The “Denver” scenario – changing host country
There are a few precedents in Eurovision history, from the early decades of the contest to the 2020’s, which can help us understand how changing hosts could happen. But the closest precedent to what could happen in Basel next week actually comes from Olympic history, with the ill-fated Denver Winter Olympics.
Denver 1976, and the referendum that brought it down
In 1970, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) concluded the bidding process to host the Olympic Games of 1976, for both the winter and summer editions. The summer games went to Montréal, and the winter ones, to Denver. But the games never ended up in Colorado.
Upon closer inspection, the Denver bid was a badly prepared project, and had already gathered local opposition against it, both in the city and in the state of Colorado as a whole. Among the most vocal opponents was a young Democrat member of the Colorado legislature, Richard Lamm. Raising concerns over the rising financial costs of hosting the Games (much more than planned, and with the fresh example of the 1972 Sapporo Winter Games which produced a loss superior to one billion dollars), but also over the environmental impact of the events on the mountains, he managed to gather enough signatures to force the state to put the question to the ballot.
That is how, in November 1972, as Richard Nixon won his re-election in a landslide, the citizens of Colorado also voted on “Amendment 8”, to amend their state constitution in order to prohibit Colorado from financing the Winter Olympics. The measure passed with 59.44% of the votes in its favour, effectively burying Denver’s Olympics (and boosting Richard Lamm’s popularity, who ran for Governeror two years later and easily won).
In the weeks that followed the 1972 referendum, Denver formally withdrew from the organisation of the games, and left the IOC with less than four years to not only find a replacement but make this replacement ready for the winter of 1976. Not trusting other Americans cities that offered to take over the hosting (Salt Lake City and Lake Placid), the IOC ended up coming back to Innsbruck, the host of the 1964 games, which already had most of the infrastructure ready.
From Innsbruck 1976 to The Hague 1980 – veterans to the rescue
A referendum putting an end to hosting a big international event, halfway through the preparations, leaving a relatively short time to find a replacement solid enough to organise it… This looks like our worst-case scenario for the Basel contest.
A few years after the Denver debacle, Eurovision actually had to face a slightly similar situation, in 1979-1980. After Israel’s victory at home in 1979, the Israelian Broadcasting Authority (IBA) could not face the costs of hosting twice in a row without extra government funding. When the government refused, the IBA had to give up on hosting Eurovision. The exact details of what happened next are not clear, but allegedly, 1979 runner-up Spain was offered the possibility to host and declined, and so did the United Kingdom, which was the usual substitute for winning countries refusing to host (as they had done in 1960, 1963, 1972 and 1974). The EBU ended up “awarding” the unwanted burden of hosting to Dutch broadcaster NOS, host of the 1976 contest in The Hague. NOS accepted, counting on both human experience and production elements and props from their recent hosting to lower the cost of coming to the rescue.
Thus the contest took place, again, in The Hague, in the same building, with the same stage, and even a similar-looking logo (very much like Innsbruck 1976 did with the 1964 infrastructure and visual identity).
In our version of the Basel referendum, could Rotterdam or Turin come back to the rescue in 2025? Would Sweden be seen as the most experienced host and better emergency substitute? Events from the last decade of Eurovision give us some elements of who could be the candidates of the 2020’s.
Germany or the United Kingdom – the usual suspects
When Australia joined Eurovision in 2015, the EBU stated that an Australian victory would not mean a “Eurovision Down Under”, hosted in Australia. The official policy on the matter has always been clear: Australia would co-produce the contest in Europe, with the local broadcaster of the actual host country.
The question of which country would actually host has been the subject of many rumours, with Germany and the United Kingdom being considered the most likely solutions. At some point in the late 2010’s, it was even alleged that SBS (Australia’s broadcaster) had an agreement with Germany’s ARD on partnering together in such an event. More recent rumours also mentioned Iceland. The only confirmation that came from the Australian delegation was that during the 2016 voting sequence, when an Australian victory looked possible, Dami Im was told not to say anything on the topic during her potential winner’s press conference, as talks would need to be held later on.
The idea of Germany or the United Kingdom coming to the rescue of Switzerland would make sense: they have a large amount of concert halls and suitable venues, most of which are easily accessible, and as Big Five members they would not change the number of automatic qualifiers. The productions standards of both the BBC and the ARD network are also considered high enough to pull out something like this. The probability of a venue being available at the right time (or being “made available” through financial settlement with whoever booked it first), although not certain, is still likely. Moreover, as late as in April 2017, Berlin was already revealed as a potential backup plan to replace Kyiv, which was preparing to host the contest only a few weeks later.
Recent years have also shown Sweden as a very capable and experienced host, with a culture deeply attached to Eurovision. The limited number of arenas, however, make it a less likely candidate, and the fresh impact of the 2024 contest in Malmö would not help.
Top-placers: the 2019 and 2023 scenarios
When you look at our two potential approaches to hosting the contest outside of Switzerland, you find that one country is both a “veteran” (a recent host) and a traditional “usual suspect”: the United Kingdom. And of course, its recent experience as host was already as a “substitute”, welcoming the contest in Liverpool in 2023 on behalf of Ukraine, who could not host because of the war it is still facing today.
But at the time, the UK was not officially chosen because it was a classic substitute, and certainly not for any recent experience in hosting the competition (the writer of these lines was not even born when the UK hosted last before Liverpool, in 1998). The BBC was awarded the contest because of Sam Ryder’s position as runner-up to Ukraine in Eurovision 2022, as the EBU clearly explained at the time:
As a result of [the decision not to hold the contest in Ukraine], in accordance with the rules and to ensure the continuity of the event, the EBU will now begin discussions with the BBC, as this year’s runner up, to potentially host the 2023 Eurovision Song Contest in the United Kingdom.
EBU statement on the hosting of Eurovision 2023, June 16th 2022
At the time, another Big Five country had come third, Spain ; but Spanish broadcaster RTVE had previously stated that they would not push for hosting rights, and considered the BBC the rightful alternative host. So which element decisively gave the BBC the edge? The Spanish agreement, the logic to go from the winner to the runner-up? Or “the rules”? It is not clear if these rules mandate that the runner-up automatically gets the first proposition, or if they just allow the EBU to choose another candidate, should the natural one be unable to host.
The idea of going down the scoreboard to find alternative hosts was not new, though. It was already mentioned in the summer of 2018, during the IPBC “deposit crisis”, when Israeli broadcaster IPBC/KAN had failed to give the EBU financial guarantees in time, being unable to do so without cutting costs on production or staff, or without government help (in a situation reminding the 1979-1980 crisis).
At the time, Cyprus was the “outgoing” runner-up, but there were serious doubts on the island’s capacity to host the contest — so much that when Eleni Foureira became a contender during the 2018 rehearsals, the Cypriot government preemptively said they would give as much financial support as needed behind the contest if they were to win and have the right to host. The most serious alternative at the time was Austria, which had come third in 2018, and had hosted the contest in Vienna just three years prior: a veteran, and a top-3 finisher
In conclusion: Zagreb, Paris, back to the UK, or…?
So, in conclusion, if Basel votes “no”, where are we going in 2025?
There’s a world where we remain in Basel, but that is not likely. Geneva could be the natural substitute, but that ship may have sailed by now. The contest would probably be hosted in another country, with or without SRG as a co-host.
If we look for a “natural substitute”, Germany may be the likeliest candidate: not only could it have available venues at the right time, it is also culturally close to Switzerland, has hosted the contest in 2011 (which is not so long ago, but not too long ago either) and has the right experience to host large events.
But if we look at the scoreboard, which top-scoring country could actually pull off taking over the contest on such a short notice? Finishing 2nd in Malmö was Baby Lasagna, from Croatia, which was ready to host under normal circumstances. But 5 months may be too short for a broadcaster which has never hosted the contest and may lack some experience, even with support from previous producers. Coming in 3rd place was Ukraine, which cannot host the event at present. But right behind them we find France.
Could France Télévisions pull off a contingency Eurovision? Probably: they handled two Junior contests in short succession (Paris 2021 and Nice 2023), perhaps not perfectly but certainly learning from the experience, and France just came out of hosting the biggest event on Earth, the Paris Olympics. France is also accustomed to hosting large, barely planned events to be broadcast on TV — usually for sad occasions, such as ceremonies after terrorist attacks, or state funerals. And La Défense Arena (which hosted swimming during the Olympics) will be free from April to late May: could Eurovision be slotted at its planned time, ending on May 17th, just a week before a Dua Lipa concert? Maybe.
The final solution would be a recent host, regardless of scoreboard position. Italy will not want it, and neither will Sweden. The UK may accept. But the most spectacular scenario would, of course, be a return to the Netherlands. After hosting Eurovision in 2021, in difficult conditions but with two years to plan the show, and after a traumatic experience in Malmö this year, how karmic would it be for the Dutch to host the contest again, on short notice, but in (almost) Covid-free conditions, saving the EBU’s main event in the process…
Of course, all of this is hypothetical. The citizens of Basel-Stadt will probably welcome the contest with open arms and vote in favour of the funding. But if the unthinkable happens, as it sometimes does, you may be a bit more prepared now for what could follow.
Did you learn something with this article? Where do you think the contest would be held in these conditions? Tell us more in the comments below, or on social media, at @escxtra !
