Shadow economy of OnlyFans managers exposed as abuse and profit collide

An in-depth investigation reveals a hidden underworld within the OnlyFans ecosystem, where male managers operate as gatekeepers and profit from the labor of young women who publish explicit content. The reporting documents coercive tactics, extortion schemes and a veneer of luxury that belies a business model built on the vulnerabilities of creators and the pressure to produce more content.

OnlyFans, which hosts roughly 300 million users and four million creators, has grown into a multibillion-pound enterprise. The platform says it takes about a fifth of creators’ earnings; in practice, many managers also siphon a large share of what remains, taking around 60 percent of the portion left after the site’s cut. The result is a revenue structure in which top performers can amass six-figure monthly incomes, while many creators eye a fraction of that after accounting for management fees and other costs.

At the heart of the piece are profiles such as a 23-year-old man from Wales who now lives in Dubai and flaunts a Porsche, a helicopter and a private yacht as he markets himself as a manager to OnlyFans creators. He says his “digital agency” earns millions by helping clients plan and schedule content, handling administration and growing fanbases, while taking a hefty cut of earnings. Some describe such figures as savvy entrepreneurs; others see them as modern-day pimps, preoccupied with lifestyle and status as much as profits.

The services offered by these managers go beyond simple guidance. Creators report relentless outreach from would-be managers, with pitches that promise to double or triple income, often with no upfront fees. Some accounts describe contracts that push for more explicit material, longer shooting schedules and burnout. In several cases, financial arrangements place control of earnings in the manager’s hands, a tactic described in public videos where one self-styled manager explains taking ownership of funds as a way to pressure creators into higher payouts.

There is a darker side to the industry. Reports from creators describe coercive tactics, blackmail and the intimidation of sharing private material with fans, friends or family. Some chatrooms discuss “coaching” and “education” channels that promise access to strategies to recruit and exploit more creators, with price tags for admission. Telegram groups occasionally discuss “Pimp School” and a supposed “PHD”—short for pimping hoes degree—where men exchange tips on approaching women and grooming them for the sex industry. In these spaces, creators are treated as commodities, with listings detailing a creator’s following and the kind of content they are willing to produce, while payments flow to the middlemen rather than the women themselves.

The repercussions extend beyond digital abuse. Domestic abuse charities say that while platforms can empower some creators, misaligned incentives and weak moderation allow harmful behavior to flourish. Refuge reports that women have faced coercion to perform sex acts on camera and that the combination of online exposure and exploitative control can mirror offline patterns of coercive control, with long-lasting emotional and financial consequences. End Violence Against Women has echoed concerns that misogynistic online ecosystems, reinforced by extreme engagement-driven algorithms, contribute to an environment that enables harm against women.

Some elements of the landscape are legally perilous. Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, directing, coercing or profiting from another person’s sexual content can amount to controlling prostitution, while recruiting others for online sexual exploitation could fall under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The latter carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment in the most serious cases. The Daily Mail’s investigation notes that several individuals operating as OFMs skirt gray areas, though legal risk exists for those who cross lines.

OnlyFans says it has checks to curb exploitative behavior, such as ensuring payments go into creators’ verified bank accounts and maintaining a moderation team to verify that creators retain control over their content. The company did not respond to requests for comment about the allegations. Advocates say platforms bear responsibility for addressing abuse and should strengthen verification, improve payout structures and crack down on networks that prey on vulnerable creators, while reminding creators of their rights.

The report also situates the phenomenon within a broader milieu of misogynistic online influence. Figures such as Andrew Tate—who has been charged with rape, human trafficking and forming an organized crime group to sexually exploit women—have been linked in various ways to the tactics praised in some OFM spaces. Tate’s public courses, promoted on messaging apps, have been described as teaching men how to recruit and groom women for the sex industry. Other individuals cited in the coverage have built networks that encourage recruitment and the escalation of subscriber numbers, often at the expense of women’s safety and dignity.

Supporters of creators emphasize that help exists and that victims can seek recourse. Refuge says the harm from technology-facilitated abuse is real and can reflect patterns of coercive control seen offline, while End Violence Against Women argues that online misogyny contributes to an environment that normalizes exploitation. Advocates urge stronger platform accountability and clearer legal enforcement to deter trafficking and exploitation, alongside improved mechanisms for reporting abuse and securing remedies for those affected.

While some managers operate legitimate businesses that support performers, the intersection of glamour, money and incentive structures on digital platforms can create serious risk for creators who may not recognize the warning signs early enough. The investigation underscores the need for robust safeguards from platforms, clearer transparency around earnings, and more effective legal remedies to protect vulnerable women from coercive and predatory practices as the market for online adult content continues to expand.