Even the Eurovision Song Contest’s wilfully ignorant organisers couldn’t deny that the vibes of Tuesday’s first-semi final were distinctly off. And not just because of hosts Austria’s torturous “comedy’” interval. Israel’s continued participation amid the country’s long-running conflict with Palestine, of course, famously caused the biggest boycott in the event’s 70-year history last December. And despite producers’ best efforts, there were several reminders of how the competition designed to bring Europe together had instead torn it apart.
The performance from Israel’s contestant Noah Bettan, for example, was briefly overshadowed by the protestors shouting “Free Palestine! Stop the genocide!” The regular references to the downsized “Big Four” brought home how Spain, alongside the Netherlands, Iceland, Ireland and Slovenia, were no longer in attendance. And there was a notable drop in the quality of entries, suggesting a smaller-than-usual pool of songwriters/artists were willing to put their heads above the parapet in such a controversial year.
Many of the longtime fans who gave Tuesday’s underwhelming semi a miss – the BBC’s ratings were down 0.3 million – would claim the contest is now already ruined beyond repair. Nevertheless, here’s a look at five potential ways in which the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) can claw back at least a few respectability points on the scoreboard.
Vote on Israel
Okay, so it would be naive to think it would actually change anything. After all, the EBU stated that by agreeing to the other rule changes implemented at last December’s crisis meeting in Geneva, each broadcaster was essentially also approving of Israel’s participation, too. Still, at least an official vote would be a more transparent and, contrary to EBU president Delphine Ernotte Cunci’s bizarre logic, the most diplomatic way of deciding the country’s Eurovision fate.
The organisation had initially vowed to stage one in a September letter addressed to members in which they admitted to having “never faced a divisive situation like this before”. But a new political ceasefire agreement soon after allowed them to push the thorny matter aside and eventually ignore it altogether. Furthermore, a study of broadcasters’ opinions on Israel’s involvement was commissioned yet never released in full. It’s little wonder, therefore, that the EBU are deemed as both overly secretive and completely toothless.
Further limit phone votes
The EBU did, however, issue a new rule that has reduced the number of paid phone votes per person from 20 to 10. But a recent New York Times investigation into the figures behind 2025’s contest proves even this number is open to manipulation.
An analysis of Spain’s votes, for example, showed Israel received 47,570 and a 33.3 percent share, a result massively at odds with the country’s general pro-Palestine stance. Second-placed Ukraine, meanwhile, racked up 9,620 votes, meaning Israel only needed approximately 500 supporters voting 20 times to finish first, and only 1,000 using the new system. Considering their concerted promotional methods, these are clearly achievable numbers. In fact, several diaspora groups, including With Israel for Peace, have confirmed such tactics.
Of course, the EBU are unlikely to change anything that will impact profits and they’re continuing to insist that with 10 chances to vote, they’re simply allowing the love to be spread around. But in a 25-strong final – and two semi-finals of just 15 – rewarding nearly half or more than half of all entrants makes a mockery of the whole competition. Shouldn’t the winner be based on how many individuals vote, rather than how many hardcore fans?
Punish rule-breakers
The EBU also promised to “discourage disproportionate promotions,” during their Geneva summit, another rule change believed to have been enacted because of Israel. According to The New York Times, the country’s government began splashing the cash on marketing in 2018 – $100,000 to be precise – the year when Netta’s “Toy” stormed to victory. They upped this figure to $800,000 in 2024 and then a colossal $1 million in 2025, undoubtedly with the mindset that a strong Eurovision showing would represent a strong European support.
Although he insisted the seven-figure sum didn’t play a part in Yuval Raphael’s “New Day Will Rise” finishing runner-up, Eurovision director Martin Green acknowledged it was excessive. And the EBU subsequently vowed to crack down on such campaigns.
Once again, the organisation has failed to deliver. Only last week, Israel’s public broadcaster Kan and Bettan encouraged audiences across Europe to vote 10 times for their entry “Michelle” with online promos in multiple languages, a clear breach of the new rules. Instead of any notable penalty, though, they were punished by nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
Drop the message
Coined by the BBC, “United by Music” was the perfect sentiment for the 2023 contest in which all competitors expressed solidarity with the war-torn Ukraine. Less so when Eurovision itself adopted the slogan for the following year, when the joy and camaraderie was replaced by tension, toxicity and so much trauma that multiple acts ended up requiring therapy. And the ongoing controversy surrounding Israel’s inclusion ensured 2025 was similarly fraught, too.
Tuesday’s hosts Victoria Swarovski and Michael Ostrowski were obviously ordered to keep spreading the message that harmony could be achieved with a little bit of Serbian emo-rock or Swedish techno-pop. Even they looked thoroughly unconvinced. The contest has been irrevocably tarnished by its determination to stay apolitical at all costs. So, let’s stop the patronising pretense that deep down, Eurovision is one big happy family.
Consider downsizing
The first semi-final also highlighted several issues on a creative level. A worrying reliance on AI, underwhelming postcard sequences and further proof that only Sweden and the UK can make Eurovision skits funny (seriously, the quiz show was the kind of filler you’d expect from a local radio show, not one of the world’s biggest entertainment spectacles).
Yet the most glaring problem, like many Eurovisions of the recent past, was the venue. The staging often appeared to dwarf the performers, with many either unwilling (San Marino) or struggling (see poor Georgia) to utilise the oversized runway.
And despite getting rid of the anti-booing technology that’s been deployed in recent years, the atmosphere still felt muted. No-one’s clamouring for a return to the likes of the Harrogate International Centre, but bigger doesn’t always mean better. We still want to see Finnish violinists performing atop burning chairs and hyperactive Greeks dancing with knitting grannies.
But perhaps the Eurovision Song Contest could, just maybe, go back to focusing a little bit more on the song.