition for projects financed by American entertainment companies.
The distinction matters because an industry can remain the world’s largest production market while simultaneously experiencing a declining share of global activity.
For workers, however, the practical consequences depend less on international market rankings than on the availability of productions employing American crews.
The Directors Guild of America has emphasized that the changing geography of production threatens a network of skilled workers and specialized businesses that has developed over generations.
Rebecca Rhine, the guild’s associate national executive director, described the situation as a challenge extending far beyond the traditional Hollywood studio system.
“Many generations who have made their living in this industry are now having to question whether there’s a future for this industry in the United States,” Rhine told the Los Angeles Times. “This is not just about a few people in Hollywood. This is about an infrastructure that serves the whole country and stories that reflect the whole country.”
The unions argue that allowing additional productions to relocate could gradually weaken the domestic workforce and the supporting infrastructure required to sustain large-scale film and television manufacturing.
Production crews depend on consistent employment to maintain their skills, while equipment suppliers, postproduction companies and other specialized businesses require a reliable flow of projects to remain financially viable.
As production opportunities decline, experienced workers may seek employment in other industries, potentially making it more difficult to rebuild domestic production capacity in the future.
The newly proposed federal tax credit is intended to address those concerns by improving the financial attractiveness of U.S. filming locations.
At Tuesday’s Glendale event, SAG-AFTRA National Executive Director Duncan Crabtree-Ireland joined Rep. Laura Friedman and other lawmakers in advocating for the legislation.
“The Motion Picture, Television and Entertainment Revitalization Act is an investment in American workers, American industry and American communities,” Crabtree-Ireland said. “SAG-AFTRA is proud to stand with Congresswoman Friedman and our labor partners in support of this important legislation.”
The measure would provide a 20% federal tax credit on qualifying productions, including eligible labor expenses, with supporters arguing that the incentive could strengthen domestic employment while encouraging studios to retain or relocate projects to the United States.
Congress is not expected to vote on the proposal before the November midterm elections, leaving its legislative prospects unresolved.
Meanwhile, the EY findings provide a historical account of how substantially American studio production patterns have changed.
Over 25 years, the share of major studio film spending associated with U.S. filming locations declined by 32 percentage points, while television’s corresponding share fell by 30 percentage points.
The decreases were accompanied by substantial shifts in the distribution of cast and crew employment, even as total industry spending expanded.
For Hollywood unions and lawmakers seeking new incentives, those figures have become central evidence in the effort to make domestic production more financially competitive.
The next question for Congress is whether a nationwide tax credit can reverse the shift and bring additional film and television projects back to American locations without imposing costs that outweigh the economic activity it generates.
Until that issue is resolved, major U.S. studios will continue making production decisions within an increasingly international marketplace, where financial incentives, available facilities and labor costs influence where American movies and television programs are ultimately made.
Original article
Comments