Malta Film Incentives Face Scrutiny Over Reality TV Rebates

Malta’s citizens are increasingly shouldering the financial responsibilities for a series of high-cost events and productions that arguably fall outside the conventional parameters of cinema. At the heart of this issue is Film Commissioner Johann Grech, whose policy decisions have significantly altered the allocation of state-sponsored film incentives.

In addition to his involvement in high-expenditure events like the Mediterrane Film Festival, recent findings suggest that Grech has overseen the diversion of public resources to support domestic reality television shows. While these may enrich Malta’s entertainment offerings, their classification under schemes meant to support the film industry has sparked considerable debate.

Disclosures in Parliament reveal primary beneficiaries

Parliamentary documentation, disclosed in response to inquiries by MP Julie Zahra, outlines how a small number of production companies have received a substantial portion of public film rebate funds. These incentives, issued through the Malta Film Tax Incentives framework, were initially designed to encourage foreign productions to film in Malta, thereby stimulating the local economy and showcasing the island internationally.

Under revised eligibility criteria introduced during Commissioner Grech’s term, the programme has expanded to cover certain types of local productions, including reality television.

One of the principal beneficiaries is Greatt Company Ltd, which is linked to former members of the Nationalist Party, Anton Attard and Mark Grech (also known as il-Guru). The company has filed production cost claims for:

• More than €2.5 million for Big Brother Malta (Season 1)
• Around €1.3 million for X Factor Malta (Season 4)
• Just under €1 million for MasterChef Malta

Although the rebate scheme reimburses only a percentage of total expenses, Greatt Company Ltd is expected to receive close to €2.8 million in public funding. This is in addition to €300,000 already allocated for projects including The Voice Kids Final and Malta’s Got Talent.

These figures prompt critical evaluation of how state resources are being deployed, and whether the use of funds for entertainment content aligns with the original objectives of the incentive programme.

Additional companies benefiting from public rebates

Beyond Greatt Company Ltd, significant funding is also set aside for Media Exclusive Ltd, a firm founded by well-known Maltese media figures Ben Camille, Christian Gravina, Martina Zammit, and Lara Caruana. This company is expected to receive approximately €1.4 million in rebates for producing the first two seasons of Love Island Malta and a local version of Family Feud.

Furthermore, Liquorish, a company linked to Andrea Cassar and Warren Brimmer—both formerly affiliated with NET TV, a Nationalist Party-associated station—is anticipated to receive an additional €120,000. Their reality series Liquorish, now produced for ONE TV, associated with the Labour Party, is among the eligible productions.

Changes to incentive structure during Grech’s administration

The state-backed film incentive scheme was initially introduced to position Malta as an attractive location for major international film and TV productions. The scheme aimed to support Malta’s creative economy while drawing foreign investment.

However, policy changes implemented during Johann Grech’s time in office have altered the scheme’s scope, now allowing domestic entertainment formats — including adaptations of foreign reality TV franchises — to qualify for funding. This shift has provoked criticism due to concerns that such programmes are commercially driven and lack the cultural or educational value the scheme was intended to promote.

Notably, authorities have yet to provide a transparent, publicly accessible explanation detailing the evaluation criteria that justify the inclusion of these productions.

Opaque selection processes prompt concerns

Several industry stakeholders have flagged the absence of clear, publicly available guidelines governing how productions are selected for rebate eligibility. The process appears to offer significant discretionary authority, raising concerns over the consistency and fairness of funding decisions.

Independent producers, especially those focusing on cultural, historical, or educational content, report significant difficulties in accessing the same public support. Despite meeting the programme’s “cultural test” — a benchmark designed to ensure public funds support productions with cultural value — such projects are allegedly frequently rejected or deprioritised. This has effectively hindered the development of programming that contributes to Malta’s cultural preservation and educational enrichment.

Role of PBS and concerns over funding alignment

Further complicating matters is the involvement of Public Broadcasting Services (PBS), Malta’s national broadcaster funded by approximately €6 million in annual public subsidies. PBS has increasingly broadcast reality-based formats such as Big Brother, possibly to attract broader viewership and generate commercial revenue.

It remains unclear whether PBS has contributed additional support to these productions via its Public Service Obligation (PSO) budget, a funding mechanism that has itself drawn criticism for its lack of transparency. Given PBS’s statutory mandate to offer content that is educational, informative, and culturally reflective, its strategic focus on entertainment-heavy content could potentially run counter to its public service obligations.

Impacts on Malta’s cultural and media ecosystem

The present trajectory of funding allocation may have significant long-term implications for the country’s creative and media landscape. While some argue that supporting popular reality formats helps to generate employment and stimulate spending within the domestic media industry, others caution that this prioritisation comes at a cost.

Specifically, it may divert public funds away from programming that provides long-term cultural or educational benefits, and it risks marginalising independent creators who do not have the resources or connections to navigate the current system. This perceived imbalance may ultimately lead to a homogenised media environment with limited creative diversity.

Growing discontent within the industry and calls for reform

Independent content creators and representatives from Malta’s cultural sector have expressed growing dissatisfaction with what they describe as an insular funding ecosystem that appears to favour a select few production entities. In response, calls for reform are becoming more vocal and structured.

Among the proposed measures are:

• The publication of detailed, accessible funding guidelines
• The implementation of transparent and impartial application procedures
• Independent auditing of decisions regarding state rebates
• A commitment to ensuring that non-commercial, culturally focused, and educational content is given equitable access to public support

These reforms aim to re-establish public confidence in the state’s role as a cultural patron and to ensure that taxpayer contributions serve a wide range of artistic and educational purposes.

Conclusion

Given the significant sums of public money involved and the increasing reliance on government incentives within Malta’s media sector, ensuring accountability, fairness, and transparency in how these funds are allocated is critical.

While reality television has demonstrated its commercial viability, it remains a matter of public interest to assess whether state support for such ventures is justified, especially when the incentive programme was originally introduced to attract international productions and to strengthen Malta’s global cinematic reputation.

In the current climate, there is an evident need for greater clarity and oversight. Bodies such as the Malta Film Commission, the Ministry for Tourism, and PBS should take active steps to clarify their respective mandates and uphold principles of fairness, cultural integrity, and public benefit in all decisions relating to media funding.

FAQs

What is the Malta Film Tax Incentives scheme?
It is a government programme aimed at attracting international film productions by offering tax rebates on eligible production expenses in Malta.

Why are reality TV shows receiving film rebates in Malta?
Under revised guidelines introduced by Film Commissioner Johann Grech, certain local TV formats — including reality shows — now qualify for these incentives.

Who are the main companies benefiting from Malta’s film rebate programme?
Greatt Company Ltd, Media Exclusive Ltd, and Liquorish have received or are set to receive several million euros in combined rebates.

How much money has Greatt Company Ltd claimed in rebates?
The company has claimed over €2.5 million for Big Brother Malta, €1.3 million for X Factor Malta, and nearly €1 million for MasterChef Malta.

Is PBS involved in funding these productions?
It is unclear whether PBS has provided direct funding through the Public Service Obligation scheme, but it has aired some of the productions in question.

Are these productions aligned with PBS’s public service mandate?
Critics argue that the reliance on reality formats undermines PBS’s remit to provide educational and culturally enriching content.

What concerns exist regarding transparency in Malta's film funding?
There is limited public information about how productions are selected and what criteria are used, raising concerns over accountability.

Why are cultural and educational programmes struggling to receive funding?
Producers claim that PBS often dismisses proposals that meet the cultural test, limiting their access to public support.

Have these issues been raised in Parliament?
Yes, MP Julie Zahra submitted questions that led to the release of information about which companies and productions have received funding.

What reforms are being suggested?
Recommendations include publishing clear criteria for funding, ensuring transparency, conducting independent audits, and diversifying support across genres.