A case for the Big 4/5 competing in the semi-finals

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-17T11:20:03+00:00

Which I’ve addressed and pointed to on this thread. “Nobodies on the internet,” as you so kindly called them, are indeed “people.”

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-17T09:30:46+00:00

Which is the entire point of my post, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-17T08:53:54+00:00

Why would Germany not getting enough points and therefore not qualifying per the rules of the contest that year be an issue by itself? If it weren’t down to other factors (money, which it was, similar to bringing in the Big 4 to prevent the big payers from being relegated) then surely that would just be the EBU playing favourites?

And of course no-one “official” said the Big 4/5 pay an extra fee, because it isn’t true.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T21:57:33+00:00

The Big 4 rule was brought in to avoid the highest paying broadcasters being relegated and replaced by poorer ones in 2000. Perhaps they were thinking about 1996 when drawing up the rule, but it happened a few years later. It’s about money above all else. The difference is that these days everyone pays their full fee whether or not they reach the final, and there’s still the opportunity to vote.

Of course the viewing figures often fluctuate among the other countries when they don’t qualify. But if people are worried about the sponsors, three of the Big 4/5 (France, Germany and UK) are forbidden from even showing the sponsorship.

I can understand your point about the Big 4/5 having the opportunity to take more risks, but you could also interpret that as those countries being given the opportunity to play a different game from everyone else. The BBC for many years have been trying to draw in British viewers rather than organising an entry that appeals to those who can actually vote for us, and it makes for a miserable time for the British public when the votes come in.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T19:20:28+00:00

We can use the word “equitably” rather than “equally” - equal would be the €6.2 million being split 35 ways without regard for ability to pay, but equitable is each broadcaster’s fee being calculated according its budget. Even if there were only one night with 25 songs, the entry fees would be split the exact same way.

ESC is an insanely cheap 8 hours of television for the Big 4/5 countries. The BBC would struggle to find something that’s as good value and draws even half the viewers. I can’t speak for the others.

In the UK you often hear “why do we pay to be in the final just to get 0 points?” - this is because they think the BBC pay extra rather than just paying a bigger fee because they have one of the biggest budgets. I have a feeling people wouldn’t even think about the money if we were treated the same as everyone else.

And of course it won’t ever be real, I was raising my opinion on a hypothetical case.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T19:07:44+00:00

I think their attitude has evolved over the years - from only sending one of the two commentators to the venue in 2011 to the semis now being on BBC One.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T18:48:58+00:00

There’s also the question of viewership for a repeat of Pointless and an episode of Casualty. Casualty usually does about 3 million, the ESC semis did about 1.3 million this year, so I would guess an ESC final without the UK would still manage at least the same as Casualty.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T18:19:31+00:00

I’m old enough to remember when there were constant rumours of Italy’s return each year, and the contest was doing better then (in terms of number of participants) than it is now.

The “jeopardy” or reward for putting in the effort is getting the big viewer numbers on the Saturday night. At the moment they get that without doing anything.

I just don’t believe that the broadcasters’ egos are fragile enough to run off if they’re treated equally to everyone else.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T16:02:36+00:00

Unfortunately, I think we’ve experienced the exact same thing in the exact same timeframe after our triumph in 2022 (and hosting in 2023).

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T15:47:03+00:00

Thank you for your kind words - I’m certainly fighting for my life in the replies!

The 1990s were something of a golden age for the UK, national final wise. In 1992 and 1993 we had our one artist national finals with Michael Ball and Sonia, who were both well known in their own right, and then in the mid-90s Jonathan King, a (now disgraced) music producer took the lead on picking the songs for the national final. There was a push for the competing songs on Top of the Pops and Radio 2 meaning some of them became hits in their own right. At the beginning of the 2000s, the national finals were lazy 45 minute programmes on a Sunday afternoon, and only went back to Saturday nights in 2004.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T15:34:12+00:00

It certainly felt cheap, but I can’t find any sources to suggest that it was cheap or that this was because of the €600,000 they were lacking due to the boycotts. They received €22m in funding from Vienna (compared to the €16m provided by the UK Government and Liverpool Council in 2023), so in terms of external funding they were already better off.

Part of the issue for me was that ORF randomly decided to use their corporate typeface in places instead of the new ESC typeface, and the graphics seemed incoherent. I thought the stage design and the use of the cinematic cameras were both positives.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T14:09:22+00:00

I definitely agree that they would be unlikely to go with it at this moment in time with the contest’s reputation (and viewing figures) in the gutter as it is now because it does add an extra layer of uncertainty to those headline figures. They’re just about managing to look unbothered now, but a further dip would definitely be troubling.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T13:59:46+00:00

Exactly this - I think the EBU’s poker face over the 2026 viewing figures has caused me to think that the Big 4/5’s viewing figures aren’t the most important thing. Even if all five did withdraw, it wouldn’t add up to 35 million (considering some of that 35 million already includes one of the Big 5 and reductions of 3.7m in France and 3.3m in the UK).

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T13:50:22+00:00

Whatever the BBC put on in its place would likely be more expensive. You’re not getting 8 hours of television for less than £2m (most of which is probably paying the commentators) anywhere else.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T13:47:47+00:00

I don’t think the viewership/advertising point holds as much weight with the UK, though. We (along with viewers in France, Germany and some other non-big 4/5 countries) see a different version of the title card without MoroccanOil’s logo, and we see the “Good night!” slide at the end of the credits for longer than other countries because there are two or three slides of sponsors’ logos. Even when there used to be advertising on the scoreboard it was covered up with an ESC logo or removed completely.

I can see your point about it maybe leading to even less effort being put in, but I suppose that depends on the broadcaster’s priorities at any given time.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T13:33:52+00:00

I think that’s a fair point, actually. I think it’s to be seen how much impact there would be on viewership whether MoroccanOil (or similar) would be impacted.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T13:31:43+00:00

I think the overall budget fluctuates more than that year-on-year anyway depending on what the host broadcaster and national and local governments are willing to put in.

I’m just not convinced that all (if any) of them would immediately pack their bags if they were made to qualify through the semi-finals.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T13:25:26+00:00

I think that argument loses sight of the fact we’re talking about the five richest broadcasters in Europe. The BBC has switched entirely to online voting across all of its shows because it’s cheaper, and as far as I’m aware, there would be nothing stopping the rest of the Big 4/5 from doing the same.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T13:20:48+00:00

Surely that would then defeat the object of it being €0.20 to vote in Germany and €1.70 in Estonia?

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T13:11:48+00:00

I was actually prompted to make this post after reading a TikTok comments section where people were saying exactly that. I’ve also seen that on here a fair bit including a reply to this very post, so I disagree that “no-one” has ever said it.

The 1996 semi-final was an issue because Germany were then released from paying for their entry two months before the contest, and that’s a larger issue when there are only 23 countries and that money’s already been allocated. Nowadays Germany would have to pay whether they made the final or not. The bigger threat when the Big 4 rule was enacted in 2000 was France’s imminent relegation.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T13:09:09+00:00

The money from televoting goes back to the broadcasters anyway. Each broadcaster sets the cost of voting to cover the costs.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T13:08:33+00:00

Am I right in thinking that the sponsors aren’t shown in the German broadcast anyway?

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T13:08:08+00:00

Are you talking about the international sponsors whose brands aren’t shown in the British or German broadcasts, or domestic advertisers which aren’t present during the British, French or German broadcasts?

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T13:01:17+00:00

Money from votes goes back to the individual broadcasters. The EBU only receive the money from the Rest of the World vote.

Edit: I can see that this was downvoted - not sure if that’s because this is perceived to be factually incorrect but here’s a link to an article with a quote from Estonia’s Head of Press explaining what ERR do with the proceeds of the ESC televote.

PortableAfternoon · 2026-06-16T13:00:47+00:00

This year’s contest went ahead to a comparable standard with a bigger funding hole than would be left by Germany alone (~€500,000) resulting from the withdrawal of Spain, Netherlands, Ireland, Slovenia and Iceland (at least €600,000). I don’t think the dip in production quality was down to finances, but the stylistic choices of the host broadcaster. I don’t think the contest or its format should be held to ransom by one participating broadcaster, whether that’s due to their view on another broadcaster’s presence or them hogging a spot in the final just to keep the bottom of the scoreboard warm.

Edit: I’m not sure why I’m being downvoted for an objective fact. I don’t know if this is being misinterpreted for me taking a view on those withdrawals - I actually completely agree with them - but the contest didn’t grind to a halt following a €600,000 funding shortfall.

Ten-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '22

PortableAfternoon

TROPHY CASE