Is it time to abolish the big 5?

[MyHeartIsYours]

If we look at the cost of the 2013 contest, it was €12 million.

If we say that each of the Big 5 pay a direct contribution of around €350,000 towards each edition, then together we're looking at €1,750,000.

In other words, around 17% of each edition is paid for by the Big 5 direct contribution.

The Big 5 are 12.5% of the 40 participating nations, so already they're paying over the odds.

Add to that the fact that the host+EBU pays for over half of each contest.

It leaves the remaining 34 countries paying under 13% of the cost between all of them.


Based on the limited information we have supplied, we can presume that:
United Kingdom pays approximately €350,000 per edition if all of the Big 5 pay the same rate.
Russia (if not hosting) pays approximately €45,882 per edition if all of the non-Big 5 pay the same rate.


This is also excluding as has been stated above:

- The fact that the Big 5's broadcasters pay the highest contributions to the European Broadcasting Union (and with for example the United Kingdom, this includes the BBC - which is paid for by every British citizen paying an annual television licence, as well as other broadcasters such as ITV and Channel 4, which are paid for by the presence of advertisements during our television programmes).

- The fact that the Big 5 draw some of the highest viewing figures for Eurovision, which in turn means increased income for Eurovision through voting lines and advertising/sponsorship (if we look at 2011, the United Kingdom and Germany both had 13 million viewers each - 26 million together - a larger amount of people that the entire populations of 41 European countries - and that's without including France, Italy and Spain too).

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

And someone mentioned about the World Cup. Well the qualification for that is far more dodgy for that than Eurovision's could ever be, if you ever ask me. The qualification process is deliberately bent to ensure that the likes of England and France make it, at the expense of African and Asian countries, for the simple reason that they are England and France. In contrast, in Eurovision, we actually pre-qualify because we do pay more to fund the contest - whether directly or indirectly - and it is not at the expense of any other country, because all are allowed into Eurovision and all are able to make it to the Grand Final if they have a good enough song.

 

[ElRuso]

Something must be wrong with your calculations. I'm pretty sure that Russia pays more than €45 000, if Macedonia pays €100 000 to participate.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

Something must be wrong with your calculations. I'm pretty sure that Russia pays more than €45 000, if Macedonia pays €100 000 to participate.

I said if all of the remaining 34 countries pay the same rate, then it will be €45,000 each - whether or not they do who knows, but what is clear is that they pay significantly lower amounts than the Big 5 do (contrary to popular rumour).

 

[DenCalleja]

I think it's something that should have been done a long time ago tbh

 

[niko]

I think yes, because that will make them send better songs in order to qualify for the final. For example, in the last 10 years, the UK sent only 2 entries that weren't a total piece of trash.

 

[Romeo]

This is the same point I made a few days ago

I think it is a disadvantage to be a pre-qualifier so the only way to make it fair if they keep the PQs then they should get the chance to perform twice too

just call me a crystal ball

 

[gstt]

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?

France qualifying to the later stages of the FIFA world cup makes a very heavy financial difference for the broadcasters, they typically break even with a quarterfinal qualification, are looking at big losses if eliminated earlier and earn the jackpot if better.

While the World Cup could be assumed as a loss leader due to the prestige of the thing that will not work with ESC (0 prestige for the contest widely considered as trash in France). Broadcasters wouldn't pay close to the same fee without the guaranteed final spot.

 

[LalehForWD]

France qualifying to the later stages of the FIFA world cup makes a very heavy financial difference for the broadcasters, they typically break even with a quarterfinal qualification, are looking at big losses if eliminated earlier and earn the jackpot if better.

While the World Cup could be assumed as a loss leader due to the prestige of the thing that will not work with ESC (0 prestige for the contest widely considered as trash in France). Broadcasters wouldn't pay close to the same fee without the guaranteed final spot.

People keep saying if members of the big 5 fail to qualify in the semis, which btw is pretty certain considering their current quality standard, no one will be interested in watching the final and there will be considerable financial losses. Will there really? I assume you refer to commercial channels in the FIFA example Eurosport etc, but in most countries Eurovision is broadcast by public service. Technically it doesn't matter how many viewers there are and Eurovision is said to be very cost-effective compared to other TV shows. It's therefore not likely any broadcaster would want to change to something else. Wouldn't they rather try to advertise the shows more and take action to improve the situation? Such as sending better acts for example?

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

Actually, the World Cup does pretty much the same as Eurovision, it just isn't "official". The WC is heavily slanted towards UEFA in that most of the qualification spots are given to Europe, meaning that it is almost impossible for the big European teams with big interest in football - England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Netherlands - to not qualify for the World Cup.

Europe - 53 countries, 13 places in the World Cup
Africa - 52 countries, 5 places in the World Cup

In the end, the aim of all these competitions is to be as popular as possible and to make as much money as possible. They're not here simply for the fun of it.
It is far more important to Eurovision that it is popular in Italy and Spain than it is in Greece and Serbia.
It is far more important to FIFA that World Cup is popular in England and Germany than it is in Nigeria or Cameroon.

 

[SpZ]

Actually, the World Cup does pretty much the same as Eurovision, it just isn't "official". The WC is heavily slanted towards UEFA in that most of the qualification spots are given to Europe, meaning that it is almost impossible for the big European teams with big interest in football - England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Netherlands - to not qualify for the World Cup.

Europe - 53 countries, 13 places in the World Cup
Africa - 52 countries, 5 places in the World Cup

In the end, the aim of all these competitions is to be as popular as possible and to make as much money as possible. They're not here simply for the fun of it.
It is far more important to Eurovision that it is popular in Italy and Spain than it is in Greece and Serbia.
It is far more important to FIFA that World Cup is popular in England and Germany than it is in Nigeria or Cameroon.

Erm no, it is not the same in FIFA. For one if you want to give an example of a continent having many world cup spots, then you should use South America who had 6 qualifiers out of 10 countries last world cup. Secondly, they are not biased towards Europe. If you look at the world rankings, then actually Europe gets less spots than it has top spots. FIFA basically has opted to limit the number of European teams to diversify the competition and give weaker teams from places like Asia and Africa a chance. It is also rather unlikely that the main aim of ESC is to make as much money as possible as at least I have had the impression that it is generating a loss (at least for the host country) on most years and by that logic one could simply cancel the contest to increase profits (hasn't happened yet though)

PS: Do not combine the claims that it is important for FIFA to be as popular as possible and then bring the example of Nigeria being irrelevant when it has like triple or quadruple the population of England.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

Erm no, it is not the same in FIFA. For one if you want to give an example of a continent having many world cup spots, then you should use South America who had 6 qualifiers out of 10 countries last world cup. Secondly, they are not biased towards Europe. If you look at the world rankings, then actually Europe gets less spots than it has top spots. FIFA basically has opted to limit the number of European teams to diversify the competition and give weaker teams from places like Asia and Africa a chance. It is also rather unlikely that the main aim of ESC is to make as much money as possible as at least I have had the impression that it is generating a loss (at least for the host country) on most years and by that logic one could simply cancel the contest to increase profits (hasn't happened yet though)

If things were on an equal footing then each continent would have an equal amount of qualifiers. As it happens, Europe is given bonus slots because of its past and current standing in the football world.

This thinking is appropriate for Eurovision too. I mean it is unthinkable to have a Eurovision without one of the grand old countries there.

And if you claim Europe should be given more places in the World Cup because it is "better" at football than the African teams, then that is even more reason for a Big 5 at Eurovision. Big 5 country's music industry vs Iceland/Latvia/Slovenia music industry. No comparison.

PS: Do not combine the claims that it is important for FIFA to be as popular as possible and then bring the example of Nigeria being irrelevant when it has like triple or quadruple the population of England.

FIFA is interested in £££. That's available in England. Not available in Nigeria.


The "Big" system works well, and has served Eurovision well. It has maintained the Contest's popularity in the Big 5 countries despite over a decade's worth of poor results for us. Do you think tens upon tens of millions of Brits, French, Germans would watch the Contest if we'd been in it like once or twice since 2002?? Of course not. And I believe that the minute that the Big 5 audience switches off, that will be the end of Eurovision.

The only reforms I would suggest is that Australia and Russia are included to make a Big 7, that the 7 are all able to vote in boths semis, and that they all can choose their slots in the final.

 

[SpZ]

If things were on an equal footing then each continent would have an equal amount of qualifiers. As it happens, Europe is given bonus slots because of its past and current standing in the football world.

This thinking is appropriate for Eurovision too. I mean it is unthinkable to have a Eurovision without one of the grand old countries there.

And if you claim Europe should be given more places in the World Cup because it is "better" at football than the African teams, then that is even more reason for a Big 5 at Eurovision. Big 5 country's music industry vs Iceland/Latvia/Slovenia music industry. No comparison.

Well no. FIFA gives the spots away more or less based on the quality of the teams playing in each continent (with giving more to Asia and Africa due to diversity). In ESC terms it would mean giving final spots to countries that actually do well, eg Russia or Azerbaijan. UK and France would in no way deserve a final spot based on the output they are producing

FIFA is interested in £££. That's available in England. Not available in Nigeria.

Indeed, but your last argument was popularity and money. Now you are dropping the popularity part.

The "Big" system works well, and has served Eurovision well. It has maintained the Contest's popularity in the Big 5 countries despite over a decade's worth of poor results for us. Do you think tens upon tens of millions of Brits, French, Germans would watch the Contest if we'd been in it like once or twice since 2002?? Of course not. And I believe that the minute that the Big 5 audience switches off, that will be the end of Eurovision.

The only reforms I would suggest is that Australia and Russia are included to make a Big 7, that the 7 are all able to vote in boths semis, and that they all can choose their slots in the final.

I think that you can hardly say that it works. ESC is not popular in the big 5 countries at the present moment. And having the automatic final place in a big part contributes to the poor results those countries have. UK and France would be better off not qualifying to send the message that sending crap does not bring good results and to push the broadcasters to at least give an impression of trying to find something decent. Thinking that ESC ends after big 5 countries lose viewership is delusional - it would become somewhat smaller though (but there is nothing wrong with that)

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

Well no. FIFA gives the spots away more or less based on the quality of the teams playing in each continent (with giving more to Asia and Africa due to diversity). In ESC terms it would mean giving final spots to countries that actually do well, eg Russia or Azerbaijan. UK and France would in no way deserve a final spot based on the output they are producing

Nooo, you're changing your argument as you go along. European teams may have the best football in general, but not necessarily in the World Cup itself.

England hasn't won the World Cup since 1966, and almost always completely fails every edition.

France hasn't won Eurovision since 1977, and almost always completely fails every edition.

Indeed, but your last argument was popularity and money. Now you are dropping the popularity part.

Not at all, I have no doubt that the World Cup is more popular in England than it is in Nigeria.

I think that you can hardly say that it works. ESC is not popular in the big 5 countries at the present moment. And having the automatic final place in a big part contributes to the poor results those countries have. UK and France would be better off not qualifying to send the message that sending crap does not bring good results and to push the broadcasters to at least give an impression of trying to find something decent. Thinking that ESC ends after big 5 countries lose viewership is delusional - it would become somewhat smaller though (but there is nothing wrong with that)

Eurovision is super popular in the UK at least, it is one of the most watched television shows of the whole year, with a BBC One audience regularly exceeding the entire populations of many Eurovision countries. I know I can speak for Germany here too, France being the possible exception to the rule.

It doesn't have the reputation of being a top class showcase of music, it never has... that doesn't mean it isn't popular.

The fact is you look at the issue too sentimentally. Big 5 might send better songs if they don't qualify etc. The EBU and the Big 5 broadcasters are solely interested in money and audience... to them, the songs are really a non-issue.

It is clear that Eurovision would no longer be functional if the Big 5 left, if this wasn't the case, the EBU wouldn't have rewarded the five countries with special status. You will basically be left with Intervision, nothing "Eurovision" would be recognisable about it without the founding states and all the 60 years of history they bring to the Contest. Between them, they have over 275 entries each, the population of half of Europe and the vast majority of the Continent's music industry.

 

[LalehForWD]

It is far more important to Eurovision that it is popular in Italy and Spain than it is in Greece and Serbia.

:shock::shock:

This thinking is appropriate for Eurovision too. I mean it is unthinkable to have a Eurovision without one of the grand old countries there.

Big 5 country's music industry vs Iceland/Latvia/Slovenia music industry. No comparison.

The "Big" system works well, and has served Eurovision well. It has maintained the Contest's popularity in the Big 5 countries despite over a decade's worth of poor results for us. Do you think tens upon tens of millions of Brits, French, Germans would watch the Contest if we'd been in it like once or twice since 2002?? Of course not. And I believe that the minute that the Big 5 audience switches off, that will be the end of Eurovision.

The only reforms I would suggest is that Australia and Russia are included to make a Big 7, that the 7 are all able to vote in boths semis, and that they all can choose their slots in the final.

LOL Just want to say how flabbergasted I am to see you actually convinced that England is somehow more worth then other countries and strongly advocating for unequal treatment and favouring. I'm sure Swiss and Dutch viewers cherishes their countries contribution just as much you would look forward to the UK act to be the evenings most memorable moment. Personally I'm usually excited for Albania, Moldavia, Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Estonia besides for my own country and the Nordics. Sorry to say the big 5 have been dead meat in the contest for years and the entertainment value they contribute to the final is questionable. It's just how it is how frustrating it may be, not the least for many of your countrymen. Note that each of the pre qualified countries take a possible slot from the songs competing in the semis. For example (of many):

vs
Josh Dubovie - That sounds good to me

How devastating for Slovakia and unfortunate for Eurovision in many levels. Germany won that year despite being pre-qualified.

Eurovision is super popular in the UK at least, it is one of the most watched television shows of the whole year, with a BBC One audience regularly exceeding the entire populations of many Eurovision countries. I know I can speak for Germany here too, France being the possible exception to the rule.

It doesn't have the reputation of being a top class showcase of music, it never has... that doesn't mean it isn't popular.

The fact is you look at the issue too sentimentally. Big 5 might send better songs if they don't qualify etc. The EBU and the Big 5 broadcasters are solely interested in money and audience... to them, the songs are really a non-issue.

It is clear that Eurovision would no longer be functional if the Big 5 left, if this wasn't the case, the EBU wouldn't have rewarded the five countries with special status. You will basically be left with Intervision, nothing "Eurovision" would be recognisable about it without the founding states and all the 60 years of history they bring to the Contest. Between them, they have over 275 entries each, the population of half of Europe and the vast majority of the Continent's music industry.

The impact of the pre-qualified countries is actually minimal and I think few would notice if one of them disappeared, which is part of the problem. EBU have stated that this year each of the pre-qualified countries will get special attention in the semis, however it will be done. In my opinion this will only highlight the awkwardness of the rule and may even bring an unfavourable attitude.

For me it was such surprise moment when I realised that the main reason for the big 5 rule - the finance of Eurovision, explained and repeated many times by for example Christer Björkman - was false. A good question is: Why is that? Why do Christer Björkman say such things in TV when he know it isn't true?

 

[Mii11]

No, the Big 5 shouldn't be abolished. All the countries that belong in this group have very big population, which means that there is much bigger potential audience in, for example, the UK in comparison to Slovenia. Besides, countries like France, Germany and the UK are very iconic - final of a big European contest without them would be very odd, because (let's face it) those countries had the biggest impact on not only the European culture, but also on the whole world. If you ask a foreigner about European cities, one of the first things that will come to his/her mind are: Paris, London, Venice, Barcelona and Berlin. Moreover, not all Big 5 countries are careless of the contest - Italy was in Top 10 four out of five times since its return. Spain was in Top 10 two times in last 5 years and Amanecer was one of the fan's favourites last year. Also Germany has been doing well since 2010 (not including the disaster last year). I think that the biggest problem is (sadly) with the UK and France. Both of these countries are completely clueless about how to choose a good entry. Hopefully they will spruce themselves up soon.

To be honest, the only change I would make is to turn the Big 5 into the Big 6 - I think that Russia should be added because it always passes to finals anyway. If Russia was an automatic qualifier, then other countries which are less fortunate could qualify. E.g. last year we would see Moldova qualifying (although in the case of Eduard Romanyuta I am not sure it would be a good thing ), in 2014 we would see Portugal qualifying and in 2012 Switzerland would be included in the final.

 

[xymothe]

I think, that we must leave some fixed place for some countries, it can be the Big 5 + Russia, and the previous winner naturally.

For example, let's see this year. There are 43 countries. In my opinion, it would be better, if Eurovision has three levels: 3 Heats, 2 Semis, and 1 Final (as in our NF system ). If we count 7 fixed countries (as I see Russia also), we have 36 countries, which start in the first level. In the 3 heats, there would be 12-12-12 countries, with 8-8-8 qualifiers. So, remains 31 songs (24 qualifiers, and 7 fixed ones). In two semis, we have 15 and 16 songs, in this stage, the Big 5 + Russia, and Sweden join to the contest. With 10-10 qualifiers, been formed the Final with 20 songs.

Advantages:
- The contest become longer
- Each countries can get more points in each level (I don't want to explain that, it's logical)
- It means, that the 0s chances become less
- More profit to the host city, more profit from tickets, televotes

With this method, we can keep some benefits to the big countries, but they can't qualify automatically to the Final, so they have to be more motivated, to send an impressive song.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

I think it'd work best with 30 countries in the final:
- Host + Big 7
- 11 from SF1
- 11 from SF2

I think that'd benefit everyone, an extra chance for the countries who don't directly qualify, and if you factor in Russia and Australia being elevated to the final, that means there's possibly 2 extra spaces to be filled from each semi.

Let's be honest, not making the final is kinda like not making Eurovision at all. Few remember the semi finalists. At the moment, just about half of all entries to make it to the final. Under this system, it would be all but 10.

The fact that a Big 7 would be elevated to the final rather than be put into the semis allows countries with smaller music industries and less money a much better chance to qualify than they would if they have to battle it out in the semis with the likes of Russia, Germany, Italy.

 

[LalehForWD]

Just for the record, another suggestion that has been discussed is to give the top 5 or top 10 from the previous year bonus points in the semis. Which would mean that all countries compete in the semis but the previous winner/host country got such bonus it would qualify unless the song is complete crap. Makes sense in my opinion and would honour those countries who consistently makes an effort but maybe not win (several countries).

To be honest, it wouldn't take BBC much to secure a qualification in the semis considering the domestic music industry. Really. Just to take an example, at the time I calculated the BBC budget for Engelbert Humperdinck in Baku 2012. I don't remember any figures now but considering the song writing, studio recording, video and all the little things that come along, Engelbert didn't have much to spend in Baku. I guess he paid his hotel by himself.

 

[ZoboCamel]

The only reforms I would suggest is that Australia and Russia are included to make a Big 7, that the 7 are all able to vote in boths semis, and that they all can choose their slots in the final.

Don't really agree with this; I'm a little iffy on the Big 5 system as it currently is, and I certainly don't think it needs to be expanded. I'd prefer a system where the best songs - or at least, the most popular ones - ended up in the finals, rather than one where the rich countries or long-term participants are there every year even if they send crap. I'd like a meritocracy over an aristocracy, please

Just for the record, another suggestion that has been discussed is to give the top 5 or top 10 from the previous year bonus points in the semis.

Not sure I agree with this either. It pretty much tells participating countries that want to qualify each year but not necessarily win - which is a lot of them - "You only have to try every second year." That really doesn't seem like it'd help with the quality of songs at the contest. Plus, it's a system that'd make it difficult to break from past trends. Just say you've got a country that traditionally struggles to qualify - Macedonia, the Czech Republic, San Marino, etc. - and one year they send a good song, one that'd usually get them a qualification in one of the lower spots. However, another country that sent a hit in the previous year ends up sending a massive turd, which then takes the qualification spot from the otherwise-successful country using its free points and some regional votes. Not exactly ideal.

I understand that the current Big 5 system works something like this already by lowering the number of qualification spots in a less direct way, but changing the system in this way spreads the unfair advantage to influence even more countries, makes it difficult to reverse trends, and would more clearly highlight any unfairness, leading to additional anger (as with the current system you at least can't blame any one auto-qualifier for the failure of a semi-final entry, whereas with these changes you could). Just my two cents.