Don’t Call It Broadway If You’re Paying Tour Wages

Isabella Esler and Justin Collette in Beetlejuice Matthew Murphy

by Chris Peterson

When Beetlejuice announced its “Broadway return,” fans were thrilled. The musical that had become a cult favorite was coming back to the Palace Theatre, and for a brief moment it felt like Broadway was welcoming back one of its most playful, chaotic children. But then came the fine print: the engagement would feature the touring cast.

At first, that sounds like a nice full-circle story, a victory lap for a hardworking group of performers who have been carrying the show across the country. But the more you think about it, the more troubling it becomes. If a touring cast can perform eight shows a week in a Broadway house without Broadway contracts, what does that say about the future of the industry? Are producers discovering a way to save money by sidestepping the very agreements that define what “Broadway” means?

The answer, at least for now, seems to be yes. According to press materials, Beetlejuice’s upcoming thirteen-week engagement will feature its national tour cast. Touring contracts, even when unionized, are not the same as Broadway production contracts. They pay less, offer different benefits, and often rely on per diems instead of housing. They were never meant to replace Broadway’s gold standard, only to make touring financially viable.

And yet here we are.

If this model proves successful, others will follow. I’ve already heard whispers that more shows are exploring the same idea, using touring companies for short-term Broadway runs. The logic is simple: keep ticket prices high, reduce payroll, and sell audiences on nostalgia. But it also undermines the very foundation of what makes Broadway special. It’s not just the geography of midtown Manhattan that gives it meaning. It’s the promise that when a performer steps onto a Broadway stage, they do so under the highest professional protections our industry has to offer.

When producers blur that line, Broadway becomes less of a place and more of a marketing term.

To be fair, producing a show in New York is brutally expensive, especially post-pandemic. Everyone in the industry understands the financial pressure producers face. But there’s a difference between creative problem-solving and quietly lowering the bar. Audiences pay Broadway prices because they believe they’re supporting Broadway artists. If that trust is broken, it will take more than clever branding to win it back.

The timing also feels strategic. The current Broadway contract between Actors’ Equity and the Broadway League has expired, and negotiations are growing tense. The union is preparing for a possible strike over wages and healthcare. If some producers can now claim that their Broadway runs are technically “tour stops,” they might be exempt from those negotiations altogether. That’s not innovation. That’s exploitation disguised as efficiency.

Broadway has always been about collaboration, artistry, and respect for the people who make it all happen. Replacing Broadway contracts with touring contracts chips away at all three. If producers want to mount a show on Broadway, they should do it under the same agreements that have protected artists for generations. And if a show is going to call itself a tour, fine, but don’t sell it to audiences as Broadway.

We can’t afford to let Broadway become a loophole.

Theatre has survived world wars, depressions, and pandemics because it has always valued its artists. That’s the standard we should be defending. Because if Broadway stops standing for that, then what’s left to stand for at all?