What do Doctor Who, Sherlock, Happy Valley and The Handmaid’s Tale have in common? How about Succession, Sex and the City, Gavin & Stacey, Slow Horses and Laura Donnelly?

If you haven’t yet spotted the connection, then a collection of theatres and companies may trigger a response. This could include the RSC, Shakespeare’s Globe, the Old Vic, the Young Vic, the Almeida and the Royal Court.

Still not there? If you were one of the judges of the Olivier Awards, you would immediately have recognised that the first list comprises TV shows that have featured selections for this year’s Best Actor (Sherlock gets in twice). The second is the female equivalent, while the named theatres have collectively not received a single nomination in either of these categories.

There are two conflicting conclusions that one might reach. First, that in order to be a leading actor worthy of winning an award it is necessary to make a big splash on TV (or, to be fair, in blockbuster movies from either side of the Atlantic). The less flattering interpretation is that Awards panels are heavily influenced by the screen résumés of those who have a chance of getting on to the shortlist.

One must also applaud the outstanding achievement of Laura Donnelly, who has worked on screen but is still primarily known for stage work. Somehow, this previous Olivier winner has managed to join the glitzy elite as the rare exception that proves the rule, thanks to her highly lauded performance in Jez Butterworth’s The Hills of California.

The judges also apparently have something of a penchant for shows where the stars are not impeded by too much company. Three of the selected performers were alone on stage, which seems heavily disproportionate.

This year’s selections confirm what many see as a worrying trend where producers seem intent on spending as much money as possible on TV and film stars, thereby neglecting vast swathes of the profession. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that if you have a solo show featuring the latest TV sensation, a bunch of other actors are missing out on an opportunity to work in the West End.

Young performers might also be squeezed out, restricting their opportunities to develop and potentially forcing them into other work, at best in the screen world or, somewhat more prosaically, cafés, restaurants or the ever-expanding world of logistics.

It is also hard to believe that there were no outstanding acting performances at any of the neglected companies named in the fourth paragraph of this article. These are leading theatres putting on a wide variety of work from some of the most talented writers, directors and actors in the industry today.

There have of late been several headline-grabbing articles from influential performers complaining about the high price of theatre tickets and this Awards panel appears to be keen to feed the frenzy.

If they are not willing to promote great actors with a lower profile, then it is almost inevitable that producers and audiences will clamour for more and more “stars”.

The whole point of awards is to attract attention to the deserving. In the ideal world, actors who have performed at, let us say, the Royal Court and the Young Vic would have made the list, encouraging prospective theatregoers to believe that these are the hottest tickets in town.

Instead, the majority of the acting nominations have gone to commercial theatres, while the Best New Play grouping features competition between the National Theatre, the National Theatre, the National Theatre and The Hills of California. This is not to denigrate the National, which should be at the forefront of such things but, once again, it would be encouraging to see a broader selection.

The Best Revival doesn’t widen the scope either and shows little imagination, featuring two solo shows and only a single play with more than four actors.

In passing, this column almost got pulled in favour of a piece about Sir Keir Starmer’s speech on Thursday explaining what Labour plans to do for the cultural sector. Since his message can broadly be summarised as offering sympathy and a desire for future change but no money, it sadly falls firmly into the category of wait and see.