Saregama-Bhansali deal: How Bollywood is learning to separate art, ownership and risk
Saregama’s investment in Sanjay Leela Bhansali–promoted Bhansali Productions without acquiring film IP signals a structural shift in Indian cinema financing. How will this play out in the long term?
Music label and entertainment company Saregama India Ltd’s investment in filmmaker Sanjay Leela Bhansali's production company marks a shift in how Indian cinema may be financed going forward.
The deal, worth ₹325 crore, allows Bhansali Productions Pvt. Ltd to retain full intellectual property rights over its films while giving Saregama exclusive music rights to all its future films.
Experts see this development paving the way for more institutional funding in Indian cinema at a time when OTT platforms are tightening content spends and global capital is looking for disciplined exposure to Indian storytelling.
This model also aligns India closer to global studio-platform economics—separating high-margin IP ownership from high-risk production, and accelerating the sector’s institutional maturity.
“For Saregama, the transaction is fundamentally a music play rather than a film bet. By investing in Bhansali Productions, Saregama secures exclusive music rights to all future films under a pre-agreed pricing framework, ensuring a steady pipeline of premium content while eliminating competitive bidding and cost volatility," said Alay Razvi, managing partner, Accord Juris.
For Bhansali Productions, retaining film IP preserves creative control, valuation upside, and flexibility to negotiate theatrical, OTT, and international distribution independently.
The structure injects patient capital without surrendering ownership of films, which remain the highest-value asset. In effect, each party monetises its core strength—Saregama compounds scalable music IP, while Bhansali maximises film economics—without cross-contaminating risk.
Money enters frame
The structure echoes last year’s investment by Adar Poonawalla in Dharma Productions. This is a welcome trend as long as institutional funding does not begin to impact creative choices, according to Ameet Datta, founder, ADP Law Offices. “Corporatizing creative choices might not work out well," he said.
“For Saregama, the gain lies in associating with a marquee creative brand while retaining control over its own catalogue and rights. For Bhansali, it provides institutional backing without diluting the creative independence that defines his films," said Ashima Obhan, senior partner, Obhan & Associates.
This move is a signal that capital and creativity can co‑exist without one overwhelming the other, Obhan added.
Globally, similar structures are common. Hollywood studios often enter equity partnerships with production houses while keeping story rights with creators, as seen in Elizabeth Banks’ Brownstone Productions’ deal with Universal.
“This deal could be instructive for the next wave of institutional funding. It shows that investors don’t necessarily need outright ownership of films or IP to back an entertainment company, they can invest in growth plays around content ecosystems," said Charu Malhotra, co-founder and managing director, Primus Partners, a management consultancy firm.
“This is appealing because films are high-risk, high-variance bets; a blockbuster can be a windfall, but a flop can hurt badly," Malhotra added.
Institutional investors are comfortable backing platform plays, companies with recurring revenue streams, monetizable catalogues (music, licensing) and diversified monetization (OTT, live events, brand partnerships, live performances, concerts).
Overall, the deal suggests that Indian cinema may be edging away from boom-and-bust film financing toward a more professional structure—one where movies are part of a broader, monetizable content chain rather than standalone bets.
topics
