Eurovision 2023 - BBC

[natashajacobs]

.

I assume the EBU covers most the financial cost now - after all the Big 5 is a thing after all. 

No, most of the cost comes locally. The City of Rotterdam funded quite a fair chunk of 2021, Israel's broadcaster only just managed to fund it alone after the government refused to provide funding in 2019.

It's worth remembering that the 'Big 5' are the biggest financial contributors to the EBU not specifically the song contest.

According to the FAQs funding from EBU members comes via a participation fee rather than direct from the EBU, but either way they are the biggest contributors other than the host country.   The EBU stump up $6.2m and the host broadcaster is expected to find $10-$20m, with further funding from the host city.

How is the Eurovision Song Contest financed?
The Eurovision Song Contest is a non-profit event, mostly financed by:

• contributions from the Participating Broadcasters (the so-called participation fee), adding up to €6.2 million combined. This fee is different for each country based on the solidarity principle that the strongest shoulders carry the most weight. It is at the sole discretion of each Participating Broadcaster to decide if they wish to make public the financial details of their participation;
  
• a contribution from the Host Broadcaster, which is generally between €10 and €20 million, depending on local circumstances and available resources.
  
• a contribution from the Host City, either financially or 'in kind' (e.g. covering expenses of city branding, side events, security, etc.);
  
• commercial revenue from sponsorship agreements, ticket sales, televoting and merchandise, which varies from year to year.
  

On average, over 90% of all available funds are being earmarked for the TV production and event organisation. Approximately 5% of available funds represent the budget for the EBU's Eurovision Song Contest team and its partners. Any remaining funds are being reimbursed to the Participating Broadcasters, for as long local legislation allows such reimbursement. The budget is overlooked and approved by the Reference Group, on behalf of all Participating Broadcasters, on an annual basis.

https://eurovision.tv/about/faq

Financially you have to wonder if the Ukrainian broadcaster can afford it (heck, we're all wondering if the BBC can too!) and I would imagine the EBU are probably helping to fund the current sustain service as it is anyway.   Not sure how the Ukrainian PSBs are usually funded but you'd imagine any kind of licence fee or advertising funding has significantly reduced, though governments of course fund their broadcasters during times of war as they are crucial.

Way more than I thought it cost, especially when the host city/authority must be providing venue, security, hospitality etc. all for free as it indicates. I imagine getting crew and kit for the full period of time must be expensive. But still, 20 million?!

[Newshound47]

I think there’s going to be far more Ukrainian involvement than some here are imagining.

Yes logistically and physically they can’t host it at home but they could still put together a presentation and creative team to do the editorial side of the show.

I beliece it will be based on the Australian Victory approach.  It'll be in another country mostly in geography only but I do stress if it's a co-pro both sides should be allowed involvement.  And as I keep saying, Suspline will be bringing in a very international team anyway.

The Australian approach is mutually agreed by both parties that Australia won't host it due to time differences and geography. 
The Ukrainian situation is entirely different. Ukraine have first refusal as to whether they can and want to host it. It's a similar situation to Israel in 1980. Due to security/safety issues at the time, Israel could not host it so the runner up country, Netherlands, stepped in and hosted it instead. 

The EBU do have actual rules and guidelines around this kind of thing. At present, it is assumed Ukraine will host. The moment they say they can't, the EBU will exercise their rulebook and will act in accordance to what those rules are.

That wasn’t the case. Israel won in 1978 and successfully hosted 1979 only to win again at home and be unable to afford to host for the second consecutive year. And the Netherlands was not the runner up. Spain was and they rejected the chance to host as well as allegedly the BBC. The Netherlands was 12th in 1979.  And in the end the date scheduled clashed with Israel’s Memorial Day and they withdrew entirely.

[Brekkie]

So Eurovision.tv has published an article on the plan for 2023 without even a hint that things might not be as straight forward as usual.

https://eurovision.tv/story/eurovision-w...n-for-2023

[Whataday]

So Eurovision.tv has published an article on the plan for 2023 without even a hint that things might not be as straight forward as usual.

https://eurovision.tv/story/eurovision-w...n-for-2023

Not even this bit:

"Traditionally, the winning country hosts the following Contest, but this isn’t always possible (as it was the case for the winning broadcasters in 1956, 1959, 1962, 1971, 1973 and 1979), and there are no hard and fast rules dictating who should host in these circumstances."

But honestly, that article could have been written ages ago. It's a generic "what usually happens next" piece.

[Brekkie]

Missed that bit - and aren't there "hard and fast rules" which sent most those contests to the runner up.

[telebox2001]

I note the very carefully chosen words regarding co-operation between member broadcasters.

And that, ultimately, is what the EBU is there for.

[p2004]

ICYMI: Romania's EBU member channel TVR did a show yesterday which was basically meant to be an entire "debate" on whether or not to participate, after they had their jury votes nullified for very blatant cheating identified by the EBU's voting partner. Some people doubted how fair this "debate" would be, seeing that the boss of TVR declared his support for withdrawal, but the tone set by the guests who they invited was that the advantages of Eurovision continue to be significant. Of course, you also had the head of the 2022 jury insisting that the conduct of the Romanian jury is fair and that the EBU's being xenophobic - but eventually, the show of course had no decisive answer. A poorly made poll on a website asking if Romania should stay in Eurovision returned a 58% da (yes) vote, with a further 7% expressing disinterest in the outcome of that poll - though it easy to hijack due to the fact it was poorly made.

San Marino RTV, meanwhile, did the classic complaining on Twitter move, and claimed that the EBU's answer to why their jury points went to Spain/UK/Sweden etc. was "because they were the best songs", but did not provide any evidence. The way the result was calculated was by taking the average of all non-disqualified juries from the nations in the countries' respective pot (used for semi-final allocations), who are put in said pot due to the fact that their voting patterns have long-standing similarities (eg. Georgia and Azerbaijan had their results calculated from the juries of Armenia, Ukraine and Israel).

[p2004]

I'm not saying this means anything, but someone in the UK delegation for Eurovision posted that he was attending the first Eurovision 2023 related meeting... and it was a photo of New Broadcasting House. Considering that BBC Eurovision's moved up to Salford, is this maybe a sign of something going on with the EBU right now?

[gottago]

I'm not saying this means anything, but someone in the UK delegation for Eurovision posted that he was attending the first Eurovision 2023 related meeting... and it was a photo of New Broadcasting House. Considering that BBC Eurovision's moved up to Salford, is this maybe a sign of something going on with the EBU right now?

No it will be one of the producers meeting the commissioners to start discussing the plan for selecting the UK act next year. Not unusual to start planning for big entertainment shows this early on, they would have done the same even during the UK's darkest days in the contest.

[p2004]

Fair point, but surely they'd do such a meeting in Salford, where the team's actually based? It feels slightly odd to be holding it in London after the BBC made a massive point of moving all of the Eurovision Song Contest related team to Salford.

[gottago]

Fair point, but surely they'd do such a meeting in Salford, where the team's actually based? It feels slightly odd to be holding it in London after the BBC made a massive point of moving all of the Eurovision Song Contest related team to Salford.

The commissioner's based in London and I'm pretty sure that exec producer is too. There won't be a Salford team working on it until there's more to be done much later in the year.

[Roger Darthwell]

Kyrylo Tymoshenko who is the deputy head of the Office of the Ukrainian President has announced that Ukraine has started the preparations for Eurovision 2023

[Newshound47]

Kyrylo Tymoshenko who is the deputy head of the Office of the Ukrainian President has announced that Ukraine has started the preparations for Eurovision 2023

The EBU still has to agree. I can’t see them agreeing if by September the official travel advice given by the governments of Europe is still do not travel to Ukraine.

[Jon]

Kyrylo Tymoshenko who is the deputy head of the Office of the Ukrainian President has announced that Ukraine has started the preparations for Eurovision 2023

The EBU still has to agree. I can’t see them agreeing if by September the official travel advice given by the governments of Europe is still do not travel to Ukraine.

Even if they’re making plans that doesn’t mean it’s their full intention to host it in their own country. The plans may be working on a country to partner with should they not be able to host it.

[p2004]

At the end of the day, this is all up to the EBU at the moment. Though it's exceptional for another country to host, this is an exceptional circumstance and no doubt discussions will go on for a while. Suspilne and the Ukrainian government may well have taskforces trying to establish the possibility of hosting Eurovision in Ukraine - but, as the situation stands, even they know that it's an unlikely prospect which requires a significant change in the conflict in the space of approximately 3 months - the EBU needs to get insurance and stuff, which nobody's gonna be able to get for Ukraine as it stands. My view is that the current moves are more so pleasing the public and almost boosting morale, while the EBU are investigating all possible options (as it is obviously not possible yet to ascertain that Ukraine can host).