How the SABC Is Funded, and Why the Licence-Fee Argument Never Ends

The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) has long relied on a mix of advertising, TV licence fees, and government grants. But as of 2023, the SABC drew 57% of its revenue from advertising, 16% from TV licences, and 15% from sponsorships, with the remainder from other sources, including government. Yet, even as government seeks to replace compulsory TV licences, they remain legally required under the Broadcasting Act, pending legislative action.

A Hybrid Model Written into Law

The South African Broadcasting Act No. 4 of 1999 stipulates the SABC’s mixed funding model. The Act allows SABC public services to obtain revenue from advertising and sponsorships, grants and donations, licence fees levied on persons owning television sets, and may receive grants from the State.

This unique hybrid arrangement is not an accident: academic analysis has described the SABC’s funding as a “unique hybrid” of public funds, licence fees, sponsorships and commercial advertising.

The commercial nature of the model is clear in the SABC’s financial statements:

• In 2016, 79% of SABC revenue came from advertising, 12% from TV licence fees, and 6% from sponsorships

• In 2018, 80% was advertising revenue, 16% TV licence fees, and 4% came from the state.

This establishes the dominant, systemic role of private markets in the SABC’s funding, notwithstanding public policy aims.

How the Money Actually Breaks Down

Over recent years, a concrete pattern emerges in SABC’s revenue sources, with advertising driving the majority of income and other streams making up the balance:

• As of 2019, the SABC’s advertising totalled R4.5 billion, making up 70% of total revenue, with television advertising over R2.9 billion

• The 2023 figures confirm the trend: advertising still accounted for 57% of revenue, 16% from TV licences, with sponsorships a further 15%.

• As of 2026, the SABC’s revenue was supported by approximately R758 million in licence fee revenue, R2.78 billion from advertising, another R758 million from sponsorships, and R853 million from other revenue.

The SABC still relies most heavily on commercial streams, with advertising dominating—TV licences and sponsorship contributing smaller portions of funding, while government grants provide a small but steady flow.

The Licence Fee Problem

The enduring weakness in SABC’s funding is its compulsory TV licence system, which sees the broadcaster invoice millions in fees—only to collect around 13% in 2023. That shortfall must be covered largely by taxpayer bailouts.

As the SABC Annual Report 2019 states, the broadcaster derives its income mainly from television, radio and TV licence divisions, but the reality is that TV licences are legally obligatory under section 27 of the Broadcasting Act, even as government looks at alternatives.

Political and media commentary suggests a raft of reform options, from a household levy, to a public broadcasting tax, to a subscription levy on streaming services, but none have yet new legal teeth.

Government Support and Bailouts

The government, at different times, has offered both routine, small grants and one-off, large bailouts. The government’s support while necessary, is rarely enough, nor unconditional. The SABC depends on both direct support and indirect measures:

• In 2016, government grants were 2% of SABC revenue, rising to 4% in 2018, and 3% in 2023.

• As of July 2025, the department announced a Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) allocation of approximately US$39 million to SABC. Of the total, US$2.4 million was earmarked for programme production, US$25 million to support broadcasters’ public service mandate and US$11 million for Channel Africa.

Temporary as they are, these are signs of government concern over SABC’s financial fragility, even as it seeks more permanent, but controversial, funding fixes.

The Next Model: Levies, Taxes and Streaming

Particularly in 2024 and 2025, intense attention was paid to new SABC funding solutions, including a consultation and tender process under the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies:

• In 2025, the department issued a tender for a service provider to develop a “new sustainable funding model”, with SABC and the Treasury involved in evaluation and a three-month timeline.

• The minister of communications floated a media subscription levy, a household or business levy collected by SARS, and a Conditional Treasury Grant as an interim measure.

• In April, proposals emerged to eliminate TV licences, with functions undercut by a public broadcasting tax collected by SARS, raking in universal contributions akin to northern European models.

The National Treasury, meanwhile, has already stepped in to cover situations where SABC has turned in years with a glaring shortfall in its bottom line.

The Big Question

Licence fees remain a recurring headache for government, who see a range of options to replace this compulsory tax, but have yet to enact any. The anomaly of a public broadcaster with little government funding, which cannot fully rely on its commercial streams, means a remainder of the SABC’s budget still comes in the form of political largesse and decision-making.

As the SABC continues its mission to serve the whole of South Africa, the never-ending licence fee argument drills on, and until Parliament legislates for a proper replacement, the SABC remains wrestling with the delicate balance between public responsibility and commercial viability.