Should Big 5 be expanded/abolished/kept the same?

[Marcos C]

Big 5 should stay unchanged. Also this is NOT the year to make those sort of changes.

Maybe there's never going to be a year to do so.

 

[SpiritofKeiino]

Modifying Big 5? Maybe, but what else do you mean by "those sort of changes". ESC needs changes asap.

I just mean in relation to changing the big 5 rule. I am open to other changes.

 

[soundofsilence]

Go NSC style
Top 6 pq

 

[NeoTen]

Maybe there's never going to be a year to do so.

When we surpass 45 countries, I believe would be a great moment to just remove the big 5. Just make up a prize pool and pull it from a mandatory EU fund. Everyone keeps making up nonsense about "Eurovision WILL become corrupt", not realizing, we just banned the juries of 6 countries a few years ago (not counting all the other scandals), there are 100s of studies on bloc voting and even corrupt national finals, and a new scandal keeps popping up every year or so. People already have trouble behaving ever since the '00s.
It's only like ~$4 million the big5 pay.

 

[HarryUK]

When we surpass 45 countries, I believe would be a great moment to just remove the big 5. Just make up a prize pool and pull it from a mandatory EU fund. Everyone keeps making up nonsense about "Eurovision WILL become corrupt", not realizing, we just banned the juries of 6 countries a few years ago (not counting all the other scandals), there are 100s of studies on bloc voting and even corrupt national finals, and a new scandal keeps popping up every year or so. People already have trouble behaving ever since the '00s.
It's only like ~$4 million the big5 pay.

To have 45 countries you’d need poorer economies to return who would require heavier subsidy from….. the big 5.

 

[NeoTen]

To have 45 countries you’d need poorer economies to return who would require heavier subsidy from….. the big 5.

Increase the fund. You can get the 4 million extra you'd need from a new EU fund. I mentioned that above. Didn't you read my post or was I not clear?
Ask your local political science mayor, the EU spends 10000s on coffee cups alone. They can just allocate some funds if they want to.

 

[Sammy]

I strongly doubt we‘ll reach 45 countries any soon.

 

[HarryUK]

Increase the fund. You can get the 4 million extra you'd need from a new EU fund. I mentioned that above. Didn't you read my post or was I not clear?
Ask your local political science mayor, the EU spends 10000s on coffee cups alone. They can just allocate some funds if they want to.

Who do you think would be responsible for covering increases in ‘funds’ as you put it? 4 million euros would only go so far.

 

[Verjamem]

Looks like having Big 5 won't save us from Moroccan Oil.

Eurovision 2025: Moroccan Oil remains the official sponsor of the contest - Eurovision News | Music | Fun

Earlier today, Moroccan Oil stated on its official website that it will extend its partnership with the EBU. In particular, the company appears to be maintaining its role as the official sponsor of the Eurovision Song Contest, which it has been holding since 2020. The announcement, which has not...

eurovisionfun.com

 

[Rasmus0714]

Increase the fund. You can get the 4 million extra you'd need from a new EU fund. I mentioned that above. Didn't you read my post or was I not clear?
Ask your local political science mayor, the EU spends 10000s on coffee cups alone. They can just allocate some funds if they want to.

Isn't EBU already piss off EU? Why would they pay for Eurovision?

 

[Romeo]

2024 was the year when the big 5 (plus Sweden) performed live in the semi finals. I said from day one this is the beginning of the end of the big 5.

Yes they pay the most but when we look at Sweden who have paid what they pay and hosted 4 times since 2000. 3 of those have been in the last 11 years - that’s 10 live shows since 2000. France and Spain have paid their share but Germany, Italy, and UK have paid their share plus hosted the contest.

I don’t have specifics regarding exact numbers but I think Sweden have contributed a decent amount of money everything considered.

Arguments could have been made 30 years ago but hosting costs was nowhere near the scale it is now.

I think SVT have a big say in how Eurovision works and IMO they would be putting up such an argument.

 

[HarryUK]

Bottom line is - if you want more Eastern European countries to return who have clearly cited economic reasons for their respective withdrawals over the years, then you need an incentive to keep the highest contributors coughing up the most cash. Taking away their automatic qualification is not the way to do it.

The EBU certainly aren’t going to subsidise national broadcasters themselves nor will the EU intervene with grants, especially as they have lashed out at the EBU over the banning of their flag at this year’s contest.

 

[NeoTen]

Who do you think would be responsible for covering increases in ‘funds’ as you put it? 4 million euros would only go so far.

People forget that it isn't a one way street in terms of earning. The official required share of hosting is only around ~5% tops for the big five. Their broadcasters choose to contribute more. That's their choice. They only get to pay more than that if they use more footage and sell more add time and promotion and new subcriptions (think stuff like iPlayer) with Eurovision license. They do, because they make up such large amounts of profit in earning for the commercials, a share of the telephone voting, merchandise, earning a piece by promoting the artist and record label and their own stations.

I get that increased amounts of LEDs, security and social media PR, accomodations and new camera's and technology have increased the hosting costs from just ~10-15 10 years ago to 30 million last year. But, this is coming from an entity (The EU, that that spends hundreds of thousands on blow and cocktail parties for MPs; gyms for dogs; private jets for conferences on climate change and making up computer games that nobody plays. Poland alone gets 11 billion.
The EU spends like ~40% on farmers and such; I reckon that'll go down seeing the trend of the Zoomers push for climate change. I'm sure an increase in budget up to 15-25m can be re-allocated for LGBTQ+ promotion in this contest and to "freeze" fees.
Do not also forget that that the EBU act as a group in bidding and hosting rights; they combine budgets of all the national broadcasters to buy the broadcasting rights for World Cups, European championships, some buy in other sports such as Motorsports, and such. They have much larger budgets than one would think. Most of the costs they don't run even on is a choice to spend.

Isn't EBU already piss off EU? Why would they pay for Eurovision?

No, because social media isn't real life. People are just socially engineered to take a position on there to increase engagement and increase add space prices on it. The EBU only sees numbers and there is no such thing as bad publicity. This year was actually increadibly succesful. So the EU is fine with Eurovision. As to why would they pay? There are a few reasons but an important one this decade is to avoid countries aligning with Russia and the population turning "classic right wing" because no broadcaster in a country will broadcast a "leftist" event such as ESC such as in Hungary. Not agreeing or disgreeing just pointing it out.

 

[Preuss]

If they keep the contest alive then why are we even having this discussion?

 

[Sabrewulf238]

I feel like now that the semi final performances for the auto qualifiers seems to have worked out there's even less reason for them to accept having to qualify..

Since the main argument was always that they didn't get as much of a chance to showcase their act.

 

[Realest]

They should be abolished, but still pay the same.