It’s the host city of the 62nd Eurovision Song Contest and in less than a week forty-two delegations will descend on it for the start of Eurovision fortnight.

And as Kyiv enters the final stretch of one of its biggest hosting gigs ever, the City Council has appropriated a further HR 25 million to make sure the city pulls off the Eurovision Song Contest without a hitch

The decision was voted through by 69 members of the council and the majority of the funds will go towards the installation and maintenance of surveillance systems.

As the Kyiv Post reports, 19 million (approximately €656, 500) will be spent on video surveillance in key contest locations around the city to ensure the security of the contest — and the tens of thousands of fans attending.

A further 5 million has been set aside for the purchase of litter bins, to ensure the city can cope with an influx of trash and show off its best self during Eurovision fortnight.

Another 500,000HR will be dedicated to attracting volunteers, who play a crucial logistical role, acting as guides for tourists and ensuring things run smoothly at the arena.

EUROVISION BUDGET FOR KYIV 2017

The budget for Eurovision 2017 has been in flux over the past year. The initial estimate was €14.5 million, similar to the costs involved in Stockholm 2016, with further funds to come from sponsors.

In August that figure was revised up again to €15 million and in November rose again to €16 million, which in tandem with budget cuts at NTU sparked the resignation of General Director Zurab Alasania.

The expense of hosting Eurovision has been a recurring issue in recent years, with spending on Eurovision 2014 going three times over budgetOops.

Having seen the Eurovision 2017 stage, we think it’s money well spent.

Eurovision 2017 will take over Kyiv for two weeks, with all 42 acts staying in the city and rehearsing at the International Exhibition Center, ahead of live performances at Semi Final 1 and Semi Final 2 on May 9 and May 11, and the Grand Final on May 13.

GET MORE NEWS ON EUROVISION 2017 HERE

16 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Roelof Meesters
Roelof Meesters
3 years ago

At least the stage looks bomb. We all know Malmo was the smallest ESC since 2010 (I MEAN 2010 DID NOT EVEN HAVE AN LED WALL!!!!!) and also the one with the lowest budget. It looks like 2017 will be a great year, even with all the expences. But spending so much money on trash cans??? I am not going to Kyiv, but I couldn’t see myself caring about how to city looks. Well of course the city needs to look nice and everything, but all those trash cans is just a waste of money. But hey, at least they… Read more »

YoungsterJoey
YoungsterJoey
3 years ago

The costs so far seem fine, especially compared to how much Russia (2009) and Azerbaijan (2012) paid for their hosting gigs.

And hopefully the additional infrastructure purchases are investments and last long after the contest in May.

Azaad
Azaad
3 years ago
Reply to  YoungsterJoey

Considering no one was forcibly evicted as they were with Baku 2012, I’d say the spending and infrastructure is appropriate.

Justin K.
Justin K.
3 years ago

I’ve always wondered how much it is to stage just one entry: for example, Azerbaijan and Armenia last year used a lot of pyrotechnics. How much would that have cost (esp. to stage it twice) compared to entries like Ukraine, Croatia, or the Czech Republic which only used the LED stage? Malmo ended up making delegations pay for their own pyrotechnics, so it makes me wonder just how much they saved by doing that. There were reports that the holograms were expensive as well (which is why San Marino was essentially ‘shafted’ in their trying to use it)—makes me wonder… Read more »

MTD
MTD
3 years ago

While everyone sees the total sum of the money spent, I wonder how much costs the actual show. You know, the one from the arena. Stage, lights, crew, logistics. Because that is actually what real ESC should be spending. Add the money flown from EBU (via the participation fee), the sponsors (local and fron abroad), I think that those costs can be pretty much covered. Add there the tickets fee and the initial budget allocated from the host broadcaster. I don’t think that these things (from above – stage, etc) alone cost above 10 million €. So, on what these… Read more »

Gato
Gato
3 years ago
Reply to  MTD

I’ve heard that Malmo 2013 was transparent and the money from ebu were not so much. The host is really bankrupt.

Branko
Branko
3 years ago

Why not use the money to help the people in Ukraine who still suffer from the war effects? Damaged houses, streets and so on. Just wondering…

Gato
Gato
3 years ago
Reply to  Branko

Is a legit question, but a business like Eurovision can create jobs, bring taxes, so…is good overall.

Azaad
Azaad
3 years ago
Reply to  Branko

This money is coming from local councils, literally the lowest level of government. Of course local and state governments in the east of the country shouldn’t donate money to this, but Kyiv is a vibrant and modern city.

Wunderkind
Wunderkind
3 years ago

Does their money actually have any value .?

Gato
Gato
3 years ago
Reply to  Wunderkind

Not at all, just some banknotes made of newspapers to fool the westerners.

Wunderkind
Wunderkind
3 years ago
Reply to  Gato

I thought so

fikri
fikri
3 years ago

we can’t really say if the money is well-spent until eurovision finally wraps up. but it’s good that they’re allocating money to stuff that matters. security is important especially in a country like ukraine.

Benny
Benny
3 years ago

I wonder how much the contests pre 2000 cost? I have always wondered that. Ukraine has the money I guess.

YoungsterJoey
YoungsterJoey
3 years ago
Reply to  Benny

Surely the pre-2000 contests were much cheaper. From 1999 and before that, it wasn’t held in arenas but basically large TV studios and small concert halls. And I bet not using an orchestra (as much as I do sometimes miss it) might be saving the host broadcaster some money.