Why Nollywood still struggles to access real film financing

Nigeria’s film industry remains a study in contrasts. Nollywood is a global cultural force, producing thousands of films each year, commanding audiences across Africa and the diaspora, and shaping perceptions of Nigeria worldwide.

Yet financially, the industry continues to lag behind its influence. Many filmmakers are stuck in a cycle of inadequate funding, hurried productions and limited distribution, leaving an industry rich in talent but chronically short of capital.

This reality persists despite repeated announcements of massive funding commitments. Afreximbank has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to Nigeria’s creative economy and expanded its Creative Africa Nexus (CANEX) into a multi-billion-dollar continental platform. Local banks have unveiled dedicated creative funds, while venture capital firms have launched film-focused investment vehicles. On paper, the numbers are impressive.

In practice, however, access to these funds remains elusive. At this year’s Africa International Film Festival (AFRIFF), filmmakers openly complained that the much-publicised financing rarely translates into actual production support. For many independent creators, the money appears to exist mainly in press releases rather than on film sets.

This gap between promise and delivery has serious implications. Nollywood is not just an artistic endeavour; it is a major economic sector and one of Nigeria’s largest employers of young people after agriculture. It is also a powerful exporter of soft power, projecting Nigerian culture from Nairobi to New York. But influence alone cannot pay for training, modern equipment, high-quality post-production or global marketing. Without consistent capital, Nollywood risks remaining prolific yet underpowered on the global stage.

What makes the situation more troubling is that the challenge is not a lack of money, but a lack of access. Filmmakers say discussions with banks and development finance institutions often stall when concrete terms are introduced. The recurring complaint is simple: the funds are announced, but they are difficult to reach.

Financial institutions, for their part, argue that they are commercial entities, not charities. They insist film projects must be well structured, budgets realistic and revenue models credible. Many banks contend that creatives approach financing without proper corporate structures, audited accounts or clear distribution strategies, making projects too risky to support.

Both sides, however, share responsibility. While many filmmakers need stronger business capacity and financial literacy, financiers often lack a deep understanding of how the film industry works. Creative assets such as intellectual property, brand value and audience loyalty do not fit neatly into traditional banking models built around physical collateral like land or machinery. When lenders apply frameworks designed for factories or trading companies, most filmmakers are automatically excluded.

The consequences of this stalemate are far-reaching. Underfunded productions struggle to meet international standards, limiting global distribution and reinforcing the perception that film is a high-risk investment. Foreign platforms and investors then step in, acquiring Nigerian content cheaply and capturing value that could have remained within the local industry. Nigeria exports its stories but imports the profits.

There is also a credibility problem. When large funds are announced without visible beneficiaries, trust erodes. Filmmakers grow cynical, and investors become sceptical of creative-sector financing claims. Over time, this disconnect threatens to stifle investment more effectively than any economic downturn.

Experts argue that a better system is possible. Transparency is critical: every announced fund should publish clear data on applications received, approvals granted and amounts disbursed. This would help restore confidence and demonstrate that capital is truly flowing.

There is also a need for specialised creative finance desks staffed by professionals who understand film economics. Assessing a movie is not the same as assessing a rice mill, and banks entering the creative space must build expertise, not just portfolios.

At the same time, filmmakers must professionalise. Production companies need stronger governance, proper accounting, intellectual property management and clear marketing and distribution strategies. Talent alone is not enough to attract capital.

Government also has a role beyond headline announcements. By offering credit guarantees, tax incentives and insurance schemes, it can help reduce risk for lenders and unlock private capital. Shared-risk models would likely achieve more than publicity-driven funding pledges.

Finally, industry associations must step up. Collective negotiation, standard-setting and trust-building between creatives and financiers are essential. No single filmmaker, regardless of fame, can fix a broken financing system alone.

Nigeria’s problem is not creativity, but coordination. Until promised funds consistently translate into money on set, Nollywood will continue to underperform financially. And a country that fails to adequately fund its stories risks losing control of its narrative.