Measuring EMFA Compliance: Can EMFA Capture-Proof the European Media?
This page presents the Media Capture Monitoring Report: 2025 Overview, a comparative assessment by the International Press Institute (IPI) and the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) examining how selected EU Member States are implementing the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) and whether it is effectively countering media capture.
The overview synthesizes findings from eight national reports (Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain) and evaluates implementation across four core media capture indicators.
Executive Summary
The entry into force of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) in August 2025 marked a decisive moment in the European Union’s efforts to confront media capture through binding law. For the first time, core safeguards for media freedom, including the independence of media regulators, the governance and funding of public service media, the allocation of state advertising, and protections for media pluralism, were consolidated into a single regulatory framework applicable across all Member States. The Media Capture Monitoring Report: 2025 Overview provides the first comparative assessment of how these provisions are being implemented in practice and whether they are capable of curbing entrenched patterns of political and economic control over the media.
The findings reveal a fragmented and uneven implementation landscape. Of the eight countries assessed, Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain, only Finland has enacted timely and comprehensive reforms ensuring near-full alignment with EMFA requirements. In all other cases, implementation has been partial, delayed, or selectively pursued. In some countries, formal legal alignment masks persistent structural vulnerabilities, while in others the implementation process has been stalled by political polarisation, institutional weakness, or outright resistance to the new regulatory framework.
The overview identifies enduring weaknesses across all four key indicators of media capture. Despite longstanding EU requirements, effective independence of media regulators remains largely absent outside Finland, with appointment procedures, funding mechanisms, and political oversight continuing to expose regulators to capture. Public service media systems across the region remain particularly vulnerable: while legal guarantees of independence exist in all countries, political interference in governance, appointments, and financing persists, reaching its most acute forms in Hungary and Slovakia but remaining a structural risk elsewhere as well.
The misuse of state funds, particularly state advertising, continues to be one of the most powerful instruments of media capture. With the exception of Finland, none of the assessed countries has established a fully transparent, objective, and non-discriminatory system for allocating public advertising in line with EMFA Article 25. In several cases, opaque allocation practices and weak oversight continue to distort media markets, reward politically aligned outlets, and undermine editorial independence. Similarly, no country fully complies with EMFA provisions on media pluralism and ownership transparency. Fragmented registries, sector-specific rules, and the absence of horizontal plurality tests leave national media ecosystems exposed to increasing concentration and political influence.
Taken together, the 2025 findings suggest that EMFA, while significantly strengthening the EU’s legal framework for media freedom, has yet to translate into meaningful structural change in most Member States. The coming period will be critical. Whether EMFA becomes an effective tool for preventing media capture, or remains a largely formal compliance exercise, will depend on sustained political will, robust enforcement at both national and EU level, and the capacity of institutions to move beyond legal transposition toward genuine independence, transparency, and accountability.
Explore the data
Media capture mechanisms and safeguards
The table below summarises the key media capture mechanisms as well as the existence and enforcement of legal safeguards, and their alignment with the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) identified in the countries covered by the project (see the overall European trends below).
Country Reports
Bulgaria
High capture risk identified
Weak regulator independence and persistent political influence over public service media and state funding.
Finland
Low media capture risk
Strong regulator independence and the highest level of EMFA alignment among assessed countries.
Greece
Medium-high risk identified
Partial reforms adopted, but core EMFA safeguards on regulators and public service media remain unmet.
Hungary
Systemic capture risk
Political control over the regulator, public service media and state advertising persists; EMFA not implemented.
Poland
Structural risk
Ongoing institutional conflict over PSM and unresolved regulator governance
Romania
High capture risk
Politicized regulation, opaque political financing of media, and weak safeguards against state influence.
Slovakia
High capture risk
PSM restructuring and regulator appointments conflict with EMFA independence requirements.
Spain
Medium risk
Formal protections exist, but politicized appointments and funding instability weaken PSM independence.
Questions & Answers
This section provides short, structured answers to key questions arising from the Media Capture Monitoring Report: 2025 Overview. It supports journalists, policymakers, researchers, and educators who need clear, comparative insightsinto EMFA implementation across the EU without consulting the full report.
What does the 2025 Overview assess?
The 2025 Overview evaluates how eight EU Member States, Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain, are implementing the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) and whether its provisions are effective in reducing media capture. The assessment focuses on four core indicators: the independence of media regulators, the independence of public service media, the use of state funds in the media sector, and safeguards for media pluralism.
Has EMFA been fully implemented across the assessed countries?
No. With the exception of Finland, none of the assessed countries has fully implemented EMFA. Most remain in a phase of partial alignment, legislative delay, or selective transposition. In several cases, formal legal provisions exist but lack effective enforcement mechanisms, while in others implementation has stalled due to political resistance or institutional weakness.
Which country stands out as the strongest performer?
Finland is the only country that has enacted timely and comprehensive reforms aligned with EMFA. Its media regulator operates with both formal and effective independence, public service media governance is largely insulated from political interference, state advertising poses no meaningful capture risk, and media pluralism remains robust by European standards.
Where are the most serious compliance failures observed?
Hungary and Slovakia present the most severe cases. Hungary has taken no steps to implement EMFA and continues to contest its legality, while maintaining extensive political control over the media regulator, public service media, and state advertising system. Slovakia adopted partial regulatory reforms while simultaneously dissolving its public broadcaster and replacing it with a politically controlled structure, directly contradicting EMFA requirements.
How independent are media regulators in practice?
Although all assessed countries formally guarantee regulator independence, effective independence is largely absent outside Finland. Appointment procedures remain highly politicized in most cases, funding is often controlled through annual political negotiations, and regulators frequently operate under direct or indirect political pressure. EMFA has not yet produced a visible shift in these practices.
Are public service media protected from political interference?
Only partially. While legal guarantees exist in all countries, political influence over public service media governance, appointments, and funding remains widespread. The risk is particularly acute where governing majorities control board appointments or where funding depends on annual budget decisions. Even in countries with stronger protections, such as Spain or Poland, recurrent reforms and political stand-offs undermine stability and independence.
Is state advertising still used as a tool of media capture?
Yes. With the exception of Finland, state advertising remains one of the most powerful instruments of media capture across the assessed countries. Transparent, objective, and non-discriminatory allocation systems, as required by EMFA, are largely absent. In Hungary, state advertising has reached systemic levels, while in several other countries opaque practices and weak oversight continue to distort media markets.
Has EMFA improved transparency of media ownership?
Not yet. No assessed country fully complies with EMFA’s ownership transparency requirements. Existing systems are fragmented, sector-specific, or limited to audiovisual media. None provides a comprehensive, cross-media database covering press, digital-only outlets, and beneficial ownership in a way that allows effective public scrutiny.
Are media mergers assessed for their impact on pluralism?
No country currently applies a full media pluralism test as envisaged by EMFA. While competition authorities assess market concentration using economic criteria, considerations of editorial independence and democratic impact remain marginal or absent. As a result, increasing media concentration continues largely unchecked across several national markets.
Does EMFA currently prevent media capture?
Not yet. The 2025 findings suggest that EMFA has strengthened the legal framework for media freedom but has not, so far, dismantled entrenched capture mechanisms in most countries. Its effectiveness will depend on enforcement, institutional capacity, and political will, particularly at EU level, to act when Member States comply with the letter of the law while undermining its spirit.
What should journalists and policymakers take away from this overview?
The overview demonstrates that media capture remains a structural problem in Europe, even under the new EMFA regime. For journalists, it highlights where political and economic pressures continue to shape media systems. For policymakers, it underscores that legislative alignment alone is insufficient: meaningful reform requires depoliticized institutions, transparent funding systems, and enforceable safeguards for pluralism.
Resources & Reference Materials
- Full report (PDF): Media Capture Monitoring Report: Overview 2025
- Integrity & Verification Note (PDF): SHA3-256 digital fingerprint and verification instructions
- Earlier reports: Media Capture Monitoring Report: Overview 2024
- Methodology overview: Check the project page
Citation
Dragomir, M., Detrekői, Z, Money-Kyrle, O., Wiseman, J. (2025). Media Capture Monitoring Report: 2025 Overview. Measuring EMFA Compliance. Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC): London/Tallinn. International Press Institute (IPI): Vienna.
Invest in independent media research and join a community of practice.
Your contribution supports MJRC’s investigations and global analysis. As a supporter, you can receive early access to new findings, invitations to small-group briefings, inclusion in our Supporters Circle updates, and the option to be listed on our Supporters Page.
Contribute to MJRC