Can FANOMENON Represent All of K-Pop When the Big Four Run It?

South Korea’s planned global festival promises opportunities for smaller agencies, but its structure raises questions about who will shape K-pop’s next international stage.

By Cena Haddad

South Korea is preparing to launch one of its most ambitious K-culture events. Scheduled for December 2–12, 2027, FANOMENON will combine K-pop concerts, a fandom-centered awards ceremony, and exhibitions from across the country’s cultural industry. Plans also call for an international expansion beginning in Los Angeles in 2028.

Taking place across Seoul Arena and KINTEX, the event is expected to attract approximately 520,000 visitors – including 200,000 from outside South Korea – and generate an economic impact exceeding 1 trillion won.

FANOMENON will be operated by a joint venture established by HYBE, SM Entertainment, YG Entertainment, and JYP Entertainment. The four agencies reportedly contributed equally and hold equal voting power in the company, which will oversee the festival’s planning, production, operations, and intellectual property.

Their involvement is understandable. Few companies possess comparable access to globally recognized artists, international partners, production resources, and touring infrastructure. An event intended to compete with festivals such as Coachella requires experience at that level.

However, FANOMENON is being presented as more than a showcase for the Big Four. With government participation and public-interest goals built into its foundation, it is intended to promote K-pop and Korean culture as a whole. That raises a necessary question: Can the event represent the wider industry when its most influential decisions remain concentrated among the four companies that already hold the greatest power?

An Early Question of Ownership

Questions surrounding FANOMENON emerged before the joint venture was formally established. JYP Entertainment initially filed for trademarks connected to the festival, even though the project was developed through the Presidential Committee on Popular Culture Exchange, co-chaired by JYP founder Park Jin-young and Culture Minister Choi Hwi-young.

The filing prompted accusations of preferential treatment and concerns that one private company could control intellectual property created through a government-linked initiative. During a National Assembly audit, Park acknowledged problems with the filing process while denying that JYP intended to profit independently from the project.

The arrangement was later revised. Under an agreement signed in October, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and the FANOMENON joint venture will each hold 50% of the festival’s domestic and international trademark rights. The agreement restricts how those trademarks may be used and provides for legal consequences if its terms are violated.

That correction matters, but the original filing created an early problem of trust. FANOMENON is asking artists, fans, and smaller companies to view it as an industry-wide initiative rather than a private opportunity for K-pop’s largest agencies. Public scrutiny appears to have produced stronger protections, but accountability should not depend on controversy emerging first. If FANOMENON is intended to serve the broader K-pop ecosystem, transparency surrounding its ownership, finances, and decision-making cannot be an afterthought.

A Lineup Quota Does Not Guarantee Equal Influence

Officials have announced several measures intended to prevent FANOMENON from becoming an exclusive showcase for the Big Four. Artists represented by HYBE, SM, YG, and JYP will reportedly be limited to 30% of the festival’s performers. Profits will be reinvested into future events rather than distributed to shareholders, and the joint venture must follow annual public-interest guidelines to operate under the FANOMENON name.

The government has also proposed approximately 15 billion won for related programs aimed at attracting international visitors and supporting small and medium-sized K-culture companies. Officials maintain that this funding will not cover the concerts themselves, which are expected to rely on ticket sales, sponsorships, broadcasting rights, and other private revenue.

These safeguards are a meaningful starting point. The lineup cap creates room for artists outside the largest agencies, while reinvesting profits could help FANOMENON grow beyond a one-time event. However, representation onstage is not the same as influence behind the scenes.

The joint venture’s board includes representatives from each participating agency, but no comparable role for smaller entertainment companies has been announced. Without a formal voice in the planning process, those agencies could participate without influencing artist selection, scheduling, promotion, revenue opportunities, or the festival’s long-term direction.

That distinction matters in an industry already shaped by structural inequality. A recent study of 1,159 idol groups found that nearly 90% debuted through small and mid-sized agencies. Those groups remained active for an average of 3.6 years, compared with 7.4 years for groups from major agencies.

Smaller companies create much of K-pop’s variety, but they rarely receive equal access to the infrastructure supporting long-term growth. FANOMENON could provide valuable exposure, but a place on its lineup will not correct that imbalance by itself.

Representation Must Extend Beyond the Stage

FANOMENON could become a meaningful platform for Korean artists and companies. The Big Four bring the global reach and operational experience needed to establish the festival internationally, while government involvement can support tourism, safety, and access for smaller participants. Their involvement is not inherently the problem. Their influence is why stronger accountability is necessary.

The festival should publish clear criteria for selecting artists and participating businesses. Smaller agencies should receive a formal voice through an independent advisory body or rotating representation within the planning process. Organizers should also disclose how performance times, promotional resources, exhibition opportunities, and revenue are distributed – not merely the percentage of artists represented by each category of agency.

Public reports following each event should document the number of smaller companies included, the visibility and support their artists received, and whether their participation generated opportunities beyond the festival itself.

A 30% cap may prevent the Big Four from dominating the lineup, but it does not resolve concerns about who will shape the festival’s direction. If FANOMENON intends to represent K-pop as a wider cultural industry, inclusion must extend to its leadership and decision-making – not only its stages.

FANOMENON does not need to exclude K-pop’s largest agencies to serve its smaller ones. It must, however, prove that their involvement will build a wider platform rather than reinforce the hierarchy already shaping the industry. Its global ambitions are clear. Whether its structure can support the full range of artists responsible for K-pop’s growth remains the more important test.