It was always going to happen. Despite a best result in nearly a quarter of a century for the UK – winning the jury vote and restoring national pride and interest in the contest – Sam Ryder’s 183 points from the televoters was never going to be enough to overturn the Kalush Orchestra’s record-breaking 439 televote points haul and claim a sixth Eurovision title.
Indeed, they broke all kinds of records – most points from televoters, most points from a single vote, record number of twelve points, second only to Salvador Sobral as the highest scoring entry, and to Alexander Rybak as the record winning margin (by only four points). Only Serbia ranked them outside of their top three.
Many people will draw reference to the obvious reasons for their televoting landslide. In this article, however, I intend to divulge into the various statistics available to see if, infact, a third title could have been theirs even in a normal year for their nation.
First and foremost to discuss is, of course, the song itself. A rap group winning is unprecedented – a genre that, whilst having a worldwide fanbase in mainstream music, has always under-performed in the contest. But then Maneskin’s victory last year was also a first; and as we’ve seen in recent years with some of the highest-scoring entries; quirky, different or unique can be a recipe for success. In all honesty, the rapping itself – at a fast pace without getting tongue-tied, is impressive, whether you’re a fan of the genre or not.
Bizarre and colourful costumes, a giant double bass, and a dancer on stage to boot, along with a riff played on an obscure Ukrainian flute called the tilinca – an earworm whether a welcome one or not – certainly would have helped the entry to stand out in a year when little else did. Perhaps their victory was more about not having enough competition to overturn it, than winning simply due to an significantly catastrophic political situation?
And the ethnic undertone is certainly nothing new; Go-A were the second highest televote scorers only a year ago (Igor from the band is also a member of the Kalush Orchestra), Manizha’s Russian Woman finished ninth on the same night, and way back in 2003 Belgium came within a hare’s breadth of a second title with the anomaly ‘Sanomi’. Proof, if ever needed, that ethnic music can do strangely well.
It can’t be ignored, however, that Stefania was not even the Ukrainian people’s first choice. Alina Pash was initially set to represent the country with ‘Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors’. Similarly traditional and colourfully dressed during her Vidbir performance – she also combines rap with vocals – it seems likely it would have performed similarly with the public vote.
It’s also possible that, with Alina’s powerful vocals and a song of a similar style to Jamala, it could have won in its own right. In the end it proved an irrelevance as she was disqualified – considered an inappropriate representative due to her travel history under Ukrainian law, but it demonstrates that Ukraine did have a potential winner in their ranks this year.
Now to take a closer look at how the voting may have played out in a different year. The jury scores will remain untouched. Finishing in fourth place with the juries is not unrealistic for Ukraine in any year and it also needs to be remembered that juries and televoters tend to vote in very different ways.
The overall total for Stefania was a whopping 631 points – scoring douze points 28 times from the televoters. In most years, this would be fresh meat for the conspiracy theorists. But when we analyse the list of nations who awarded the top marks, it seems highly conceivable, based primarily on their voting history in the past, that at least five of them would have given them to Ukraine anyway.
Nevertheless, I have taken the controversial step of removing the remaining 23 and awarding them instead to the nation who finished second in their televote. Here’s the nations that benefit:
Moldova, +20 points
Serbia, +12 points
Spain, +20 points
Norway, +12 points
Sweden, +12 points
Estonia, +10 points
United Kingdom, +10 points
Lithuania, +6 points
Romania, +6 points
Greece, +4 points
Poland, +4 points
Netherlands, +2 points
And here’s who I believe would have given Ukraine points:
12 – Poland, Estonia, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Georgia, Lithuania (6)
10 – Bulgaria, Moldova, Armenia, Montenegro (4)
8 – Malta, North Macedonia (2)
7 – Serbia, Switzerland, Norway (3)
6 – Albania (1)
5 – Netherlands, Romania (2)
4 – Sweden, Finland, Australia, Czech Republic (4)
3 – Croatia, Belgium (2)
2 – Israel, Iceland, Cyprus, Slovenia, Italy (5)
1 – Portugal, Greece (2)
0 – Spain, Denmark, France, Ireland, Austria, Australia, UK, San Marino (8)
Giving them a combined total of 199 points with the televoters.
Before making any further assumptions, I took a closer look at Ukraine’s history with both juries and televoters. Most significantly, to begin with, is that the public nearly always rank them far higher than the juries – with 2008 and 2012 being the only exceptions. Juries alone had only given them a total of four douze points in 20 years, whereas the televoters had awarded them twenty-nine (both totals were almost doubled this year).
This could, if only partially, be explained by the fact that nations with a considerable diaspora tend to shoot up in the public vote. Serbia being another example. Diaspora alone, however – in spite of what many people believe – cannot win you the contest.
Their average overall position (factoring in all the various voting methods since their first entry in 2003) is eighth – on average, 25 nations in the televoting give points to Ukraine every year (excluding 2022). If you take away the years they hosted – 2005 and 2017 (nations rarely have interest in hosting two years in a row), this average increases to 31 and 78%. The juries alone rank them eleventh on average (106 points), but with the public this rises to eighth (147 points) – which is also their average overall position. Their average position, based on overall position in the final alone, is 6.7 – when excluding their results as a host nation.
It therefore seems most likely that around 26 of the 39 televoting nations would have ranked Ukraine in their top 10 – that’s exactly two thirds. Factoring in a range of scores from each nation; it’s likely they would have scored a minimum of around 150 points.
We also have to take into account a couple of fundamental statistics; they had already won the contest twice prior to Turin. Three victories in twenty years of participating is an impressive feat – and they are also the only nation to have never failed to progress from the semi-final.
Lastly, we also need to factor in the results of the fan polls – namely from international fanclub, OGAE – adding together the scores from Eurovision fans all over Europe (with a Rest of the World vote thrown in for good measure). In a close three-horse race between Italy, Spain and Sweden, in which the leadership changed hands on numerous occasions, Cornelia came out on top by the barest of margins, with Sam for the UK not a million miles behind the chasing pack. Ukraine finished 11th – edged out of the top 10 curiously by Albania and Austria – both of whom failed to make the final. Sweden’s perennial issue, however, is that they are usually ranked far less generously by the public – the stark opposite of Ukraine.
This is how the televoting table looks now:
- Moldova (259)
- Spain (248)
- Serbia (237)
- Ukraine (199)
- United Kingdom (193)
- Sweden (192)
- Norway (158)
- Italy (110)
- Poland (109)
- Estonia (108)
- Lithuania (99)
- Greece (61)
- Netherlands (44)
- Portugal (36)
- Romania (59)
- Finland (26)
- Armenia (21)
- Iceland (10)
- France (8)
- Germany (6)
- Belgium (5)
- Czech Republic (5)
- Azerbaijan (3)
- Australia (2)
- Switzerland (0)
And, most importantly, this is how the final overall table looks now:
- Spain (479)
- United Kingdom (476)
- Sweden (450)
- Ukraine (391)
- Serbia (324)
- Moldova (273)
- Italy (268)
- Portugal (207)
- Norway (194)
- Netherlands (173)
- Poland (155)
- Estonia (151)
- Lithuania (134)
- Australia (125)
- Greece (119)
- Azerbaijan (106)
- Switzerland (78)
- Romania (71)
- Belgium (64)
- Armenia (61)
- Czech Republic (38)
- Finland (38)
- Iceland (20)
- France (17)
- Germany (6)
Spain’s extra points and upgraded second place in the televotes is enough overall, by an incredibly slender three points.
So, were the UK denied their sixth victory, Spain their third (or fifth and second respectively if you consider that under the rules in 1969 there was no outright winner), or Sweden their record-equalling seventh? It seems both would have benefited by gaining a share of the many million televotes that Ukraine gained, as would have Moldova – who may feel denied of a televote victory, although their fate had already been sealed by gaining a measly 14 points from the juries.
Also, for those of you who prefer the pre-2016 voting system, Ukraine would still have won by a similar margin, albeit slightly less. Ukraine would have scored 379 points – beating Rybak’s record by 10 – with the UK in second with 268 points, and Spain close behind claiming bronze with 257 points.
So, while there can be no doubt that the televoters made the difference, blaming the new voting system would be unfair and inaccurate. Thanking his lucky stars in particular will be Malik from Germany – he would have scored zero.
A song contest seems to be of precious little importance when considering the unimaginably horrific current situation in Ukraine. This being said, particularly in many East European nations, Eurovision can bring people together in much the same way that football and other competitive events do – and their victory will be welcomed by many, both at home and abroad.
Even President Zelensky took time out of his extremely busy schedule to congratulate the Kalush Orchestra – claiming that he hopes his country will be able to host the contest next year in a peaceful and rebuilt Mariupol. Perhaps he’s clutching at straws, but many people will share his desire.
This does, of course, leave one final question. Where will it be hosted – and who should host – in 2023? Jury winners and second place overall, many would claim it should take place in the UK. In which case, the obvious choice might appear to be Manchester.
Home to the UK’s largest indoor arena with a capacity of over 20,000, a thriving LGBT village in the heart of the city – being able to play host to the various EuroClub/Cafe venues, countless hotels and press centre options, and by far the country’s most efficient overground-only mass transit system, it seems the most logical option. Let’s not also forget that the BBC are now predominantly based round the corner in Salford.
The bookies, however, appear to very much be hinting at a Glaswegian victory, perhaps knowing something that the majority of fans don’t. There’s no shortage of suitable venues, and cities with the necessary infrastructure.
One thing remains certain, whatever your personal opinions, or whatever any of the statistics may suggest, Europe certainly stood with Ukraine this year, and will no doubt continue to do so.
