According to international experience, changing the current funding of public service media in the Czech Republic is risky, says expert study

Changing the current model of financing public service media in the Czech Republic is not necessary; on the contrary, it could jeopardize both the stability of funding and the protection of editorial independence. Weaknesses of the current Czech model, such as administrative complexity and the lower social fairness of flat fees, can be addressed through partial adjustments without a fundamental systemic change. This conclusion comes from a new analytical study by media scholars from three universities, which offers a systematic overview of available solutions. The analysis is based on a current comparison of thirteen European countries, drawing on structured consultations with national experts on individual media systems.

The study was prepared by Marína Urbániková, who works at both the Faculty of Social Studies of Masaryk University and the Faculty of Social Sciences of Charles University, Klára Smejkal from the Faculty of Social Studies of Masaryk University, Alice Němcová Tejkalová from the Faculty of Social Sciences of Charles University, Lenka Waschková Císařová from the Faculty of Social Studies of Masaryk University, David Klimeš from the Faculty of Social Sciences of Charles University, and Andrea Hanáčková from the Faculty of Arts of Palacký University in Olomouc.

The study shows that any potential reform of public service media financing should be based on clearly identified shortcomings of the current system, a comprehensive assessment of impacts, and a realistic evaluation of the transferability of foreign models. “Any change should be the result of a long-term and inclusive discussion involving the government, the opposition, the affected public service media, and the expert community, and should aim for the broadest possible consensus,” explains Marína Urbániková.

According to the analysis, the current licence fee model - now supplemented by automatic indexation linked to the inflation rate - meets the requirements for stability, predictability, and adequacy of funding, as well as for the protection of editorial independence, as set out by the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA).

The argument that the Czech licence fee model must be changed due to its alleged unfairness is also not convincing, according to the study. “None of the alternatives is based on whether and how people actually use public service media—under all models, the obligation to contribute would fall equally on a large part of society,” says Alice Němcová Tejkalová. A shift to funding from the state budget would not necessarily eliminate unfairness in terms of payment levels either, as these depend on the structure of the tax system. While in progressive systems (e.g. Norway or Denmark) this model is fairer than a flat fee, in the Czech context it is necessary to take into account the relatively high taxation of low-income employees.

The analytical study therefore concludes that changing the current model is not necessary and would entail more risks. “In light of the current political debate, however, the study nevertheless presents three possible alternatives as analytical scenarios,” explains Klára Smejkal. These are: (1) a universal household fee, (2) a dedicated tax, and (3) funding from the state budget with strengthened constitutional safeguards, so that changes would require broader parliamentary consensus rather than a simple majority in the lower house. These scenarios also show that designing and implementing a functional replacement for the licence fee model without introducing significant new risks is both institutionally and politically demanding.

Situation in Europe

In Europe, two main models of public service media financing can be distinguished: direct public funding (from citizens) and funding from the state budget. Both main models are roughly equally widespread across Europe, and in most countries they are complemented by revenues from advertising and other commercial activities, which, however, play only a secondary role.

Eight analytical criteria can be used to evaluate the individual models, based on the legal framework, particularly the EMFA, as well as international recommendations on the functioning of public service media and academic literature: (1) independence from political power; (2) adequacy and sustainability of funding; (3) predictability; (4) fairness (in terms of both the group of contributors and the amount paid); (5) transparency; (6) accountability and relationship to the public; (7) administrative complexity and system management costs; and (8) compatibility with the digital media environment.

The comparative analysis shows that the different funding models and their variants differ significantly across most of these criteria.

Direct public funding from citizens:

• Achieves better results in terms of political independence, adequacy, and predictability of funding (e.g. Germany, the United Kingdom, Portugal), also thanks to greater transparency and a direct link between the public and the funded institution.
• The stability of this model can be further strengthened through tools such as automatic indexation of the fee (Czech Republic), setting the fee by an independent body (Germany), or multi-year financial frameworks (United Kingdom).
• Its weaknesses remain higher administrative complexity and a lower degree of social redistribution.

Funding from the state budget:

• Shows a higher level of risk and less favorable outcomes in a number of dimensions, especially regarding political independence, transparency, adequacy and predictability of funding, and accountability to the public, partly because it weakens the direct link between citizens and public service media.
• It is more sensitive to the political context and fluctuations of the political cycle, which can negatively affect independence, long-term planning, and the adequacy of funding (see, for example, experiences from Spain, France, Estonia, Slovakia, or Hungary). In countries with a high level of political consensus and a stable political culture that respects the independence of public service media, it can function relatively effectively (e.g. Norway, Denmark), although even there it is not fully immune to political interference.
• Its advantage, on the other hand, is lower administrative complexity and potentially higher social fairness in the case of a progressive tax system.

The analytical study is available in Czech.