The funding available under the German Federal Film Fund I and II (DFFF I & II) and the German Motion Picture Fund (GMPF) has already been exhausted, four months before the end of the year. This demonstrates the enormous demand for, and growth potential of, Germany as a film production hub. German studios and shooting locations, crews and creatives, production companies and service providers are in demand – thereby strengthening the entire film industry value chain, right through to cinemas.

The premature suspension of funding means carelessly relinquishing a valuable lever for increasing value creation and employment in Germany. It also makes clear that cross-financing cinema investment support from unused DFFF and GMPF funds does not work. There is still no dedicated budget allocation for cinema investment funding under the Future Cinema Programme (Zukunftsprogramm Kino), which strengthens the competitiveness and economic foundations of cinemas and thereby safeguards access to culture in both urban and rural areas.

Above all, the high level of demand sends an urgent signal to policymakers: film productions need long-term planning certainty. Funding suspensions, short-notice changes and uncertainty regarding the regulatory framework are jeopardising projects already in preparation, investment decisions and jobs.

When the tax-based film incentive system envisaged in the coalition agreement was abandoned, the industry was assured that economic film funding would be increased to EUR 250 million annually. In several discussions with the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media (BKM), it was stated that this budget allocation was secured for three years. This commitment created confidence, set projects in motion and triggered new investment.

This is about far more than film funding alone. A strong film industry is an important factor for Germany as a business location.

It is therefore all the more difficult to understand why, now that the EUR 250 million has been exhausted ahead of schedule, a reduction to only around EUR 200 million has already been announced for 2027. This threatens the production sector’s newly gained momentum and risks once again undermining confidence in the reliability of Germany as a film production hub. Moreover, the cut will cause Germany to lose further ground as a production location in the competition between European film hubs.

The undersigned associations therefore call for the planned reduction in federal film funding for 2027 to be withdrawn in full. The promised EUR 250 million must also be made available in full in 2027 – and in subsequent years – for federal funding for theatrical films, television and VoD productions, as well as production service providers. It must also be ensured that the separate budget allocations assigned to the respective funding schemes are retained and cannot be reallocated between them at will.

Only reliable framework conditions can prevent funding suspensions, safeguard investment, promote quality and cultural diversity within Germany’s film industry, and sustainably strengthen employment and value creation.

Film funding works. The commitment must now be honoured.

Record demand for the German Federal Film Fund (DFFF) and the German Motion Picture Fund (GMPF) is a positive signal: film productions want to shoot in Germany. The fact that the high volume of applications has forced the German Federal Film Board (FFA) to curb demand by changing its funding criteria is not evidence that the funding system has failed. On the contrary, it demonstrates both its effectiveness and an underlying structural problem. The FFA is responding administratively to limits set by policymakers. Demand is not the problem. The problem is a funding system that shifts into stop-and-go mode precisely when it succeeds.

This is where the negative impact on Germany’s reputation comes into play, particularly beyond its borders. International productions plan far in advance and compare locations across Europe. Germany is one of the few countries in Central Europe without a tax incentive scheme and has therefore lost competitiveness to many neighbouring countries that are able to attract major international and US productions. If it remains unclear whether funding will still be available even when the eligibility criteria can be met, uncertainty becomes a competitive disadvantage for Germany as a production location—well before any formal suspension of applications is announced. The response, however, must not be a knee-jerk decision to prioritise only major international productions in future at the expense of smaller domestic ones. Both create employment and contribute to the utilisation of the film industry’s capacity. Moreover, in the absence of regulated vocational training in Germany, domestic productions play a vital role in enabling colleagues to develop the professional skills they need to work on international productions.

For ADU members, the consequences of unreliable funding conditions are painfully tangible. If production companies increasingly eliminate Germany from consideration because of uncertain conditions, enquiries and employment contracts never materialise in the first place. These lost productions remain invisible to the public—the film is simply made somewhere else—yet their impact on the German labour market is very real. The signal now being sent—that funding may be exhausted prematurely or that eligibility requirements may change at very short notice—costs us job opportunities, incomes that secure our livelihoods and, in the long term, the continued presence of highly qualified film professionals in the industry.

The mechanism behind the current situation was, however, foreseeable: an incentive system that depends directly on annual budget allocations will inevitably reach its limits. It is therefore all the more contradictory that the funding announced for 2026, increased to €250 million, is already set to be reduced to approximately €200 million in 2027. The Federal Government and the German Bundestag must maintain film funding at no less than its 2026 level, align it with actual demand and ensure that additional funds can be made available when required.

The Mediendienste-Investitionsverpflichtungs-Gesetz (Media Services Investment Obligation Act, MedienInvestVG) remains an important component of the reform—but only one component. It can replace neither a reliably financed incentive programme nor the missing competitive tax incentive scheme. Multi-year planning certainty urgently requires the reforms to be completed through the adoption of the MedienInvestVG, together with the introduction of an internationally competitive tax incentive scheme.

At the kick-off event of Behind the Set, industry practice met academic research. Stefan Nickel (Assistant Directors Union) and Prof. Dr. Eva-Maria Schön (University of Applied Sciences Emden/Leer) explored the key pain points of film production and discussed what the industry can learn from project management practices in other sectors.

Germany as a film production hub is facing increasing pressure from international competition, tight budgets, and a fragmented, project-based industry structure. What is still missing is a systematic approach to knowledge transfer that reaches across the entire industry. This is exactly where Behind the Set comes in – a joint discussion and exchange format created by the Assistant Directors Union (ADU) and the CreatiF Center at the University of Television and Film Munich (HFF Munich). The inaugural online session took place on 8 June and lasted one hour. The discussion was hosted by Lena Fischer and Jonathan Partecke from the CreatiF Center. The panel brought together two complementary perspectives, creating an ideal foundation for a dialogue between industry professionals and academic research.

“Project Management? That’s Exactly What’s Missing.” 
Read more about this topic on the CreatiF Center website.

As the Assistant Directors Union e.V., we welcome the fact that, upon reviewing the draft legislation, it is evident that key demands put forward by the industry associations in autumn 2025 have indeed been incorporated into the current draft bill. From our perspective as a professional association representing employees, we recognize that the draft primarily addresses the market and ownership structures of the production industry. Nevertheless, it must not be regarded merely as a symbolic document serving the interests of employers alone. Rather, the present draft legislation represents an important opportunity for a genuine structural transformation in industrial policy within Germany — a transformation that still lies ahead of us.

The draft clearly follows an industrial policy logic that reflects the contemporary economic structures of a global film industry in the 21st century and is long overdue for Germany as a film production location:

• strengthening the rights position of independent producers,
• retaining capital within the German market,
• improving international competitiveness,
• increasing production volume.

The joint declaration of 10 November 2025, which the ADU co-signed, essentially formulated three core objectives:

• a statutory investment obligation instead of voluntary commitments,
• a legally secured retention and/or reversion of rights,
• the sustainable stabilization of Germany as a production location through additional investments.

This fundamental architecture has been clearly adopted in the current draft bill. Already within the stated objectives, it is expressly formulated that media service providers are to be obligated to “invest appropriately in the production of European audiovisual works,” while simultaneously enabling independent producers to build up their own rights catalogues.

This is concretely implemented through a statutory investment quota amounting to 8 percent of the previous year’s net revenue, including sub-quotas governing how these 8 percent are to be allocated. In this respect, the associations’ demand for a binding legal instrument has fundamentally been fulfilled. For our members — film professionals employed on a production-by-production basis — we regard this development as decidedly positive, insofar as additional investment volumes may lead to increased production activity, which in turn correlates with a potential expansion of employment opportunities.

The German film industry requires resilient production companies that are strengthened through the legally anchored retention or reversion of rights pursuant to Section 8 of the MedienInvestVG, particularly by enabling longer-term exploitation periods. The rigidity of fixed regulatory requirements, criticized by media service providers, is addressed through the opening clause contained in Section 9 of the draft bill. This clause permits major media service providers to deviate from the investment-governing provisions of the law, provided that such deviation is accompanied by a financial commitment to higher investments amounting to at least twelve percent of the previous year’s net revenue and includes an agreement with representative producers’ associations under the review and supervision of the FFA.

In summary, from our perspective this draft legislation should be regarded as an important and long-awaited first constructive step, after the collapse of the previous federal government in December 2024 had led to a standstill in the urgently needed reforms of German film funding policy. At the same time, neighboring European countries were able to attract international production companies and their activities to their own markets through modernized funding architectures and financial incentives.

In this regard, however, the ADU urgently calls upon the legislator to place even greater focus on the actual production and employment effects of this investment obligation. While the current draft understandably follows a regulatory logic aimed at compliance with European law in terms of cultural and economic policy, it still lacks an explicit territorial linkage ensuring that the invested funds must, to a substantial extent, flow into real production activities within Germany. For our members in particular — film professionals employed on a production-by-production basis — it is crucial that additional investments also translate into shooting days and thus into sustainable employment within the country. Other European Member States have already demonstrated that models compatible with EU law are possible, combining cultural objectives with tangible location and employment effects. In order to achieve this important objective, the third pillar of the original reform concept — a robust tax incentive model — must also not be lost from sight.

The collapse of the governing coalition caused significant problems for the German film industry at the end of 2024. The legal framework for state film funding structures, the existing FFG (Film Funding Act), was set to expire on December 31, 2024. Without a new law, domestic film production would have faced a looming standstill due to the absence of funding. However, just before Christmas, the new law was finally passed. Yet, the method of political horse-trading among the participating factions is highly questionable and shows a complete lack of respect for the hard work of the tens of thousands of employees in the German film industry.

While employers may feel some relief at the beginning of the new year, we as employees must critically ask ourselves what the new FFG means for the industry and, more specifically, for us as workers—and, above all, what it does not address. … (Read more in german)

Together with around 30 other associations and organizations of filmmakers, we are a member of the Fair Film Initiative. On November 7th, the second letter was sent to the Minister of State for Culture Claudia Roth. In it, we call on her to finally anchor social sustainability in the new version of the 2024 Film Funding Act. Now that the ecological standards have made it into the FFG, also with pressure from the EU, it is now time to focus on the employees of the funded film projects.

You can find the second letter here.