This study explores theatre within the logic of the market, positioning it as a social form of capital. The central question investigates how theatre, through its processes of production, distribution, and consumption, functions as a mechanism for the circulation and transformation of capital, and how these processes shape both form and meaning. The theoretical framework integrates Marxist, Bourdieusian, and post-Marxist traditions, while employing critical discourse analysis to examine power relations, patterns of valuation, and institutional mechanisms. The data include classical theoretical texts, contemporary critical studies, and secondary case studies (2009–2024) in the political economy of performance, encompassing both the structural aspects of theatre production and the embodied dimensions of performance. The findings reveal that five types of capital _economic, cultural, social, symbolic, and embodied_ operate in an interwoven manner in theatre’s production and consumption, remaining mutually convertible. These forms of capital not only provide resources and opportunities but also shape aesthetic structures, modes of organizing performances, and the positioning of the performer’s body. At the same time, theatre demonstrates capacities to distance itself from market logic, for instance through formal ruptures, collaborative modes of production, and value creation beyond capitalist frameworks. Such practices show that theatre, while deeply embedded in market mechanisms, is not fully determined by them and can generate spaces of resistance and experimentation. In this sense, the analysis highlights how theatre both reflects and contests the dominant economic order, oscillating between commodification and critical potential. Furthermore, the study emphasizes that the interdependence of capital forms extends beyond the artistic field, linking theatre to broader socio-economic configurations. Economic capital sets limits on accessibility, infrastructure, and sustainability, while cultural and symbolic capital influence processes of canonization and legitimacy. Social and embodied capital, meanwhile, foreground networks of collaboration, the lived experience of performance, and the corporeal dimensions of artistic labor. Understanding these entanglements offers a nuanced perspective on how theatre contributes to, and is shaped by, wider circuits of value. The research also underscores the importance of considering policy frameworks and institutional practices. Public funding systems, private sponsorship, and market-oriented distribution channels directly affect the ways in which theatre is produced, circulated, and consumed. These mechanisms create both opportunities and structural inequalities, influencing which aesthetic forms gain visibility and which remain marginalized. By drawing attention to such dynamics, the study situates theatre within the larger debates on cultural policy and the governance of artistic labor. The contribution of this research lies not only in offering a typology of capitals but also in demonstrating how these forms are constantly negotiated, converted, and contested in the theatrical field. This approach provides a lens to reassess the relationship between aesthetics and economics, showing that artistic creation is never independent of material conditions, but equally that economic imperatives cannot fully contain the imaginative and transformative capacities of performance. Ultimately, the study establishes a conceptual framework for understanding the political economy of theatre and invites interdisciplinary engagement across cultural studies, sociology of art, and performance studies.