Are Agents, Venue Consultants and Entertainment Hirers Being Straight With Musicians and Venues?
Are agents, venue consultants and entertainment hirers being straight with musicians and venues?
There is something about the live music industry that musicians and venues need to understand.
A venue agrees to pay $650 for entertainment.
The musician is told the gig pays $500.
The business in the middle keeps $150.
That might be a completely legitimate business margin.
But what did the venue think it was paying for?
Did it know it was buying a $650 entertainment package from a booking business, or did it believe the musician personally charged $650?
Did the musician agree to work for $500, or were they led to believe that was the full amount the venue was prepared to pay?
That is where the problem starts.
This is not about saying agents and entertainment businesses should work for free. They provide a service and deserve to be paid.
It is about being honest about who represents whom, who hired the musician and where the money is going.
Why I started asking questions
Years ago, a venue contacted me directly about booking some dates. I had previously performed a one-off gig there through a third-party entertainment booking business.
When I gave the venue my normal fee, they were genuinely surprised. They told me it was significantly cheaper than what they had previously paid to book me through the other business.
I was never told how much that business had charged the venue, so I cannot say what the difference was or how it had been described. It may have been a legitimate booking fee, consultancy charge or entertainment-supply margin.
What concerned me was that the venue appeared to believe the higher amount was my price. I had no idea what the venue had been charged, and the venue apparently had no idea what I was actually receiving.
Since then, other musicians have told me about similar experiences with different venues and booking businesses. I cannot independently verify every story, and I am not suggesting that every agent, consultant or entertainment hirer operates this way.
However, the same concern keeps coming up: the musician knows what they have agreed to receive, the venue knows what it has agreed to pay, and the person in the middle is often the only one who knows both amounts.
Making a profit is not the problem. The problem is when the musician and venue are left with different impressions about what the money represents.
The three different roles
Under the NSW Entertainment Industry Act 2013, the title someone uses is not what decides their legal role.
They may call themselves an agent, consultant, entertainment manager, music programmer or booking coordinator. What matters is what they actually do.
The musician’s agent
The legal term is generally performer representative.
An agent works for the musician. They may find gigs, negotiate fees, organise agreements and handle payment arrangements.
For most ordinary one-off live music gigs, the fee charged to the musician is generally capped at 10% of the amount payable to the musician. The cap is not an automatic entitlement to take 10%. The agent still needs the musician’s authority and an agreement for the services being provided.
An agent must not act, or claim to act, for a musician without that musician’s authority.
The venue consultant
The legal term is generally venue representative.
A venue representative works on behalf of a venue or other entertainment industry hirer to arrange a performance.
They may manage the venue’s entertainment calendar, find musicians, confirm dates and organise payments. The Act specifically separates a venue representative from the actual hirer.
The entertainment industry hirer
The hirer is the person or business that actually engages or contracts the musician for the performance.
This could be the venue itself, or it could be an entertainment business supplying acts to venues.
For example:
The entertainment business hires the musician for $500.
The business supplies the performance to the venue for $650.
The business keeps a $150 margin.
On the wording of the Act, that margin is not automatically treated as an agent’s commission. The important question is whether the entertainment business genuinely hired the musician in its own right, or was merely receiving money on the musician’s behalf.
A margin is not automatically dishonest
Businesses are allowed to make a profit.
An entertainment hirer may find the work, organise the booking, manage cancellations, arrange replacements, handle administration and accept the risk of the venue paying late.
That has value.
The problem is not simply that the business received $650 and paid the musician $500.
The problem is when either side is given a false impression.
For example:
“Our price for supplying live entertainment is $650.”
That clearly sounds like a package price from the entertainment business.
But this is different:
“The musician’s fee is $650.”
If the musician has only agreed to receive $500, that wording may give the venue the wrong impression about who is receiving the other $150.
Australian Consumer Law prohibits businesses from making statements or representations that create a false impression about the price, value or nature of services. Silence can also be misleading in some circumstances, but whether disclosure is required depends on the full situation.
What musicians and venues are actually entitled to know
A musician is not automatically entitled to know every dollar a genuine hirer charges its customer.
Likewise, a venue buying an entertainment package is not automatically entitled to know all of the supplier’s costs and profit margin.
But both sides should be told the truth about the arrangement.
The musician should know:
who has hired them
their agreed fee
who is legally responsible for paying it
whether anyone is charging them commission
whether the person claims to represent them.
The venue should know:
whether it is directly hiring the musician
whether it is using a consultant to arrange the booking
or whether it is purchasing an entertainment package from another business.
The venue does not necessarily need to know the supplier’s exact margin, but it should not be told or allowed to believe that the entire package price is the musician’s personal charge when that is not true.
When a financial statement is required
If an entertainment industry representative receives money on behalf of a performer, they must provide a financial statement as soon as practicable.
The performer’s statement must show:
the amount received on their behalf
the amount paid to them
the payment method
any representative fee deducted
any performance expenses deducted
the performance details
the representative’s relevant business details.
A statement must also be provided to the person or hirer who paid the money, although the information required in each version is not identical.
This requirement does not automatically apply when a genuine hirer has separately contracted a musician for $500 and is simply paying the musician’s $500 invoice.
In that situation, the venue’s $650 package payment may be the hirer’s own business revenue rather than money received on behalf of the musician.
That distinction matters.
Who carries the payment risk?
This is one of the best ways to tell whether the business is genuinely acting as the hirer.
If the business hired the musician, that business is responsible for paying the agreed fee.
An entertainment industry hirer must generally pay the musician within one calendar month after the performance, unless a different payment period was agreed in writing.
A genuine hirer should not act like an agent when payment becomes inconvenient by simply saying:
“The venue has not paid us, so we cannot pay you.”
The hirer entered the contract with the musician. Unless different written payment terms apply, the hirer carries the risk of its own customer paying late.
If a performer representative receives money on behalf of a musician, the money must generally be distributed within 14 days of receipt and may need to be held in a NSW trust account if it is not paid immediately.
A venue representative must also generally pass money received on behalf of a performer to that performer within 14 days.
Charging both sides
Someone may act for the musician and the venue in relation to the same performance, but the dual role must be disclosed in writing to both sides.
A performer representative is also generally prohibited from charging the musician a fee for a performance where that person is acting as the venue representative. A limited exception applies to compliant managerial agreements involving genuine additional management services.
So this should raise questions:
“I manage entertainment for the venue, and I also take 10% from every musician I book there.”
That does not automatically prove something unlawful has happened, but the person needs to explain:
who they represent
what service they provide to the musician
what agreement permits the fee
whether the dual role was disclosed.
Claims of exclusive representation
Another warning sign is someone telling a venue:
“You can only book this musician through me.”
That may be valid if the musician actually authorised exclusive representation.
There may also be a separate agreement between the venue and the booking business that limits direct bookings. However, that agreement does not automatically make the business the musician’s agent or give it authority to claim that it represents the musician.
A few bookings, a website listing or a musician sending invoices to the business does not automatically create exclusive representation.
An agent claiming to act for a performer must have the performer’s authority.
Questions musicians should ask
Before accepting a booking through someone else:
Who is legally hiring me?
Who do I invoice?
What is my agreed fee?
Are you representing me, the venue or your own business?
Are you charging me commission?
Who owes me if the venue does not pay you?
When will I be paid?
Do you claim to represent me exclusively, and what agreement gives you that authority?
Questions venues should ask
Before using an agent, consultant or entertainment supplier:
Are we hiring the musician or buying entertainment from your business?
Is this the musician’s actual fee or your total package price?
Are you representing us, the musician or both?
Who is responsible for paying the musician?
Are you also charging the musician?
Do you genuinely have authority to represent the act?
What happens if the performance is cancelled?
Warning signs
Be cautious when:
nobody will clearly say who hired the musician
the business changes its role depending on the question
the venue is told the package price is the musician’s fee when it is not
commission is deducted without the musician’s agreement
someone claims exclusive representation without authority
the performer’s payment is delayed because the middleman is waiting to be paid
a representative receives performer money but provides no financial breakdown
questions about fees or payment are met with anger or evasive answers.
Superannuation and GST
Superannuation is a separate issue. I have a dedicated guide covering super for sole-trader musicians and venues:
Superannuation for Sole-Trader Musicians: What Venues Can and Cannot Do
GST obligations depend on whether each business is registered for GST and the nature of the transaction. Check the current ATO information about GST and tax invoices if GST applies to your business.
Final thoughts
Agents, consultants and entertainment hirers deserve to be paid for genuine work.
The issue is not profit.
The issue is allowing the venue and musician to believe two different stories about the same money.
If the venue is buying a $650 entertainment package and the musician has agreed to work for $500, say that clearly.
Do not describe the whole $650 as the musician’s fee.
Do not tell the musician that $500 is all the venue will pay if that is not true.
Do not claim to represent a musician without their authority.
Do not take an agent’s fee while pretending to act only for the venue.
The simplest questions are still the most important:
Who do you represent?
Who hired the musician?
What exactly is the venue buying?
What exactly has the musician agreed to receive?
Honest operators should be able to answer those questions clearly.
This article provides general information about NSW entertainment industry rules as at August 2026. It is not personal legal, tax or accounting advice. The legal position in an individual case depends on the contracts, invoices, communications and actual conduct of everyone involved.