Exactly one fee is documented in Woody Harrelson’s entire career from a named, dated trade report.
$1.25 million, guaranteed by a “pay or play” contract in early April 1992, along with top billing.
It was for a film he never made. He walked away three weeks later to take a different part — and the studio sued.
Woody Harrelson Net Worth: Why We Publish No Figure
- Estimates run $70m to $85m — one source, plus rounding, plus a breakdown built backwards
- Not one property price could be verified — every relevant register is blocked
- Our take: no verified figure. What the records give are roles and outcomes, never values. See our methodology.
The Contract, the Walk-Away, and the Lawsuit
The film archive records the sequence precisely, citing a trade report of 5 June 1992: a verbal agreement on 17 March, a written pay-or-play contract early the following month, $1.25 million and top billing.
On 23 April 1992 he left for another project. Whether the guarantee was ever paid is not documented — and probably was not, since the studio then sued him and the rival production for damages “in excess of $5 million”.
The settlement is reported twice, and the two accounts do not match:
| Source | Amount | Who paid |
|---|---|---|
| Newspaper, April 1993 | “upwards of $400,000” | The rival studio |
| Trade paper, October 1992 | “estimated between $400,000 and $500,000″ | Not stated |
Different sums, different dates, and a different answer to who was liable. Nothing anywhere shows Harrelson paying a penny himself.
A Studio Admitted in Court That He Had Gross Points
This is the most valuable thing in his file, and it surfaced only because somebody else sued the studio.
In 1995 the novelist behind the film he chose instead sued for unpaid net profits. The studio’s defence, as reported at the time, was that despite $250 million in worldwide ticket sales it had netted only $35.7 million — “partly due to the gross profit participation that had been paid to” the producer, the director, Harrelson and his two co-stars.
Gross participation is the most sought-after deal in the industry — a share of receipts before the accounting that makes films disappear into loss. The studio conceded he had one in its own defence.
His percentage is documented nowhere, and we will not borrow a co-star’s reported figure as a proxy. What we have is confirmation of the kind of deal, from a party with every reason not to overstate it.
A smaller find in the same archive: he is credited as co-writer of a song in a 1992 film. A writing credit creates a royalty stream. Amount unknown, but the entitlement is real.
A State Agency Verified a Million-Dollar Threshold
The strongest register finding in this profile comes from a licence application — and it exists because the state published the file under his own legal name.
He applied through a company formed in September 2015, paying a non-refundable $5,000 fee. The statute required applicants to prove at least $1,000,000, plus $100,000 per retail site, held under the company’s control and bank-documented for at least 90 days.
The published ranking table places his company ninth, at 420.00 points. Only the top three received licences. He did not get one.
But the ranking itself is the finding. The agency published a separate list of applicants who failed the financial threshold — and his company is not on it. It was scored on merit, which means it cleared the money test.
So a state regulator effectively certified that at least $1.1 million was available and bank-documented as of early 2016. That is an administratively verified floor, not an estimate — the only one anywhere in this profile.
Two limits. It attaches to the company, not to him personally, and the ownership percentages in the file are redacted.
The Dispensary Everyone Calls His
A West Hollywood cannabis shop is described throughout the press as his. The state licence register does not say that.
The licence is held by a consulting company, with three other people disclosed as its owners. A full-text search of the entire register for his surname returns zero results.
The control makes this a finding rather than a search failure: searching for each of those three owners’ names returns their records, so the register demonstrably indexes the ownership field.
The honest limit, stated plainly: California requires disclosure only above certain ownership and control thresholds. This refutes the ownership attribution as it appears in the register — not every conceivable economic interest.
A Boardroom Seat, and a Quiet Exit
A 2016 securities filing names him as a director of a Delaware technology company, alongside another well-known actor. The offering was fully placed at $16,565,026 across 38 accredited investors — with the note that part of the proceeds was satisfied by cancellation of indebtedness.
That is the company’s capital, not his money — neither an investment by him nor income to him. What it documents is the seat.
The company’s next filing, in October 2018, lists two other people and not him. The directorship ended somewhere in between, without announcement.
An Estimate Built Backwards
One site publishes a six-line breakdown totalling $80 million: acting, producing, property, investments, royalties, other.
Every line is a round million. Every line carries a “+”. And they sum to exactly the headline figure.
Genuine independent estimates do not land precisely on a pre-stated total. These items were derived from the answer, not the answer from the items.
The “+” signs make it worse: if each figure means at least, then $80 million is a floor — yet it is presented as a point estimate with a ±$5 million range around it. Those two claims cannot both hold.
And a $45 million “acting earnings” line rests on no individual figure at all. The page names four productions and attaches a number to none of them.
The underlying source publishes $70 million and cites exactly one fee — $5.5 million for a 1995 film, with no source, no date, and no appearance in any primary record we could find.
The sharpest test: not one of these estimates mentions the 1992 contract, the gross participation a studio conceded in court, the board seat, or the state ranking. None of the evidence appears in them, and none of their evidence appears anywhere else.
What Could Not Be Established
Any property price — and this is a deliberate refusal. Three purchases circulate: $1.8m, $1.95m and $4.5m. Every relevant register is blocked — the state land records, two company registers and a city portal all refuse access. Blocked is not empty, and repeating a press figure while the register is shut would mean passing off a barrier as a source. We publish no property values.
His sitcom pay: inconclusive, not absent. No contemporaneous trade report with a per-episode figure for him could be reached — because the trade archive for those years sits behind a paywall. What circulates is a co-star’s figure, silently applied to the ensemble.
Controlled nulls that do hold: no trademark tribunal case, no charitable foundation in his name, no insider ownership filing, and no federal court case where he is a party to a money claim — each tested against a search that returned results.
One caveat on our own null: the charity register indexes organisation names, not officers. A board seat at someone else’s foundation would not appear.
The Bottom Line
Documented: a $1.25 million guarantee for a film he left, a $5 million claim settled by somebody else, a studio’s court admission that he held gross points, a $5,000 application fee, a ninth-place ranking that cleared a million-dollar threshold, and a board seat that ended quietly.
Not documented: a single fee after 1992, a single property price, a single ownership percentage.
The records give roles and outcomes. They never give values. An estimate precise to $5 million, for a man whose only verified figures are a fee he probably never collected and an application charge, is not a valuation.
Sources
- The $1.25m pay-or-play contract, and the walk-away three weeks later
- The $5m claim, the contradictory settlements, and the gross participation admitted in court
- His archive record: 9 titles in scope, 40 marked outside it
- The licence application published in his legal name
- Ranked ninth at 420.00 points — and not on the failed-threshold list
- The California licence register — three other owners, and zero hits for him
- Named as a director, 2016 — a $16,565,026 placement
- The 2018 filing that no longer lists him
- The company’s complete filing history — only those two
- $70 million, and one unsourced fee
- The six-line breakdown that sums to its own headline
Money Timeline
| Date | Type | Event | Amount | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1992-04-01 | Payday | $1.25 million guaranteed - for a film he never made | The only fee documented anywhere in his career from a named, dated trade report: a pay-or-play contract guaranteeing this sum and top billing, following the success of his hit that March. On 23 April 1992 he left for another project. Whether the guarantee was ever paid is not documented, and probably was not, since the studio promptly sued. No amount is booked here because none is shown to have been received - which is the point. source | |
| 1992-06-05 | Lawsuit | $5 million claimed - and settled by somebody else | The studio sued him, the rival production company and two of its principals for damages in excess of this figure, covering pre-production, advertising, casting and legal costs. The settlement is reported twice and the accounts diverge: a newspaper in April 1993 says the rival studio paid upwards of $400,000, while a trade paper in October 1992 describes a settlement estimated between $400,000 and $500,000 without naming the payer. Different sums, different dates, different answers on liability - and nothing showing money leaving his own pocket. source | |
| 1995-09-13 | Deal | A studio conceded in court that he held gross points | The most valuable finding in his file, and it surfaced only because somebody else sued the studio. Defending a claim for unpaid net profits, the studio argued that despite $250 million in worldwide ticket sales it had netted only $35.7 million - partly due to the gross profit participation that had been paid to the producer, the director, Harrelson and his two co-stars. Gross participation is the most sought-after arrangement in the industry, taken before the accounting that makes films disappear into loss. His percentage is documented nowhere, and a co-star's reported figure is not a usable proxy. What is confirmed is the kind of deal, by a party with every reason to understate it. source | |
| 2016-06-24 | Deal | $5,000 spent, ranked ninth - and a million-dollar threshold cleared | $5K | He applied for a dispensary licence in his own legal name through a company formed in September 2015, paying this non-refundable fee. The statute required proof of at least $1,000,000 plus $100,000 per retail site, held under the company's control and bank-documented for at least 90 days. The published table ranks his company ninth at 420.00 points; only the top three received licences. The ranking is itself the finding: the agency published a separate list of applicants who failed the financial threshold, and his company is not on it - so it cleared the money test. An administratively verified floor rather than an estimate, though it attaches to the company rather than to him, and the ownership percentages in the file are redacted. source |
| 2016-06-30 | Deal | $16,565,026 placed - a board seat, not his money | $16.6M | A securities filing names him as a director of a Delaware technology company alongside another well-known actor. The offering was fully placed at this amount across 38 accredited investors, with the note that part of the proceeds was satisfied by cancellation of indebtedness. It is the company's capital, neither an investment by him nor income to him - what the document establishes is the seat. The company's next filing, in October 2018, lists two other people and not him, so the directorship ended in between without announcement. source |
| 2022-04-18 | Deal | The dispensary called his is licensed to three other people | The West Hollywood shop described throughout the press as his is licensed to a consulting company, with three other individuals disclosed as its owners. A full-text search of the entire state register for his surname returns zero results. The control makes it a finding rather than a search failure: searching each of those three owners' names returns their records, so the register demonstrably indexes the ownership field. The honest limit is that California requires disclosure only above certain ownership and control thresholds - this refutes the attribution as it stands in the register, not every conceivable interest. source | |
| 2026-08-04 | Deal | A $80 million breakdown that sums to its own headline | Six lines - acting, producing, property, investments, royalties, other - every one a round million, every one carrying a plus sign, all summing to exactly the pre-stated total. Genuine independent estimates do not land precisely on the answer. The plus signs compound it: if each item means at least, then $80 million is a floor, yet it is presented as a point estimate with a range around it. The $45 million acting line rests on no individual figure at all. The underlying source publishes $70 million and cites exactly one fee, for a 1995 film, with no source and no appearance in any primary record. None of these estimates mentions the 1992 contract, the gross participation, the board seat or the state ranking. 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.
What is Woody Harrelson's net worth in 2026?
No verified figure exists. Estimates run from $70 million to $85 million, and the apparent narrowness is misleading - it comes from one source plus rounding rather than from independent estimates. The most detailed breakdown publishes six lines totalling $80 million, every one a round million, every one carrying a plus sign, and all of them summing to exactly the headline figure. Genuine independent estimates do not land precisely on a pre-stated total: the items were derived from the answer rather than the answer from the items. The plus signs make it worse, because if each figure means at least, then $80 million is a floor - yet it is presented as a point estimate with a range around it.
What is the only documented fee in Woody Harrelson's career?
$1.25 million, guaranteed along with top billing by a pay-or-play contract in early April 1992, and recorded in the film archive citing a trade report of 5 June 1992. It was for a film he never made: he left the project on 23 April 1992 to take a different part. Whether the guarantee was ever paid is not documented, and probably was not, since the studio then sued him and the rival production for damages in excess of $5 million. No fee of his after 1992 could be verified from any named, dated source.
Did Woody Harrelson have to pay damages for breaking that contract?
There is no evidence he paid anything himself, and the two accounts of the settlement do not agree. A newspaper report of April 1993 says the rival studio paid upwards of $400,000 to the claimant. A trade paper of October 1992 describes a settlement estimated between $400,000 and $500,000 without naming who paid. Different sums, different dates, and a different answer on liability - with nothing anywhere showing money leaving his own pocket.
Did Woody Harrelson get a share of a film's gross?
Yes for one film, confirmed by the studio itself in litigation. When the novelist behind the 1993 film sued for unpaid net profits, the studio's defence was that despite $250 million in worldwide ticket sales it had netted only $35.7 million - partly due to the gross profit participation that had been paid to the producer, the director, Harrelson and his two co-stars. Gross participation is the most sought-after arrangement in the industry, a share of receipts taken before the accounting that makes films vanish into loss. His percentage is documented nowhere, and we will not borrow a co-star's reported figure as a proxy. What is established is the kind of deal, conceded by a party with every reason not to overstate it.
Does Woody Harrelson own a cannabis dispensary?
Not according to the state licence register. The West Hollywood shop described throughout the press as his is licensed to a consulting company, with three other people disclosed as its owners, and a full-text search of the entire California register for his surname returns zero results. The control confirms this is a finding rather than a search failure: searching for each of those three owners' names returns their records, so the register demonstrably indexes the ownership field. One honest limit - California requires disclosure only above certain ownership and control thresholds, so this refutes the attribution as it stands in the register rather than every conceivable interest. Separately in Hawaii he applied for a dispensary licence in his own legal name through a company he part-owned, paid a non-refundable $5,000 fee, and was ranked ninth at 420.00 points when only the top three received licences.
More influencer profiles like this
Browse a curated selection of other influencer profiles. Net-worth figures load when available; otherwise see the individual profile.
