Eurovision 2024 will be remembered by many as an unmitigated disaster by all accounts. It was one thing after another; contestants being filmed against their consent on numerous occasions, questionable disqualifications, dubiously high televote scores, and several countries or individuals complaining to the EBU, and in some cases, threatening to pull out altogether for future contests.
Those of you who follow my other page, for my terrible gags and puns – the Eurovision Banter Page (seriously, if you haven’t already, go and follow it; they’re truly terrible) – will know that my opinion of the EBU has never been disproportionately favourable; I often refer to them the EBUseless.
My overall impression of Martin Osterdahl, however, is a slightly more complex issue. I remember in Liverpool singing his name to the tune of ‘Son of My Father’ by Chicory Tip. Compare this to Malmo (I didn’t go this year, thankfully) where the mere mention of his name drew some raucous disapproval from the crowd, and it wasn’t difficult to read the room and gauge the mood – seemingly amongst the majority of fans.
But this isn’t about me. Or even about the majority of fans. It’s about whether the Executive Supervisor should – or indeed, does – have a future at the helm of all things Eurovision. In a statement made on Tuesday 9th July, he confirmed that, for the time being at least, he will carry on in his position. But for how much longer? With the help of fellow Eurovision blogger and reporter, ESC Gabe – whom I thank most sincerely for the information and support provided in making this article – I intend to describe, evaluate and give my opinions on the various happenings (or rather, mis-happenings) of Eurovision 2024. Bear with me here, it could take a while, but then, if you’ve read any of my previous articles, you’ll know that’s par for the course.
Before I start, I will give my usual statement about how these are either my personal opinions, or the facts of the situation that are all correct to the best of my knowledge at the time of writing. Furthermore, I realise that there are many highly contentious issues and events in this article that will be discussed – some of which, unlike most of my articles, are of a political nature, although I will try and keep politics out of it (which is the general rule of thumb within Eurovision discussion circles in any case) – and I appreciate that not everyone will agree. Everyone is, of course, welcome to tell me whether they agree or disagree in the comments, or by private message.
Getting down to business now, and the first thing that needs to be addressed is the obvious elephant in the room. With one elephant currently not competing for even more obvious reasons, another has taken its place. Now, I’ll be the first to admit, I don’t always swing the same way as the majority of Eurovision fans – or most people for that matter. I guess that’s partly from a political perspective, and partly being a neuro-divergent, meaning I don’t tend to jump on the bandwagon simply because I yearn to be with the ‘in crowd’. So, if you happen to be surprised or disappointed by my stances, then I can only apologise (but I also don’t really care).
I will make it abundantly clear, however, that I do not support unprovoked military action against other nations under any circumstances – particularly when human lives are the consequence (and let’s be honest, that’s nearly always).
Many people have asked the question – quite legitimately, I may add – that if Russia are not currently allowed to enter the contest for very obvious reasons, then shouldn’t Israel be getting the same treatment? Well, although it’s a perfectly reasonable sentiment to have, the respective situations – whilst both unquestionably appalling – are somewhat different in their fundamentals.
One began only a couple of years ago, and is an invasion of a nation that it no longer has control of (even though, somewhat inexplicably, the fact it used to, makes this war legal – I know, I can’t believe it either – this is the reason for all the sanctions and exclusions internationally). The other, by comparison, has divided opinion across the world, with unacceptable behaviour from both sides in a war nobody appears to be winning.
As you may recall, it took Israel three attempts at submitting their song before it was eventually accepted by the EBU. It is quite understandable that lyrics which appear to be a direct reference to the events involving their country would cause controversy (I won’t go into specifics, although the song’s original title ‘October Rain’ gives a lot away), and there would have been legitimate arguments for the song being disqualified altogether. The second version ‘Dance Forever’ was also rejected – Israeli broadcaster KAN originally stating that they would pull out if the EBU did not change their mind (which, as we all know, the EBU don’t do u-turns. Wait, what’s that? Oh). This would have been a one-size-fits-all solution for everyone affected, before all the problems even began, thereby saving us all a lot of bother, and rendering this article entirely pointless. But at that point, Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, demanded that the song’s lyrics must be changed in order to gain the EBU’s approval and ensure their participation. As we all know, he’s not one to just let things go and admit defeat.
Though, I may point out that, despite there being commonly known rules about entries being disallowed for having political messages or references, it didn’t prevent Jamala from not only entering, but winning in Stockholm.
At the party I attended for this year’s final, their entry was crossed off the scoresheets – with some people refusing to mark their entry at all. I gave it an 8 out of 10 and it was my 9th favourite song of the contest. Quite simply, like it or lump it, I judged it exactly the same as any other song. And for that reason only. The song. Nothing else. It was a strong ballad, sung and staged well by an attractive young singer.
In a moment, I will regale you with the story of how everything that could possibly go wrong (and seemingly everything that couldn’t), did so. Most of this is according to ESC Gabe whom I mentioned earlier, and I will be providing links to the appropriate YouTube video which is my primary reference (although I have done a substantial amount of my own research as well). But first, I will express my personal opinions on the changes and some specific decisions that Mr. Osterdahl has made in his four years at the helm.
The first – and arguably most important – is removing juries from the semi-finals. It is commonly believed the reason for this seemingly drastic course of action was in response to the alleged voting scandal earlier in 2022, in which six nations’ juries were found to have had ‘irregular voting patterns’ and were subsequently voided and replaced with an aggregated score based on certain other juries’ results; three of which were announced by Mr. Osterdahl himself and not their pre-arranged announcers on the night of the final.
Personally, I think it was totally the wrong decision. It disproportionately penalises countries such as Malta and San Marino, both with significantly small populations resulting in subsequently small diasporas – neither nation has qualified for either contest since its introduction, which in itself does not prove that point, but they only managed a grand total of 3 points between them in 2023 – though it seems unlikely either would have qualified that year (bands tend to be hit and miss, and while I love both the Busker and Piqued Jacks, their songs were easily forgotten), you do sense that the juries would have at least awarded them both something.
Swift and decisive action was – and needed – to be taken, and I will credit him for that, but the punishment simply doesn’t fit the crime. It’s almost like being back in school and given a whole class detention when only a minority of your classmates had been misbehaving. The only real positive I can take from it is that audiences across the world would be more inclined to watch the semi-finals; knowing their vote will count for much more and won’t end up being ‘over-ruled’ by the juries (as fans of Kaarija and Baby Lasagna have found to their chagrin in recent years).
Turning now to his decision, announced on the same day, to allow a Rest of the World vote for the first time. Whilst some may feel that it’s not merited – although the days of it being a contest only for countries that fall within the EBU broadcasting remit were numbered upon Australia’s debut – it’s good that they have found a solution which allows the world to have a say (albeit only with the televoters; there’s no RotW jury). The alternative – as many wondered – is that the floodgates would be opened for nations across the world and it would no longer be Eurovision as we know it, but a worldwide song contest. And it still might be, one day…
2024 saw two other major changes. One of which I am an ardent supporter of, the other I am equally as firmly not. Firstly, that the pre-qualified finalists (the big 5 and host nation) would be able to perform in the semi-finals. I have discussed and analysed this at length in my previous article titled ‘Is it Always All About the Song?’, but in a nutshell, the research I conducted had suggested that not having the exposure and practice from performing live in the semi-final could drastically affect a song’s chances of success in the final. As such, I was delighted when this was finally introduced for Malmo. And to put them in amongst the competitive performances, rather than at the beginning or end (as most would probably have expected) is perhaps more appropriate.
The other was the decision to open the telephone lines from the beginning of the show. Personally, I think it’s ridiculous. A far cry from the days where the increase from 3 to 5 minutes of voting time was welcomed with open arms (I still remember them very well). It means the songs at the beginning of the show now have a much greater chance of winning because, quite obviously, they have up to two hours’ more time for people to vote for them than the songs nearer to the end. Though I will concede that songs earlier in the show often get forgotten by the televoters, and people often tune in late, meaning that they won’t get heard by as many people, and to this end at least, it does even the playing field out slightly.
I will now attempt to divulge the issues that bedevilled a normally peaceful, vibrant and massively unifying event. Here, as promised, is the link to the video which is my primary reference, and I strongly recommend you like and subscribe etc. as he knows his stuff and was of great help to me in writing this article. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1af8llc2OBI
The main elephants in the room are of course the disqualification of Joost Klein and the behaviour of certain individuals involved with the Israeli delegation. I will make a point of saying that I found some of the hounding of Eden Golan to be reprehensible – in particular by local campaigners – as I said before, I don’t care about their political views or stances, but the thousands of people protesting outside her hotel, which included 2009 contestant Malena Ernman’s daughter (I think we all know who she is), seems unnecessary and intimidating, and essentially made her a prisoner in her own hotel – reportedly advised not to leave unless absolutely necessary.
Bearing in mind Eden is still a young girl herself – only 20 at the time of the contest – and whilst she’d have undoubtedly been briefed on what to expect both when on the stage and throughout the week, she was doing her job for her nation and does not deserve to be made to feel unsafe, just like anyone else. Nonetheless, whatever your understanding or viewpoint of the whole situation, the issues need to be addressed.
Gabe now believes that Mr. Osterdahl’s position is “completely untenable” and that he EBU’s credibility has “disintegrated under his leadership” (has it ever had any credibility? – Ed). Evidently, he’s not the only one; his standard piece-to-camera produced, what Gabe describes as “the loudest boos I have ever heard”, with Graham Norton remarking: “the crowd have turned on him”. And whilst I never intend to attack an individual personally, he’s running out of road to say the least, and at the moment, it’s hard to find reasons for defending him. Gabe also believes that he may not be the only person at the EBU on their way out soon, but time will tell.
He described the atmosphere as “acrimonious” throughout the week and that his anxiety levels were such that he considered booking an early flight home at one point. This was a sentiment echoed by Lithuanian participant, Silvester, who claimed he “wished he hadn’t qualified for the final”. Gabe also sent an e-mail on Friday evening directly to the EBU, complaining about the behaviour of certain members of said delegation and how unsafe their actions had made he and others feel, in what was effectively their workplace for the week. Several months later, as I write the article, with the exception of a brief response saying they’ll pass it on to the appropriate personnel who can investigate, reply has still come there none.
Furthermore, Gabe remarked that he’d never seen such a large armed police presence in his life – though this was perhaps unsurprising due to the obvious ongoing situation with well-reported weekly demonstrations in major cities across the world for a number of months, and particularly due to the large-scale nature of the event. There were also rooftop snipers at all the major events and locations in Liverpool, so to that end, it’s not overly notable.
Continuing now with the obvious elephant in the room. Or, more to the point, the behaviour of one nation’s delegates. Some of whom, it has been alleged, were caught filming contestants on numerous occasions – including an instance in the smoking area of the Press Centre, in which, although the filming was being done covertly, and was promptly ended upon being spotted, was still not denied at any point.
There were, supposedly, countless examples of this – with some unsolicited pictures of Bambi, Marina, Nemo (as well as Mustii from Belgium, who did not qualify for the final), uploaded to social media websites with accompanying derogatory comments; in particular by one of Eden’s song-writers, Keren Peles-Toor. The news regarding this incident – among the other incidents of harassment they were all invariably experiencing – actually broke during Saturday’s first rehearsal when No Rules was being performed by Windows95Man! The phrase “you couldn’t make it up” is so overused these days, but has never seemed more appropriate.
Several claims have been levelled at the Israeli government. Firstly, that its own Internal Advertising Agency placed adverts for the song, clearly stating: “vote for Israel up to 20 times”. Not quite mastered the art of subtlety just yet, have we? They also placed adverts – spending an estimated £1.5m, and thus gaining around 16 million views. It has been alleged that they hired experts to set up voting communities across the continent, aimed at strengthening public support for the Israeli song. David Saranga, one Israel’s leading diplomats, effectively gave the game away by stating: “it’s true that we, as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, worked among friendly audiences to increase voting”.
There are also numerous examples of politicians showing their support for Eden and Israel; Geert Wilders, leader of the right-wing Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, and Assita Kanko (a Belgian MEP) being two particular examples, and appearing to encourage their followers to do likewise; the latter even going so far as to admit that her reasons were entirely politically motivated! Yes, I realise politics is their jobs, but still. Though it’s worth mentioning that, given the particular political leanings of these two examples, they’re highly likely to have a pro-Israel bias. As I said earlier, I’m completely impartial; I’m just pointing out facts.
Alarm bells had been raised when Italian broadcaster RAI accidentally (or was it?) put their televote results on the screen at the end of Semi-Final 2 – which saw Israel win by a seemingly inconceivable 40% of their public’s votes. I can’t imagine even Ukraine in 2022 scored that high a percentage with any nation’s televote (if I’m wrong, and you have a reference to it, please let me know in the comments).
Turning now to perhaps the other elephant (bit harsh – he isn’t that big – although he is kinda tall), Joost Klein. He qualified, along with nine others, from the second semi-final on Thursday night. That was about all that went to plan for him. On Friday morning’s dress rehearsal, he was involved with the flag parade as expected, but did not perform in his would-be allocated slot of fifth in preparation for the evening’s jury final. The early graphics appeared to have excluded him, but no definitive mention, at this point – as to why – had been forthcoming from the EBU, which led to mounting speculation.
Later that day, a statement was made, claiming that the incident was “currently being investigated, with subsequent conversations with AVROTROS (the Dutch broadcaster) ongoing” and that, as a result, “Joost will not be performing at all until further notice” (the discussions with AVROTROS would have presumably been in response to the complaint they had made on Friday morning, regarding the unsafe environment created for their entrants and delegates).
With many wondering why Mr. Osterdahl was not present during the first rehearsal, this would probably explain why. His absence was noted once again the following morning – presumably for similar reasons, with talk of a ‘crisis meeting’ emerging – leading the (metaphorical) alarm bells to ring even louder. Perhaps it’s also relevant to mention that, curiously, the scheduled Friday afternoon press conference for the big 5 and Sweden was cancelled. This was, supposedly, because they wanted to focus on rehearsing. Make of that whatever you will.
SVT – Sweden, the host nation’s broadcaster – had irresponsibly claimed that there had been an altercation. Rumours were abound (from elsewhere, not SVT) that Joost had reacted to an antagonistic comment regarding his parents – both of whom had passed away during his childhood. AVROTROS made a statement that these rumours were entirely false – and as there appears to have been no clear substantiation in the form of statements or references, it can only be assumed it was indeed a false claim, possibly started maliciously to smear his name.
Furthermore, their statement re-affirmed that there had been prior arrangements, agreed to by all parties involved, that Joost would not be filmed without his consent, or at least prior knowledge (so he would still be on camera during the shows and press conferences, but that’s kind of a no-brainer). Inspite of this, it is believed that he was filmed without prior consent or knowledge on numerous occasions. They also claimed that they had suggested several possible alternatives so that Joost would still be able to perform in the final.
If it is true that Joost over-reacted (more likely verbally than physically), then this would have been a contributing factor. And according to Gabe, Joost is a neuro-divergent (like myself, as I said earlier) and whilst this doesn’t automatically excuse any wrong-doing, the likelihood of being over-whelmed by the occasion, and stressed due to the intensity and enormity of it, and being continually provoked or harassed, would have caused him to over-react.
By Friday evening, it was ‘do or die’ for Joost. If he did not perform in the jury final, he would not be able to compete at all, as the juries would not have been able to mark his song and performance alongside all the others. There was always the possibility of his semi-final performance being used – they did for Dadi Freyr in 2021 (albeit in radically different circumstances) – but I can’t imagine this even crossed the EBU’s minds. The eventual decision that he would not perform was met with widespread disapproval from the Malmo audience – making their feelings unequivocally known, as Eurovision fans invariably do – and they weren’t the only ones. Mr. Osterdahl was present on this occasion, but did not do his usual piece-to-camera for the simulated voting that fans in attendance are treated to for the jury final.
Kaarija, due to announce Finland’s jury points, pulled out in protest – he and Joost are good friends and have collaborated on releases together – as, perhaps more significantly, did 2021 co-host Nikke de Jager, in solidarity with her fellow Dutch-person. Alessandria – last year’s Norwegian contestant – announced she was no longer comfortable delivering her nation’s jury points – Ingvild Helljesen taking her place. Nemo made a point of remaining uncharacteristically stone-faced upon receiving twelve points from the Dutch jury.
It seems ironic now (and arguably disrespectful) that Sarah Dawn Finer – AKA Linda Woodruff – performed the early-90’s Madonna style parody song ‘Good to Go’ in praise of him. He may have the single girls licking their lips, but their support alone probably won’t be enough to keep him in a job.
Dutch commentator Cornald Maas, understandably aggrieved at the week’s fiascos, kept his response simple, even if arguably unprofessional: “f**k the EBU” he harrumphed; and that was exactly what Bambi had to say. With regard to missing Saturday morning’s flag parade – along with Marina and Nemo – she had this to say: “there was an incident that I felt needed immediate attention from the EBU – they are taking it seriously (um, no? – Ed) and we discussed what action could be taken (spoiler alert: There wasn’t any – Ed). This is why I wasn’t able to perform at this morning’s rehearsal”. 20 minutes later, Irish broadcaster RTE put out another statement confirming that Bambi was aware of the Israeli commentator’s comments and that as a result, felt that their song should be disqualified as it was in breach of the contest’s rules.
If you’re wondering what these comments were, by the Israeli commentator during the first semi-final, he (we can’t be sure which; there were two, both males), was believed to have said: “Bambi likes to blacken the name of our nation, but we’ll talk about that later. Prepare your insults…”
And if you think the situation can’t get any murkier, the plot is about to thicken even more. Bambi’s next statement was as follows: “I have raised multiple complaints to the EBU regarding instances I have experienced during the week. Earlier today, they confirmed to my delegation, infront of others, that KAN’s commentator had acted in breach of the contest’s rules during the first semi-final (regarding comments made about Bambi). I have since been made aware of a statement by Noel Curran, which is in direct contradiction”.
Also, while we’re still on the subject of foul language (sorry if it offends you, but again, I don’t really care), Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet referred to the whole episode as a ‘sh!t-show’ (see, I’ve even blanked it out for you – how considerate I am?!) They also compared the EBU to a ‘fascist state’ – describing them as being ‘reprehensible’ and ‘struggling to remain apolitical’ – and went on to make a first-class quip “where the artists’ space for expression and action has been reduced as much as the panties of the Spanish dancers”.
Gabe added that he believes, in light of the Netherlands situation, that they should be given a free pass to next year’s final. Whilst some will argue that’d mean either an extra song in the final (26 is already too much, some would say), or that another country would perhaps unjustly miss out, I personally don’t think this would be a bad idea at all.
As to whether or not Joost should return in some capacity – either now or in the future – whilst I genuinely hope he does return, it has to be his decision because it’s what he wants. There is no doubt that the events of this year would have taken its toll on his mental health – he’s certainly made no secrets of his frustration at the whole episode in the months since – so that’s definitely something he has to think about.
There is still, at the time of writing, the question as to whether his country will even be involved. AVROTROS have been given an extension – until November 1st, to be precise – to confirm their participation. There has even been talk that Joost may represent another nation – namely for neighbours Belgium, with whom they share a friendly sporting and social rivalry. This seems an unlikely scenario, as it would no doubt raise a few eyebrows. But then raising eyebrows is one of Joost’s many talents, so by that token, it would hardly be a great shock.
I would be very happy to see him make an appearance in a final (2025 or otherwise) after this year’s escapades. This being said, other artists (from whichever nation he decides to compete for) also deserve a fair chance, and no artist has a divine right to enter because of who they are, or whatever the circumstances.
Given the response from the EBU, after the case was formally dropped by Swedish police on 12th August, proving themselves as spineless and incompetent as ever by making this pitifully defiant and non-descript statement, claiming that their decision was taken in “strict accordance with Eurovision rules” and that “this new development (referring to the decision not to prosecute) has no impact on our original decision which we stand by completely”… well, it doesn’t exactly fill you with confidence that the Netherlands will want to return next year, does it? Let alone that any actions or words by way of apology will be forthcoming for their mishandling of the whole episode.
And – oh, hello Mr. Elephant once again – the issue of what immediate action against a certain nation (or just some of their delegates, as the case may be) should be taken. As I said before, I’m not a fan of excluding nations for political reasons, but it seems somewhat evident that the behaviour of certain individuals needs to be challenged. Gabe commented that if no action is taken, there could be serious implications for the future of our beloved contest as we know it – with some fellow journalists saying, or giving the impression, that if Israel had won, they’d rather leave the Eurovision community altogether than travel to a nation where human rights are being compromised, in what is essentially a warzone – which would, quite possibly, make the issues of being made to feel unsafe by this year’s events, by comparison, a picnic in the park.
As of Thursday 3rd October (the time of going to press), 33 nations have confirmed their participation, with a few more uncertain but still expected to announce in the coming days and weeks. So, any fears there could be so many withdrawals that the 2025 contest may not be viable appear to have been an over-reaction, even if not entirely without foundation.
Personally, I think that, upon the completion of any necessary investigations, said delegation needs to, at the very least, be spoken to very firmly about their behaviour, and any repeats should lead to an exclusion from the contest for a minimum of one year. This would at least send the message to them, and any other nation who is contemplating similar misdemeanours, that it cannot be tolerated. The main issue there, of course, is that the contest’s main sponsor, Moroccan Oil, are an Israeli company. Hang on, surely they must be from, um, Morocco, right? Um, nope. Ah. In light of all this, it will come as no surprise to most that the Israeli delegation celebrated both their qualification for the final – as well as the announcement of Joost’s disqualification – entirely alone.
So, what did the EBU say and do in response to all of this? Well, in the aftermath of the week’s events, they put out a statement: “We regret some delegates didn’t respect the spirit and rules of the contest. We spoke to numerous delegates during the week that were brought to our attention. The Eurovision Reference Group will work together with all delegations to review events and move forward in a positive way”.
Well, that’s all well and good, but they didn’t exactly behave in the ‘Eurovision spirit’ themselves; indulging in seemingly needless and hypocritical censorship on several occasions throughout the week. Shall we take a look at some examples? Ok, here goes:
Iolanta’s Grand Final performance, for Portugal, was initially not uploaded to YouTube due to having a supposedly pro-Palestine message painted on her nails. Suffering a similar fate was Bambi Thug, despite the similarly pro-ceasefire message displayed in her make-up being in Ogham – an ancient form of Irish alphabetic script for writing which hasn’t been used in over a thousand years – and having initially been approved by the EBU in advance of her semi-final performance on Tuesday, they decided, in all their infinite wisdom, to inform Bambi of this decision only around an hour before the performers were due to take to the stage. They also confiscated the non-binary flag from fans upon entering the arena, yet later allowed Nemo on stage waving the exact same flag! Understandably, the ESC’s Official Page with Nemo and the flag himself with the caption ‘non-binary finery’ was met with a large dose of cynicism.
And if that’s not enough, they had the audacity to try and cover up the booing by fans – a recurring theme whenever the nation’s name was mentioned, or when Eden was performing on stage, or her song being played during recaps. Along with numerous attempts – not all of which were entirely successful – to filter out the booing and replace it with fake applause and cheering. Admittedly, I’ve always been an opponent of booing, but in light of this year’s shenanigans, it’s hard to condemn them – particularly knowing now, after attending last year – how much the week costs! They have form for this previously; as they did likewise for the 2015 contest in Vienna.
French contestant Slimane decided to say some words – presumably a call for peace and harmony, or speaking in support – or against – certain individuals (or just their behaviour). Whilst a mixture of the cheering and his accent made it hard for me to decipher everything he said, it’s clear what the basis of his point was – and a sentiment evidently shared by many. “As a child, I dreamt of being a singer; to sing for peace and love. We need to be united”. The microphone appeared to have been turned off by a producer shortly after he began speaking. It is possible that this could have been a technological glitch – having been singing either solo or with bands for around 15 years myself, I know better than most that these mishaps happen all too often. It would seem a somewhat convenient coincidence, however, that the microphone would turn itself back on, as if by magic, when he began singing again. There’s also the fact they used his semi-final performance for the recap, but we won’t mention that.
Shortly before the live final began, one of the onstage producers made a statement to the audience, claiming that: “I don’t recognise this; I’ve been doing Eurovision for many years; the Eurovision tribe is not hateful people”. Probably just trying to keep the peace, although it may have seemed like gaslighting to some.
I’d better get some thoughts and words from my friends and fellow Eurofans, while I’m at it. I’ll start with the friend who linked me to Gabe’s tell-all video:
“The atmosphere was extremely tense all week, and to be honest, I’m glad it’s all over now. A world apart from my first contest in Liverpool last year. Though it was amazing to have an overseas Eurovision experience.
He continued: “the EBU really need to give their heads a wobble and sort these issues out. Their general conduct and handling of the events was shocking; I’m not surprised that Joost snapped if he’d been filmed constantly against his will despite the pre-arrangements. In my opinion, his disqualification was totally the wrong decision. They allowed it to happen by not adhering to their duty of care towards the artists (and everyone else involved). And the various speeches made by the on-stage producer only made the audience angrier; it felt like they were speaking to us like school-children”.
Another friend and fan – and by that I mean a super-fan who attends most years – kept his response much more short and simple, stating that: “I still enjoyed it, but there wasn’t the usual sense of togetherness and unity, which was sad”.
Another, however – also a journalist, though was not working in Malmo this year – said: “I didn’t see any trouble; the protests were mostly small but loud. There was a mixture of booing and cheering for the Israeli performances. And being a seasoned attendee of football matches, I’ve seen far more tense situations, and far more booing, inside and en-route to and from the stadiums. Though it is much less commonplace at Eurovision; and thus would’ve been particularly challenging for those in the press centre who aren’t used to it, and would not have expected it.
And finally, it would be remiss of me not to comment my thoughts on the contest itself. Personally, though like many fans, I was supporting Croatia, there’s no doubt in my mind that Switzerland were worthy winners. A friend pointed out the fact that they were the only nation to have nailed the song, performance and staging to perfection, and I think he’s spot-on.
I can understand the sense of injustice that some fans will feel. An overwhelming jury victory – 365 points (one for every day of the year, except it’s a leap year) – 94 above France and 44 above Croatia in the final standings, proved enough in the end. That, along with Israel and Ukraine crossing the 300-point barrier with the televoters and no doubt eating into Lasagna’s total (see what I did there? Hehe), proved his downfall. Much like Loreen last year, 185 people got their way over the millions of televoters. This being said, I still think the current system, though not without flaw (no system would be), is still the best for many reasons.
As for how Joost would have done? It would have been a large televote score; possibly enough to challenge the big three, though probably not enough to win the contest overall. That’s in no small part due to the fact that the juries may have been substantially less generous. And being a Brit, much as I’d rather avoid it altogether, I’d better comment on Olly getting zilch from the public. A top half finish was deserved in my (totally unbiased) opinion – if only due to some exceptional staging and choreography on stage. But in a year where impassioned performances with an overkill of excessive lighting was very much the order, the song itself by comparison offered precious little, meaning the audiences were always likely to overlook it (as they usually do with UK entries). I did feel for him though. But then, I would.
As for the show itself; for me, it didn’t really live up to expectations. The great thing about Sweden winning is that you know they’re going to put on a good show (or so I thought). Given the very high bar set by their shows in 2013 and 2016 – and Liverpool last year (well, maybe I’m slightly biased), it was always going to be difficult to match. Petra, as you may expect, did treat us all to a few moments of comedy gold, however; my personal favourite being when she tried to convince us she’s younger than 40. I mean, she could easily pass for being below that age – she does look that good, but she’s 54 according to Wikipedia (which, as we all know, never gets anything wrong).
Looking forward to next year, now. While Basel may not have been the obvious choice, it does contain the country’s third largest indoor arena – the St. Jakobshalle, where the contest will be hosted. I must profess to knowing precious little about the city other than its football team regularly being a thorn in the side of British teams in the Champions’ League. Being the third city, it may have been a surprise to some that Zurich lost out, although less surprising about Bern – the emphasis on recent contests has been to move them outside of capital cities where possible (Lisbon in 2018 being the last to have hosted), plus Bern’s population is smaller than Basel which would logically entail having less accessible infrastructure. But then, I was even more baffled as to why Liverpool was chosen over Glasgow and Manchester for similar reasons – even though, in hindsight, Liverpool proved itself to be the ideal candidate for so many reasons. And of course, Netta got it wrong once again (predicting Geneva when it was down to the final two), but hey, what’s new?
So, the likelihood is that Martin Osterdahl will still be in charge for the 2025 season – at least until its completion in Basel on 17th May. Any repeat of the shenanigans from this year, however, and that may well be where it ends. But what do you think? Please let me know in the comments, and make sure you’re liking, following, and sharing (if that’s not asking too much!) and I’ll see you in the next article. Ciao for now, Eurofans.
