Should the Winning Host Country always host the contest the following year?

[ESCConor]

I think this raises a lot of questions and of course raises many different opinions.

IMO, I think Eurovision should have an Olympic-style bidding process to decide who Hosts Eurovision in a particular year.


I believe it will help host countries have more time to prepare the necessary finances and infrastructure which will lead to a better contest and avoid countries broadcasters from having financial difficulties.

I do think there should be some kind of rotation rule, ie: No country cannot host 2 Eurovision's in the space of 4-5 years, this could prevent countries playing the system.

I also believe it will lead to a much more interesting Eurovision experience, It could help prevent situations where there requirements cannot be met and the deadline is the following year, so it would give time for them to meet all the requirements needed for it to be able to host.

I am interested in what everyone thinks about this, it is a good idea to avoid Broadcasters from financial difficulty like we are seeing with the Ukraine and would it help smaller countries who may not meet requirements to meet them.

I would welcome any comments you may have.

 

[Jukica]

[MENTION=16384]ESCConor[/MENTION] I assume that you posted the thread in wrong section by mistake, so I moved it to the other subforum

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

I think the winner should always be offered the chance to host it (barring exceptional circumstances). Of course they have the right to turn it down if they didn't want to.

I like it that you pretty much know where Eurovision is going to once the winner is announced, not before or afterwards. It is a Eurovision tradition I think.

I don't see any reason to change it to a bidding system because unlike the Olympics and World Cup (which require big infrastructure projects alongside them that take years to build), the main construction for Eurovision is only the stage. Cities host it with the infrastructure they already have.

Also bidding processes for sports competitions often cause the drama and end up detracting from the actual event.

 

[EscGeek]

I see hosting as a privilege you have to earn

 

[Sammy]

I think the winner should always be offered the chance to host it (barring exceptional circumstances). Of course they have the right to turn it down if they didn't want to.

I like it that you pretty much know where Eurovision is going to once the winner is announced, not before or afterwards. It is a Eurovision tradition I think.

I don't see any reason to change it to a bidding system because unlike the Olympics and World Cup (which require big infrastructure projects alongside them that take years to build), the main construction for Eurovision is only the stage. Cities host it with the infrastructure they already have.

Also bidding processes for sports competitions often cause the drama and end up detracting from the actual event.

This sums it up pretty well in every aspect I could think of.

 

[A-lister]

YES!

It wouldn't be Eurovision if it isn't the case, if EBU ever opens up the opportunity for other countries to host, then Eurovision will loose its soul, then it will be all about the money and the highest bidder will win the hosting rights and many countries will not even care to take part since they will never have the chance to host even if they would end up winning. Part of Eurovision's tradition and charm is the privilege of getting the hosting rights when winning. Bidding leads to corruption as so painfully obvious when you look at other international events such as the Olympics or World / Euro Cups.

 

[EscGeek]

Oh, the differences between newbie fans and pro fans

 

[Himan]

Now i really hope San Marino wins next time.

 

[EscGeek]

maybe san marino can host on their stadium

but if not, we could settle for a city in italy, located really close to san marino

 

[Haverdge]

Yes, that's one of the best parts of Eurovision; it means everyone has some skin in the game (for better or for worse!)

And it's especially exciting for smaller countries to earn the prize because let's be honest, a bidding process would mean the contest would almost permanently move to the West, or larger countries in Eastern Europe.

 

[Israeliboy]

Of course. It's part of why every country wanna win.

 

[midnightsun]

My first impression is, yes, the winner should host Eurovision. Because it‘s an honour. It‘s the prize you‘ve won because you DID win Eurovision. It‘s one of the main reasons why a country wants to win Eurovision.

On the other hand there might by countries that are afraid of winning - I don’t know I just guess - because they don‘t want to or can‘t host due to financial or other reasons. So they don‘t take the contest seriously (or, at least, don‘t try to send a real winner song).

So from that point of view I agree with the solution that hosting should be up to the winning country. They can accept or decline. If they don’t want to host, any other country could be a possible host.

 

[Sammy]

oh that „they don‘t want to win“ argument. if a country doesn‘t want to win there is a much cheaper solution: withdraw.

 

[Realest]

For Countries like Moldova or Montenegro its important to participate to get international Attention at least once per year. But Winning is probably too expensive for them.

 

[Sammy]

If you don't take it seriously, you don't get attention either. The argument is flawed.

 

[Realest]

No, Countries like Moldova can send Entries which can end up between 5th and 15th place, so they dont have to host it.

 

[Sammy]

you never know where you actually will be in the end. if you take it seriously, you have a good chance to win. if not, you will stick in the semi. you simply cannot say, I send an act that will place 5-10th. that was my point.

 

[midnightsun]

If you don't take it seriously, you don't get attention either.

Well, I think that's not that easy. Being a part of Eurovision is always an honour, for every country. After all it's a representation of a country and presenting a country. Maybe even your local music (like, e.g. Montenegro). You would want to present it to the world. And that's why it's good we have these countries in there.
I do understand why some would want to participate but would be afraid of winning.*
(* we don't know if that's the case at all)

 

[Sammy]

Well, I think that's not that easy. Being a part of Eurovision is always an honour, for every country. After all it's a representation of a country and presenting a country. Maybe even your local music (like, e.g. Montenegro). You would want to present it to the world. And that's why it's good we have these countries in there.
I do understand why some would want to participate but would be afraid of winning.*
(* we don't know if that's the case at all)

Seriously, I don't buy this "we/they don't want to win". It seems to me to be a lame excuse by disappointed fans. Maybe some countries participate though they know their chance to win is small, so they don't really count on it. But that's different from the paradoxical: I participate but I'm afraid of winning. Because if someone is really afraid of something he sees a considerable chance that it might happen. And if you do so - then you have a good song and do take it seriously. so again - this argument is flawed.

Anyway, even in this thread, we should not go off-topic, which I feel we do, when we go further in this discussion. I don't believe there is such a strategy with some countries, others do believe it - let's leave it at this.