[Ismini Vlassopoulou/Intime News]
How did a camp music spectacle survive geopolitical earthquakes, economic meltdowns, technological revolutions and regional conflicts? As it turns 70 this year, Eurovision is a cultural paradox in its own right but also a living reminder of the continent’s soft power.
In a shattered landscape where only sports, chiefly soccer, can still sustain collective spectacles with universal appeal, the resilient Eurovision Song Contest not only survived the end of the “old” 20th-century world that gave birth to it, but actually drew strength and influence from the tectonic shifts that marked the transition from the Cold War to the era of globalization and the internet.
And rather than watching a retro relic from the supposedly “good old days,” we find ourselves analyzing the enduring power of Europe’s most significant annual television event and asking why Spain and four other countries chose this platform to make one of their loudest geopolitical statements by boycotting this year’s contest over Israel’s participation. And so, paradoxically, the music and the songs seem to matter least of all. Yet herein lies Eurovision’s true strength. For every year it’s held, it comes to encompass so much more than the initial reasons why a handful of countries decided to create the institution seven decades ago, inspired by Italy’s Sanremo Music Festival.
‘Νο politics’
The paradox – aside from many other paradoxes – is that the organizer, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), has done everything in its power to ensure that Eurovision stays out of politics and national rivalries. Comparing it to soccer institutions like UEFA or FIFA – which go to significant lengths to uphold a ‘no politics’ policy – would not be wrong. The “hot potato” landed in Austria’s hands this year, amid international backlash over Israel’s actions in Gaza. No matter how “contained” the impact of the boycott may appear for now, the incident itself speaks volumes about the scale of the contest’s influence.
One of the key elements of Eurovision’s rebranding in the late 1990s, after viewership fell to historic lows, was about opening up to the “real world”: the idea of a pan-European celebration, inclusive and fair, and attuned to the new, still largely underground social currents reshaping youth culture at the time. In this respect, the participation – and especially the victory – of the trans woman Dana International in 1998 in Birmingham marked a turning point in Eurovision’s identity. Nothing would ever be quite the same again. The contest had fully embraced the vocabulary of a new cultural idiom and politics could no longer be left out. Dana herself became Eurovision’s strongest political statement since its inception.
‘Ferto’
As far as Greece is concerned, the 2026 competition has already made history regardless of how the country’s contestant, Akylas, places with his quirky “Ferto.” Beyond the appeal of the song itself – which appears to position us well for a strong result on the night of the final (if it fails to qualify from the group of countries competing in next Tuesday’s first semifinal, it will rank among the biggest surprises in Eurovision history) – this is above all the year in which state broadcaster ERT truly raised the bar, organizing an exemplary national selection process with two semifinals and, in effect, informally establishing a new song festival. It is impossible to predict how Akylas will do for a variety of reasons. It’s taken as a given that he will perform well in the audience vote, but pundits are not so confident about whether the song will also appeal to the national judging panels. The main reason is because “Ferto” is all about making a striking impression, resonating emotionally and having a strong stage presence – qualities that the audience tends to reward more generously.
National committees, in contrast, look more at vocal skill, composition and overall artistic quality, often snubbing the entries that go viral with the public. This explains why the second part of the voting process – when the televoting points are added – often produces dramatic reversals in the final rankings. One notable example in Eurovision’s recent history was Norway in 2016, when its entry performed modestly with the national juries but surged in the televote. The same happened with Italy in 2021 and, the following year, with Ukraine.
It is worth recalling that national juries were reintroduced in 2009 because significant imbalances had emerged when the winner was determined exclusively by the popular vote, due to bloc voting shaped by geographic and political alliances. The favorite for this year’s final – to be held on Saturday in Vienna – is widely believed to be Finland, which has submitted a rather mediocre composition that nonetheless possesses the kind of characteristics capable of attracting votes from both camps: the public and the juries.