For almost a century it has been the casting directors’ bible, a shopfront for actors from Laurence Olivier, Olivia Colman and Daniel Craig to the 16-year-old Adolescence star Owen Cooper to help land their next theatre, film or TV role.
But now Spotlight is locked in a costly legal battle prompted by Equity, the equally venerable union that represents tens of thousands of performers that rely on the casting directory’s services, in an internecine conflict that could dramatically reshape the UK acting landscape.
“If you are an actor you are [probably] paying for Equity and Spotlight [membership],” said Matt Hood, the managing director of Spotlight. “So essentially they are paying for mum and dad to have a fight, like two divorcing parents. At the end of the day it is all coming from actors.”
Equity – which has 49,000 members and whose membership card is seen by many budding actors as a gateway to the industry – and Spotlight both charge about £200 a year.
With about 100,000 actors and performers signed up, Spotlight is the biggest database for agents, producers and casting directors to find talent in the UK and Ireland, as well as operating in regions including Europe.
It was founded in 1927, three years before the establishment of Equity, and the two organisations have enjoyed almost a century of close-knit and amicable relations. However, this dramatically changed after the acquisition of Spotlight by the US company Talent Systems, backed by Caltius Equity Partners, in 2021, which brought to an end three generations of private ownership by the Seale family.
Two years later Gerry Cardinale’s RedBird Capital Partners, which last year pulled out of buying the Telegraph titles and is part of Paramount’s hostile bid for Warner Bros Discovery, took a majority stake in Talent Systems.
Paul W Fleming, the general secretary of Equity since 2020, said the union “took a decision to start looking at Spotlight” in 2023 with the backing of members after allegations that fees charged to performers were “rocketing” after the change in ownership.
“For a long time our members have been concerned about the price of Spotlight membership,” he said. “Our longstanding understanding was Spotlight was allowed to charge as long as they don’t make a profit out of it. It was always owned by a family, there weren’t shareholders. Spotlight had a clear defined domain.”
Monthly meetings were held between the two sides and then, in January last year, Equity filed a high court action.
The nub of Equity’s legal argument was that Spotlight operates services above and beyond being a directory of actors and that it is in effect an employment agency.The union waged a very public and high-profile campaign arguing that the fees charged by Spotlight, which actors must appear in if they want a realistic chance of making a career, were a “tax on hope” for jobbing actors.
“We are not an agency, it is an advertising service for actors,” said Hood, who joined Spotlight after the acquisition in 2021 after 17 years at Equity. “It is a centralised directory service. If you want to be seen among your peers this is the place. We don’t procure work for you, and that service hasn’t ever changed in going on 100 years.”
What Equity ultimately wants is for Spotlight’s status to be reclassified so that it is not allowed to make a significant profit from its services, so its subscription levels will only cover the costs of showcasing talent. But to date it has not gone well.
In September, the high court judge Catherine Howells delivered what industry trade press termed an “embarrassing blow” for Equity rejecting its case. She described Spotlight as “an industry-valued marketing and promotional tool for performers … that does not provide services for the purposes of finding persons employment with employers, or of supplying employers with persons for employment by them”.
Despite the defeat, and the overall cost of the legal action to date thought to be about £500,000, Equity appealed and has been given leave to continue to pursue the case at the court of appeal with a date set for the last week of November.
“We are not trying to destroy Spotlight or do anything like that,” said Fleming. “There has not been a complete deterioration of the relationship. Anything other than the [high court] judgment we have [would be] a win of sorts. We do believe we have a strong position. Members do feel exploited by Spotlight in their charging. Members are very supportive of this.”
Despite the omnipresence of the upcoming renewal of a legal battle in court, Hood is attempting to focus on Spotlight’s centenary next year.
The company’s Covent Garden offices showcase rows of annual editions of Spotlight – early editions comprise two volumes for male actors and one for “actresses and children” with the final print version issued in 2016 – but the only known copies of the first two editions are in the British Library.
One entry, in thespring 1931 edition, features a 24-year-old, moustachioed Laurence Olivier who is listed as a “juvenile man”. The listing for the actor, who 16 years later would be knighted as one of the UK’s acting greats, comes complete with his address – in Roland Gardens, south-west London – and a personal phone number, “Kensington 6505”.
The 2000 edition of Spotlight features a beaming 26-year-old Olivia Colman, listed as “5 feet 7 inches … brown eyes”, three years before breakout roles on the Channel 4 shows Peep Show and Green Wing set her on the path to stardom.
“We are not a huge business, this isn’t Meta or Apple,” said Hood. “We make a modest profit and are growing the business to reinvest.”
Talent Systems Europe, the parent company of Spotlight, reported turnover of £14m in 2024, a 6.6% year-on-year increase, according to the most recent publicly available accounts at Companies House. The company reported a pre-tax profit of £2.7m, an increase of a third over 2023.
“We have tried to reach out to resolve the issues in a way that doesn’t incur any further cost to either party as we believe it is not in the best interest of actors to continue this,” said Hood. “We would much rather be in a place of dialogue than litigation.”
