Imagine Manchester United suddenly going bankrupt and disappearing overnight. More than a century of history would vanish: archives sold off, trophies lost to collectors, and Old Trafford left to decay. The tens of thousands who gather there every other week would have no place to watch matches, local businesses would lose steady foot traffic, public transport would see declining demand, and hotels and car parks would feel the effects. Beyond the economic damage, a cultural landmark would be gone — a place where dreams were born, where people found refuge, companionship, and identity. The loss would be felt across Manchester, the UK and beyond.
Losing Manchester United feels impossible to imagine. Yet the cinema world may be on the brink of losing its equivalent — not a single club but a national cultural network — to bankruptcy.
The Story
On Friday 19 August 2022, reports revealed Cineworld Group plc was preparing to file for bankruptcy. As the world’s second-largest exhibitor, operating more than 9,500 screens across roughly 790 sites and employing around 28,000 people, Cineworld’s collapse would be seismic. The company’s scale outstrips most football clubs in terms of physical footprint, jobs and economic reach, yet its potential disappearance received far less sustained public or cultural debate than might be expected for such an institution.
Cinema often falls into the gap between art and industry in public conversation. It is treated either purely as entertainment or solely as creative expression, rarely recognized for both its cultural significance and its substantial economic contribution. This tendency to understate cinema’s role helps explain why a major exhibitor’s failure can pass with only brief headlines rather than sustained public outcry: empty screens, job losses, and the disappearance of community spaces are framed as business failures rather than as cultural losses.
Cineworld’s Issues
Cineworld’s problems did not come from nowhere. Controversial board decisions and legal liabilities have burdened the company with significant payouts. During the pandemic, staff were laid off quickly and later rehired as government support schemes were introduced. Picturehouse, one of Cineworld’s UK brands, faced strikes over pay, straining relationships with cultural institutions. These missteps have compounded industry pressures and damaged public perception.
Many also argue that prices and the cinema experience have become barriers for regular audiences. The cost of living crisis, ongoing effects from the pandemic, and added complications from Brexit have reduced frequent cinema attendance, pressing exhibitors who rely on consistent footfall.
How Did They Accumulate So Much Debt?
Like other expansive corporations, Cineworld took on heavy debt during aggressive growth. In 2017 the company paid approximately £3 billion for the US Regal Cinema chain — a major acquisition that strained its finances. Combined with large legal payments and pandemic-era closures, the firm could not service its debts. Executives have blamed studios for a lack of major theatrical releases and for release delays, which did hurt box office returns, but that explanation tells only part of the story.
Box office revenue in 2022 lagged about a third behind pre-pandemic levels, and 2021 was nearly half below the three-year average from 2017–2019. Lower ticket sales make servicing large debts much harder, and the timing of blockbuster releases directly affects exhibitor revenue.
Studios Share Responsibility
Major studios have shifted toward streaming and adopted practices that have undercut theatrical exhibition. After mergers and consolidation, studios such as Disney have gained outsized market power and imposed terms that give them large shares of ticket revenue and control over screening conditions. These contractual demands can force exhibitors to keep underperforming titles on their biggest screens for prolonged periods, limiting flexibility to program other films that might better serve local audiences.
The pandemic accelerated this trend: the once-standard theatrical window of several months has been reduced dramatically in many cases, sometimes to weeks. Studios experimented with simultaneous or near-simultaneous releases on streaming and in cinemas, a move that discouraged some audiences from returning to theatres when a film would soon be available at home through subscription services.
What Is Cinema Today?
Studios now prioritize watch-time and subscriber metrics for streaming platforms, which pushes them to design content that keeps viewers engaged for longer periods rather than encouraging repeat theatrical viewings. Blockbusters have grown longer, which reduces the number of daily screenings a cinema can schedule on a single screen and thus limits potential ticket sales. For example, multi-hour films reduce turns per day, and that directly affects an exhibitor’s revenue potential.
Exhibitors also faced changing audience expectations about comfort, convenience and value. Home technology has improved, and with streaming subscriptions offering vast libraries, many casual viewers have little incentive to pay for a cinema outing when the same content will arrive at home within weeks.
Is Cinema Dead?
People cite many reasons for not returning to cinemas: ticket prices, fewer perceived must-see releases, long runtimes without breaks, and degraded in-theatre standards. Cinemas could have done more to protect and elevate the theatrical experience after lockdowns — better enforcement against phone use, consistent projection and seating standards, and renewed focus on making cinema outings feel special. A single bad visit can drive a customer away for good.
At the same time, studios have leaned into streaming and short theatrical windows, eroding the distinction between cinema releases and home viewing. This combined pressure has hollowed out the exhibition sector, increasing the risk of closures and cultural loss.
Long Live Streaming?
Should Cineworld ultimately collapse, thousands of employees could lose their livelihoods during an ongoing cost of living crisis. Hundreds of buildings designed and maintained for cinema use would stand empty, reducing foot traffic and harming local businesses that benefit from cinema-goers. Taxable income generated by ticket sales and adjacent spending would be displaced by subscription revenues that often flow to large international corporations with different tax footprints, shifting economic benefits away from local communities.
Beyond economics, the loss of cinemas would erode cultural infrastructure: first movie trips, nervous dates, transformative viewings and packed screenings would disappear. Cinemas provide a shared public space where communities gather, where stories are collectively experienced and where young people often encounter art for the first time.
If football stadia are widely recognized as civic assets crucial to community identity and local economies, cinemas deserve the same recognition. The failure of a major exhibitor to survive would be a failure of policy, markets and cultural stewardship. It raises a simple but stark question: what kind of society does not care about broad access to art?
Cineworld may be gone. The challenge now is to preserve the theatrical experience and protect the institutions that allow communities to gather, dream and watch together.
— Donate via Paypal to help independent film journalism continue to be available for everyone. —
