Is it time to abolish the big 5?

[ElRuso]

i don't really understand the drama about the 5. Who cares ? They don't send shit cause they're PQ, they sent Shit because their HoD didn't understand yet the rules of ESC (UK and France) being in the semi won't change their mind by black magic, Italy is doing well, Spain is trying too hard and Germany has its own NF. France ratings are not that good but they beat the overall ratings of Sweden this year (i compare with the winner) . That's too much important for the EBU to abolish it.

+ they are the biggest contributors like… that's a huge amount of money : Ireland paid 63K€ in Oslo and 333K€ for the UK (you can find all the numbers with some research on google). If everybody has to pay the same fee to EBU, each country will add 30K € to their actual fee, that's just unbelievable for states like San Marino, Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I'm fine with the big 5 and i'm fine with the fact that my country has to come through the SF (even if we pay around 100K each year)

I am just really curious how much does Russia pay.

Edit: just found that spent €10 000 000 in 2011, and €1 000 000 in 2008, while spent €7 000 000 in 2008. And this does not include the participation fee. It seems Russia and Azerbaijan can afford to pay for the Big places in the final.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

I am just really curious how much does Russia pay.

Edit: just found that spent €10 000 000 in 2011, and €1 000 000 in 2008, while spent €7 000 000 in 2008. And this does not include the participation fee. It seems Russia and Azerbaijan can afford to pay for the Big places in the final.

If I remember rightly Russia was offered a place in the Big 5 but they declined it.

 

[Leydan]

It's not like they need it. ^ tbh though I would prefer they had it, so it would free up a space for a qualifier in the semi's.

 

[Krishoes]

Edit: just found that spent €10 000 000 in 2011, and €1 000 000 in 2008, while spent €7 000 000 in 2008. And this does not include the participation fee. It seems Russia and Azerbaijan can afford to pay for the Big places in the final.

Wawawawawaittttt... 10.000.000 €???

 

[GermanBango]

If you abolish us, we'll abolish Eurovision muahahahaha :twisted: sorry .... I had to ...

 

[DanielLuis]

If I remember rightly Russia was offered a place in the Big 5 but they declined it.

Really? Interesting, I didn't know that!

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

Really? Interesting, I didn't know that!

I cant swear by it but I'm sure I remember it being the case around 2010 or something.

Personally I would like to have Russia part of a Big 6, then the host nation and Australia = 8 pre-qualifiers. And then pick 11 from each semi, and have 30 in the final.

 

[Brandt]

I cant swear by it but I'm sure I remember it being the case around 2010 or something.

Personally I would like to have Russia part of a Big 6, then the host nation and Australia = 8 pre-qualifiers. And then pick 11 from each semi, and have 30 in the final.

A good example to bring end of Eurovision.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

A good example to bring end of Eurovision.

Why?

 

[SuperGirl]

More countries to be pre-qualified to final??? Lol, this getting worse and worse.
I fail to see why Australia should pre-qualified. If the stay in ESC they needs to qualify from semifinal.

30 in the final??? Already 27 are too much.

 

[lowyby]

That's to do with the songs those countries selected, not the Big 5 system. Perhaps only being heard once puts them at a minor disadvantage, but I really do believe that 99% vote according to what they hear on the Saturday night, not the Tuesday or Thursday. But if this is a problem then it can be easily remedied, the Big 5 system does not have to change because of it.

Personally I think people who watch the semi's (= 20 m / semi, with the final having approx. 60m. viewers let's estimate that 15 + 15 from each semi and then + 5 m. who watched both, = more than 50% who've seen the semi before the final - Who would watch semi's and not watch finals anyway) have their favourites already in their mind. This also reflects in the voting, sometimes we see weird voting patterns between countries who were in the same semi

 

[LalehForWD]

Again arguments are made on false pretensions:

The big five contribute to EBU, NOT to Eurovision!!

Even if France and The UK would leave the contest, it wouldn't change a thing and would do nothing for the finance of Eurovision. It is the host country who pays (or earns profit) for hosting Eurovision. As I understand, EBU is a non-profit branch organisation for cooperation between European TV broadcasters and as such has no obligation to show its internal economy. What we know is that 5-10% (either progressive or a static sum) of the budget is contributed from EBU which thus is from all the participating countries (I guess the participating fee?). What is it in real money then? I once knew the exact sum contributed to Azerbaijan 2011 and Sweden 2012 from a "leaked" document published by SVT (this document is now gone), but if I remember right the sum was € 1.1 million contributed to Malmö 2013 from EBU - peanuts!. The sum was somewhat bigger to Baku which suggested a kind of progressive calculation.

So no, despite outrage in Daily Mail commentary fields over the UK's constant failure in Eurovision and "why are we paying for this crap?" The answer is: Well, you're not actually and haven't been since 1998, send something at least decent next time please.

I think the big 5 is big just because it reflects their power in EBU, likely based on a combination of tradition and financial contribution. The rule is awful and usually means waste of space in the final, that is possibly 5 entries in the semis robbed from a place in the final.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

You do realise that the EBU pays to host Eurovision too, right?? Plus the Big 5 have more expensive contributions to pay. Do you honestly believe that the United Kingdom pays the same amount to compete as San Marino??? If you do, then you're even more of a fool than I previously thought.

 

[LalehForWD]

You do realise that the EBU pays to host Eurovision too, right?? Plus the Big 5 have more expensive contributions to pay. Do you honestly believe that the United Kingdom pays the same amount to compete as San Marino??? If you do, then you're even more of a fool than I previously thought.

If you read my comment once more, I specify what we actually know about the finance of Eurovision. You should be aware I during 2012 put a real effort in understanding the subject, however little there is to find out. Sorry if the facts doesn't correspond to your perception of BBC's patronage towards the little countries, but that how it is as I understand it. If you can prove that I'm wrong in anyway I'd welcome your findings. Actually I cannot really understand why you would be offended by the comment. Was it the Daily Mail reference? haha. And of course, can you please stop being offensive and insulting in your replies, thank you.

 

[Matt]

It is more than just the financial contribution to the EBU. Imagine the viewing figures without the Big 5 in the Finals. It would take a huge it. That would have so many other implications such as sponsorship. It is all about the money, in one way or another.

 

[FoxOfShadows]

The big 5 should still pre qualify. Eurovision would just take too big of a hit if they didn't. But I think it would be a good idea if they performed on stage during the semis. One of the reasons their results are usually so bad is the lack of exposure they get to the audience. They'd have to get rid of semi final interval acts but I think it would be worth it to even the playing field

 

[dogmeat]

It is more than just the financial contribution to the EBU. Imagine the viewing figures without the Big 5 in the Finals. It would take a huge it. That would have so many other implications such as sponsorship. It is all about the money, in one way or another.

What about semifinal viewing figures? Without Big 5, about two of them would be missing from the final each year. In the current situation, however, all 5 of them are missing from the semifinals.

 

[CPV4931]

What about semifinal viewing figures? Without Big 5, about two of them would be missing from the final each year. In the current situation, however, all 5 of them are missing from the semifinals.

I only can speak for Germany, but I don´t think that lots of viewers would watch the SF even if Germany participated because Eurovision is a Saturday night tradition and nothing else for them. E.g in 2011, when Germany hosted and Eurovision was really hyped here, the semis were sent in one of the main programmes but had only 2-3 million viewers per Semi and also the arena was half empty. The Grand final had 13 million viewers in average and of course the arena was (nearly) sold out then.

 

[LalehForWD]

It is more than just the financial contribution to the EBU. Imagine the viewing figures without the Big 5 in the Finals. It would take a huge it. That would have so many other implications such as sponsorship. It is all about the money, in one way or another.

I agree. There's ads money as well plus all activities around the contest as for example this very forum. Losing France and/or The UK would be a catastrophe in many ways and I think no one would want that. But my point is that the usual argument for keeping the big 5 rule is false. Is the rule so important though? Suppose France fails to qualify to FIFA World Cup semi final (gosh), would they stop broadcast the cup? I mean it's a game of losing and winning. What's the point if you're always sure to be safe?

 

[Matt]

What about semifinal viewing figures? Without Big 5, about two of them would be missing from the final each year. In the current situation, however, all 5 of them are missing from the semifinals.

The Semi shows are peanuts compared to the Grand Final. The focus will always be on having as many viewers as possible that night.