SAA - Society of Audiovisual Authors

A familiar pattern

In today’s society, characterised by widespread disinformation and polarised political camps, the concept of information and European identity remains as relevant as it was over 40 years ago. These words were written as part of the European Commission’s 1982 Green Paper, which eventually led to the 1989 Television Without Frontiers Directive, from which the 2018 Audiovisual Media Services Directive originates.

"Information is a decisive, perhaps the most decisive factor in European unification (...). European unification will only be achieved if Europeans want it. Europeans will only want it if there is such a thing as a European identity. A European identity will only develop if Europeans are adequately informed. At present, information via the mass media is controlled at national level." (1982 Green Paper)

“The creation of a common market for television production is thus one essential step if the dominance of the big American media corporations is to be counterbalanced.” (1982 Green Paper)

The concern at that time was American dominance of European television screens. European production lagged behind, and importing American content was cheaper than producing European works[1]. EU’s solution was to propose common standards, such as quotas for European works and support for independent production. However, the discussions were tense - with Member States divided over whether the Commission had the competence to regulate broadcasting - and the directive nearly failed multiple times before finally being adopted in October 1989.

Today, the dynamic feels familiar. While concerns have extended to how streaming and video sharing platforms are reshaping the European audiovisual landscape, the question of whether European rules can and should determine what European audiences see is still being discussed.

A new evaluation and framing

The implementation of the 2018 AVMS Directive in the Member States was not completed until the end of 2022 due to the impact of the pandemic. The directive introduced obligations for on-demand services to ensure that at least 30% of the works in their catalogues are European and extended certain rules to video-sharing platforms and social media. It also required that European works be given prominence. In November 2025, the EU Commission launched the evaluation of the directive, foreseen in its Article 33 and framed it as part of its European Democracy Shield initiative. The stated aim was to assess whether the current framework ensures:

• Appropriate visibility and prominence for European media.
• A level playing field between traditional broadcasters and digital platforms on advertising.
• Adequate online protections for younger viewers.

In other words, the directive is not just about market share or cultural policy, it is also about democratic resilience. The freedom of European authors to express themselves artistically and the right of consumers to watch, access and find European works has taken on new urgency.

Stakeholders were invited to contribute to the evaluation by December 2025. The SAA submitted its position, as did broadcasters, platforms, producers, media authorities and other organisations. What emerged was a somewhat paradoxical consensus.

What the directive has delivered

The SAA and many other stakeholders broadly agreed that the AVMS Directive has delivered real value.

The European Coalitions for Cultural Diversity described the directive as the cornerstone of audiovisual regulation in the EU, crediting it with generating additional funding for independent productions, supporting local employment, and enabling European works to circulate internationally. Belgium’s Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel highlighted that quotas, financial contribution mechanisms, and prominence requirements have been essential in ensuring cultural diversity and fair competition between traditional broadcasters and on-demand services. The European Film Agencies Directors Association praised the directive for balancing editorial freedom with cultural objectives. Although the International Union of Cinemas does not benefit from the directive, it still considered it key to sustaining the local film and cinema ecosystem.

Since the 2018 revision, investment obligations have been implemented across Member States, prominence requirements have improved discoverability, and the infrastructure for European audiovisual production has been strengthened. The question is whether this is enough.

A fragile consensus

Stakeholders across the spectrum have delivered the same message to the Commission: do not reopen the directive. However, their reasoning differs greatly.

For authors and producers’ organisations, the fear is of losing ground. Eurocinema was blunt in stating that reopening the directive could jeopardise achievements in investment, quotas and the prominence of European works. They are concerned that, in the current political climate, any renegotiation could weaken rather than strengthen protections.

For platforms and commercial broadcasters, however, the fear is the opposite: that reopening the directive would mean more obligations. The European Video on Demand Coalition has warned against the introduction of further burdensome regulatory requirements, arguing that such measures would interfere with editorial freedom. The Motion Picture Association emphasised that its members already produce and promote European works voluntarily, driven by market demand and editorial choices rather than regulatory compulsion.

Essentially, both sides are arguing that a workable equilibrium has been reached and should not be disturbed. However, one side believes that the current situation favours platforms too much, while the other believes that it already asks too much of them.

If the directive were reopened…

Despite the consensus to not reopen the directive, stakeholders answered what they would want if it were. The SAA identified five areas for strengthening the directive:

• A higher minimum quota for European works in VOD catalogues
• Exclusion of certain programmes (news, games and sports) from quota calculation
• Mandatory prominence measures for European works
• Mandatory investment obligations for service providers
• Stronger defence of the European model of authors' rights

Other authors’ and producers’ organisations broadly aligned with these priorities. The SAA members in France (SACD and LaScam) and in Poland (ZAPA), representing significant markets, echoed the importance of increased investment and the prominence of European works. CEPI called for platforms to disclose their ranking and recommendation criteria in order to shed light on the algorithmic "black box". Music CMOs such as GESAC argued that if the directive were to be opened, they would like to see its scope broadened to cover music streaming platforms as well.

The platform side pushed in the opposite direction. Amazon argued that higher quotas could create barriers to market entry and disproportionately affect smaller audiovisual markets with limited production capacity. They could also restrict editorial and economic freedom. The Association of Commercial TV and VOD Services expressed preference for market-driven approaches over quota systems. Beyond Mainstream raised concerns that quotas would be challenging for specialised and thematic streaming services.

Quotas: a minimum or a ceiling?

Let’s take a closer look at the quota debate. Currently, VOD services must ensure that at least 30% of their catalogues consist of European works. According to the European Audiovisual Observatory, the actual share is around 32%, meaning that most platforms are doing the bare minimum to comply. The SAA and other stakeholders are calling for the bar to be raised to 40%.

The historical irony here is that the Commission's original 1986 proposal for the Television Without Frontiers Directive included an initial quota of 30% for broadcasters, rising progressively to 60% after three years[2]. The European Parliament's Barzanti Report in 1987 also pushed for the higher figure. After years of negotiation and political compromise, what we ended up with was a "majority proportion" for broadcasters, softened by "where practicable" language that in the end made enforcement voluntary.

Members of the EU Parliament have, over party lines, defended the quotas (and their increase for on-demand services from 20% in the Commission’s proposal to 30% in 2018). Some have argued in favour of promoting European diversity, while others have argued in favour of protecting national linguistic and cultural sovereignty.

Despite its imperfections, the quota system has helped to build a European audiovisual ecosystem valued at €141 billion[3] and produces audiovisual works that travel internationally. The question remains whether 30% is enough to sustain this ecosystem in the streaming era.

History offers its lesson: voluntary mechanisms are not sufficient for building a sustainable creative ecosystem. While Member States have flexibility in how they implement financial obligations, the baseline matters. A 30% quota that platforms only just exceed is not a minimum requirement, it’s a ceiling. If the directive is to fulfil its democratic and cultural ambitions, this threshold must be raised.

Annica Ryng

SAA Public Affairs and Communication Director

 

• The Commission is now carrying out a public consultation on the AVMS Directive, which will run until 1 May 2026
• Read about the SAA position on the AVMS Directive.

 

---

[1] Television without Frontiers: The European Union’s Continuing Struggle for Cultural Survival, Case Western Reserve, P. O’Connell, 1996

[2] Television without Frontiers: The European Union’s Continuing Struggle for Cultural Survival, Case Western Reserve, P. O’Connell, 1996

[3] European Audiovisual Observatory, 2025