Drake Bell claims “most” Nickelodeon stars “don’t get residuals” for their shows

Nickelodeon’s hidden paycheck problem

Drake Bell, the former Nickelodeon star, just dropped a bombshell that’s turning heads across the internet. In a recent interview, he revealed a surprising truth about how child actors are paid, especially when it comes to reruns and streaming.

Fans assumed the stars of hit shows were set for life, but Bell’s comments suggest otherwise. What’s really going on behind the scenes of those iconic kids’ shows?

Drake bell raises the issue of residuals

Drake Bell, known from Drake & Josh, recently drew attention by stating that most Nickelodeon stars don’t get residual payments for their shows. He explained that while their work remains popular, the actors often receive no ongoing compensation.

Bell said this situation applied not only to him but to many of his colleagues who grew up under Nickelodeon’s contracts. His remarks highlight a financial problem affecting former child actors across the network.

Understanding residual payments

Residuals are payments actors receive when their shows are rerun, streamed, or released on DVD. Bell clarified that guest stars, even those with small roles, still get checks from repeat airings.

In contrast, lead actors like himself and Josh Peck receive little or nothing after the original broadcast. This contrast underscores how Nickelodeon’s framework benefits some but excludes key cast members.

Bell’s personal financial struggle

Even though Drake was part of a major series, he revealed in July 2025 that he still struggles to pay rent. He shared how shocking it was to discover that despite the show’s ongoing success on streaming platforms, he hadn’t made any residual income.

This personal detail highlights the long-term financial consequences of lacking residual rights. It also shines a light on how child actors may face economic hardship later in life.

Why child actors miss out

Bell suggested that because he was contracted as a minor, Nickelodeon executives structured deals to avoid paying future residuals. He said behind those deals were “a lot of evil corrupt people” who prioritized profits.

The system, he implies, was built to benefit networks and avoid costly residual payouts. These contracts can leave actors without financial protection once the show’s initial run ends.

Guest stars vs. lead actors

In Bell’s words, actors with only a couple of lines still receive residual checks while main cast members get nothing. This contradiction raises questions about how Nickelodeon assigns financial value.

Why should minor appearances yield payment while major roles go uncompensated? Bell pointed out this absurd imbalance to emphasize how unfair the structure is.

Josh Peck’s confirmation

Josh Peck, Drake’s co-star, previously confirmed he also never received residuals from their four-season hit. In 2023, Peck shared that he earned around $15,000 per episode and still wasn’t paid for reruns.

That means even popular streaming hits like Drake & Josh provide no ongoing income for their stars. Peck’s confirmation validates Bell’s claims and sheds light on a broader network pattern.

Fans react to Bell’s claim

Fans were shocked by Bell’s statement, with many saying they never imagined child actors would be cut off financially. One viewer said they were “so sorry” and urged Bell to fight for his rights.

Others blamed the actors’ parents for agreeing to contracts without knowing the consequences. The online reactions highlight support and growing awareness of this issue.

Comparisons to other networks

Fans also wondered if this lack of residuals is a problem unique to Nickelodeon or common across child‑centered networks like Disney. Bell’s comments prompted conversation about fairness and labor rights for young actors industry‑wide.

The unknown remains whether other companies treat child performers similarly. This question shows the importance of examining how all networks compensate youth talent.

The podcast

Bell made his claim on the “Unplanned Podcast” on July 2, 2025, where he spoke frankly about his finances. The platform allowed him to share details that mainstream interviews often miss.

Using the podcast, he reached audiences on streaming platforms, amplifying his voice. His openness reflects a trend where actors now speak publicly about unfair industry practices.

Context in child actor contracts

Child performers often sign deals that trade future income for upfront compensation. Bell’s story suggests Nickelodeon may have designed contracts to minimize long-term payouts.

This approach may protect networks financially but can leave actors unsupported later. His claim invites review of how child actor deals are structured.

Nickelodeon’s silence on issue

As of now, Nickelodeon has made no formal public response to Bell’s claim about residual payments. This lack of comment follows a broader trend of non-disclosure around child actor compensation.

Networks tend to avoid drawing attention to contractual loopholes. Bell’s statement may be pushing the conversation into public and legal domains.

Impact on child actors’ futures

Without residuals, child actors may find it difficult to sustain earnings after shows end. Bell’s story highlights how a hit show does not guarantee long-term income.

Unlike adult actors who can rely on syndication and streaming deals, former child stars may lack that cushion. The issue underlines the need for reform in entertainment labor protections.

Calls for legal reform

Bell’s revelations may fuel discussion among labor advocates, unions, and lawmakers. They could push for contracts mandating residuals or protections for minor actors.

Legal reforms may include mandatory escrow, fair profit sharing, or capped exploitative clauses. These changes would help future generations avoid similar financial pitfalls.

Historical precedents

Adult actors, especially in prime‑time, have long benefited from residual payments secured by SAG‑AFTRA. But child actors often fall outside these benefits.

Bell’s case may be one of the first major child‑actor examples gaining national attention. Historical oversight may be shifting under modern scrutiny.

In other news, Karla Sofía Gascón issues an apology after backlash over past posts. Check it out.

Streaming era issues

Streaming platforms like Netflix and Paramount+ now generate ongoing revenue from older shows. Bell points out how Drake & Josh still brings in money in 2025.

Yet actors like Bell and Peck see no part of that. Their exclusion exemplifies outdated contract models in a new media world.

Talking about child stars, Miley Cyrus reveals a health issue behind her raspy voice and rare tours.

If you liked this post, give it a thumbs up!

Read More From This Brand:

• Jussie Smollett on 2019 Hate Crime Hoax Aftermath
• Ryan Reynolds & Blake Lively Skip Globes Amid Legal Drama
• Oscar 2025 Was a Wild Ride, and We Have Receipts

Don’t forget to follow us for more exclusive content right here on MSN.

If you like this story, you’ll LOVE our Free email newsletter. Join today and be the first to receive stories like these.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.