Should the United States pay producers to film at home? That question is now in front of Congress, and a new study commissioned by the Motion Picture Association says a federal film and TV production incentive would add jobs, wages, and spending across the country. The study, conducted by the consultancy Olsberg•SPI, projects an average of 143,500 full-time-equivalent jobs supported annually and $249.1 billion in gross value added between 2027 and 2035, according to Advanced Television.
The important qualification is that these are projections from a study paid for by the industry asking for the incentive. That does not make the numbers wrong, but it does mean readers should understand who commissioned the work, what it assumes, and what it is for. Below is what the study says, who is behind it, and what a newcomer to the debate needs to know. Readers following this should also see What Nielsen's Gauge Actually Measures, and Why the Industry Watches It So Closely.
What is actually being proposed?
The proposal is a federal tax credit for film and television production, modeled on the incentive programs that most US states and many foreign countries already run. A tax credit reduces what a production owes in taxes; a transferable credit, which the study assumes, can be sold to another taxpayer if the producer cannot use it directly. That matters because studios often have the credits but not the tax bills to absorb them.
According to the study's model, as reported by Advanced Television, the incentive would apply a 20 percent credit to qualifying labor expenditures, with spending forecast from 2027 through 2035. The proposal has been put forward by a coalition assembled around Jon Voight, the actor named Special Ambassador to Hollywood, along with Steven Paul and Scott Karol, who argue it would "level the playing field and bring productions back to America immediately."
Who is asking for this, and why does the lineup matter?
The study was commissioned by the Motion Picture Association, the studios' trade group, in support of the US Film & TV Production Coalition. At a virtual press conference on September 16th, MPA Chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin unveiled the findings alongside an unusually broad set of allies: Representatives Brian Jack, a Georgia Republican, and Laura Friedman, a California Democrat, plus leaders from the Directors Guild of America, IATSE, the Teamsters, and SAG-AFTRA, with actor Sean Astin speaking for the performers' union.
The newly formed coalition's membership list runs from the obvious to the telling. Alongside the guilds, the MPA, and the Producers Guild, it includes the National Association of Voice Actors, LIUNA, the Association of Talent Agents, and NCTA, the cable industry's trade association. A fight over where cameras roll has pulled in nearly every corner of the business, which is the point: the argument is framed as a jobs bill for crews and suppliers, not a subsidy for studios.
What does the study claim the economy would gain?
The projections, covering 2027 to 2035, are built on an illustrative assumption that America's share of projected global production reaches 65 percent, informed by historical data and recent budget analysis. Under that scenario, the study forecasts:
- $249.1 billion in total gross value added contribution across the whole US economy.
- An average of 143,500 full-time-equivalent jobs supported annually.
- $133.1 billion in additional total labor income.
- $125.3 billion in additional production expenditures.
Friedman, citing the study, rounded the job figure to "more than 140,000 American jobs in all fifty states and nearly $250 billion in economic activity." The jobs being described are not only on-camera or above-the-line work. Rivkin's framing named "the set builders, construction workers, truck drivers, caterers, and more," and the Coalition for American Production's executive director, Brian Papworth, argued the damage when productions leave extends to "paint stores and lumber yards to transportation companies."
Why is the number 65 countries doing so much work here?
The study's central argument is competitive. It notes that 65 countries have built incentive programs to attract film and television productions away from the United States. "Sixty-five countries have decided it's worth competing for film and television production. The United States hasn't, and too many Americans have lost their jobs because of it," Friedman said. Voight made the same case from the industry's side, saying productions are "running to Canada and overseas due to the tax advantages offered to producers."
For a newcomer, this is the crux of the debate: production is mobile, and the location decision often turns on tax math rather than scenery or talent. A federal credit is pitched as the missing American answer to a global bidding war.
How should a viewer read these numbers?
This is the publication's own reading: a commissioned study announcing its findings at a press conference organized by its sponsor is advocacy with a spreadsheet attached, and it should be weighed as such. The scenario is explicitly illustrative, the 65 percent share is an assumption rather than a forecast of certainty, and the headline figures describe economy-wide ripple effects, which are the hardest kind of number to verify after the fact. What the study does establish is the scale of the ask and the breadth of the coalition behind it. Whether Congress enacts anything, and on what terms, is the open question the press conference was designed to press.
The bill's fate will be tracked like any other piece of television business, alongside the ratings and renewal decisions that shape what gets made — the economics behind how renewal decisions actually get made run on the same production money this debate is about. For more coverage of the business and craft of the medium, see the rest of our television section. We covered a connected angle in The Number That Ends a Show: How Renewal Decisions Actually Get Made.
