In recent discussions, the European Broadcasting Union began conversations with the British Broadcasting Corporation following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the idea that Ukraine might not host Eurovision 2023 was debated. The debate highlighted how rules and guarantees work in practice, reminding fans that the chosen host must meet clear security and logistical standards. The question of whether a country outside the winner’s circle can still host has long been settled by tradition, yet it remains a live topic whenever a host country cannot proceed as planned.
Across its 66 year history, the winner of the Eurovision Song Contest has traditionally earned the right to stage the event the following year. Still, there have been notable exceptions. In six cases, the hosting duty did not stay with the previous year’s winner, and these instances span more than four decades, showing how international coordination can reshuffle plans in unexpected ways.
The first deviation occurred in 1957. After the inaugural edition in Switzerland with a song that captured the audience, the host nation declined to organize the 1958 contest. The EBU chose Frankfurt am Main in West Germany to host, using the Großer Sendesaal des hessischen Rundfunks as the venue. The move demonstrated how the festival could relocate on short notice when a host country could not proceed with the required preparations.
Three years later, a similar challenge emerged. The 1959 winner from Cannes, performing a song that resonated with audiences, led the Dutch broadcaster to decide not to stage the 1960 edition. London stepped in to host the contest, marking another instance of a host city taking over due to reasons rooted in scheduling, logistics, or national capacity.
In 1963, London again served as a fallback venue after a new set of organizational concerns. At that time, France declined to host for reasons similar to previous years, and London became the backup option, continuing the pattern of the host nation sometimes stepping back while a neighboring country or city stepped forward to ensure Eurovision could proceed.
The pattern persisted in 1972 when the British Broadcasting Corporation took the stage again after Monaco, the winner in Dublin in 1971, could not secure a suitable venue in its territory. Edinburgh hosted the competition in that iteration, illustrating how the contest can migrate to different parts of the United Kingdom to keep the event alive.
Luxembourg followed a similar path in 1974, withdrawing after winning the prior year with a performance that drew significant international attention. The cost of hosting weighed heavily on the organizers, prompting a change of plans. The competition ultimately returned to the United Kingdom with ABBA’s iconic victory in Waterloo, staged by the BBC in Brighton, reaffirming the resilience and adaptability of Eurovision’s hosting framework.
After that sequence, the pattern persisted into the 1980s. A non-winning country last assumed hosting duties in 1980, a moment comparable to the Luxembourg decision years earlier. Israel, celebrating a remarkable victory with Hallelujah in 1979, faced a complex situation tied to national commemorations. The hosting arrangements in that era show how external events can influence the contest’s scheduling and location, sometimes leading to hosting by a different country or city than the previous year’s winner.
The most challenging episode occurred when the EBU offered the event to the BBC, but the British network declined. In pursuit of a suitable venue, the EBU explored options with multiple European broadcasters, including Spain. The Costa del Sol Tourism Board even explored a Torremolinos venue as a potential host site, reflecting the broad geographic reach Eurovision has maintained. In the end, NOS of the Netherlands stepped in to host the competition in The Hague under tight time constraints, showcasing the organization’s ability to mobilize quickly and maintain continuity in the festival’s long running tradition.
Today, Eurovision continues to navigate hosting responsibilities with a mix of tradition and pragmatism. The evolving landscape of broadcasters, venues, and security requirements means that the next host country is determined not solely by winning status but by a combination of capacity, commitment, and readiness. This flexible approach ensures the festival remains a global celebration of music and cultural exchange, capable of adapting to unexpected circumstances while preserving the contest’s core spirit.