Eurovision is getting more expensive for countries that choose to participate.
That’s the long and the short of the news coming out of Sweden regarding the mandatory participation fee that countries have to cough up if they want to take part in the world’s biggest live music event.
The project manager for Eurovision in Sweden told SVT News that fees are going up, but did not explain why.
However, Sophia Ahlin of Sweden’s Melodifestivalen club, says it’s partly because fans and viewers and expect an ever-bigger competition.
“It hasn’t always been this expensive, but it hasn’t been as big as it is now either,” she said. “Nobody wants Eurovision to go back to being held in a concert hall.”
The EBU declined to comment when asked about the matter by SVT News. However, it did say that it wants to keep costs as low as possible…without saying how it has tried to do that.
As you’re well-aware, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Bulgaria have all pulled out of the competition in Liverpool.
North Macedonia’s broadcaster MRT cited the country’s energy crisis and “the increased registration fee for the participation.”
The Montenegrin broadcaster said: “In addition to the significant costs of registration fees, as well as the cost of staying in Great Britain – we also faced a lack of interest from sponsors, so we decided to direct existing resources to the financing of current and planned national projects.”
The world is, of course, gripped by inflation and an ongoing energy crisis, which together make everything more expensive.
Fewer participating countries means fewer countries to share the expense. BBC News linked the rising costs with Russia’s expulsion from the contest.
“BBC News understands some countries have been asked to pay more after Russia was banned from the contest,” it said. “Russia, a large financial contributor, was expelled from this year’s competition after it invaded Ukraine.”
What ideas do you have for the EBU to help reduce the cost of participation? Should it enter into a corporate agreement with a social media company like TikTok and use the proceeds to defray the cost for poorer countries? Should it devote all of its YouTube revenues to help defray the costs? Let us know your ideas down below!
When it comes to stage, graphics and venue of course biggwr is better, but when it comes to the show itself the nost important thing is that it is entertaining and that can be done on a pow budget.
I really liked the approach SVT took when they’ve hosted the contest. They’ve managed to slash costs while also delivering probably the best shows in recent history.
Way too much money is spent on gimmicks (rotating sun, anyone?). It can be done cheaper, while also maintaining high level of quality. I’d rather have more entries than flashy features that are used once during the entire season.
How can a show that is now half playback can become more expansive than before ?
Have you noticed the inflation?
Not sure what you mean by halfplayback. If you mean it as a traditional definition, e.g. pre-recorded music, orchestra has been gone for decades and back then the show was on much smaller scale. If you’re refering to pre-recorded vocals, that doesn’t really save anything as the delegation tend to have the same size (most replaced backing vocalists with dancers), and you still need to have 6 mics and all the related tech ready for those delegations that choose to use it.
claiming that no one wants eurovision in a concert hall is false. many people, including myself, know that size of venue doesn’t determine how extravagant a performance is. i’ve seen bands do full light shows in venues that couldn’t even hold a thousand people. we can still get the same level of quality in smaller venues. they just want to make the most money off of people that they can.
It’s fine, according to what I understand there are countries that have a large budget, for example Israel that intends to invest almost 1 million dollars for the participation in 2023.
Israel is not investing a million dollars in their 2023 participation, this number was thrown by Noa Kirel’s manager and taken out of context.
According to her manager, by dedicating several months to her Eurovision participation Noa is forfeiting approximately 3 million Shekels (= about $900,000) she could have made during this time doing promotions, performing etc.
It’s not money that goes to the Israeli participation, it’s theoretical money Noa *could have* made, allegedly.
I assume the Israeli budget is going to be high in 2023, but I don’t think it’ll be as high as 1 million dollars.
I doubt the venue size has major impact on the overall cost. If anything, a large venue can bring more revenues from ticket sale, and if I’m not mistaken the costs of securing the venue for the contest are covered by the host municipality anyway (at least that’s how it was when my country hosted a few years ago).
You can hold the show in a big arena with many spectators, and keep things simple and clever, rather than complex and extravagant.
Get rid of Junior Eurovision and allot those resources to the real Eurovision.
well I disagree. Look at the JESC 2019-2022. 60 % of the songs are even better than the songs they present us in the adult ESC.
I 100% agree with you.
Hey, that’s mean. Some Junior Eurovision songs are actually better than the adult songs Depending on the country.
I wouldn’t mind Eurovision going back to being held in a concert hall. But that’s just me.
Me too, I’d love a back to basics contest. No pre-recorded vocals, no CGI, no hidden backing singers. No time-wasting spokespersons. I could go on.
100% with live orchestra
Live orchestra? We’re cutting the costs, not adding them.
How can you see the orchestra performing a fully electronic song? It’s impossible.
meanwhile recession is coming
good luck with that
The bit about it being expensive to stay in the UK – surely it can’t be as expensive as the Nordic countries which, when I visited, everything was at least 4 times the price as even London!
Azerbaijan is still taking part in ESC 2023,probably this time with a new different strategy to get votes.
They will come to sell SIM cards to Lithuania bc of the Diaspora like in 2013 😀 haha
Does anyone know WHAT IS THE ACTUAL FEE?
Difference in % between 2023 vs. 2022?
Bigger does not mean better. EBU claims “Nobody wants ESC to be held in a concert hall”. But I know a lot of people would like ESC to go back to the days when it was about music, not OTT stuff on stage. AND most of all – much cheaper. ESC is far too expensive these days. And the fact that 3 countries sadly pulled out for 2022 proves just that
That is not a statement from EBU but from someone at SVT who works with ESC. And it is true because people expect ESC to be a big spectacle. It has always been a show. No one wants it to be held at concert halls because no one would watch and thus EBU would not get renevues from it. It is not the 1960s any more and people standing in front of microphones
There is nothing wrong with people standing in front of microphones. And let’s just face it: the show has gone too big. If it is so expensive to produce it that some countries can’t afford to participate anymore, then maybe the EBU should de-escalate, cut the costs, and reduce the size of the show. Simple as that.
No there is nothing wrong with that but that is not what ESC is about. That would lead to decline in interest and fewer tickets sold which leads to less renevue for EBU.
Who says it is to big? There are more countries taking part now. It has to be big to fit the size. How could these countries compete in Tel Aviv and Stockholm if it so expensive? The reason they pulled out is that they did could not persuade artists to take part in another song that would flop
Twenty-six, or even 20 songs in one show is too much, Denis.
You’re not wrong.
Eurovision often remind me of the Talkshow Katniss attended for Rich People in the “Hunger Games” movies.
Meanwhile people are literally dying in Ukraine, rich Europeans are partying.
It feels a bit distasteful 🙁
YouTube should become a Main Sponsor of Liverpool 2023
It’s already small. What more do you want? ESC to be held in a bar? People watch it because it’s a big event. Only hardcore fans watch it for the music etc. Yes, a big contest (like it is rn) is necessary.
I know we ESC / JESC fans don’t like to hear it .. but there are only 3 ways to deal with that problem: a) to make the event smaler b) to add commercial breaks to the show to make it more attractiv for big sponsors like Coca Cola or Pepsi, c) to bring now players to the contest like Canada or USA.
Only A
most countries already have ad breaks in the show. There are specific monets in the show where EBU allows for breaks
Never too long when it comes to Eurovision!
I agree. I mean the contest is only held once a year so 4 hours is fine by me.
Totally agree! Some events are way longer than the Eurovision final and people still watch it so I don’t see the problem. Plus if people find Eurovision already too long it’s because of the Eurovision itself and not the breaks… there are like 3 breaks of 30 seconds each in a 4 hours live. If those breaks have to be a little longer in order to have more money and let enter more countries in the contest, then let it be. Having a couple of minutes of additional breaks won’t change anything for a 4 hours show.
I dont agree most people like a 4 hour show. We already saw in the Tel Aviv edition what happens when you stuff to much in. What fans want after the songs is the voting. Problem is not ads, probleme is having to many interval acts no one cares about
I agree with you.
smaller event, similar to sanremo according to stage and venues , going back to a big theater
B is not really an option as most public broadcasters in Europe aren’t allowed to interrupt a programme with ads. Those few that can already do it.
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Hungary, Russia, Belarus, Jordania, Egypt, Libya, Turkey.
How many of these countries allow us to be who we really are, with their governments reducing human rights for many of us. Say no to money and yes to human rights!
Don’t forget Italy.
And Ukraine
Serbia, Romania, Poland, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Israel, Georgia, Armenia, Greece, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia… all homophobic.
For some of them, the government is. Every country will have some amount of people who are homophobic.
Don’t make an assumption about a whole country based off of some people or the government.
I’m judging by the law of the land. Obviously I don’t hold every single citizen responsible, even if they could be doing more to change things.
Israel?!
Yes, Israel. Just because a country is not as bad as Qatar does not mean we need to settle for anything less than full equality.
Greece too? I’m shocked.
Perhaps you should look again into the laws of Greece, Cyprus, Croatia, Czechia amd Estonia before writing uninformed nonsense here.
No. You should. None of those countries have marriage equality. Hetero only. It’s you who does not know what you’re talking about.
Fifa 2022 happening in Qatar with it’s human rights violations and so on has showed us that to keep Eurovision going on they had to raise the fee, expecially since some countries have decided to withdraw.
Remember that bringing countries in that don’t allow LGBTQ+ people to express themselves, means we lose the values that Eurovision stands for.
Less songs, but I want to be able to go to Eurovision as who I am, and not getting beaten up to death on the street.
Eurovision 2022 was held in a country that treats gay people like second class citizens.Nobody seemed to care, though. Sad.
Italy???
Tell me, can gay people get married in Italy?
The homophobic downvotes here don’t surprise me. How very sad.
Don’t believe to be so important. The downvotes come from Italians, or from foreign gay people who came to Italy and were welcomed without problems. It’s like saying all USA are homophobic because if you travel in the midwest, like in Montana, you find an homophobic who insults you. It’s Montana, not California. I was not downvoting you when I read your first comment, but then I read the second, and you’ve earned a downvote. Well deserved, mate.
We have civil partnerships. Is slightly less than being married but it is the same. It seems you don’t know Italy too much. Like in other countries in depends on people. Being gay in Milan is quite normal. Still you may find an homophobic who insults you, but you can live without problems. In other parts of the country it may be more difficult, but society has advanced more than you think.
That’s not equality. Not being beaten to a pulp is a very low bar in deciding what “homophobic” means.
And speaking of the last decade that was not the only ocassion – so it was in 2017 and 2012
And it’s bound to be the worst WC ever. FIFA World Cup has its days counted, as United 2026 doesn’t look any better
[OFF TOPIC] PLEAAAASE, wiwibloggs, do an article about the recently released album of Amanda Tenfjord! It sounds amazing
Petrodollars from Kazakshtan, UAE, Morocco, Jordan, etc. A stronger partnership with TikTok to make the songs viral and the participating broadcasters will benefit from it.
Welcome to Jordan, don’t express same sex activity, no rainbows and women get to go if they have a man who takes them there.
sounds very modern and progressive!
AzerBRIBEyan
AzerBYEjan
Haha
This year making the media centre access more for professional journalists and less for private blogs with small audiences was a good way to cut the costs.
Having a propper size venue means that bigger isn’t always the most cost effective, but I’d say UK is giving a great example alongside this years host Italy that even though we are in one of the biggest countries in Europe the venue can be around that 15k capacity.
We still have a good amount of countries taking part, even with the cost being higher.
I also agree that if the venue allows to host all the small blogs with only a small audience, it is OK to dedicate also space to them. I mean, Rotterdam’s Ahoj was in a congress center so there was a large hall at close distance to host journalist and fans. If the venue doesn’t have it, as in Turin, it is very expensive to have 500 tables to host small groups of bloggers doing what they could do remotely from home. They should put a limit to allow the attendance of a limited number of blog owners, according to… Read more »
one more thing, regarding the fees. I think the EBU could and should also do for Eurovision something similar to what UEFA does with the Champions League; bringing more general sponsors in multiyear contract (up to six or eight companies sponsoring the contest). so we have:
-participation fees
-host broadcaster contribution
-host city/country contribution
-general sponsors (bound in a multiyear contract and not relying on the host country)
-national sponsors (sponsors from the host country)
-additional international sponsors (outside of the general sponsors)
plus of course contributions within the contest itself (ticket sales and televoting)
“Nobody wants Eurovision to go back to being held in a concert hall.”
.
yes, but also, in my opinion, it shouldn’t be too big as well. to me, a football-based stadium (like where they did in 2001 and 2011) should never be the main option. the most ideal venue for Eurovision is a multipurpose indoor arena (that also holds ice hockey and basketball matches), and the ideal capacity is somewhat around 15,000 (with the range of between 12,000 and 24,000).
But people do expect it to be this big spectacle in my opinion. That is the point with it, to once in a year have this great party that goes all in in extravaganza. I also think interest would decline if it was held in medium sized concert halls, that is not what people want from ESC. It is not just a show…
Well that is good for you. But most people when they think of ESC they think spectacle. And if you want the spectacle you have to pay for it, which might be the problem
oh sorry. Did not understand. Words are tricky to understand sometimes..
But yeah, ESC is a glamorous show..
Tel Aviv managed it in a hall with 7000ish people. It can be manageable.
The stage and show was made in such a way that people thought it was grand. And it worked.
Bigger halls does not necessarily mean better shows. Quite the contrary (cough*Copenhagen 2001*cough).
It isn’t because eurovision is bigger this year again. We just live in the biggest inflation crisis in decades. Pretty logical to come to that conclusion when we all go to the supermarket i’d say.
Yes, people are needing to watch their electricity, heating, shopping. Budget for what we can afford. That’s what the EBU should be doing.
I think it is precisely because of the crisis we need our spectacular show..
I have a feeling the EBU will invite nations to compete to cover some of the costs that poorer countries cannot afford. I’m looking at you, Kazakhstan.
I wouldn’t mind if every year the EBU invited a different non-European guest country to compete either. It could possibly decrease the cost for other nations and bring more viewers and excitement to the contest! Brazil, New Zealand, South Africa & Argentina all have strong ties to Europe (like AUS), so they could be potential guest countries.
Strong ties to Europe are not necessary, and if they do that, Australia should go in the queue with everybody else.
Australia feels like a certified member of the Eurovision club now. They’re with us for good hopefully (fingers crossed).
Any other nation can join the queue, but not Australia. They’re part of Europe every May now. Strong ties to Europe just make sense for a ‘guest country’ in my opinion. South Africa participating as a guest nation makes more sense than say… Madagascar.
Madagascar have only been independent from France since 1960, four years after the contest started.
Regardless of their date of independence, Madagascar isn’t as European as Argentina, Uruguay, New Zealand, Quebec, Lebanon or Chile.
Please explain how, and why this is important.
Why are people downvoting this fact? I would think colonization would count as a “strong tie”, don’t you?
Because you are talking nonsense, and not just on this article. You almost sound like a troll.
This was just a hypothetical situation.
I think people are downvoting you because you’re taking a lighthearted conversation too seriously.
out of those outsiders you mention, only Australia “qualifies” for the participation, because they have consistently telecast Eurovision for more than 30 years before their participation, thus making them have considerable base of audience. others even don’t come that close and they have to do it (for at least 10 consecutive years) before even being considered to get invited.
Also isn’t it rumored they pay as much as the big five to take part? I can’t imagine many guest nations without the ties Australia has wanting to contribute that much
There’s no way that’s true. SBS are a tiny underfunded public broadcaster, they probably pay very little.
You’re right, the Aussie government hates SBS and continues to underfund them, so I doubt their fee is as much as a big 5 nation.
I wish ABC took over Eurovision for Australia, it would possibly become the most-watched event on Australian television if they did so. ABC’s ratings are far better than SBS’s.
Those are very good points.
So I guess Eurovision can’t expand past its current borders for at least the next decade, or even longer. Maybe if Eurovision Latin America happens, those nations will start to tune into Eurovision and their broadcasters will express an interest to join. That’s wishful thinking though, I’d just love to see countries like Brazil or Argentina participate in Eurovision.
We (Brazil) do have strong ties with Europe – not only we were colonized by Portugal, but people from many European countries came to Brazil, such as the Italian, Spanish, Polish, Ukrainian, German, and there are some cities here with German dialects as their co-official languages. However, I don’t think that inviting Brazil, Argentina, NZ, USA, etc. would be a good alternative. People here in Brazil barely know Eurovision (though some songs have been trending here, such as Snap, Arcade, and some artists like Maneskin, Maro, and Amaia performed in the country this year), and the time doesn’t help either… Read more »
I watched an documentary by The Royal Family in Norway.
They visited Brazil and the King of Norway made it so Brazilian Coffee came to Norway, and Norwegian Aluminium Expertise came to Brazil.
Today “Norsk Hydro”, one of the largest industrial companies in Norway has a South American Headquarter in Rio de Janeiro.
It was built in 1977
So Brazil and Scandinavia even have close ties.
As with many things in life, there is no simple fix, especially when there are a number of factors at play. However, I do have some novel suggestions:
1. Have the option of dual-hosting, similar to what we have in 2023. Allow the winner the option of teaming up with the runner-up (if they too agree) and run a joint contest.
2. Place a fine on those who break the rules.
3. A trust fund to help partially cover the costs of poorer countries. EBU could organise fundraising activities.
Participation fees go up while the quality of the competition goes down. Don’t get me wrong, 2021 and 2022 were decent in terms of quality of the songs and the overall direction. The last good Eurovision in my opinion was 2011, and I see no reason for countries who can’t afford the new fee to return until we return to the glory days of Eurovision(2006-2011).
I guess that’s a very unpopular opinion, lol
2020 would have rivalled 2011 if it was not cancelled. Still sad about it.
Let’s just hope the stage works this year and we don’t get random backstage or roof shots.
Mistakes can happen, especially when the cable of the rail cam on the ceiling of PalaOlimpico and that camera was responsible for many aerial shots, breaks and falls hanging over the arena. There were other bad cuts, I agree. But let’not exaggerate.
EBU became extremely ignorant
I’m sure Kazakhstan is dying to pour its oil money into the contest.
I would personally be fine with a smaller stage, not every year needs a Kyiv 2017 size stage that thing was massive
“Nobody wants Eurovision to go back to being in a concert hall”
Maybe the smaller countries with no giant arenas and need to bankrupt themselves to put on the contest do?
Viewers don’t want Eurovision to go back to being in a concert hall.
I guarantee views would plummet if Eurovision was hosted in small concert halls for the foreseeable future.
Sanremo is in a smallish theatre and doing fine.
Sanremo never progressed past small theatres, Eurovision did.
Sanremo caters for 11.4M viewers, Eurovision caters for 189M viewers.
All 189 million people don’t need to fit into the arena, most of them stay at home.
back in the 2000s, there was a consideration to move the Sanremo festival to Mediolanum Forum in Assago (which is an arena with up to 12,000 capacity), but that idea was either refused or retracted. . I don’t know if Sanremo as the city still had an area of at least 2 hectares (with length and width of at least 140 meters each), so that they could build there a new modern multipurpose indoor arena with at least 12,000 capacity (that can hold a basketball match, an ice hockey match and concerts even as big as Eurovision); an arena similar… Read more »
For 3 or 4 years of the nineties the Festival of Sanremo was broadcasted from the Palafiori, a large warehouse of the flower market in the outskirts of Sanremo. Sanremo being known as one of the largest producers of flowers in Europe. It has been a flop because the large parterre and audience was too dispersed and not giving the same “closeness” to the stage as it is now and has always been in the Ariston Theatre. And it was far from the city center in an industrial area. Not the same as being in the city center. I agree… Read more »
I think it’s right that the costs go up in total, though it may be that the richer broadcasters should take more of a hit if some of the poorer ones genuinely are struggling. I know the BBC always see it as very good value.
They already do, that’s why they go straight to the final.
fees are going up partly because fans and viewers and expect an ever-bigger competition. This is such as shameless lie, Russia which was banned was paying a very high participation fee because it had one of the biggest audience shares. Now the rest of the countries have to share the cost. How are the fees raised just because of fans expectations, are they for real? The contest is turning into a profit machine, shall we talk about that tiktok deal maybe? About kicking out the fans from the press center??? The contest is turning into european melfest where if you… Read more »
ever bigger? not really. the ideal size of Eurovision is, to me, around 15,000 (at least 12,000 and at most 25,000), held in a multipurpose indoor arena (an arena that can also hold an ice hockey match). I don’t actually like Eurovision in a football-based stadium because it is too big. that’s why my favourite editions scale-wise are 2016 and 2018.
I’m glad it never happened. Some of the magic ambience would be lost. A standing area with the same people holding up their phones every year would be terrible.
a good combination of seating and standing audiences at the floor will be a good idea. front rows seated, back rows (close to the arena greenroom) could be standing.
That’s what happened this year in Turin. The green room in the parterre, some rows of fans below the secondary stage, and that’s it. Until Covid will not be completely over, I don’t think EBU will allow to have situations like Oslo 2010, or Vienna 2015, Kyiv 2016 or Lisbon 2018.
just one correction: Kyiv was in 2017, 2016 was in Stockholm.
I’d rather the production be more modest and less sophisticated if that means more countries get to participate.
It’s not fair for the poorer countries to raise the participation fee when it’s not necessary. Just stick to a tighter budget when producing the show.
It would be enough to reduce the “special effects” of some let’ say poor countries to a minimum. We all know we all say “wow” when we see special effects, large fireworks, large and intricate props on stage. But at the end, in 2017 Salvador Sobral won the Eurovision with a minimalistic performance. The so called “poor countries” may try to bring more quality songs and less expensive fireworks, as we know the hosting company invoices the amount and size of props and fireworks used by each country.
I agree with this method 🙂 Participation fee needs to be high, so that only countries that are really interested in the competition take part in it. Nobody wants countries participating with half-arsed and low budget attempts
Be more precise and write you want only rich countries to participate .
They should be transparent about where the YouTube revenue goes, since they force artists to give them their videos and exclusivity for a certain time period.
If I recall, revenue sharing is not even split between Youtube, the channel, and the artist, but also the record label, the songwriter(s) if it’s not the singer as well.