A-lister
Veteran
- Joined
- December 28, 2009
- Posts
- 32,843
Money makes the world go round right?
Whether we are fans or not of Australia being pushed into the contest (contrary to what was originally proposed officially by the EBU), there are still legit concerns to address regardless of where we stand.
One major concern that was addressed by both camps, and still is, is of course what will happen if Australia would end up winning this contest. Now as we all know, Australia is almost as far as possible away from geographic Europe and the non-updated European Broadcasting Area (the latter being used as a rule towards other countries by the EBU whether or not countries would be eligible or not to enter). We all know Australia won't be able to host this, maybe in a sort of artificial way in another European/EBU country, but still not actually hosting it with all the costs and preparations that come with hosting.
Now, is there a risk that EBU could use this as a precedent to abolish one of the very traditions of Eurovision and start a bidding war for hosting rights instead? Now this would probably be the scenario if Australia wins, but there is a risk EBU would keep onto such a concept due to financial reasons even for future contests regardless of the winner. Now, not only would this abolish a fine and fair tradition of Eurovision, it would also mean that only rich broadcasters willing to spend money on this, alternatively (often shady) countries taking money from the state budget to convince EBU that they will be "the most fitting host" (with the latter we could end up with "propaganda shows" rather than musical entertainment shows), would be potential hosts while poorer broadcasters/countries won't even be considered.
We have all seen how it works with the World Cups (FIFA), Euro Cups (UEFA) and Olympics (to name the most known ones) and the amount of corruption and politics that are the true reasons for choices of hosts, EBU and Eurovision of course wouldn't be immune to such pressure (it already isn't but at least with the current rule it is not as bad).
Now, what are your guys thoughts on this? Is there a risk for such a precedent to be started? Do you think EBU have the incentives to do such changes and would they actually do it? Do you agree or disagree that it could be a good/bad thing for Eurovision as a brand and concept and/or for the show/contest in general?
Whether we are fans or not of Australia being pushed into the contest (contrary to what was originally proposed officially by the EBU), there are still legit concerns to address regardless of where we stand.
One major concern that was addressed by both camps, and still is, is of course what will happen if Australia would end up winning this contest. Now as we all know, Australia is almost as far as possible away from geographic Europe and the non-updated European Broadcasting Area (the latter being used as a rule towards other countries by the EBU whether or not countries would be eligible or not to enter). We all know Australia won't be able to host this, maybe in a sort of artificial way in another European/EBU country, but still not actually hosting it with all the costs and preparations that come with hosting.
Now, is there a risk that EBU could use this as a precedent to abolish one of the very traditions of Eurovision and start a bidding war for hosting rights instead? Now this would probably be the scenario if Australia wins, but there is a risk EBU would keep onto such a concept due to financial reasons even for future contests regardless of the winner. Now, not only would this abolish a fine and fair tradition of Eurovision, it would also mean that only rich broadcasters willing to spend money on this, alternatively (often shady) countries taking money from the state budget to convince EBU that they will be "the most fitting host" (with the latter we could end up with "propaganda shows" rather than musical entertainment shows), would be potential hosts while poorer broadcasters/countries won't even be considered.
We have all seen how it works with the World Cups (FIFA), Euro Cups (UEFA) and Olympics (to name the most known ones) and the amount of corruption and politics that are the true reasons for choices of hosts, EBU and Eurovision of course wouldn't be immune to such pressure (it already isn't but at least with the current rule it is not as bad).
Now, what are your guys thoughts on this? Is there a risk for such a precedent to be started? Do you think EBU have the incentives to do such changes and would they actually do it? Do you agree or disagree that it could be a good/bad thing for Eurovision as a brand and concept and/or for the show/contest in general?