Eurovision brings cash to host cities - but does it pay for national broadcasters to stage it?

The Journal

05-05-2025

IT ALL GOES back to 1996.
Two rival groups of priests enter 'A Song For Ireland' – and despite a show-stealing performance from Fr Dick Byrne in the national heats, a rather ramshackle composition played on an out-of-tune guitar by Fathers Ted Crilly and Dougal Maguire – My Lovely Horse – is selected as the Irish entry to compete on the European stage.
A producer for the national broadcaster laughs off suggestions that his station is afraid to win the Europe-wide competition because of the costs.
The scenario that played out in the 'Eurovision' episode of Fr Ted may have been fictional – but it was playing into jokes that were being widely made in the media around the time, as Ireland enjoyed an unprecedented run of success in the competition, winning the contest (and the right to stage it) five times between 1987 and 1996.
The expense of broadcasting the trans-continental contest has been steadily rising ever since – with weeknight semi-finals introduced around 20 years ago and other elements added around the edges of the event turning into a week-long mini-festival for whichever city wins the right to host it.
Organisers are always bragging about how much money the Eurovision brings in – but is there any truth to the rumour that broadcasters are still afraid of the costs of staging it?
Channel 4 Entertainment
/ YouTube
Major expense
What it seems to come down to is – Eurovision is beneficial for its host city. The competition brings in tourism and is a major source of positive word of mouth.
But while that may be true for the city as a whole, for the broadcaster in charge of hosting it, Eurovision is a major expense. One which seems to have been growing with time.
Essentially – the broadcaster has to take a hit so the wider community benefits. You can perhaps see why some are not so eager to risk sending a song at the level of 'My Lovely Horse'.
But taking a look at the wider economic impact first, and the European song contest seems to be a force for bringing in the cash.
It's worth noting upfront though – most of the figures around Eurovision's economic impact tend to be a bit woolly. There are a lot of estimates from organisers around the total spend in a city.
This can be hard to calculate, as you have to separate out how many people come specifically for Eurovision, and then look at how much this specific group spends.
With that caveat in mind, let's look at some examples.
Oxford Economics
last year looked at Malmö, the Swedish city which hosted Eurovision in 2024 and 2013.
Eurovision fans exercise at the Eurovision Village ahead of the first semifinal at the Eurovision in Malmo, Sweden, 7 May, 2024.
Alamy Stock Photo
Alamy Stock Photo
In 2013, it looked fairly straightforward. Approximately 100,000 people visited Malmö for Eurovision. This would both have been people based in Sweden, and foreigners. They were estimated to spend a combined total of €33 million, which breaks down at a pretty reasonable €330 per person.
Subtract 'hosting costs' of €28 million, and boom! You're €5 million in profit. Seems a good deal.
Liverpool, which hosted Eurovision in 2023, looks to have got an even better one.
An economic impact assessment
published by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority in January found tourism during the event brought £11.1 million (€13 million) to the economy.
This was based on 72,500 tourists going to the city for Eurovision – 67,300 domestic / British tourists, and 5,200 international. Again, the estimate comes out at a fairly reasonable £154 per person.
Family of tourists visiting Liverpool for Eurovision 2023
Alamy Stock Photo
Alamy Stock Photo
It is worth noting that these figures are counted between June 2023 and May 2024 – the year after Liverpool hosted Eurovision 2023.
The study found that the rise in trips was largely from 'an increased popularity with domestic tourists, with perceptions of the city improving due to the event'.
The Liverpool Authority said its assessment was backed up by studies from other bodies, while the likes of the University of Liverpool also
found there was a rise in spending during the event.
If we look to 2022, when Eurovision was hosted in the Italian city of Turin, a similar story emerges.
A study published by Università di Torino
found the rise in tourism to the city caused a direct economic benefit of €22.8 million. '[This was] equal to 2.4 times the value of the investment supported directly by the City of Turin,' it said.
Advertisement
Official Eurovision 2022 advertising flags on the King Umberto I bridge over the River Po in Turin, Italy.
Alamy Stock Photo
Alamy Stock Photo
And so on, and so on. The pattern seems fairly clear, at least among recent host cities – Eurovision brings in tourists. They spend money, it's good for the economy. Simple, right? So, why are there those rumours about the contest being 'too expensive' to host?
This is likely due to the cost taken on by companies which handle broadcasting the competition. Eurovision is an enormous event, which requires high production values over multiple days. Something like that is going to be pricey for a broadcaster to put together.
Again, exact figures here are a little sketchy, as we're normally reliant on companies to publicly reveal how much they spend on the competition.
But there are a few examples – RTP, Portugal's public service broadcaster,
reportedly lost €4 million
when the event was hosted in Lisbon in 2018.
White ticket sales, advertiser revenue and sponsorship brought in €16 million, organising the event cost €20 million.
Eurovision advertisement on a Lisbon square in 2018
Alamy Stock Photo
Alamy Stock Photo
The exact spending breakdown wasn't announced, but would have included the likes of production costs, such as set design and pyrotechnics, as well as paying for guest accommodation and transport.
The amount of cash spent by RTP also tracks with another claim around Eurovision – namely, the competition itself has gotten more expensive to broadcast.
In 2016, Sweden's national broadcaster reportedly spent 125 million Swedish krona (€11.5 million) organising the competition, significantly less compared to RTP.
While this could have been for a variety of reasons, it tracks with reports that costs have increased substantially in recent years.
EBU
The bulk of Eurovision's cost is normally covered by national broadcasters across Europe. These operate via the European Broadcasting Union, an alliance of public service broadcasters from across Europe.
Each broadcaster pays a participation fee to the EBU
- for example, the BBC pays approximately £300,000 annually for the UK's guaranteed place in the final.
The UK is one of the so-called 'Big Five' – the others being France, Germany, Italy, Spain – which all pay higher participation fees.
Traditionally, these EBU fees covered much of the production costs for the country staging the contest in a given year.
But as costs have risen, there is an increasing gap between the participation fees and the actual cost to a host country's national broadcaster of staging the contest.
This has been exacerbated by some countries pulling out of the contest. In 2023, Bulgaria, Montenegro and North Macedonia all pulled out of the Liverpool event due to the financial pressure of the likes of the EBU fees.
Switzerland' representative Nemo won the 68th Eurovision on 11 May, 2024 in Malmo, Sweden.
Alamy Stock Photo
Alamy Stock Photo
With fewer countries paying participation fees, it means the burden is higher again on the host.
Martin Österdahl, Eurovision's Executive Supervisor,
acknowledged this issue last year, saying
: 'The contest was financed every year by the participation fee, but the production has grown so much and become so much more expensive that today, the fee's a very small part of the required budget'.
There are claims that Eurovision actually
represents a good return on investment for broadcasters
, given the massive audiences which tune in.
But given that most of the EBU broadcasters are public entities under budget pressures, it's easy to see why they would be reluctant to deal in the 'cash upfront' business.
Finally, what about RTÉ? While it's true that its EBU fees have increased, they're only about €100,000 a year for the Irish broadcaster. While it is under financial pressure, it's a relative drop in the ocean for an organisation with
annual revenues of €344 million
.
Perhaps the legend about it being reluctant to host Eurovision spawned from as far back as 1971.
It was the first year that Ireland ever hosted the Eurovision, and RTÉ was under pressure to impress internationally. As a result, the broadcaster spent £250,000 hosting the contest. That's several million euros in today's money, and was a massive chunk of the organisation's annual budget at the time.
Writing for RTÉ in 2021
, researcher Morgan Wait described how the spend on the contest 'led to cuts in nearly every department and a cavalcade of programme cancellations'. At least the spend seems to have been worth it as Wait wrote how Eurovision 1971 was 'declared a resounding success'.
RTÉ did of course then organise several Eurovision contests throughout the 90s with far less drama.
But given previous experience, it's easy to see why Eurovision's pricey reputation stuck. And while it may be good for local economies, it doesn't seem to be so kind to the wallets of the national broadcasters who stage the event.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More
Support The Journal