Malta funds reality TV with taxpayer money

In a development that has sparked debate and concern across Malta's media and political landscape, the Malta Film Commission has allocated €1 million in taxpayer-funded grants to support the production of local reality television shows, including MasterChef, Love Island, and Liquorish. These funds, traditionally intended to support the growth of the local film industry and attract prestigious foreign productions, have now been redirected to entertainment programmes broadcast on national and partisan television networks.

The shifting priorities of the Malta Film Commission

The Malta Film Commission, under the leadership of Commissioner Johann Grech, has historically been tasked with promoting Malta as a hub for international film productions. By offering tax incentives and logistical support, the Commission has successfully attracted high-profile foreign film projects that contribute significantly to the local economy.

However, in 2024, the Commission made a controversial move: it issued direct grants totaling over €1 million to three local companies producing reality TV content. This change in direction has raised questions about the mandate of the Film Commission, its governance practices, and the use of public funds.

Recipients of the funding

The bulk of the funding was allocated to Greatt Company Ltd., a production firm owned by Anton Attard and Mark Grech—also known as “il-Guru.” Both individuals have strong political affiliations, having formerly been associated with the Nationalist Party. Greatt Company Ltd. received over €600,000 across three separate grants, primarily for their reality TV shows broadcast on national television.

An additional recipient of funding was Liquorish Productions Ltd., a company operated by Andrea Cassar and Warren Brimmer. Like Attard and Grech, Cassar and Brimmer began their careers at NET TV, the media arm of the Nationalist Party. Their flagship show, Liquorish, is now aired on Labour’s ONE TV. The amount they received from the Film Commission has not been disclosed in detail, but it contributes significantly to the total €1 million disbursed.

A third recipient, Media Exclusive, the production house behind Love Island Malta, received over €141,000. Media Exclusive is co-owned by popular television personality Ben Camille, along with Christina Gravina, Martina Zammit, and Lara Caruana.

Lack of transparency and accountability

The decision to subsidize reality television programming using funds originally earmarked for the film sector has drawn sharp criticism from media analysts and opposition figures. The Film Commission’s budget was never intended to support entertainment programmes of a commercial nature, especially when such productions are already likely to generate revenue through sponsorships and advertising.

More importantly, the lack of transparency surrounding the criteria for fund allocation has amplified public concern. As outlined in the Malta Film Commission’s official criteria, only projects that meet the requirements of a designated “cultural test” qualify for financial support. However, when The Shift reached out to Commissioner Grech to explain the cultural value of these reality shows, no response was given.

Similarly, Minister Owen Bonnici, who holds political responsibility over the Film Commission, has so far refused to comment on the issue or clarify the rationale behind subsidising commercially successful programming with public funds.

The cultural test and selective funding

The “cultural test” is intended to ensure that projects receiving government support contribute meaningfully to Maltese culture, history, or identity. This could include documentaries, educational series, or historical dramas—genres that traditionally struggle to find commercial viability but serve a public interest.

In contrast, reality shows like Love Island and Liquorish primarily focus on entertainment and have limited, if any, cultural significance. The fact that they are being funded under the same scheme as high-value cinematic productions undermines the original intent of the Commission’s budget.

Industry observers have also noted that the same producers receiving these Film Commission grants are beneficiaries of other government funding schemes. For example, Greatt Company Ltd. received an additional €100,000 from Malta Enterprise for the production of Shark Tank. This raises even more questions, as Malta Enterprise's mission is to attract foreign direct investment—not to support local TV programming.

Concerns over favoritism and political influence

Critics have pointed to a potential pattern of favoritism, suggesting that certain producers may be receiving preferential treatment due to their political connections or media affiliations. The three production companies awarded grants have notable ties to Malta’s two main political parties, the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party.

This overlap between media, politics, and public funding has led to allegations of cronyism and misuse of taxpayer money. Furthermore, questions remain about whether other deserving producers—especially those focused on cultural or educational content—are being excluded from such funding opportunities.

PBS and the hidden layer of public subsidies

Adding to the complexity of the situation is the Public Broadcasting Services (PBS), Malta’s national broadcaster. While PBS operates under a Public Service Obligation (PSO) scheme, the full details of how it allocates its funds are kept secret.

It is unclear whether additional subsidies are being funneled through PBS to the same reality TV programmes already receiving Film Commission grants. This double-funding would represent a serious breach of transparency and raise concerns about the fair distribution of public resources in the media sector.

The broader implications for Malta’s creative sector

This controversy comes at a time when Malta’s creative and cultural sectors are calling for more structured and transparent funding mechanisms. Many artists, filmmakers, and cultural institutions face financial constraints and lack the political connections that appear to facilitate access to government resources.

By allocating €1 million to entertainment programming without clear cultural merit, the Malta Film Commission risks undermining its credibility and alienating key stakeholders within the arts community. The lack of clarity on how funding decisions are made also discourages new entrants and limits the diversity of voices in Malta’s media landscape.

Calls for reform and independent oversight

The current situation has prompted calls for immediate reform of the Malta Film Commission’s grant allocation process. Media watchdogs and industry experts are urging the government to introduce independent oversight mechanisms, clear eligibility criteria, and public reporting requirements.

Greater transparency would help rebuild trust in the Commission and ensure that taxpayer money is used to genuinely promote Malta’s cultural and creative industries—not to support commercially driven reality television shows that already have the means to sustain themselves.

Conclusion

The Malta Film Commission’s decision to redirect €1 million in public funds to local reality television programmes has raised legitimate concerns about governance, transparency, and the purpose of public cultural subsidies. Without clear justification or transparency, this move appears to benefit a small circle of politically connected producers at the expense of the broader creative community.

As scrutiny grows, the Maltese public and cultural stakeholders will continue to demand accountability. The government must respond not only with answers but with substantive reforms that restore confidence in how cultural funding is allocated.

FAQs

What is the Malta Film Commission's primary purpose?
The Malta Film Commission is tasked with promoting Malta as a film destination, attracting foreign productions, and supporting the local film industry.

Why is the €1 million subsidy controversial?
The funds were meant for culturally significant or foreign film projects but were instead allocated to commercial reality TV shows.

Who are the main beneficiaries of the subsidies?
Greatt Company Ltd., Liquorish Productions Ltd., and Media Exclusive received the majority of the funding.

What is the ‘cultural test' for funding eligibility?
It is a criterion to ensure projects have cultural value to Malta. However, its application to reality shows is questionable.

Did the Film Commissioner respond to media inquiries?
No. Commissioner Johann Grech did not provide explanations regarding the cultural value of the funded reality shows.

Is Minister Owen Bonnici involved in the matter?
Yes, as he oversees the Malta Film Commission, but he has not publicly responded to questions about the funding.

What role does PBS play in this issue?
PBS may also be providing additional funding under a separate scheme, but details are not publicly disclosed.

Are these reality shows commercially successful?
Yes, most have sponsorship deals and advertising revenue, raising concerns over the need for public subsidies.

Has Malta Enterprise also funded reality TV?
Yes, it gave over €100,000 to Greatt Company Ltd. for Shark Tank, despite its focus on foreign investment.

Are there calls for change?
Yes, many are calling for greater transparency, oversight, and reforms to ensure public funds serve genuine cultural interests.