From Paris to DC: Two Very Different Ways to Fund Music

Subsidies versus philanthropy: funding philosophies clash on both sides of the Atlantic. In France, the birthplace of medici.tv, the annual World Music Day celebration each summer transforms the streets into open-air stages, supported by a system with significant government backing. Meanwhile, in the United States, a nation of patronage, Donald Trump targets the Kennedy Center, a public institution he deems too “woke…” Yet behind this apparent opposition lie unsuspected similarities and the same question: how can we ensure that culture is vibrant, independent, and accessible to all?

Paris and Washington: A Tale of Two Models

On June 21, 2025, France celebrated the 42nd edition of World Music Day. Created in 1982 by the Ministry of Culture, the event invites thousands of amateur and professional musicians to take to the streets, parks, and squares to share their music for free. A popular day reflecting a core principle of French cultural policy: art for all. Across the Atlantic, a different story is unfolding: artists are growing increasingly concerned over Donald Trump’s highly controversial takeover of the Kennedy Center. Long considered a symbol of artistic freedom, the legendary American cultural center is now considered too “woke” by its new president, who promised to “put it back on the right track.” Ironically, the center is part-funded by the federal government and stands as a rare exception in a country where culture largely relies on private patronage. In contrast, France’s cultural economy depends almost entirely on public funding. With medici.tv based in France, it seemed like the perfect opportunity to explore the country’s model and what it reveals about a different approach to art and its funding. After all, who knows? While these two perspectives may seem contradictory at first glance, a closer look might reveal that they are far more similar than expected.

Who Pays for Culture?

In 2024, public subsidies for culture totalled €4.6 billion in France. According to the Observatory of Cultural Policies, 63% of the revenues of French opera houses come from public funding, compared with just 3.7% from private patronage. At the iconic Paris Opera, subsidies account for 77%. By comparison, the Kennedy Center—one of the most subsidized cultural institutions in the United States—receives just 17%, an exception in a country where the federal government devotes an average 0.002% of its budget to culture. The rest comes from private donations and local funding. The result is a striking difference in ticket prices among the world’s leading opera houses. In Autumn 2025, a ticket for La Bohème at the Paris Opera cost between €15 and €175 (roughly $18-205 USD). Turandot at the New York MET cost between €317 and €1500 ($375- $1774). 

However, public support for culture isn’t absent in the United States—it just manifests differently. “Anglo-Saxon systems work on the basis of tax incentives: sponsorship is heavily tax-exempt. In France, there’s a strict upper limit,” explains Maryvonne de Saint-Pulgent, writer and former Director of Heritage at the Ministry of Culture. “In the United States, even cultural spending is tax-exempt. For example, a subscription to the Metropolitan Opera is tax-deductible. In France, this is not allowed.” The American system is also much more decentralized, with each state or county pursuing its own cultural policy. However, subsidies remain low. At the MET, which is funded by New York City, the annual budget of €287million ($340 million) relies equally on ticket sales and philanthropy. In 2025, the state of New York awarded it a one-off grant of €4,3 million ($5 million) to cover its operating costs. The public funds allocated to the Kennedy Center also only cover its operating and building maintenance costs: €38,7 million ($45.7 million) out of an annual budget of €227 million ($268 million).

Public vs. Private: Which Model Is More Resilient?

This dependence on private funding makes smaller American institutions more vulnerable. In 2019, the 130 musicians of the National Philharmonic Orchestra—the main ensemble in Montgomery County in Washington—lost their jobs after local public funding was halved and patronage was unable to compensate. In the same year, the conductor and musical director of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Riccardo Muti, was paid €2, 896, 899 ($3,420,804). 

Yet even the biggest opera houses are suffering. In 2024, The New York Times revealed that the MET had to draw €34 million ($40 million) from its endowment fund to balance its budget (a strategy they had already employed the previous year to the tune of €25,4 million – $30 million). At the same time, the number of performances had fallen from 215 in 2022-2023 to 194 in 2024-2025. Closed for two years during COVID, the MET illustrates the limits of a model in which culture depends on patrons and the economic climate and this episode underscores a sharp contrast with the French system, which was dramatically increasing subsidies at the time to preserve its cultural landscape.

In France, public support is tied to certain conditions. One of the criteria for receiving support is implementing an inclusive ticket pricing policy. This is why tickets at the Opéra Bastille are easily available for €15 ($17 USD) and the greatest international orchestras can be heard for €12 ($14 USD) at the Philharmonie de Paris. Some performances are even reserved for children. This accessibility is closely linked to an increasing support for music education. Maryvonne de Saint-Pulgent, who serves as Honorary President of the Opéra Comique, cites the establishment of the Maîtrise Populaire de l’Opéra-Comique in 2016 as an example. The choir is made up of young people aged between 8 and 25 “recruited from schools in the Paris suburbs to encourage the practice of music in the suburbs.” The outcome of this policy? By 2023, a third of people under 25 played music regularly. “This is largely due to the existence of a network of state-funded conservatoires and music schools,” she explains. This network was accompanied by the creation of regional public orchestras in the early 1960s. In the 1980s, Jack Lang—then Minister of Culture—developed the model: the Orchestre National de Jazz was created, rehearsal rooms were made available in the suburbs, and conservatoires opened up to jazz and contemporary music. “Today’s conservatoires don’t only train classical musicians!” she highlights. “I like to cite the case of Zaho de Sagazan.” A graduate of Nantes Conservatory and a recipient of a gold disc for La symphonie des éclairs, the 25-year-old artist recently captivated audiences with her rendition of Edith Piaf’s Sous le ciel de Paris at the 2024 Summer Olympics Closing Ceremony.

Is There a Perfect System?

This principle of democratizing music can be found in other countries, too. For instance, Venezuela’s renowned El Sistema system celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. Financed by public funds, this music education program for disadvantaged young people now has over 400 schools across the country and is renowned for nurturing stars like the celebrated conductor Gustavo Dudamel. Germany provides the most extensive public support: over 130 subsidized orchestras for around 10,000 musicians, compared with around 30 for 2,500 musicians in France. China follows a similar path, providing substantial funding for its conservatories, as does South Korea, where public support has reached €4,2 billion ($5 billion) despite the importance of patronage. In the UK, public funding accounts for between 30 and 50% of the cultural budget, although this share is declining in the face of growing economic difficulties.

Today in France, the sector is not without its challenges. “There are 50% fewer shows this year. This is largely due to funding cuts,” states Arnaud Thorette, founder of Le Club Malraux, a think tank that aims to improve public support for culture. For him, the facts are clear: “Currently, it is impossible to finance a cultural project without a combination of public support and sponsorship, which will provide 15% of the budget.” He advocates a strengthening of tax incentives, along the lines of the Belgian Tax Shelter model. Another criticism is the lack of transparency in the way grants are awarded. “A committee of around twenty experts decides who gets what. The problem is that the discussions are kept secret and the criteria remains vague,” he objects. This is a problem which Maryvonne de Saint-Pulgent also raises in her book Musicians and power in France. From Lully to Boulez (Gallimard, 2025). “If the committee is not carefully considered and is swayed by an aesthetic or school leader, it will impose an official type of music.” In this context, it is difficult not to think about Donald Trump’s recent takeover of the Kennedy Center. When considering the funding model for culture, regardless of its form, the issue of artistic independence always arises.

For Le Club Malraux, rethinking the system also means defending culture as a public good. “As soon as there are financial problems, our legitimacy is called into question. If you are funded by ten people, all it takes is for them to think that culture is not essential, and that’s the end of it.” On both sides of the Atlantic, the challenge seems to be the same: finding the right balance between public and private support to guarantee a vibrant, independent culture that is accessible to all. 

Translation by Nadya Miryanova