
How Michael Jackson's estate went from debt to billions
When Michael Jackson died in 2009, he was over $US500 million in debt – now he is roughly $A768 million richer today.
The King of Pop died of cardiac arrest caused by acute Propofol intoxication 16 years ago at the age of 50.
At the time of his death, the singer owed money to more than 65 creditors, People reports.
According to The US Sun, the Grammy-winner struggled financially and became technically homeless – staying with friends' while his home, Neverland, went into foreclosure.
Since his passing, the 'Thriller' hitmaker's net worth has generated a staggering $US2 billion ($A3.07 billion).
MORE: 'Drastic': Who gets what in Katy, Bloom split
$10m dispute: Musk takes back star's home
Blow up over new Block amid Portelli sell off
Here's a closer look at how Jackson's empire financially turned around and what became of his properties.
How did Michael Jackson blow his money?
According to Celebrity Net Worth, the 'Moonwalker' star had earned between $US50 million and $US100 million ($A76 million and $A152 million) a year from 1985 until 1995 through touring, record sales, endorsements and merchandise.
But, the singer spent the money just as fast as he earned it. His lavish lifestyle reportedly cost about $US50 million ($A76 million) a year.
The Grammy-winner's then home, Neverland, cost $US19.5 million ($A29 million) to buy and hefty $US10 million ($A15 million) a year to maintain.
Jackson splashed $US35 million ($A53 million) remodelling the compound into his own amusement park.
He blew his fortune on gifts, travel, antiques, art, zoo animals, jewellery and furniture – as well as making huge donations to numerous charities.
The 'Billie Jean' hit maker forked out between $US50 and $US100 million ($A76 million and $A152 million) on movie and music projects that never got off the ground.
He used 50 per cent of his ownership stake in music/publishing company Sony/ATV as collateral, as well as taking out a $US270 million ($A411 million) loan.
However, the pop sensation managed to spend the entire $US270 million ($A411 million), plus an extra $US120 million ($A183 million) within a few short years.
Before his death, Jackson had been in the middle of preparing for his 'This Is It' tour, which added some strain on his finances.
The musician died close to the tour's inception, which left his estate financially liable for $US40 million ($A61 million) to the tour promoter, AEG.
How did Michael Jackson's empire go from debt to billions?
Following Jackson's death, his executers began working to stabilise the pop star's financial situation.
His lawyers went through personal home videos from the last year of the singer's life to produce a movie called 'This Is It'. To date, the film has made over $US500 million ($A762 million).
After the success of 'This Is It', Pepsi struck a deal to license Jackson's image.
Cirque du Soleil produced two Las Vegas shows around his music and image, where Jackson's estate is 50/50 partners with the entertainment company on both shows.
In 2023, Jackson's estate pulled in around $US115 million ($A175 million), largely thanks to the success of the Broadway show 'MJ: The Musical'.
Based on the music icon's life, the show raked in roughly $US85 million ($A129 million) just from ticket sales.
Last year, Sony Music Group reportedly purchased half of Jackson's music catalogue in a deal that valued his songs somewhere above $US1.2 billion ($A1.8 billion), according to Billboard.
The deal would also be the biggest ever for the work of a single musician, the BBC reported.
Sony's deal with Jackson's estate does not include royalties from the Broadway play and other theatrical productions featuring his music.
The news came just as an upcoming biopic about Jackson's life and career starring his nephew, Jaafar Jackson, is set to hit the big screen this year.
'The Wiz' actor's estate still earns a 50 per cent stake in the music licensing company Sony/ATV, which owns the rights to the Beatles catalogue. His share earns an eight-figure sum.
To date, the singer has sold over 750 million albums, including 35 million that were sold in the year following his death.
According to Parade, Jackson has been the highest-earning dead celebrity on the planet.
What happened to Michael Jackson's properties?
Neverland
Jackson purchased the property, originally named Zaca Laderas Ranch, and later known as Sycamore Valley, in 1988.
He had discovered the property after Beatle Paul McCartney had stayed there while they were making the music video for smash hit 'Say, Say, Say'.
The 'Who Is It' singer renamed the estate Neverland after the character of Peter Pan, the boy who never grew up.
The musician spent millions transforming the estate into a Disney-style amusement park.
He was said to have installed a railroad, merry-go-round, arcade and ferris wheel.
The property also had a zoo filled with tigers, crocodiles, elephants, giraffes, orangutans and a bear.
Neverland included a 1200 sqm residence, 50-seat movie theatre building, guest quarters, barn and a pool house.
The six-bedroom, nine-bathroom home spans a massive 1170 sqm and features an expansive master suit with private loft and two master bedrooms, as well as three separate guest homes.
Other luxurious features include two fireplaces, a butler's pantry, spa bath, sauna, and breathtaking mountain views.
It is also a short 8km drive to the nearest town, and two hours from LA.
Jackson lived at the property until 2005. After he was acquitted of child sex charges, he moved out of Neverland and relocated to Bahrain.
He transferred the property to Sycamore Valley Ranch Company LLC in 2008 to cover debts he had run up.
In 2015, the property was renamed Sycamore Valley Ranch and put on the market for $US100 million ($A128 million).
After five years and numerous price cuts, the sprawling property finally found a buyer.
Billionaire and friend of the late pop star Ron Burkle purchased the 2700-acre (1092Ha) estate for $US22 million ($A28 million).
It was considered a 'bargain' far below its initial asking price of $US100 million ($A128 million).
Trump Tower
Jackson once had a luxurious apartment in Trump Tower.
The four-bedroom, four-and-a-half bathroom condo, sat a few floors below Donald Trump's penthouse in the complex.
It boasts floor-to-ceiling windows, granite and marble floors, and a wood-panelled library — plus use of the building's doorman, concierge, valet and maid service.
Listing broker Dolly Lenz said neighbours claim Trump rented it to Jackson for a while, charging $US110,000 ($A167,000) per month in 1994, after Jackson had secretly married Lisa Marie Presley, Page Six reports.
The Donald and the King of Pop were buddies.
'I know him well. He lived in my building,' Trump previously told CNN. 'We never had one problem. He's a good guy.'
After Jackson's death, The US President wrote in TIME: 'He was an amazing guy, but beyond all else, he was the greatest entertainer I've ever known.'
Fans regularly camped out downstairs for a glimpse of MJ and Presley.
'Some residents say Jackson rented it because he would be able to go in the elevator directly to the garage and leave stealthily out of the building,' Lenz says. 'That was a big allure.'
Las Vegas
South Monte Cristo Way
Jackson lived in Las Vegas for about a year starting in 2006.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the King of Pop paid $US50,000 ($A76,000) a month in rent for the spacious pad.
The 17,000-square-foot mansion sits on a one-acre corner lot in the exclusive Lakes neighbourhood, just a 15-minute drive from the famous Strip.
The home is two stories with eight bedrooms – including a man-in-the-mirror-approved 2,500-square-foot master suite – and 7.5 bathrooms.
The focal point of the grand entryway is an indoor fountain and a curved staircase.
There's also a spiral staircase. Outside, there's a pool, spa, summer kitchen and tennis court.
The home hit the market this year for $US11 million ($A16 million), according to 1027vgs.com.
'Thriller Villa'
Jackson reportedly lived at the Las Vegas property with his three kids.
He never owned the home, but rented there from 2007 to 2009, selling agent Kristen Silberman of Sotheby's International Realty told Mansions Global.
Owner Aner Iglesias, a supermarket mogul, nicknamed the property 'Thriller Villa' after his famous tenant.
The almost 2,400 sqm home was built in 1952 under the guidance of Iglesias, who was inspired by Spanish architecture.
The lounge, reportedly Jackson's favourite room in the house, has a rustic yet regal feel with exposed wood beams, a large stone fireplace and a Murano glass chandelier.
The biggest showstopper in the 10-bedroom home is the 74-seat Medieval-style chapel, complete with handpainted sky scene ceiling and a Crown of Thorns chandelier.
When Jackson lived at the property he used the chapel as more of a theatre.
An elevator connects the top level of the house, which holds the large master suite complete with a bar.
Jackson is said to have used the original mirrors in the bedroom to practice his choreography.
The home also has a second bar, two kitchens and a huge barbecue area with multiple tables and chairs to cater large gatherings.
The luxe residence was last listed for sale in 2016 with a $US9.5 million ($A14.4 million) price tag.
Beverly Hills
Jackson's last home in Holmby Hills, Los Angeles, was leased to him by AEG, after he signed a deal for a comeback tour.
Situated in a secluded Los Angeles neighbourhood, the home boasts seven bedrooms, 13 bathrooms, and 12 fireplaces.
The residence features a wine cellar, theatre, tasting room, spa with a gym, elevator guesthouse, along with a pool and gardens.
The mansion where the King of Pop died finally sold for $US18.1 million ($A27.6 million) in 2012, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Parts of this story first appeared in The US Sun and was republished with permission.
MORE:The game Royal kids are forbidden to play
Ivanka's shock $2b move amid Trump exit
Swift's neighbours lose it over 'Taylor Tax'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Confusion over Justin Bieber's sudden name change
What does he mean? Justin Bieber's social media activity continues to baffle fans, with the Baby singer changing his Instagram name on Thursday. Instead of the @justinbieber handle the Grammy winner, 31, has had for years, his account is now @lilbieber, reports Page Six. The pop star did not draw attention to the name change or give any further context. He did, however, hint at the update on Tuesday when he posted black-and-white photos cuddling his and Hailey Bieber's 10-month-old son, Jack. 'lil bieber,' the songwriter captioned the social media upload, alongside a lock emoji. Justin's rep has yet to respond to Page Six's request for comment. Social media users poked fun at the name change, referencing the brief period in 2014 when Justin's username was @bizzle. 'Bro thinks he's a rapper,' one X user joked, with another speculating about an 'incoming mixtape.' A third quipped that Justin is in his 'Xila Maria River Red era,' referencing Britney Spears' Instagram name. Another urged Hailey, 28, to 'come get [her] man.' Justin and the model have been together on and off since 2016, getting married in 2018 and renewing their vows six years later while expecting their baby boy. Jack arrived in August 2020. Since the little one's birth, Justin and Hailey have sparked break-up rumours, only fuelled by Justin's social media activity — despite his wife's insistence to Vogue that they are still going strong. The American Music Award winner made headlines for Instagram uploads about 'transactional' relationships and the 'silent treatment' in recent months. He shares on the platform frequently and racked up 12 in-feed posts on Thursday alone, including one of Jack sitting in a cardboard box full of balls. Many of Justin's uploads referenced the viral line from his expletive-filled screaming match with the paparazzi earlier this month, during which he said, 'It's not clocking to you that I'm standing on business.' At the time, Justin also insisted, 'I love my wife, I love my family and you provoke me and it's sad.'

News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
Prince Harry's incredible 'disappearing act'
Is it harder to spy in California the Dusky Warbler or The Duke of Sussex? One's a rarely sighted migratory bird and the other is a blood prince but it's tricky to spot either of them these days. So far 2025 feels like it could be one of the quietest ever with Harry 's public footprint seeming to be on the wane. Consider: In 2019, his last year of official royalling, he undertook 201 engagements. This year he has undertaken charitable outings on about 17 days as far as is publicly known and at the time of writing. (That includes the ten days of the Invictus Games and on seven others including, for example, him discreetly thanking volunteer firefighters during the LA blazes.) The duke and the Dusky Warbler – neither are California natives and neither can be seen all that much. Back in 2022 the duke was being asked to address the UN General Assembly; now he is being tasked with holding his wife Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex's iPhone. The 40-year-old might contain multitudes but he appears to be increasingly keeping himself on the down low, aside from his willingness to still lob an occasional grenade over the palace walls. By and large the most common place to catch a glimpse of the duke these days is the duchess' Instagram feed thanks to her muscular posting regimen. In recent weeks we've been treated to seeing Harry's joy at a Disneyland jaunt with their kids and his unfortunately Dadish dance moves. But while Meghan is busy beavering away at building an empire (something her in-laws know a brutal thing or two about) off the back of tea bags and rose petals, selling out her second drop of As Ever products and launching her own rosé, Harry circa 2025 remains something of a blank. While the duchess is transitioning and evolving her brand into that of go-getting entrepreneur, it feels like duke is trapped in something of an identity crisis, stuck in a reputational no man's land. It's easier to define Harry today by what he is not. Royal? He might still have his titles but what are they but shiny appendages he can have printed on his reams of unused letterhead but the royal family appear to want to have about as much to do with him as with zero proof gin. His own father King Charles won't speak to him, as he himself told the BBC in May, giving the British broadcaster an explosive interview and laying bare the full extent of the family destruction wrought by the last few years. His brother Prince William, formerly 'burning' about his brother's energetic dishing of Windsor dirt is now 'indifferent' towards the duke, the Sunday Times revealed this week. His coterie of cousins are no longer photographed in his orbit and we are coming up, in September, on it being three years since the late Queen's funeral and the last time the Duke of Sussex was seen with anyone who knows the Buckingham Palace Wi-Fi code. But royalty you might say. That's defined by service. By steadfast doing and by helping those less fortunate with a certain indefatigable, unflagging Blitz-era spirit. Harry is by all accounts a man who cares and cares deeply, with him coming up on him having worked with some of his philanthropic organisations for two decades. Unfortunately he has faced controversy and setbacks on this front. In late March he and co-founder Prince Seeiso of Lesotho resigned from their charity, Sentebale, along with the entirety of the board, as part of a dispute with the chair, Dr Sophie Chandauka. She later accused Harry and the organisation of 'bullying and harassment at scale'. The UK's Charity Commission is investigating and Harry has spoken about his 'heartbreak' over the situation. In May, the charity African Parks, with which Harry has been involved since 2016, acknowledged that rangers employed by the organisation had committed 'human rights abuses' against indigenous people in the Congo. He has continued with this longtime associations, like speaking about mental health at the New York Times ' Dealbook Summit in December, supporting The Diana Awards in Las Vegas in May, and flying more than 10,000km to give a speech about his sustainable travel initiative Travelyst at a summit in China the same month. None of it really managed to make any sort of bigger splash or was particularly noticed by the wider world. The shining star in the duke's philanthropic quiver is the Invictus Games, the sporting event for wounded current and veteran service personnel that is the definition of 'life-changing'. The Games' ongoing success reflects what Harry can pull off – but he has not launched or done anything that even vaguely matches up to this since landing Stateside in 2020 and learning how to mispronounce 'tomato'. Unlike last year, the Sussexes have not taken themselves off for any sort of DIY 'royal' overseers tour either, visiting Nigeria and Colombia in 2024. Nor does Harry appear to be a paid worker these days. No podcasts, books, TV series, docos, films or even his own branded line of ducally-approved creatine seem to be in the pipeline. (Lucky those As Ever bits keep selling out.) With his story told, his family trauma catharted, and Oprah no longer out on the porch with a camera crew, what comes next? I suppose there's always bird watching. His country might no longer want him but the Dusky Warbler? Why not.

News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
Truth no bride will admit about Kylie Jenner's wedding guest move
When Kylie Jenner stepped out at Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez's wedding, she knew exactly what she was doing. Her plunging, corsetted 'icy blue' dress (which, to anyone with eyes, is white) was destined for a million paparazzi photos and a thousand online debates. In the age of Instagram, every celebrity outing is an opportunity to make a statement, and the Bezos-Sanchez wedding was no exception. It was all about the spectacle. Jenner's bride-adjacent outfit felt intentional and designed to go viral – and it did. Social media erupted. Vogue 's Instagram post of the look was flooded with comments like, 'Who the f**k wears white to a wedding?' Others called it 'tacky' and said, 'You can't buy class'. One commenter asked, 'Has Kylie never been to a wedding before?' Now, you might think this is a trivial matter about rich people and fashion faux pas. And it is. But as someone who got married this year, I can tell you the personal toll a move like this can take. At my April wedding, which, surprisingly, didn't cause an entire Italian city to grind to a halt and was not attended by the Kardashian-Jenner clan, one of my friends wore cream. I know what you're thinking. Cream isn't white. And you're right. But it was close enough to cause a double-take in photos. I gently let her know it made me uncomfortable, but she insisted it 'wasn't white,' so it wasn't going to be an issue. And while, yes, it technically wasn't white, it did make me wonder why, out of all the colours in the world, she had to pick that dress. Here's the thing. In this day and age, many wedding guests, whether they're Kylie Jenner or my friend, seem to forget the basics of wedding etiquette. They get caught up in the moment, in what they're wearing, in how they will look in photos. And I get it. Weddings are a rare chance to dress up, to be seen, and frankly, to look hot. But somewhere along the way, the unspoken rule of 'don't wear white' has been forgotten. In fear of being labelled a 'bridezilla', I let the issue go and didn't say anything more about it. When the big day arrived, I was so caught up in the excitement of getting married that I hardly noticed or cared what anyone else was wearing. I was too busy laughing, dancing, and trying not to make ugly crying faces as I walked down the aisle (I didn't quite succeed at that last one). But in the months afterwards, a sour taste lingered whenever I thought about that cream dress. It wasn't really about the dress itself – it was about the fact that, out of all the possible outfits, my friend chose to flirt with crossing the line, and even after I told her I wasn't okay with it, she persisted. And while everyone told me I was being petty to care, I couldn't shake the feeling that it was about more than just the dress. You really don't understand until you're a bride, groom, or anyone planning a wedding, for that matter. You (hopefully) only get one day in your life where everything is about you. When a friend, who could quite literally wear anything to your wedding, chooses to push boundaries with their outfit, it makes you wonder: why? Is it an innocent choice, or a subtle power play? In the words of Succession, 'Was this a snubbing?!' My friend told me it was the only dress she could find that made her feel confident, and while I want her to feel her best, surely, there's a wedding pecking order in terms of who deserves to feel the best. I even worry I seem vain for discussing this. But the comments on Vogue 's post validate me, suggesting that for most people, wearing white to a wedding is still a big no-no. If we give Jenner the benefit of the doubt and assume Sanchez approved her outfit, I'm still baffled as to why she chose to make a statement at that moment, on someone else's special day. But honestly, maybe I shouldn't be that surprised. For celebrities, controversy is just another form of publicity, and maybe Sanchez was even in on it to create more buzz for the wedding, not that it needed it. But for the rest of us, it can feel more like a personal slight. So, if you're invited to a wedding soon, please, please, please, think twice about wearing pale colours. You might just make someone feel a little less special on their big day.