The 64th edition of the Eurovision Song Contest took place over the weekend, its viewing figures dwarf that of the Super Bowl, and beat BBC records with approximately 160 million viewers worldwide.
Despite that, it’s not that well known in the Americas, but awareness seems to be growing. What you need to know is that it’s a song contest open to members of the European Broadcasting Union; each country selects an act to represent them with an original song.
If you prefer a more narrative explanation of Eurovision, I can recommend the Netflix comedy Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga, which was surprisingly accurate and captured the ESC spirit.
This year Sweden scored their 7th victory, making their representative, Loreen, the second two-time winner in ESC history. For me, this was a joyous occasion marred somewhat by others’ displeasure (my viewing party, for one).
I’ve been displeased with the results in the past, it’s inevitable that some winners may be divisive, and while the discussions usually center on the top 3, I think plenty of lower-scored performances were far more deserving of praise this year.
Sweden’s winning entry of 2015 was also met with some grievances—I remember it well. But a win doesn’t guarantee anything, and audience favorites can use the exposure to establish international careers.
It’s the nature of Eurovision that it will result in upset fans—fans of the event themselves, fans of the artists, fans of the countries—it’s a mishmash of all sorts of allegiances.
So what are people taking issue with?
Why is a former winner allowed to return?
I’ve seen this argument the most, which tells me those who are upset may not be too familiar with Eurovision because it’s not new or unusual at all for former contestants to return. This year’s edition had a few other repeats, and former winners have previously returned without success.
I don’t doubt that there was an intense campaigning in the lead-up, but Loreen herself hasn’t released an album in years, hasn’t been touring or rhad much of a media presence. Her status as a Eurovision favourite is not unique.
It’s hard to believe that Loreen’s prior history with the festival was that much in her favour when beloved, then-record-breaking Alexander Rybak returned it didn’t do much for his entry.
And when it comes to an established act unfairly participating: that’s not new either! Katrina and the Waves did win when they participated, but there have been other established acts that didn’t benefit much from their fame.
Liverpool FC vs Everton FC
The first fan gripes I was made aware of involved local football fans.
This year’s competition was hosted in Liverpool, a city with two local football teams: Liverpool and Everton. It just so happens that Liverpool uses the song “You’ll Never Walk Alone” at their matches, and is generally associated with the city.
So it shouldn’t be surprising that the song was performed as an introduction to the event. It probably shouldn’t be surprising that the Everton fans found themselves alienated and angry, taking it as an intentional spike.
It was rigged in Sweden’s favour from the start
Because next year will be 50 years since ABBA won (and 40 years since Herreys won), it would make sense that Sweden would want to host ESC that year. It would make sense for the EBU to want that, too.
But I think there are a few other reasons why Sweden might’ve scored so many points—the biggest reason is familiarity with the song. Not only does Sweden have a 6 week televised selection process for their entry allowing for the songs to disseminate over time.
The selection process is also very similar to the ESC voting process: juries and televoters whittling down the field to the most likely to succeed. Sweden takes ESC incredibly seriously and has an entire national cottage industry dedicated to it.
Then there’s the streaming factor—with its relevance to creating hits in the first place, it shouldn’t be surprising that Loreen’s song gained an international audience with the streamers. I was told early on that her streaming numbers would result in a win, so I don’t think this factor should be underestimated.
This year was also the first that votes from outside the EBU area were allowed in a “rest of the world” category. Once again, the spread of the song beyond the established borders worked in Sweden’s favour. Youtube’s “react” community was promoting the performance video for months.
Eurovision and EBU’s alleged apolitical stance
Politics don’t belong at ESC is what we’re told, which is laughable considering the history of the event. For one, the voting process has been known for a political skew, with neighbouring countries frequently rewarding each other high scores. It’s basically a joke at this point that the Scandis will vote for each other, the Mediterranean countries will vote for each other, and so on.
In fact, when baltic countries joined following the dissolution of the Eastern bloc the voting process was altered because it was believed they would all vote for each other, and that just wasn’t right.
Last year’s Ukrainian victory was lauded as a symbolic show of support following the war, with little opposition to that result. Normally the winning country hosts the following edition, but due to the war, Liverpool was chosen as a host city.
Still, it was Ukraine’s time to shine and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wanted to send in a video addressing the crowd. This was promptly rejected by the EBU because “the nonpolitical nature of the event” would be breached.
That’s despite Russian being expelled from the competition because of its invasion of Ukraine. Belarus was likewise turned away when they submitted an overly political song— though what “overly political” means is a question for the ages as the standards seem ever-shifting and malleable.
For example, this year’s Croatian entry was an explicit dig at Putin and political tyranny.
This year also included a repeat performance from Serbia’s 2022 entrant Konstrakta whose song addressed the failing healthcare worldwide, but also in Serbia itself.
Then there are the very varied approaches to LGBT that collide. ESC in general referred to as “the gay world cup” and unusually progressive for its international reach. The first ESC I watched live was the first won by an (openly) trans performer, Dana International for Israel. Drag queens have participated, and won, lesbian anthems and same-sex
But this acceptance doesn’t extend to all countries. In 2015, Russia’s entry was battling Sweden and Italy for the top spot. As the scores were adding up, making it appear like Russia would host the following year, many observers started to panic. How could LGBT audiences feel comfortable attending ESC in Russia?
Ultimately, Sweden took the top spot. There were complaints at the time, but with Russia in second place, it seemed most still preferred a Swedish win to a potentially Russian one. With their gay propaganda laws, the inevitable censorship was a much bigger threat than Sweden’s slick synths.
Sometimes it’s about the lesser evil, the industry favourite that would throw a rainbow tinged celebration over a spectacular song that would lead to a washing out of ESC’s core values.
Being apolitical never looked so political.
Speaking from a biased (Finnish) perspective, I don't think it's much of a conspiracy theory to claim that pro juries consider it their "duty" to keep the too-far-out-there extravagant "non-traditional" entries from winning, and that since media had already made it a horserace between Sweden's traditional Eurovision pop ballad and Finland's non-traditional mishmash and there were heavy indications that Finland would win the popular vote, they were predisposed towards voting Sweden simply for that reason.
Also, it's somewhat odd to refer to streaming numbers etc. when it was so obviously the jury vote that brought Loreen over the top; Käärijä overwhelmingly won the popular votes.
I just wrote on this topic yesterday: https://alakasa.substack.com/p/eurovision-song-contest-a-9-point