Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1545750
WHEN a public entity, like the Malta Film Commission, re- leased a report last March detail- ing '8 Years of Growth', complete with glossy Hollywood movie stills, it is easy to get swept up in the glamour. However, a closer look at the Malta Film Commission's March 2026 report, The Impact of the Film Industry in Malta, reveals a masterclass in eco- nomic spin. While the report boasts stag- gering growth, it relies on highly complex economic modelling, selective data presentation, and a convenient shuffling of time- lines to paint a flawless picture of a controversial public spend- ing programme. Let's break down how this re- port leans heavily on bias to jus- tify its own narrative. 1. The tale of two timelines (arbitrary baselines) One of the most glaring red flags in the report is how it splits Malta's film history into two uneven blocks: 2005–2017 (13 years) versus 2018–2025 (8 years). By chunking a massive 13-year block together, the authors sup- press the natural "peaks" of ear- lier successes. Conversely, the post-2018 era is highly praised because it happens to coincide with a massive 40% cash re- bate incentive introduced by the current leadership. The re- bate controversially includes expenses made by producers abroad and not in Malta. The timeline feels artificially sculpt- ed to say, "everything before 2018 was erratic and small, but everything after I, Johann, took over is a stable success". 2. Over-reliance on 'hypothetical' modelling To a regular reader, phrases like "the industry has generated over €1.5 billion in gross value added" sound like cold, hard cash sitting in a Maltese bank. It isn't. The entire report relies on an Input-Output (I-O) model. This is a simulation tool. To generate these large numbers, the study relies heavily on "induced ef- fects", a fancy economic term for a ripple effect. Essentially, it assumes that if a foreign film crew member buys a pastizz from a local bakery, that baker will spend money at a cloth- ing shop, who will then hire a painter, and so on. While these ripple effects exist, magnifying them via simulations allows the authors to present massive, inflated numbers as definitive economic "truth". 3. The 2023 Gladiator II illusion If you look closely at any chart in the report, one year sticks out like a skyscraper: 2023. The report notes that in 2023, the film industry magically sup- ported a peak of 6,500 jobs and accounted for nearly a fifth of all economic growth. Buried deep in the text is the admission that this massive spike was pri- marily driven by a single block- buster: Gladiator II. The report uses this single, extraordinary year to claim the industry is now a "stable, struc- tural contributor" to the econ- omy. In reality, the charts show that as soon as Gladiator II left in 2024 and 2025, economic contributions plummeted back down by more than half. That is the definition of cyclical and project-based, not structural. 4. The hidden costs of subsidies Perhaps the most manipulat- ed section involves government finances. The report proudly states that tax revenues collect- ed from film activities far ex- ceed the millions handed out in cash rebates. However, look at the actual data provided in the appendix (Table A6). For the year 2024. The Yearly Fiscal Balance is list- ed as -€8.6 million. This means the government actually lost millions more on rebates than it made back in taxes that year. Yet, the main body of the text completely glosses over this deficit, choosing instead to fo- cus purely on "cumulative ben- efits" to hide the loss. 5. Conflict of interest: Self- sourced and self-praised Finally, we have to look at who wrote and funded this report. The data on how much money films spent was provided en- tirely by the Malta Film Com- mission itself, the very entity being evaluated. Yet, the com- missioner presents this report as entirely unbiased. There is no mention of independent, third-party auditing to verify if those expenditure figures were accurate or inflated. Furthermore, the conclusion shifts from an economic anal- ysis into outright political PR, praising the industry's success as a result of "strong leader- ship". Conclusion The Impact of the Film Indus- try in Malta is less of an objec- tive economic audit and more of a promotional brochure. By masking a massive deficit in 2024, treating a single lucky year (Gladiator II) as the new normal, and using theoretical models to generate massive numbers, the report creates an illusion of flawless prosperity. Malta's film industry certainly brings in money, but the com- mon reader deserves a script that sticks to the facts, rather than a Hollywood fairy tale. And if all of the above does not convince you, then ask yourself: If Malta's rebate of 40% to pro- ducers on expenditure that is not made in Malta is a winning formula, why is Malta falling in the 1% of all countries that offer anything of this kind? Are 99% of all other countries too stupid to understand the economic ar- gument of Johann Grech, or too smart? 9 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 8 JULY 2026 OPINION How the commissioner's film industry report filters the facts Michael Axisa Axisa is a Maltese-Canadian immigrant who graduated from the University of Toronto with a Bachelor of Arts in Economics The Impact of the Film Industry in Malta is less of an objective economic audit and more of a promotional brochure Malta Film Commissioner Johann Grech during an interview with international media on the set of Enola Holmes 3 in Mdina (Photo: Malta Film Commission)