Creative work “is understood to offer the possibility of personal fulfilment or self-actualisation, albeit in return for considerable hard work and an absence of financial security” (Conor et al., 2015: 5). While the film and television sector has historically relied on freelance and project-based labour (Atkinson and Randle, 2013; Blair, 2001), the liberalisation and restructuring of production models—even within public broadcasters—has transformed labour markets from relatively secure and organised systems into “seemingly unstructured and boundaryless external labour markets, where the borders between “in” and “out” are ambivalent and career prospects chronically uncertain” (Baumann, 2002: 28). This shift has entrenched a culture of precarity, defined by the instability of freelance employment, the prevalence of low-pay or unpaid entry-level jobs, and a lack of social security (Grugulis and Stoyanova, 2012). These conditions disproportionately affect women, particularly mothers, due to the absence of unemployment support, pension contributions, and maternity leave (Conor et al., 2015).

However, while the general conditions of cultural labour are well-documented, existing research often treats precarity as an inevitable economic byproduct of the creative industries, overlooking the specific governance gaps that exacerbate these conditions for young professionals. This article examines the ways in which young people negotiate multiple systemic and cultural obstacles when attempting to enter the field, arguing that their exclusion is not merely a result of market forces but of a governance framework that fails to accommodate emerging, diverse, and non-traditional career pathways.

The European film industry is increasingly recognised as an exclusive environment where entry is dictated less by merit and more by access to financial capital, informal networks, and the ability to navigate complex bureaucratic systems. While EU and national policies ostensibly aim to foster diversity and support emerging talent through funding schemes like Creative Europe, our findings suggest that the governance of these resources often creates barriers rather than bridges. Strict eligibility criteria, high co-financing requirements, and opaque application processes systematically filter out young filmmakers from precarious socioeconomic backgrounds, those without academic credentials, and individuals with intersectional identities (e.g., women, neurodivergent creatives).

This study contributes to the discourse on Cultural and Creative Industries (CCI) by moving beyond a descriptive account of “hard working conditions” to a critical analysis of how governance structures reproduce inequality. By situating the concept of precarity within broader debates on the human condition under post-Fordist regimes (Curtin and Sanson, 2016; Marčeta et al., 2023) and engaging with feminist labour literature (Antcliff, 2005; Antcliff et al., 2007; Blair, 2001), we demonstrate that the “catch-22” faced by young filmmakers—needing connections to get work but needing work to build connections—is a direct consequence of policy designs that favour established players.

Through in-depth interviews with 27 young filmmakers across eight European countries, this paper reveals how participants literally “slip through the cracks” of existing support systems. It argues that without targeted governance reforms that address intersectional barriers and simplify access to resources, the European film industry risks further narrowing the demographic range of professionals able to break through, ultimately limiting the diversity of worldviews represented in its cultural output.

Studies on labour in the CCI (Banks, 2007; Mathieu, 2011; McKinlay and Smith, 2009) and the conditions of media production (Hesmondhalgh and Baker, 2011; Mayer, 2011; Mayer et al., 2009) address the strenuous realities of working in the CCI and map out several dimensions of inequity and challenge, such as disproportionate allocation of remunerations and low diversity, especially creating gendered and ethnicity-based disparities of opportunities (Banks, 2017; Eikhof and Warhurst, 2013; Nwonka and Malik, 2018). Holt and Lapenta (2010) support the assessment of the film industry depending on roles and labour terms by pointing out that “the relation between dependence and independence for the individual creative worker is increasingly defined in relation to the market and to industrial employment conditions”. Ashton’s study of the emblematic position of the runner, an entry-level, often low- or unpaid position that is often seen as a “rite of passage” into the film and television industry, shall not go unmentioned here (Ashton, 2015). The screen industries have historically been controlled by white men with middle-class backgrounds – both in Europe (Grugulis and Stoyanova, 2012) and Hollywood (Ramon et al., 2024a; Ramon et al., 2024b). Individuals who fall outside this demographic, namely “the working class, women and people of marginalised genders, people of colour, those with disabilities and those with caring responsibilities” often face hostile conditions in entering and advancing within the film and television sector (Thomas and Einarsdóttir, 2023: 5). Female, non-white and working-class employees struggle to find secure working arrangements and frequently face limitations regarding the types of roles they could occupy. The importance of social capital and networks in the industry reproduces the hegemonic position of white, male, middle-class professionals (Grugulis and Stoyanova, 2012).

As Ross (2000) highlighted in The Mental Labor Problem, traditional understandings of the value of art and culture have created a labour paradox, as glorifying perceptions often encourage creatives to accept low wages or even unpaid work. Along these lines, Grenfell and Hardy (2007) argue that young creatives often justify their belief in the intrinsic value of art by denying the very existence of a financial motive behind creative art. Although film professionals have the flexibility to choose their work projects according to their preferences and what is most profitable for them, at the same time with project-based jobs they face the uncertainty of whether they will find a next job and related issues such as health insurance, proper contracts and payments (Curtin and Sanson, 2016; Suwarto and Kulau, 2022), highlighting the lack of national and international measures to ensure more sustainable working conditions for the professionals of the industry (Banks and O’Connor, 2021; Betzler and Leuschen, 2021). However, financial stability along with ensuring diversity are of high importance and even requirements to “produce culturally diverse and relevant products” (McSheaffrey, 2020: 176). The difficult working conditions in the CCI are clearly understood in academia and the ‘real world’ as precarity corresponds with “inequality, insecurity and unstable employment” (Suwarto and Kulau, 2022: 43) and has become a key concept to describe the post-Fordist shift away from standard employment conditions of full-time and security, toward short-term contracts or self-employment (Curtin and Sanson, 2016); a transition connected to financial and social insecurity. Precarious employment is increasingly seen in the contemporary labour market, particularly in CCI, where creativity and autonomy are often exploited to normalise unstable working conditions (Marčeta et al., 2023). Although we know about the general working conditions in the industry, there is a noticeable gap in existing research addressing the specific conditions of young people (Sarikakis et al., 2026). Even fewer studies focus on capturing and representing young individuals’ voices regarding their experiences, perspectives and challenges about their work conditions within the film industry. Previous research has found that young workers and newcomers in film and television are more inclined to agree to unpaid labour than more experienced professionals (Percival and Hesmondhalgh, 2014). As Campbell (2020) points out, economic data collection methods often miss contemporary labour realities of creatives – especially entry-level workers, who frequently combine multiple jobs across the same or different fields to make a living. In his research with young people making a living in the CCI, Percival (2023) found that the overwhelming majority of young creatives were working without monetary compensation, with over 80 per cent of participants performing unpaid labour in the 2-year span of the research project and a considerable amount of that lacking payment being illegal. The study by Willekens et al. (2019) shows that among the audiovisual directors in Europe aged below 35 years, less than 20% have received full remuneration for project development, less than 30% for pre-production, almost 30% for filming, almost 70% for filming for a production company, almost 45% for post-production and less than 20% for promotion. Similar findings are among screenwriters where emerging professionals who received full remuneration are almost 20% for project development, around 10% for writing with their own initiative and over 50% for writing for a production company (Willekens et al., 2019: 30). These conditions discourage young people from pursuing creative careers (McSheaffrey, 2020).

The existing literature indicates that the working conditions in the CCI, including the film industry, are described by precarity in the conditions of labour, with low remuneration, undefined working hours and short contracts. Although there are numerous studies exploring the precarity and conditions of labour in the CCI, direct studies into the experiences of young people in the film industry in Europe are limited. Additionally, while many studies examine youth in film and others focus on youth festivals, there is a significant gap in research regarding the transition to seeking employment in the sector. To address this gap, this study aims to contribute to the collection of testimonies from young professionals and examines the ways in which young people deal with multiple systemic and cultural obstacles in attempting to enter the field and to secure funding for their work. Substantiating often already existing views regarding the status of young filmmakers, which are based on anecdotal evidence and assumptions, by providing empirical data on their lived experiences, this paper seeks to offer insights that may inform policy recommendations and industry practices to better support emerging filmmakers.

This study employed a qualitative research design to explore what it means to be young and engaged in creating and working within the European film industry under conditions of precarity. Following full ethical approval ¹ and adherence to established ethical procedures, data was collected through focus group interviews; to enable participation in the study for participants who were not available for focus groups, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were offered as an alternative. The main themes of the questionnaire are:

What has been your journey entering and navigating the film industry, including the challenges, support, education?

The interviews involved 27 people, aged 18 to 35, who are engaged in professional activities in the field of the film industry and all are located in the European geographical region in Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Ukraine ² . Participants were recruited through a combination of purposive and snowball sampling strategies. The authors drew on existing professional networks to refer potential interviewees. In parallel, film schools and alumni organisations across several European countries were contacted directly with the call for participation disseminated through official school communication channels and alumni group chats. This approach enabled the authors to access a geographically diverse sample of emerging filmmakers. Complementary to the in-depth interviews and focus groups, all interviewees participated in a short survey, including demographic data and basic questions. While the interviews and focus groups provided rich, detailed and contextual accounts of participants’ experiences in the European film industry, the survey contributed a broader descriptive overview of the sample. In this sense, the survey functioned as a tool for mapping patterns across participants, whereas the interviews enabled a deeper exploration of meanings, contradictions, and lived experiences. Distinct answers were received, reflecting the variety of policies on film funding, requirements for receiving grants and different ethical and cultural peculiarities. Among the participants 14 self-identified as female, 12 as male and 1 as non-binary. Regarding the age range, 13 participants aged 18 to 24, seven respondents aged 25 to 29 and seven people aged 30 to 35. The sample is presented in detail in Table 1.

The interviews were conducted in English and German, lasted 40–60 min, resulting in 295 pages of transcription, between January 2024 and March 2025. The data analysis followed thematic analysis with an inductive approach (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Riger and Sigurvinsdottir, 2016). Topics in the analytic framework are organised by networks of interrelated phenomena within the defined thematic sections, according to Attride-Stirling (2001). Anonymity was maintained for all participants. Participation was fully voluntary and opting out was possible at every stage of the process. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, the researchers prioritised creating conditions in which participants felt comfortable to speak openly. This included maintaining a non-hierarchical relationship between researchers and participants and ensuring that interviewer reactions remained non-judgmental.

Additionally, the researchers acknowledge the specific social and professional positions, which shape every level of research’s conduction and interpretation. Three of the five researchers fall within the age group of the research participants of this study (18–35) and one of the authors is a young filmmaker themselves, lending a degree of familiarity to the conditions this research inquires on. At the same time, the researchers recognise that such proximity carries both advantages and risks: on one hand, it facilitated an intuitive grasp of participants, e.g. linguistic codes, subcultural references and the structural pressures they navigate; on the other, closeness to a specific social reality can lead to the naturalisation of conditions that warrant critique. The diversity of positionalities within the team of authors, including different age groups, genders and both EU and non-EU citizens, further stimulated this reflexive practice.

The interviewees’ emphasis on unpaid practical experience to succeed in the film industry is largely based on the necessity of building credibility as young professionals. This view is so widely accepted and normalised that it is listed almost unquestioned as one of the conditions to accept. The catch-22 is glaring obvious, yet, largely unquestioned: without connections, entry is almost impossible, which means proving one’s reliability and skills is more difficult without access to projects, which in turn is extremely difficult without connections. Furthermore, an additional systemic question to be addressed is also the one on the value and recognition of Higher education in the sector: not only technical skills are necessary, but also a deeper and broader understanding of storytelling approaches and the role of film in human cultures, which both are important elements in the education of future film professionals. Yet, this potential on behalf of institutions and young people remains largely untapped and uncredited.

Young filmmakers describe conditions of insecurity and instability in regard to employment in the film industry, also reported by Suwarto and Kulau (2022). They highlight the challenge and importance of connections as a requirement to enter the industry; pointing at the same time to the crucial role of participating in independent projects and practical experience, they are aware that academic qualifications are not valued highly enough in the sector.

The experience is very similar across all interviewees’ testimonies, pointing to the fact that the film industry has established ways of “doing things”, that is, established cultures with inherent acute and chronic problems. The challenges discussed in this study, together with those in existing studies (Curtin and Sanson, 2016; Suwarto and Kulau, 2022) of established or experienced workers, leave no doubt that structurally, the industry relies not only on personal unpaid labour overall, but also systems of self-subsidising and sponsoring, systems of self-exploitation under conditions of very little choice.

The findings of this study demand a critical engagement with the intersectional nature of precarity in cultural work. While the general conditions of insecure employment are well-documented, our data reveals how these conditions are disproportionately exacerbated by gender and class, aligning with the theoretical frameworks of Antcliff (2005) and Blair (2001). Antcliff’s work on broadcasting highlights how informal recruitment practices and the reliance on “who you know” systematically exclude women and working-class individuals, a dynamic clearly mirrored in our participants’ accounts of networking as a primary barrier. The “catch-22” described by our respondents—where one cannot gain experience without connections, yet cannot build connections without experience—is not merely a logistical hurdle but a structural mechanism of exclusion that reproduces the hegemony of white, middle-class males, as theorised by Grugulis and Stoyanova (2012).

Furthermore, the concept of “precarity” in our findings extends beyond economic instability to encompass what Curtin and Sanson (2016) describe as the “human condition under post-Fordist regimes,” where the burden of risk is shifted entirely onto the individual worker. Our participants’ narratives of self-funding projects and working 16-h days without compensation illustrate Blair’s (2001) argument regarding project-based labour: the “freedom” of freelance work is often a euphemism for the absence of social protection. Crucially, this precarity is gendered. As Conor et al. (2015) argue, the lack of maternity leave and social security in the creative industries acts as a specific filter against women, particularly mothers. Our data supports this, with female participants explicitly linking their insecurity to gendered power dynamics on set and the allocation of lower-budget projects to women. The “meritocracy” claimed by the industry is thus revealed to be a myth that masks the operation of class and gender privileges; as Banks (2017) suggests, “creative justice” remains elusive when the entry costs of the industry are so high that they preclude participation from all but the economically privileged.

Finally, the discussion on funding reveals a disconnect between policy intentions and lived realities. While EU regulations aim to foster diversity, our participants perceive these mechanisms as bureaucratic barriers that favour established players. This aligns with Marčeta et al. (2023) recent analysis of labour in the cultural sector, which suggests that without targeted, accessible interventions, structural inequalities will persist. The frustration expressed by Interviewee 22, who feels he “slips through the cracks” of diversity criteria, indicates that current policy frameworks lack the nuance to address intersectional identities (e.g., autism combined with non-academic status). Therefore, the industry’s reliance on “passion” and “self-exploitation” is not an accidental byproduct but a functional requirement of its current economic model, one that systematically filters out diverse voices.

Many interviewees described working long hours, often 16 per day, without proper compensation and unable to cover their basic living expenses, underlining the need for more regular working hours and tolerance for individual situations, such as parenting. The studies by Percival and Hesmondhalgh (2014) and Percival (2023) similarly present young film professionals vulnerable to illegal unpaid labour, a finding which is strongly corroborated by our data. Campbell (2020) also pointed out that entry-level workers combine multiple jobs to make a living, a strategy our participants described not as a choice but as a necessity for survival.

Discussing the topic of meritocracy with the study’s participants, half of the respondents noted that industry does not value meritocracy but that other factors, such as connections or socioeconomic background play a bigger role in career progression. As industry connections significantly impact access to opportunities, these conditions discourage young people to pursue creative careers, as confirmed by McSheaffrey (2020). Participants observed that young people with financial support or family connections in the industry have a much smoother entry, while others face systemic barriers. This leads to concerns with regard to socioeconomic differences participants pointed to the fact that people from lower socioeconomic classes bear a double burden, given that few professionals can earn a living in this field. This observation aligns with Grugulis and Stoyanova (2012), who confirmed the important role of the social capital that reproduces the dominant male positions and roles in the industry.

Young people underlined the need for diversity and equality in the industry. Among other discriminative factors, many professionals emphasised challenges regarding gender. Female professionals expressed feeling insecure with dominant male directors, facing challenges in technical roles, being hired to cover gender quotas. In this picture, men still receive higher budgets and better projects. Many female professionals reported experiences of sexism, confirming that they noticed men receive better opportunities than female professionals. This finding aligns with the Conor et al. (2015) study, confirming women’s underrepresentation among cultural workers as well as Thomas and Einarsdóttir’s (2023) study on the impact of diversity schemes: they emphasised the challenges faced by female professionals when entering and developing in the film industry.

Another topic highlighted by the participants is that on a national level they do not receive visibility and institutional backing for innovative production by young filmmakers. Young people resent the lack of space for weird, new and different productions. These limitations in terms of openness and creative experimentation restrict clear career pathways for emerging filmmakers, leaving them without role models or established routes to success. Finally, young filmmakers reported that national funds are more accessible compared to European funds, as the latter were meant for bigger productions, and highlighted the need for grants dedicated to emerging filmmakers with less experience and small projects, with less complicated bureaucracy.

More specifically, the findings align with broader concerns about the structural challenges, meritocracy, barriers, favouritism and selective processes that young filmmakers face when entering the industry. The study clearly shows that precarity, the additional labour of networking and connections start from entry level and accompany creative labourers also at later stages in their careers, as emphasised also by Grugulis and Stoyanova (2012).

Young professionals’ experiences in the European film industry echo the conditions of labour in the CCI overall: they deal with poor working conditions, as they receive short-term contracts with undefined working hours. Unpaid internships or low-pay opportunities force them to seek additional jobs to earn a living. As a result, many young professionals struggle to balance their personal life and career, underlining the need for better working conditions that promote regular working hours and support for parental roles and care. While hands-on training and participation in productions are essential, they do not fully shield young filmmakers from the systemic barriers of uncertainty, financial constraints and selective funding structures.

Career progression is strongly influenced by factors such as socioeconomic background, gender, networking opportunities and access to financial support. The lack of meritocracy in the industry is reflected not only in the working opportunities, but also in the process of awarding grants and scholarships, both as means of support and as symbols of esteem that would further their legitimacy in the industry and hence open up further opportunities.

Young filmmakers further reflect on challenges to navigate within the industry, primarily financial barriers. The EU funding mechanisms are often demanding in terms of meeting requirements as well as complicated to navigate administratively. An additional barrier young filmmakers in this study perceived is that they feel like most funding schemes do not apply to early-career professionals involving multiple EU countries, as the EU imposes strict national restrictions and requirements for co-productions. Even though a few young people received EU funding, still they have to rely on their own resources to make a film because of the low support, meanwhile the majority of young people have never received support from the EU and they mainly seek financial support among their networks such as family and friends. In this sense, many young filmmakers are “slipping through the cracks” of funding schemes, complicating European collaboration on a small scale with European funds often inaccessible for young filmmakers and national or smaller funds creating funding disparities between European countries through citizenship or residency requirements and in many cases including restrictions on collaboration beyond national borders. In navigating these schemes, it is understandable that young filmmakers express a desire for low-threshold, accessible funds that allow for easy European cooperation. It is another question though, how realistic it is that these wishes will actually be fulfilled, especially regarding the seemingly low priority of (independent) film funding in the 2028–2034 European Union budget as perceived by industry representatives (Dams, 2026; SAA, 2026).

This raises a bigger question of private and public responsibility: While more funds would naturally be a relief for the industry at large, meritocracy in the audiovisual sector is an issue of industry practice and as such regulatory solutions will reach their limitations. Ultimately, responsibility lies with the sector to change practices towards a more open and diverse environment, as leaving these issues unaddressed could lead to fatal repercussions for the industry itself. Industry elitism and gate-keeping represents the risk of limiting socioeconomic and creative diversity in the industry and of the sector growing detached from audiences. Research suggests that especially young audiences prefer specific and authentic storytelling that showcase a diverse set of voices (Sarikakis et al., 2025).

We argue that the film industry should conceptualise emerging talents as the future leaders of the film industry, particularly given the advancement into senior roles should not follow a strictly linear “working your way up” pathway, based on age and experience, but rather be guided by creative vision. The industry itself bears the responsibility to create sustainable career pathways for emerging talents. If (unfair) barriers and working conditions that are not considered “life-friendly”, as reported by the participants of this study, persist, it is likely that more young people will leave the film industry – at least those that suffer from its often unmeritocratic barriers or cannot “afford” its precarious conditions – and with them, their diverse voices and embodied knowledges.

Emerging professionals themselves highlight that, as both young individuals and creators, they play a vital role in shaping the creative and cultural heritage of the film industry. They need the support of more experienced professionals, financial support and a constructive environment to develop their skills and gain confidence in their place as they contribute to build a sustainable and competitive European film industry.

This study’s participants expressed a sense of frustration as they are left navigating a highly exclusive industry, pointing out the pivotal role of industry connections, the lack of institutional backing for young filmmakers and further structural barriers that disproportionately disadvantage those without inherited social and economic capital. Public policy and funding mechanisms alone will not suffice to address these conditions, given both the scale of need and limited capacities of existing support structures. A concerted effort to cultivate meritocratic, “life-friendly” conditions from the industry itself would appear essential to addressing these dynamics. In case of absence of such structural reforms, the sector is essentially risking putting its own sustainability in jeopardy – both in regard to what audiences want to see and to what degree a largely homogenous industry can meet these expectations, as well as young people potentially leaving the industry or not pursuing a career in the audiovisual sector at all. It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide for concrete solutions for policymakers and the industry. Rather, we wanted to open up renewed discussion on the chronically unaddressed labour conditions of young filmmakers that are persistent and worth addressing. Sarikakis et al. (2024) have addressed this topic concretely from a policy recommendation perspective, proposing, among other things, a youth-centric industry policy and the institutionalisation of youth development in the form of funding, educational access and distribution.

This study points to several areas that warrant further scholarly attention: More systematic cross-national research in Europe among this demographic is needed to explore how these conditions shape their motivation, as well as the content of their work, ideally complemented by large-scale quantitative work on the position of young workers in the sectors. The impact of artificial intelligence on the working conditions on specifically emerging filmmakers with low to no industry standing represents an urgent and largely unexamined issue. Finally, while public policy has long been a concern of social science research, the self-governance of the audiovisual industry remains underresearched and undertheorised. To comprehensively understand the governance of the sector, future work should examine what the industry does and could do to support young filmmakers, as well as how regulatory frameworks might be implemented not only as top-down mechanisms but as instruments for systemic change.