On 24 September 2026, the US rights to one of the best-selling albums of the 1990s revert from a record company to the musicians who made it.
The notice is recorded, dated and public. Dave Grohl is the first named party on it — and on five more.
Nobody publishing a net worth figure for him mentions any of this.
Dave Grohl Net Worth: Why We Publish No Figure
- Estimates run $260m to $350m — and not one discloses a method
- The two sites that do show their working refute themselves: one nets barely $140,000 of documented property gains against a $330m headline
- Our take: no figure — but he owns more than anyone reports, on the record. See our methodology.
Six Recorded Notices, Reclaiming a Catalogue
US copyright law lets authors take back rights they signed away 35 years later, by serving formal notice years in advance and recording it. His defining recordings date from 1991 to 1993 — the windows are open right now.
Five notices target the master recordings, all served 6 December 2021 and recorded 30 March 2026:
| Recordation | Album | Takes effect |
|---|---|---|
| V10004D044 | The 1991 breakthrough album | 24 Sep 2026 |
| V10004D042 | The 1992 compilation | 15 Dec 2027 |
| V10004D043 | The 1993 album | 14 Sep 2028 |
| V10004D047 | A 1994 live release | 15 Nov 2029 |
| V10004D045 | A 1996 live album | 1 Oct 2031 |
A sixth notice, recorded 2 April 2026, covers the compositions: 16 pages listing 51 titles, served in November and December 2025, effective 27 March 2028. It runs against the publisher that succeeded the band’s original publishing entity.
The register also holds the grant that started the clock: an assignment recorded 7 September 1993, transferring rights from the three band members to that publishing entity. 1993 plus 35 is 2028. The arithmetic matches exactly.
All six are retrievable with parties and dates.
What this is not: a payment. Terminations move rights, not cash — there is no purchase price, no proceeds and no documented realisation of any kind. What they establish is that a catalogue currently earning for someone else is scheduled to change hands, on dates a court can be pointed at.
One Band He Owns. One He Never Did.
The copyright register separates the author of a work from the claimant who owns it. Counting both bands side by side produces the sharpest contrast we have found in this project:
| His 1990s band | His own band since 1995 | |
|---|---|---|
| Band named as author | 16× | — |
| Band named as owner | 1× | — |
| Label as author and owner | Geffen entities 15× | — |
| His own label, recordings | — | 23 author / 23 owner |
| His own label, audiovisual | — | 19 author / 19 owner |
For the 1990s band the label holds both roles — work made for hire, the band merely the creator. That is precisely why the terminations above exist.
For the band he founded in 1995, his own label is author and claimant on every single registration, 1:1 across 42 entries from the first album onward. He owns those masters outright. Net-worth sites assert this without evidence; here it is in the register, countable.
His Publishing Is Unencumbered — and Half His
His publishing designation appears in eight recorded agreements. The second party changes in a way that tells a story:
- 1995–1998: one major publisher alone
- 2006 onward: a different major plus his own publishing company, named jointly
Being named on the receiving side is the signature of a co-publishing deal with a retained share — not an outright assignment. The register shows him keeping a piece from 2006 onward that he did not keep in 1995.
And there are zero security interests and zero mortgages recorded against his publishing company — with the same facets returning results for the other entity in this file, so the search demonstrably works. No catalogue sale, no borrowing against the songs.
“Over $1 Million a Show” — Refuted by the Box Office Archive
A widely repeated claim. The concert industry’s own reported figures for one venue say otherwise:
| Date | Tickets | Gross |
|---|---|---|
| 19 Feb 2008 | 15,228 | $678,540 |
| 13 Nov 2011 | 17,958 | over $1,080,000 |
| 20 Jun 2021 | 15,371 | $1,401,255 |
Across a 2011 arena run of 30-plus North American dates, the average was about $586,000 — well under half the claim. Seven-figure nights happen at a flagship venue, not routinely.
And gross is not income. Out of it come the promoter, the building, production, crew, support acts, agency and tax — and then it splits among band members. A per-show gross tells you nothing about one person’s earnings.
$330 Million, Backed by $140,000
Estimates run $260m, $320m, $330m, $350m — a spread of only 1.35×, which looks like consensus until you notice that none of them shows a method. Two do attempt a breakdown, and both collapse.
The first reverse-engineers from certification levels. Its largest single line attributes $17.56m from the 1991 album to him personally. The register makes that impossible: the label is the claimant on those masters, not the band and not him. Converting unit counts into one person’s income requires a royalty rate, a band split and a label share — none of which the page has, and none of which is public.
The second contradicts itself on property. Its own list of his transactions:
- $335,000 → $345,000 — +$10,000
- $569,000 → $1.6m — +$1.03m, over 23 years
- $3.8m → $2.9m — a $900,000 loss
- $2.2m, still held, “now worth about $9m” — an estimate, not a transaction
Net realised gain across the whole list: roughly $140,000. Against a headline of $330 million. The same page also quotes him putting his own wealth at about $15m around 1994.
A breakdown that accounts for 0.04% of the number above it is not a derivation.
Where We Looked and Found Nothing
Five independent registers returned structural negatives, each with a passing control:
- Corporate filings: zero for both his companies. Control: the band name returns 157 mentions — all passing references, no terms.
- No trademark transfers or pledges, as assignor or assignee. Control returns unrelated companies.
- No recorded court actions over any of his rights. Controls: 15 and 24 hits for other rights-holders.
- No charitable foundation.
- No British company under either company name. Control: another band returns seven.
Three lawsuits involving his label carry no documented amount: two studio disputes from 1999 and 2008, an Australian claim for unspecified damages in 2010, and a 2016 claim against insurers over cancelled European dates.
One civil case concerning the artwork of the 1991 album remains unresolved: a dismissal was reversed and remanded on 21 December 2023, with a further appeal pending since October 2025. No amount has been awarded or paid, and we draw no conclusion from a matter still before the courts.
Crucially: his personal share of either band’s income appears nowhere — no contract value, no advance, no split. That is not a gap we failed to close. Band splits are private by default.
What the Record Actually Shows
No primary source anywhere states his wealth: no securities filing, no company accounts, no probate, no pledged asset, no foreign company. Five registers say so with working controls. Any number would be an invention.
But the ownership picture is unusually clear, and it is better than the coverage suggests, not worse. He owns his own band’s recordings outright, holds a retained share of his publishing, has never pledged either as collateral — and has six recorded notices in motion to reclaim the catalogue that made him famous.
The first of them lands in September 2026. That is a date, not an estimate.
Money Timeline
| Date | Type | Event | Amount | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1993-09-07 | Deal | The assignment that started a 35-year clock | An assignment recorded on this date transferred composition rights from the three band members to their publishing entity. US copyright law lets authors reclaim such grants 35 years later, and 1993 plus 35 is 2028 - which is exactly the effective date on the termination notice recorded in April 2026. No amount appears, because assignments of this kind never state consideration. The chain afterwards is also on record: the publishing entity assigned onward in 2007, and a security interest over it was recorded in 2012. source | |
| 2021-06-20 | Tour | $1,401,255 in one night - the venue record | $1.4M | A single show at a flagship New York arena, 15,371 tickets at $50 to $119, and the band's highest gross at that building. It refutes a widely repeated claim rather than supporting it: across a 2011 arena run of more than 30 North American dates the average was about $586,000, so seven-figure nights are the exception. Earlier figures at the same venue were $678,540 in February 2008 and just over $1,080,000 in November 2011. Gross is ticket revenue before promoter, building, production, crew, support acts, agency and tax - and before it splits among band members. source |
| 2026-03-30 | Deal | Five notices reclaiming the master recordings | Five termination notices recorded on this date, all served on 6 December 2021, with him as first named party against the label group. Effective dates run 24 September 2026, 15 December 2027, 14 September 2028, 15 November 2029 and 1 October 2031. The reason they exist is visible in the same register: for that band the label entities appear as both author and claimant 15 times while the band is named as owner just once. His own band is the opposite - his label holds both roles on all 23 sound recordings and all 19 audiovisual registrations. He owns one catalogue outright and is reclaiming the other. source | |
| 2026-04-02 | Deal | 51 compositions, reverting 27 March 2028 | A sixteen-page notice listing 51 titles, served in November and December 2025 against the publisher that succeeded the band's original publishing entity. Unlike the master recordings this one covers the songs themselves. No amount attaches: terminations move rights rather than cash, and there is no purchase price, no proceeds and no documented realisation of any kind. What it establishes is that a catalogue currently earning for someone else is scheduled to change hands on a date anyone can check. source | |
| 2026-08-07 | Deal | $330 million, backed by $140,000 of documented gains | Estimates run $260 million to $350 million, a spread of only 1.35 times that looks like consensus until you notice none of them shows a method. The two that try both collapse. One reverse-engineers from certification levels and books $17.56 million from the 1991 album to him personally, which the register makes impossible because the label is the claimant on those masters, and converting unit counts into one person's income needs a royalty rate, a band split and a label share that are all private. The other lists his property deals: plus $10,000, plus $1.03 million over 23 years, a $900,000 loss, and one house still held with an estimated rather than transacted value. Net realised gain roughly $140,000, against a $330 million headline - a breakdown accounting for 0.04 per cent of the number above it. source |
Key financial events, aggregated from the sources cited above. See our methodology.
Frequently Asked Questions
Short answers to the most common questions about this profile. For our sourcing and update method, see our Methodology page.
Is Dave Grohl getting his 1990s catalogue back?
Six notices under the US termination provision are recorded with him as first named party. Five cover master recordings, all served on 6 December 2021 and recorded on 30 March 2026, with effective dates of 24 September 2026 for the 1991 breakthrough album, then 15 December 2027, 14 September 2028, 15 November 2029 and 1 October 2031. A sixth, recorded 2 April 2026, covers 51 compositions across 16 pages and takes effect on 27 March 2028. The register also holds the 1993 assignment that started the clock, and 1993 plus 35 years matches the 2028 date exactly. These move rights rather than money: there is no price, no proceeds and no documented realisation.
Does he own his own band's recordings?
Yes, and it is countable. His own label appears as both author and claimant on all 23 sound recording registrations and all 19 audiovisual registrations examined, a clean one-to-one match from the first album onward. Holding both roles is the register's signature for ownership rather than mere authorship. The contrast with his 1990s band is stark: there the band is named as author 16 times but as owner only once, while the label entities hold both roles 15 times. That is exactly why the termination notices exist for one catalogue and not the other.
Has he sold or borrowed against his catalogue?
No, on the evidence available. There are zero security interests and zero mortgages recorded against his publishing company in the copyright register, with the same facets returning results for another entity in the same file, so the search demonstrably works. The trademark assignment database returns nothing for either of his companies as assignor or assignee, with a control returning unrelated companies. His publishing arrangements also changed in his favour: agreements from 1995 to 1998 name one major publisher alone, while those from 2006 onward name a major publisher jointly with his own company, which is the signature of a co-publishing deal with a retained share.
Do the Foo Fighters really earn over $1 million a show?
Not as a rule, and not as income. The concert industry's reported figures for one flagship venue show $678,540 across 15,228 tickets in February 2008, over $1,080,000 in November 2011, and a house record of $1,401,255 across 15,371 tickets in June 2021. Across a 2011 arena run of more than 30 North American dates the average was about $586,000, well under half the claim. And gross is not income: the promoter, the building, production, crew, support acts, agency and tax all come out first, and what remains is then split among band members.
How much is Dave Grohl worth?
We publish no figure. Estimates run $260 million, $320 million, $330 million and $350 million, and not one discloses a method. The two that attempt a breakdown refute themselves. One reverse-engineers from certification levels and attributes $17.56 million from the 1991 album to him personally, which the register makes impossible since the label rather than the band is the claimant on those masters. The other lists his property transactions, and they net to roughly $140,000 of realised gain, including one $900,000 loss, against a $330 million headline. Five independent registers returned structural negatives with passing controls, so no primary source states his wealth at all.
More music profiles like this
Browse a curated selection of other music profiles. Net-worth figures load when available; otherwise see the individual profile.
