Perry never got paid more than Schwimmer. And vice versa. For the record, Anniston never got paid more than Cox who never got paid more than Kudrow or LeBlanc.
Before a single script of the show was filmed, the cast came together to map out how their relationships would evolve. The idea was to create a situation where they weren’t in competition. As a unit, they agreed on three major things:
- The show did not and would never have a “star.” (Hence, actor credits in alphabetical order, women first.) [EDIT: Women, as pointed out by Jeff Webber. Thanks.]
- No actor would ever accept a “lead” award nomination. They insisted the industry see their performances as “supporting” which is why no actor was ever recognized as “Best Actor in a Comedy Series” at the Emmys. [EDIT: Another gaffe on my part. Apparently, tho the cast had agreed to the “supporting” status, there are any number of cast members nominated for “Lead.”]
- Every actor would always make equal pay. If one got a raise, they all got the same raise. [EDIT: As mentioned many times in the comments, salary discussions among the cast didn’t happen until the third season. Forgive me for going on memory on this fact and not verifying my facts.]
That last point meant at no time during the production did any actor make more than any other. That’s why no one ever argued about paychecks.
I’m not sure where you got this Parsons versus Galecki thing.
Galecki is known for not having any problem with his co-star getting all the shine as TBBT blew up. And they never had beef about money because the leads (Galecki, Parsons, Cuoco) were paid the same.
I don’t know if the show started out that way. However, after Parsons essentially took the spotlight in a show that Galecki was hired to play lead, payouts were rebalanced ASAP. And from that point forward, the threesome never had to feel slighted. It’s understood they were great friends and still are. The entire cast is.
So, I’d love to know where you got the idea there was tension on set.