JJ performs a winner’s reprise of Wasted Love for Austria, winner of the 69th Eurovision Song Contest © Corinne Cumming/EBU
As the confetti settles in Basel’s St. Jakobshalle after Austria’s JJ claimed victory, the 69th Eurovision Song Contest leaves behind more than just glitter. What was once seen as a pure celebration of cross-border musical exchange has grown into a cultural flashpoint shaped by political undercurrents, shifting alliances, and a restless public seeking more than entertainment in reaction to Israel’s Yuval Raphael’s runner up placement. In 2025, Eurovision stands at a critical juncture: can it remain a unifying stage for music, or has it irrevocably become a geopolitical arena?
How Eurovision Works, and Who Pays for It
Established in 1956, the Eurovision Song Contest is organised by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), a Geneva-based alliance of public service media organisations. Each participating country submits an original song performed live, with artists competing in two semi-finals and a grand finale. The winner is determined through a mix of jury voting and public televoting. In recent years, a global audience has joined the process, giving non-participating nations a chance to cast votes that now influence results.
Not every participating country, however, is on equal footing. The ‘Big Five’ (Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom) is a group that are guaranteed automatic qualification to the final. This privilege is not arbitrary. These nations are the largest financial contributors to the EBU and, by extension, to the contest itself. The EBU, while publicly committed to neutrality and artistic integrity, relies heavily on the continued financial support of the Big Five.
The Problem with ‘Non-Political’ Music
The EBU’s official line remains that Eurovision is a non-political event. It imposes strict rules to prevent political messaging during performances or broadcasts, or, as the Swiss hosts so delicately put it, “nonpolitical, strictly neutral, doesn’t matter if you’re good or brutal”. Many have started to question how true this statement really is.
Hazel Brugger and Sandra Studer (plus special guest Petra Mede) perform interval act Made in Switzerland at the First Semi-Final of the 69th Eurovision Song Contest at St. Jakobshalle in Basel ©Alma Bengtsson/EBU
In 2022, the decision to ban Russia following its invasion of Ukraine marked a turning point. It shattered any illusion of complete neutrality and set a precedent. With that precedent now established, calls to exclude Israel from Eurovision considering the ongoing conflict in Gaza have grown louder and more coordinated.
This year, the controversy intensified when Spain’s broadcaster (RTVE) aired a bilingual pre-final message in response to Israel’s inclusion in the competition:
“When it comes to human rights, silence is not an option. Peace and justice for Palestine.”
The message, delivered to millions, was carefully phrased but deeply political. The EBU responded immediately with a formal warning, threatening financial penalties and citing a breach of contest rules prohibiting politicised statements.
The rebuke has deepened the tension between the EBU and one of its core partners. For RTVE, the message was an expression of human rights advocacy. For the EBU, it was a line crossed. The Spanish government responded forcefully. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez publicly criticised Israel’s inclusion, arguing that “we cannot allow double standards in culture.” His comments echoed widespread dissatisfaction among European audiences and artists who see political selectivity in the EBU’s decisions.
This follows Belgium’s message in 2024, where the national broadcaster VRT, interrupted the second semi-final of Eurovision held in Malmo, Sweden to protest against Israel’s attacks in Gaza, displaying the message:
Contestants Speak, Audiences Listen
Over 70 past contestants have called for Israel’s exclusion. Now among them is the winner himself, JJ, who expressed disappointment with Israel’s presence and stated his hope that Eurovision 2026 will be hosted in Vienna, and without Israel participating. Such sentiments signal a shift in how artists view their participation. No longer content to serve as mere entertainers, they are increasingly positioning themselves as advocates for causes that transcend the stage.
Calls for an audit of the televoting system by broadcasters in Spain, Belgium, and Ireland highlight another layer of concern. Bloc voting, the longstanding tradition of regional alliances favouring their neighbours, has always been part of Eurovision’s history. Nordic countries reliably back each other, through an unofficial ‘Viking Alliance’, and Mediterranean and Eastern European nations follow similar patterns, often reinforced by diaspora communities and cultural proximity. But, critics argue that these voting habits, in a politically charged context, can now reinforce biases rather than celebrate diversity.
To balance these regional alliances, Eurovision incorporated a unique ‘Rest of the World’ televote in 2023, which aggregates votes from non-participating regions. This additional vote not only adds a democratically global perspective to the contest but also acts as a counterbalance against entrenched local allegiances, ensuring that a song’s appeal is measured against both regional loyalty and global recognition. As of 2025, Israel has received full points from each Rest of the World vote.
The EBU’s challenge lies in maintaining fairness and retaining legitimacy in the eyes of a growingly critical public. Transparency and consistency in rule enforcement are now essential to ensuring the contest remains credible.
Safety in the Spotlight
With politics in the foreground, the issue of safety has also taken centre stage. Swiss authorities deployed more than 1,300 officers around the Basel venue, reflecting heightened concerns about protest, violence, and public disruption. These measures included designated safe zones, mobile awareness teams, and a 24-hour hotline aimed at preventing incidents of assault, harassment, or racially motivated aggression.
In such a tense year for the song contest, the extensive security presence signalled the cost of staging an event that now carries global weight. As the cultural and political stakes grow, so does the infrastructure needed to ensure the contest’s smooth execution, which comes at a great cost to host countries.
The EBU’s Dilemma: Spain’s Leverage
Spain is not just another country at Eurovision. It is a financial cornerstone as one of the Big 5. According to RTVE financial disclosures, Spain annually spends between €600,000 and €800,000 on the Eurovision song contest, not including promotional efforts and domestic investments, with approximately half of this figure being made up of their participation fee, which provides the EBU with its funding. With high viewership figures and a significant international fan base, RTVE’s involvement bolsters Eurovision’s visibility far beyond Europe’s borders.
Eurovision’s financial structure is fragile. The EBU depends on a mixture of public broadcaster contributions, sponsorships, and merchandise. Large contributors like Spain make the contest viable at its current scale. If dissatisfaction among Big Five countries spreads, the EBU may be forced to reconsider its operational model and its rules on political neutrality.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The EBU now faces a critical decision: whether to double down on its current framework or to adapt to a cultural and political landscape that is increasingly complex. Reassessing what ‘neutrality’ means in practice may be unavoidable. In an age when silence is itself interpreted as a political stance, the line between neutrality and complicity grows thinner.
Eurovision is no longer just a television event. It is a platform for identity, advocacy, and diplomatic positioning. Whether addressing gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, climate change, or this year, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many Eurovision artists have made clear that they will not be muzzled by outdated rules.
To preserve the integrity and relevance of the contest, the EBU must establish clearer policies for political expression that do not rely solely on reactive punishment. Simultaneously, it must reassure its financial partners that their voices are valued in the strategic direction of the event. Without that assurance, the Big Five model itself could begin to crumble.
ADONXS performing Kiss Kiss Goodbye for Czechia at the Second Semi-Final in St. Jakobshalle © Alma Bengtsson/EBU
Music as a Mirror
Eurovision 2025 has exposed more than just musical talent. It has laid bare the tensions and contradictions within Europe’s cultural diplomacy. While the contest has long danced around geopolitics, this year brought those tensions fully into view, through on-screen messages, the presence of contested delegations, and the subtleties of historic bloc voting. The lines between art and politics were not just blurred but openly debated.
What happens next depends on the EBU’s willingness to adapt. The actions and statements from artists, governments, and viewers are clear: greater transparency, consistent enforcement of rules, and a redefinition of neutrality that acknowledges the political weight culture now carries. Preserving the contest’s integrity will require not only avoiding overt politicisation but also engaging with the realities of the world it reflects.
Eurovision remains a dazzling spectacle. But beneath the lights and choreography lies a case study in 21st-century diplomacy. Music, once seen as an escape from political discourse, has become one of its most expressive tools. Whether the EBU can meet this moment with fairness, clarity, and integrity will shape not only Eurovision 2026, but the future of international cultural exchange.
