How UK agents are grappling with US competition and sky-high talent fees

Every few years, the UK’s agency landscape gets a jolt of American intrigue. Sometimes, it is a star film or TV agent from the Creative Artists Agency (CAA) or Endeavor mothership in Los Angeles relocating to London, or the announcement of a US agency investing in a shiny new Soho outpost. Occasionally, it is something much bigger, like United Talent Agency (UTA) buying 125-year-old UK talent and literary firm Curtis Brown Group.

Such events have traditionally driven alarm about a perceived US encroachment across the pond. One London-based agent explains: “The UK agent fears that the moment their client breaks and becomes a writer, director or actor that potentially has global value, then the big US agency will come in and the client goes, ‘I don’t want to pay double commission; I’d rather just have the big agency service me.’” Never mind the UK managers and agents who diligently attended drama school showcases, handpicked talent and shepherded them to breakout roles.

But after a turbulent five-year period that has entertained a global pandemic, industry downturn and something of an identity crisis among US agency players — stripped of their packaging powers in 2022 and contending with the rise of more creatively led management firms — fears of a US invasion in the UK have largely dissipated.

“What’s changed in the last 10 years is that talent works all over the world, and internationally co-­produced drama is much bigger than it used to be,” says Jon Thoday, co-founder and managing director of UK-­headquartered management firm and production outfit Avalon. “Where an agency chooses to have an office is much less relevant today than it used to be.”

But just because US film and TV agents do not have a significant presence in London, the US can still affect how UK agents do business, especially when it comes to negotiating — and renegotiating — talent fees during an austere climate for drama and film production.

In a joint report, Screen International and sister title Broadcast investigated the present state of play for UK agents, how they work (or do not work) alongside their US counterparts, how they nurture relationships with actors, and why many are holding firm against producers complaining about exorbitant talent fees.

UTA–Curtis Brown: a gamble that paid off

The deal to sell Curtis Brown to rival UTA, which emerged in June 2022, was a seismic event that rocked the entertainment world. Some worried whether the historic Curtis Brown would be swallowed up by UTA in the same way ICM Partners disappeared within CAA in 2022 and heavy-hitting UK boutique firm Troika was folded into YMU in 2020 (a somewhat disastrous deal that promptly saw actors such as Michael Fassbender, Michaela Coel and Ruth Wilson follow their agents out of YMU).

“It’s very difficult when one company acquires another — especially one that’s 125 years old and has multi-disciplines — so it was a gamble on both sides,” says Jonny Geller, chief executive of Curtis Brown. “In the community outside of us, I totally respect there was a little bit of suspicion.”

But the company held firm to its ethos of “What’s best for the artist?” says the longtime literary agent, whose own client list includes the likes of Bono and Mel Brooks. Both UTA and Curtis Brown gave their clients a “clean option” between leveraging the new partner or maintaining their existing agent relationships.

“We’re not saying, ‘You’re signing with Curtis Brown, therefore you have to be with UTA as a first option.’ We’re really not,” says Geller, acknowledging there was some industry scepticism in regard to this.

Even so, both Geller and David Kramer, president of UTA, point out there are areas that are more amenable to “natural synergies” than others. “We’ve seen tremendous collaboration in publishing and media rights,” notes Kramer. Yet there are other divisions, such as talent representation, “where crossover doesn’t make sense, and we understand that.”

Indeed, numerous sources say the UTA-Curtis Brown deal has not so far infringed on their own client relationships. One senior UK agency boss remarked that “they’ve done a good job in keeping the brand identities of Curtis Brown, which is smart”.

So was the fear-mongering “the Americans are coming” narrative of years past a little overblown? Perhaps, says Geller. Endeavor, which has just been acquired by Silver Lake in a $25bn deal, had plans to migrate some top film and TV agents to London in 2020, but changed course when the pandemic hit. Meanwhile, CAA has had film and TV agents on the ground, but its footprint has been reduced significantly in the past year.

“You have to have a strategy,” says Geller. “You can’t just acquire and hope you’re going to suddenly be a big power in a very mature business like talent management and books.”

Adds the senior agency boss: “Everyone wants to own their individual market, and the bigger companies want to own the global market, but you won’t and you can’t. You just can’t do that without on-the-ground, local people who have local market understanding. The idea that you could parachute into the UK or France or Germany and dictate or teach the market how it should really work is completely illusory.”

“We are better agents than the US”

US agents may not be in London snatching away UK talent, but questions about the sustainability of dual representation still endure, especially as actors break out in Hollywood. Even so, it seems the majority of hot, young British actors are not ditching their UK agents for Hollywood heavy-hitters just yet.

There is the odd high-profile star, such as Florence Pugh, Regé-Jean Page and Tom Holland, who — at least currently — only employ US agents and managers (who oversee their client’s day-to-day business and guide their careers but are not able to make deals). Yet these are outliers. Most in-demand UK acting talent have kept their British reps, even if they have a US agent or manager. Emma Corrin’s primary agent, for example, is Maya Hambro at London’s Insight Management and Production, even though they have a manager at Circle in Los Angeles (formerly Circle of Confusion). Similarly, Tom Hardy is repped by Lindy King at London’s United Agents but has a US manager at Range Media Partners.

“UK agents often consider themselves to be a lot more managerial,” says one agent, pointing to companies such as 42, Lark and B-Side, which call themselves management firms. “They recognise it’s more likely they’re going to be the manager to the client, who is partnering with a big agency, so that in their client’s mind, they have a manager and agent relationship.”

UK agents actually help build careers, not least because they have true ownership of their client lists, unlike bigger US agencies, where teams of agents are servicing the company’s lists. Where the latter becomes particularly useful as an actor’s career grows, however, is in the sharing of information about projects and buyers.

“When you’re talking about Endeavor, UTA or CAA, these are massive agencies with 100 agents in talent, 100 agents in lit [books] and 100 agents in TV, representing thousands of clients,” explains one agent. “With all of that brings information, which is, ‘What is Steven Spielberg doing?’ or, ‘What is this big actor doing?’ It’s different to a boutique agency or management company in the UK where the sharing of information is at a different speed and volume.”

However, one senior UK talent agent argues that “we are better agents than in the US because we have more time and we pay more attention to detail”. Eschewing UK representation to work with big US firms is “to [an actor’s] detriment,” they underline. “They 100% will be missing out on opportunities.”

This agent source notes that there are certain US agents “who encourage their clients to only have US representation because they don’t want to split commission”. Indeed, multiple sources have confirmed that some US agents and managers actively encourage actors to ditch their UK reps.

Yet one UK agency boss counters that, rather than complaining about the threat, “you also have to put yourself in the shoes of the talent. Do they want to pay 25% or do they want to pay 10%?”

When an actor has both a US and UK team, each normally gets a 10% cut of a commission. However, ‘7-7-7-5’ deals are also commonplace, in which talent gives 7% to their US agent, 7% to a US manager, 7% to a UK agent and (sometimes, though not always) 5% to their lawyer.

“So, if you’re Florence Pugh — a stone-cold superstar that can finance films and walk into theatre and television — do you want to have four people in your life that you have to get their opinion?” says the UK agency boss. “Or do you want to have one or two people?

“I don’t share the same opinion that lots of people in the UK do, where they’re saying, ‘Oh, we’re being fucked by the Americans, who are telling these UK actors that they don’t need the UK,’” they continue. “[The Americans] are telling them that, for sure, but equally if you put yourself in a position where you’re susceptible to that conversation, that’s on you.”

Top UK agents do not lose clients to Americans, this agency boss notes — ever. UK agents simply need to work harder to justify their worth to clients. “If you’re an actor that starts earning $5m or $10m a year, and you’ve got to write a cheque for $500,000 to your UK agent, and you spoke to them six times in a year, you’re going to think about it,” they add.

“There is a lot of renegotiation going on”

Some producers now argue that this competition between UK agents and their US counterparts to secure top dollar for clients has become especially challenging for deal-making, which has already been strained for the better part of the past decade during the boom years for television, in particular.

“All the leading UK talent are now represented by CAA, UTA or Endeavor, and that’s been a major issue because these guys obviously think in Holly­wood numbers,” says one senior TV executive based in the UK. “The problem is that when the bubble exploded [in 2022] and everything had to become a little more rational, the place that’s still missing all rationality is CAA, UTA and Endeavor.”

The executive points out that US agents were asking for talent fees of $10m-$15m to star in a movie, even though that “just doesn’t happen anymore”. Similarly, he says agents have demanded up to $500,000 for a writer of a spec script that should be worth around $50,000.

Increasingly, UK agents now “feel the need to match” the US agents, continues the executive. “They can’t go to their clients and say, ‘We are going to get you a fourth of what CAA or Endeavor or UTA will get,’” he says. “So they then try to align, and it’s a vicious circle.”

One seasoned producer, who also has experience as a buyer, underlines that “people have a scope that isn’t reflective of where the business is at this point. I’ve been talking to a lot of people for the last year saying, ‘Your £4m budget now needs to be £2.3m.’”

Recently, while discussing one project in limbo at the BBC — which has “multiple shows” on the slate that it is unable to fund — it is understood a very senior executive at the corporation was quick to blame talent fees, noting that both UK and US agents were “holding firm” on asking prices.

“People need to be more entrepreneurial,” says the producer. “Not every single project is going to be a payday. Streamers and buyers are going to put their foot down around budgets — as they already seem to be doing — and the agents are just going to have to deal with the money available.”

The UK agency boss agrees that all the money that flooded the market created “a lot of fat in the industry”, which inflated talent fees. “Everyone thought this new money was going to be around forever, and everyone was getting paid a lot of money and crazy fees — but with no rights — and then a rug got pulled and that money went away,” says the agent.

What remains is an expectation among talent that sky-high fees are the “new normal” for the industry. “What we’re all doing on the representation side is — with lawyers and agents and managers — just a bit of a reset,” continues the agency boss.

The executive points out that fees are now reverting back to a place of normalcy, with “a lot of renegotiation going on”.

“There is a bit more sanity in both sides of the market,” they add. “There’s just not as much work out there, so we’re all having to be incredibly collaborative… between representatives and producers to get things made.”

Of course, not everyone feels the same way. “I never understand producers complaining, because if you don’t want to pay the fees, then don’t pay them,” says a senior agent. “Find someone else. I don’t think it’s that hard. Every actor is replaceable, so it’s a balance between what the actor is worth and should be paid and what the budget is. If those two things don’t match up, then move on.”

If broadcasters and distributors are pressuring producers to think about the “movie poster” for a TV show or film and find talent befitting of it (a common complaint among producers), “then they have to pay for it,” says the agent.

However, much like the agency boss, this agent has been forced to renegotiate deals — particularly for independent films. “I’m finding it more precarious than ever,” they say. “I’ve had more deals in the last year that I’ve done and then had to renegotiate because they lost a chunk of their finance.”

This meant clients have agreed to defer or reduce their fees. “And then the film either falls apart or happens by the skin of its teeth,” adds the agent.

For Avalon’s Thoday, the fees are not actually the issue. “It’s about the broadcasters getting themselves into situations where they can’t actually greenlight a show themselves,” he says. “Having to finance every new show by co-production is a very bad thing.”

But if you do end up going the international co-production route, as so many high-end series now must do, then the talent needs to be compensated accordingly. “UK talent should get paid like American talent,” says Thoday. “Why shouldn’t they? It’s a global market.”

• 10 key trends shaping the European film and TV industries