The Eurovision Song Contest!
Who are you here for?
Israel! And we came to cheer for Noa.
Who are you here supporting, might I ask?
I wonder. Wild Youth from Ireland.
Celebrated and spoofed by audiences across the globe, the world’s largest
singing competition has become something of a cultural institution since 1956.
Eurovision is the best thing in the world. The most camp, wonderful world of happiness.
You’ve come all the way from Australia? We have. Wow, that is commitment! That’s incredible.
But behind the flamboyant performances and even more outlandish outfits,
the annual contest is also seen as a vehicle of political and economic powerplay.
Eurovision is full of political symbolism, it’s full of political meaning at every level.
In 2023, that’s more the case than ever.
The winning country traditionally hosts the next edition of the contest,
but second-place Great Britain assumed hosting duties in 2023
after the 2022 winner, Ukraine, was invaded by Russia,
which was, itself, booted from the competition.
Meantime, rising costs have prompted some countries
to bow out before the competition has even begun.
Whatever investment the country has made in putting on Eurovision,
we will get it back tenfold.
So what is the true cost of the contest – and is it really worth it?
First held in Lugano, Switzerland, the Eurovision Song Contest was dreamed up
by the European Broadcasting Union, an alliance of public broadcasters,
as a way of celebrating the culture and unity of a newly defined post-war Europe.
And while the EBU says that Eurovision is apolitical,
Dean Vuletic, a historian of contemporary Europe,
has studied how the contest intersects with European relations.
Every year on the Eurovision stage, we’ve seen political, social messages being projected through
the songs, through the performances of artists.
If we start with the first Eurovision in 1956,
the representative of West Germany was a Jew. A strong message from West Germany that it had
distanced itself from Germany’s Nazi past. In 1993, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia
debut in Eurovision as independent states, sending songs which have as their theme the
wars in those countries. And, of course, we see another war being played out in Eurovision
in recent years, which is why people love to watch Eurovision,
because it’s always a reflection of the political zeitgeist in Europe.
In the decades since, the contest has grown greatly, featuring the likes of ABBA, Celine Dion
and Olivia Newton-John, and incorporating even non-European countries such as Australia.
Yet, it remains a co-production between EBU public broadcasters, with all participating
countries – typically around 40 – paying a fee to fund the non-profit contest.
Europe’s biggest economies — Germany, Britain,
France, Italy and Spain, otherwise known as the Big Five — pay the greatest amount,
based on the EBU’s “solidarity principle,” which states that the strongest shoulders
should “carry the most weight.” They also automatically qualify for the final.
Other countries then contribute varying amounts to the pot,
which in recent years has totaled around $7 million.
But with inflationary pressures weighing heavy on Europe in 2023,
those fees were deemed too much for some.
The increase in participation fees this year has meant that it has become too
expensive for them to enter Eurovision. So the national broadcasters
from Bulgaria, Montenegro and North Macedonia are not participating.
Still, the main cost of holding the contest is shouldered by the host country,
whose responsibility it is to put on a show to remember. Those sums have varied vastly
over the years, with some countries more forthcoming than others.
In 2013, the Swedish city of Malmo reportedly took pride in hosting its event for around $20 million.
That’s well below the $42 million spent by Moscow in 2009, the approximately $30 million paid out by
Dusseldorf in 2011, and the $54 million dished out by Copenhagen in 2014.
But the crown for the priciest Eurovision to date is held by Azerbaijan’s capital Baku,
which spent between a whopping $64 and $76 million on the event alone,
not to mention the $100 million it spent on a new stadium to host it.
In 2023, the U.K. is expected to spend up to $30 million to hold the contest, as hosts Liverpool
seek to reflect Ukrainian culture while showcasing the best of British music and creativity.
As host broadcaster, the BBC will foot the bulk of the bill — an estimated
$10-20 million — while the U.K. government has said it will contribute $12 million.
That budget is topped up by ticket sales,
sponsorship deals and revenues from online platforms.
Meanwhile, Liverpool’s local authorities will spend a further $5 million,
largely on events outside of the arena.
Claire McColgan, director of culture at Liverpool City Council,
is responsible for allocating that budget.
Culture’s really important to this country, and the way that we portray our culture and
portray our identity internationally is hugely important. Tourism in Liverpool
is worth 47% of our economy, 47%. So this isn’t chicken feed for us,
this is really, really important. This is people’s jobs and people’s livelihoods.
The event comes at a challenging time for the U.K. economy, which is struggling to
keep up with its European neighbors amid soaring inflation and low economic growth.
In 2022, the U.K. was the only major economy that failed to return to pre-pandemic growth rates,
instead recording a contraction. In 2023, it is expected to shrink by a further 0.3%.
Meantime, months of industrial action, including train strikes
on the day of the Eurovision finals, are putting a strain on services.
It also comes as the BBC undergoes major cuts as it tries to plug
a $1.7 billion hole in its finances after the government froze the license fee.
Rarely have we had the opportunity to stage Eurovision, but it’s our time.
We were obviously really, really honored to take it on on behalf of Ukraine and hopefully
it’s a great opportunity to show everybody what the BBC does really well.
With all that expense, it begs the question: Why would the U.K. want to host the contest,
especially after scoring so poorly or being awarded the
dreaded null points so many times in recent years?
Well, for one, the competition can be a great advert for
the host city, and country, which can endure well after the party is over.
In 2019, Tel Aviv’s event reached over 180 million TV viewers
in over 40 markets, and millions more online.
It’s something that countries put on their C.V. when they’re aspiring to host events like
the Olympic Games or the World Cup. Just think about Russia: It hosted Eurovision
in 2009 and afterwards hosted the winter Olympic Games in Sochi and the World Cup.
Liverpool knows how to party!
Yeah, they’ve really stepped up. It’s the city of music,
city of culture, so yeah, they’ve smashed it.
That can also attract tourism spend and help boost the local economy.
2022’s host Turin, in northern Italy, spent around $12 million hosting the event
but said it made that money back seven times over through tourism.
James Bates, managing director at Maray Restaurants in Liverpool,
said he expects an uptick in customers during the contest, and hopefully longer-term.
Something like 50% busier. And where we’re sat now on the Albert Dock, there’s lots and lots
of foot traffic. People soon spoke about the ripple effect, and we certainly saw that
in 2008 when we were capital of culture, and the city are talking about the boost in visitor
numbers as similar to what we saw in 2008, which was sort of transformative for the city, really.
It’s hard to put a metric on the feel-good factor, right.
Liverpool themselves say the long-term economic benefit of Eurovision here over
five years is £250 million. We know that short-term, just this week, is £25 million.
The event plays an important role in showcasing a country’s soft power too,
through arts and culture — something both the U.K. and Ukraine are eager to do.
Hello, we are TVORCHI from Ukraine. And we are here to represent Ukraine.
What do you think it means for the people of Ukraine as well
for you to be representing the country this year?
It means a lot. Yeah it means a lot
because they felt the song we wrote about people with steel hearts,
so yeah, I think they chose us because we can show the world our courage, our bravery,
our strength, and inspire all people to be like Ukrainians.
Crucially, though, the contest represents one more act of solidarity with Ukraine,
and a reformulation of U.K.-EU relations as Britain seeks
to re-establish its presence in Europe post-Brexit.
For many Eurosceptics in Britain, Eurovision has been a symbol of what is wrong with Europe.
Since 2000, British entries have tended to place quite low on the scoreboard,
leading Britons to criticize Europeans for not liking Britain anymore. Last year that changed,
the United Kingdom came second. Europe is still in love with Britain,
with British popular music. So we also have to see this edition of Eurovision
as being a rekindling of a British love affair with Eurovision and of British relations with Europe.