The European Broadcasting Union faces ongoing debates about which country should stage the Eurovision Song Contest when the reigning winner cannot host. A recent decision by the reference group, the festival’s highest decision making body, highlighted that the host country must meet strict operational and security guarantees. This requirement echoes a familiar pattern from past editions, where political, financial, or logistical hurdles influenced hosting choices even when the winner held the right to stage the following contest. In line with these concerns, the bloc continues to evaluate viable venues, balancing tradition with the practicalities of organizing a major international event.
The winner of Eurovision traditionally earns the unwritten privilege to host the next contest. Yet this privilege has not always translated into a host nation. Across the 66 year history of the event, there have been six instances where the winner did not end up hosting, and in more than four decades this scenario has not repeated often.
The very first instance occurred in the inaugural years. After Switzerland won the first edition with the song Refrain, the country declined to host the second Eurovision. The European Broadcasting Union chose Frankfurt am Main in what was then West Germany to carry on the show at a major music hall that had served as a television studio. The decision marked a shift from the original organizing plan toward a neutral European venue that could guarantee the production’s scale and security requirements.
Three years later, the event faced a similar challenge. A winner in Cannes led Dutch television to decline the hosting duties for the 1960 edition, continuing a pattern where the responsibility did not align with the winning country. London then stepped in to host what became the British Eurovision Song Contest, marking a rare moment of cross national collaboration to keep the contest on schedule.
In 1963, London again served as a wildcard hosting location after a fresh withdrawal by another participant country. France did not assume hosting duties for the same reasons that affected West Germany and the Netherlands, with previous Cannes years cited to illustrate the recurring concerns about meeting the event’s operational needs. The outcome emphasized that hosting is a complex decision shaped by multiple factors beyond artistic success.
The pattern surfaced once more in 1972 when the British Broadcasting Corporation took charge after Monaco, the 1971 winner, could not secure a suitable site in its territory. Edinburgh ultimately hosted the competition, showcasing how a host nation can emerge from a pool of regional options when primary venues fall through.
Two decades later, Luxembourg withdrew despite having the winning song for a second consecutive year. The cost of staging the event proved prohibitive, and the decision led to a shift in hosting responsibilities to another European broadcaster. Brighton hosted the contest that year with the classic performance that had previously brought victory to a neighboring nation, illustrating how the event can move across the map based on feasibility rather than solely on triumph on stage.
Until the modern era, the most persistent question remained who would stage the contest when the winner could not. In 1980 the last instance outside the winner’s country occurred when Israel’s performers canceled hosting duties because the date coincided with a national day of remembrance. The decision was a reminder that the intersection of national calendars, security considerations, and public sentiment must all align for a successful live broadcast.
There have been notable moments when the hosting plan required quick adaptation. The organizing body has repeatedly offered the contract to major European broadcasters, and in some cases even considered alternative sites across the continent. The process often involved regional compromises and a willingness to rethink the traditional hosting model to ensure a seamless event that respects the competitive and cultural spirit of Eurovision. The example set by these decisions underscores the importance of flexible planning and robust infrastructure in delivering a world class festival for audiences around the globe, including viewers in Canada and the United States who follow the competition with passion.
Ultimately, the Eurovision story demonstrates that hosting is not guaranteed by victory. It is a role earned through credible plans, financial viability, and clear assurances of logistical readiness. The recent discussions reiterate that the path to a successful edition relies on strong governance, practical support from national broadcasters, and a shared commitment to maintaining the contest’s legacy while adapting to new realities and audiences around the world.
Citations: Eurovision official histories and contemporaneous reporting on hosting decisions provide a detailed chronology and context for these shifts in venue planning and the evolving criteria used by the organizing bodies to certify a host city or country.