EBU:”EBU discusses change of vote” as TVE’s entertainment director reveals

Toñi Prieto, director of entertainment programs on Spanish public broadcaster, TVE, reveals in an interview today that EBU is conducting a survey among its members – public service broadcasters, on changingthe voting system at the Eurovision Song Contest.

Will the 50-50 system change?

Since 2009, when the jury returned to the contest, having 50% of the final result, there have been few times that the voting system has been criticised.

On the one hand, it is those who believe that five people from every country, even if they are music professionals, cannot have the same say in the outcome, as the rest of the public, who vote by tele-voting. On the contrary, those who claim that the level of songs have gone up since 2009, so-called joke entries (see Ireland 2008, Iceland 2006 etc) have disappeared, with all countries making sure to send good voices, hoping this will be appreciated. from the jury.

What has been active since 2009 with some minor variations is that public and jury have 50% of the final results, both in the final and in the two semifinals.

Toñi Prieto: “The EBU is discussing the change of vote in Eurovision!”
In an interview with Vertele, TVE’s entertainment director Toñi Prieto, among others, says that EBU is in discussions with public television stations to find out what the best voting system is.

The EBU is thinking of turning a vote. They think and discuss with the delegations to find out how we see it. If there is to be a jury, only a jury or only the television audience.

Toñi Prieto, TVE’s entertainment director

EBU: Eurovision Executive Supervisor Wanted | The qualifications required and the responsibilities

Through the official EBU website, the vacancy of Eurovision Executive Supervisor o has been announced, as Jon Ola Sand is known that completes his term in May at Eurovision 2020, which will take place in Rotterdam.

Applications must be submitted by 14 November

The deadline for applicants who want to succeed Jon Ola Sand in the position of Executive Supervisor of Eurovision events expires on 14 November.

Applications will not be accepted after this date, and the EBU will only contact those with the necessary qualifications. Applications are only made electronically through the EBU website.

What are the qualifications of an Executive Supervisor?

The qualifications an executive supervisor must have are varied and multidimensional, as he must be communicative, knowledgeable in political situations, linguistic, ready for many trips and work on vacations and weekends. Of course, he or she must have a television experience of organizing big events, but also be able to manage organized sets and find the right partners. In particular, the notice states:

-The executive supervisor must have a background as a high level media professional. Full experience in complex television entertainment productions, events, digital development and storytelling.
-He must be able to work in an international environment and have strong cultural and political understanding, being able to mitigate intense conflict in the field.
-He\she must have senior management experience, with extensive knowledge of the role of Project Manager.
-He\she must have a strong sense of communication with fluent English and preferably French.
-He\she must be a strong team player capable of working in changing environments and different working conditions.
-He\she must be able fro frequent visits and meetings at EBU headquarters throughout the year. Presence in Geneva (EBU headquarters) about 4 weeks before the start of Eurovision events. Short trips and work during the evenings, weekends and holidays.
-8+ years of experience in the broadcasting environment.
-5+ years of experience in human management (proven track record)

The salary is not mentioned, but it is stressed that it is competitive!

What are the duties of the Executive Supervisor?

If you still have questions about the duties of the Executive Supervisor of Eurovision events, the notice states them in more detail:

-The executive supervisor is the person who, on behalf of the EBU, has overall responsibility for the ESC mark. This includes the areas of member relations, content, production, broadcasting, financing, legal, logistics, security and communication and public relations.

-As the Eurovision Contest is an apolitical event but with a possible political impact, the general and political management of stakeholders is a key role for the Executive Supervisor.

-He\she is responsible for gathering all relevant information on the development and progress of Eurovision each year, in addition to general related matters that may be of great importance or may damage the reputation of the ESC and the EBU.

-He\she is the main responsible for ensuring that Participating Broadcasters (PBs) participating in the competition comply with the EBU Rules.

-He\she maintains extensive contact with all public service broadcasters and is available for advice, consultation and support throughout the year, also by visiting PBs at their preferred location.

-He\she  is responsible for the long-term strategic development of the Eurovision Contest, its brand and brand initiatives.

The 13th Executive Supervisor of the Competition

The new Executive Supervisor to be appointed will be the 13th in the history of the institution, with one remaining unknown until now, according to the official list published on the contest’s website:

1956-1957: Rolf Liebermann (2)
1958-1963: Unknown (6)
1964-1965: Miroslav Vilček (2)
1966-1977: Clifford Brown (12)
1978-1992: Frank Naef (15)
1993-1995: Christian Clausen (3)
1996 and 1998-2002: Christine Marchal-Ortiz (6)
1997: Marie-Claire Vionnet (1)
2003: Sarah Yuen (1)
2004-2010: Svante Stockselius (7)
2011-2020: Jon Ola Sand
2021:;

As we mentioned in our recent article, a glance at the list is enough to notice that in the 65-year history of the competition, only Miroslav Vilček came from Southern Europe (he was Croatian). All others were from central and northern Europe, with Scandinavia in recent years holding this position exclusively.

So if you think you are qualified to claim the position of Executive Supervisor, its your chance  to apply. You will certainly not have Christer Bjorkman as an opponent, since, based on what he has clarified, he is not interested in that position!

So, take it away!

Editorial: “Eurovision Executive Supervisor”; a role for the Northern Europeans only | Is it time for the south?

Jon Ola Sand’s earlier announcement that he is stepping down the role of the Executive Supervisor of the Eurovision Song Contest in May 2020 after the contest in the Netherlands ends, has prematurely started the debate about who is going to replace him.

A quick glance at his predecessors, it is more than enough for someone to realize that, out of the 65 years of existence of the contest, 63 of them were under the leadership of northern Europeans only.

Is it time for the south to take control? And if so, is there any public broadcaster from the countries of the south that can claim this position?


A privilege for the few

Observing the list of the Executive Supervisors of the competition since 1956, as published on the official website, we can see that the only time, in which one of the countries of the South was in this position, was back in 1964-1965 with Miroslav Vilček, from Tito’s powerful then-united Yugoslavia. Let’s see the list in detail:

1956-1957: Rolf Liebermann (2 contests) – Swiss
1958-1963: Unknown (6 contests)
1964-1965: Miroslav Vilček (2 contests) – Yugoslavia (Croatian)
1966-1977: Clifford Brown (12 contests) – British
1978-1992: Frank Naef (15 contests) – Swiss
1993-1995: Christian Clausen (3 contests) – Danish
1996 and 1998-2002: Christine Marchal-Ortiz (6 contests) – French
1997: Marie-Claire Vionnet (1 competition) – French
2003: Sarah Yuen (1 contest) – British
2004-2010: Svante Stockselius (7 contests) – Swedish
2011-2020: Jon Ola Sand (10 competitions) – Norwegian
2021: ?

In the 65 years of the Eurovision Song Contest, ten different EBU executives have been assigned as Executive Supervisors of the contest. Their countries of origin were seven (Switzerland, United Kingdom, France, Yugoslavia, Sweden, Denmark and Norway) and out of these – as we have mentioned above – only one country was part of the south, with a term of office of only two years.

Is the role of the Executive Supervisor an exclusive right of the countries of the North? Shouldn’t there be a provision for a proportional and rotational system in senior positions of the EBU  which will cover all of Europe’s geographical corners? This need is now more urgent than ever, since we can clearly say that the EBU is run exclusively by Northern Europeans! Current EBU’s president is Irish, president of the Reference Group is German and Executive Supervisor is Norwegian.

Besides, EBU members and subscriptions cover the whole spectrum of the European continent.

Is the South capable?

Here comes the question, of course, whether the public broadcasters of the countries of the South have an executive who could take on this neuralgic position? Is there anyone with the knowledge, experience, but also the disposition to do so?

Personally I think yes there are! Besides, in the south there are some colossi in the field of television such as RAI and TVE, in Italy and Spain respectively. Two very big TV stations, with great productions, executives with know-how, and history in the competition.

Now we go to our own neighborhood. ERT may not have been willing to claim this role as shown in recent years, but CyBC does!

Cyprus public television competes equally local private television stations, often ending first on the daily television chart. It has a very commercial program and can boast of having a strong presence in social media, successfully making the transition to the new era.

Share of all the above, except of course its worthy staff, is credited to Michalis Maratheftis, who is the general manager of CyBC since 2017.

One of his achievements is the impressive track record of Cyprus in recent years in the Eurovision Song Contest, with entries that stand out and are still being discussed today. His greater goal is to win, which will not be long if he and his team continue with the same stubbornness and enthusiasm.

The time until May 2020 is long enough and the candidates to appear are many, but the case of Michalis Marathethis seems to be worth a look at the EBU headquarters in Geneva!

We Greeks have proven that we can handle whatever role we are assigned to, so why not to this as well?

Eurovision 2020: Rotterdam and Maastricht to be the official finalists for ESC 2020 hosting

EBU,through its official website for the contest, announced a while ago what the Dutch media, but also what we had written a few days ago.  Rotterdam and Maastricht are the two remaining cities to claim Eurovision 2020 hosting.

This two cities had the most completed nomination bid and thus continue the fight for claiming Eurovision 2020. Next month, a team of the Dutch public broadcaster as well as EBU experts will visit the two cities in order to see and get up-to-date  , everything suggested by Maastricht and Rotterdam to organize the next contest.

« All cities and venues have made a great effort in their candidacies.  They impressed us with all their suggestions and I would like to thank all those involved so far for their positive contribution and commitment.  We are convinced that Maastricht and Rotterdam offer everything that a host city requires.  We hope the other cities will keep their enthusiasm for the song contest.  We would like to discuss the coming months how we can engage them in next year’s Eurovision. »

(Sietse Beker, executive producer of Eurovision 2020).

The cities that were considered inappropriate and had submitted a candidacy bid were Arnhem, Den Bos and Utrecht.

The final decision on the city that will host Eurovision 2020 will be announced at the end of August.

2 Dutch cities fight for hosting the Eurovision Song Contest!

Despite the fact that 5 Dutch cities have submitted for hosting the contest next year, it is said that only two of them are considered to be the most suitable ones! The Eurovision 2020 Core Team will visit only these two cities in order to decide which of them can fulfil their plans the best.

Firstly, it was 9 cities that expressed their interest to host the show. But, after receiving the requirements they have to accomplish, only 5 of them have officially submitted their bid books to the Dutch national broadcaster (Find out more here).

It’s not clear which are these two cities, but, according to Dutch media, Maastricht and Rotterdam meet the criteria for hosting the event.

Sietse Bakker, Executive producer Event, claims:

You produce perhaps the most complex TV show worldwide, It is important that you have a location where you have the space to do that. And then the city itself: do you have the hotel rooms and can you handle the logistics so that not only the visitors, but also all kinds of other people attracted to it can stay in the city centre?

source: eurovisionary.com

5 Dutch cities trying to become Eurovision 2020 host city!

The “Host City” contest has officially stared! 5 Dutch cities have submitted their bid book to Dutch national broadcast in order to host Eurovision 2020. The 10th of July was the deadline and despite the fact that 9 cities had expressed their desire to host the contest, finally only 5 of them officially submitted for their nomination. These are Rotterdam, Maastricht, Arnhem, Utrecht and Den Bosh. We can already say that Rotterdam and Maastricht are the favorites to earn the title of the “Host City”, but let’s see precisely what each city had to present!

 

 Rotterdam

Wethouder Kasmi, the Deputy Mayor of the city brought a suitcase, obviously referring to tourism, while the whole delegation showed its enthusiasm by wearing tourist scarfs! According to Dutch media, Rotterdam has a full-package nomination. Today it was also released the promo video and the slogan of the city: “Rotterdam for real. Rotterdam make it happen!”

The venue that city proposes is the “Ahoy Rotterdam”, which has a capacity of 16.500 people. This city has to offer not only a big budget for the show, but also a good number of hotels to host whoever comes for the Contest! It seems like a good combination for a host city!

 

Councilor of culture Said Kasmi presented the bid book: “The Eurovision Song Contest is about being yourself, diversity, inclusivity and those are words which describe our city as well with our inhabitants of 175 different nationalities. The Eurovision Song Contest also stands for talent, development and giving that talent a stage. We do the same in Rotterdam. We want to give the viewers an unforgettable memory.”

Maastricht

The Mayor of the city, Annemarie Penn-te Strake, presented the bid book accompanied by a Limburgian band showing their great desire to bring the Contest to the north of this country. Maastricht proposes as venue the “MESC Maastricht” with a capacity of 20.000 people and their slogan is: “Come closer”. Furthermore it is planned more cultural events to be held at the same time in the 44 neighborhoods of the city during the Eurovision. It’s about a very important city due to its significance and its history, not to mention the rumors of Maastricht being EBU’s favorite!

Arnhem

Mayor Ahmed Marcouch presented the bid book, which was wrapped in the same fabric as Duncan Laurence’s clothes which he wore during the 2019 Eurovision Song Contest. The big delegation arrived in a bus advertising city’s nomination. Arnhem has to offer concerts in various roofs and the Vitesse’s stadium “GelreDome”, contemporary stadium which is about to host many games for the “Euro 2020”. The football team claimed that is willing to give the stadium in order Eurovision to be held.

https://twitter.com/luudsz/status/1148883340759621634

Utrecht

This city may not have many possibilities to host the contest, but they surely found the most impressive way to show their bid book: by a bicycle-courrier! The proposed venue is “Jaarbeurs”, whose capacity is only 11.000 people.

“Utrecht wanted to be playful and different, two words which describe Utrecht perfectly. But also because it is healthy, quirky and sustainable. It suits the city,” said Karen Poot who cycled over 20 kilometers from Utrecht to Hilversum.

 

 

Den Bosh

The delegation of this city presented their bid book while offering some traditional treats. The expo centre “Brabanthallen” (capacity 11.000 people) is proposed to host the event, but since city’s budget is only 3 million euros, the lowest of all, it seems like Den Bosh has the least chances for winning over all!

Ms. Shula Rijxman (CEO NPO) says:

“It is fantastic to see the enthusiasm and attention these five cities have put on their bid books. A huge job that shows how the Netherlands is embracing the Eurovision Song Contest. This is fantastic because we hope that the whole of the Netherlands will experience the Eurovision Song Contest. Regardless of which city will be ultimately chosen: I thank all the cities for the work they have done and I look forward to all the wonderful proposals that are already here for this wonderful event.”

 

What’s next?

The Eurovision 2020 Core Team, composed by members of the EBU and the Dutch national broadcaster, will evaluate the bid books each city has submitted. During August, this team will visit the five cities in order to see closely what they have to offer. In the end of August is expected to be announced the host city of the Eurovision Song Contest 2020.

 

Which city is your favorite?

Kosovo reacts to the negative outcome of the EBU general assembly

Kosovo’s public broadcaster failed to become a full member of the EBU, as the union’s general assembly did not approve the required changes to the statute. The “country’s” public broadcaster, as expected through its CEO, Ngadhnjim Kastrati, has reacted to this negative development, which will not allow Kosovo to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest but also in other EBU’s events. Read more

Changes in the EBU statutes have not been aprooved – Kosovo can’t apply for full membership of EBU

The vote at the EBU General Assembly, held in Oslo, was just completed. Changes in the statute that would help Kosovo joining the union have not been accepted, and so they will have to wait more time to make their debut in the Eurovision Song Contest. Read more

The proposed changes to the EBU’s statute having as aim Kosovo’s entry to the union

According to confirmed information on the upcoming EBU General Assembly, which is held tomorrow in Oslo, the proposed changes to the association’s statutes are “photographic” and are aimed at helping Kosovo’s entry into the EBU. Read more

Eurovision Grand Final Running Order; Can the qualifying place plays a decisive factor?

From 2013 onwards, field experts, and being approved by the EBU, determine the running order both in the semifinals and the final.

Christen Bjorkman, the key man for the major changes that have been made to Eurovision in recent years – including defining the running order – states that the strongest factors allocating the countries is the genre of the song and its tempo, as well as the colours of the act, whether it is a male/female/band/solo/etc., even the language of the song, the emotion of each song, as well as the time it takes to prepare the props on stage used by the participants.

In this article, we will deal extensively with the Grand Final’s running order and our aim is to answer the question of whether the semi-final qualifying place of the countries is a decisive factor to allocate the countries in the Final.

At the same time, we will try to see if the running order can help countries succeed or fail in the final (excluding the BIG-5 countries and the host country) by combining the running order and the final place, and whether this is taken into account when allocating countries, but also which position has been the most successful in recent years.


How does the qualifying place in the semi-final correlate with the Final’s Running Order decision?

While the semi-final qualifying place at the Grand Final is unknown to us, the team knows the results in detail. When announcing which 20 countries qualify for the Grand Final (10 from each semi-final), the team is asked to allocate the countries how they will appear in the Grand Final.

By studying more closely the distribution of the countries in the Grand Final, we see that there is some correlation with their qualifying place. For a better understanding of the research, it is important to separate the running order. Specifically, we held both halves as the organisers (the first half positions 1-13 and the second half positions 14-26).

Picture 1: Grand Final running order (2013-2018)

Based on the above image, we see that there is a uniformity in the running order along with each country’s qualification place. That is, the first 4 places are countries that finished mainly in 3rd to 9th place in their semifinals.

At positions 5, 6 and 7 there are countries that have finished in the top five of the semifinals. It is worth noting that no semifinal winner appeared in the first 6 positions of the Grand Final.

In the 8th, 9th and 10th positions, countries finished from 7th to 10th, while positions 11 to 13 are the countries that finished either in the first two places of the semifinals or in places 6th to 8th.

For the second half, in the places 14-17 there are countries that finished in the semifinals between 4th and 10th, while from positions 18th to 22nd are countries that finished in the top5 of the semi-finals.

In the 23rd place, there are countries that finished outside the top3, while in the 24th and 25th positions are also countries that finished in the top5. Bad news for the countries that appear at the 26th and last position, as 2 out of the 3 countries have marginally passed the semi-finals (8th-10th place).

In the table below (Table 1) one can see the running order per year and the average qualifying place of each position.

Running Order

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

Average Qualifying Place

1

6

3

3

5

5

4.4

2

9

9

5

9

8

3

8

9

5

3

9

4

6.33

4

9

7

4

3

8

9

6.67

5

4

7

7

6

6

6

5

4

7

2

5

4.6

7

1

2

7

7

4

10

5.17

8

2

5

9

7

7

6

9

4

8

4

5.33

10

9

10

1

7

2

5.8

11

1

6

1

2.67

12

8

8

6

7

7.25

13

8

1

2

2

6

3.8

14

3

6

8

5

5.5

15

5

10

10

6

6

7.4

16

4

4

9

5.67

17

10

5

10

10

8

8.6

18

7

1

8

3

1

4

19

3

5

2

6

4

20

2

6

8

5

4

1

4.33

21

10

2

3

2

4.25

22

1

3

8

9

3

4.8

23

7

4

9

4

6

24

6

3

7

10

1

3

5

25

2

1

1

10

10

4.8

26

2

10

8

6.67

It is impressive that, while position 17th was the most lucky position after giving the victory to 3 countries from 2000 to 2012, we notice that from 2013 onwards, it has taken a slump and is considered the worst position based on the Average Qualifying Place (8.6), but at the same time being the second worst position in the Average Final Place (19.7).


How does the running order help countries to repeatt their success they had in the semi-finals?

Many times, we compare the results between semifinals and finals, seeing where a country ended up in the semi-final and how it ended up in the final’s scoreboard.

Sometimes we have seen countries that have done well in the semifinals, but have sank in the final, and we have seen countries that have barely qualified but had a very good place in the final.

How can the running order relate to this imbalance? Can the running order determine the success or the failure of a country in the final in relation to its qualifying place?

In order to detect this percentage, it was necessary to subtract the Final Place from the Qualifying Place, and based on the result, determine which point would be the point of success/failure from the equation.

For the present analysis, the point was -5, that is, any position with a deviation equal to or less than -5 would appear to be successful (=<-5) – e.g. One country qualified in 8th place and finished 15th, so the result is -7 and it is considered a failure. Thus, we have collected the most successful results every year and are as follows (where “-” it means that a BIG-5 country or the host country performed on that position and was not considered):

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

13

5/5

100%

25

4/5

80%

21

3/4

75%

24

4/6

66%

11

2/3

66%

16

2/3

66%

9

2/4

50%

12

2/4

50%

20

3/6

50%

5

2/4

50%

14

2/4

50%

6

2/5

40%

8

2/5

40%

10

2/5

40%

15

2/5

40%

17

2/5

40%

18

2/5

40%

22

2/5

40%

4

2/6

33%

7

2/6

33%

26

1/3

33%

19

1/3

33%

23

1/4

25%

1

1/5

20%

2

0/4

0%

3

0/6

0%

As we can see in the above table (Table 2), position 13 is the most successful position, since, in all the countries that passed the semi-final process, their final place was up to -5 places below their qualifying place. For example, if a country qualifies in 5th place and appears 13th, the worst place it could take is up to 5 places below, ie 10th.

On the other side, the first 3 positions are, based on statistical data, the most unsuccessful positions, while positions 2 and 3 gather 0% chance to achieve a place equal to or less than 5. For example, if a country qualifies in 8th place and appears in positions 2 and 3, it is certain that its final position will be 14th or below.

We can not ignore, of course, that there were cases where the deviation had a positive sign.

Position 11 retained the same Qualifying Place on the Finals Scoreboard twice (33% – on both occasions, they were winners of the Semi Finals that won the Final, 2014 and 2017). 2 times (33%) also the position 22, where in one case it retained the Qualifying Place (2013) and the other improved the Qualifying Place by 1 on the scoreboard (in 2016 where the country won the final), while the 5, 7, 8, 10, 18, 23 and 25 retained or improved the qualified place (16.6% each).

In fact, we notice that the positions above (5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 18, 22, 23 and 25) are the only positions that have, over the past 6 years, maintained and/or improved the outcome of the country in the Final Scoreboard even once.


Which position in the running order shows the smallest deviation of average qualifying place and final’s place?

In order to answer this question, we had to subtract the final place of each country from its qualifying place and then the average of each position to be taken out.

Running Order

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

Total Average of all years

13

-5

-1

-2

-1

-3

-2.4

24

-10

-2

-6

-2

-1

-1

-3.7

21

-11

1

-2

-4

-4.0

25

0

-1

-1

-14

-5

-4.2

9

-4

-6

-4

-4.7

11

0

-16

0

-5.3

8

-6

1

-1

-12

-9

-5.4

20

-5

-1

-7

-10

-9

-1

-5.5

12

-3

-6

-2

-11

-5.5

5

1

-11

-12

-2

-6.0

18

-7

-2

-15

-8

0

-6.4

14

-3

-3

-13

-8

-6.8

15

-4

-9

-8

-13

-1

-7.0

22

0

-9

-12

-14

0

-7.0

7

-14

-1

-7

-11

0

-10

-7.2

6

-3

-7

-9

-10

-7

-7.2

10

-10

-10

0

-13

-3

-7.2

23

-11

0

-11

-7

-7.3

16

-16

-5

-4

-8.3

4

-3

-9

-13

-4

-7

-15

-8.5

3

-14

-8

-6

-6

-13

-7

-9.0

19

-7

-16

-4

-11

-9.5

1

-11

-20

-7

-9

-1

-9.6

26

-5

-7

-18

-10.0

17

-15

-5

-13

-15

-2

-10.0

2

-13

-16

-11

-13

-13.3

Sorting the table (Table 3) based on the total average of all years per position and so the Final Place does not deviate too much from the Qualifying Place, we see that position 13 has a -2.4 variance (around 2 to 3 places). That is, if a country appears 13th, there is a probability that the final place will have a -2.4 deviation from its qualifying place.

For example, considering the Average qualifying place per position, if a country qualifies 4th and appears at position 13, it is likely that its final place will be as low as 6th or 7th. Based on Table 2, the chances of a country benefiting from the example above are 100% likely to achieve such result.

Instead, position 2 gives the highest Average qualifying place of all years, at -13.3 (around 13 places). That is, if a country qualifies in the 8th place and performs 2nd in the Final, it is highly probable that its final place will be around 13 places below (close to 21st). Based on Table 2, position 2 has a 0% probability of maintaining or improving a country’s qualifying place, then the chances of finishing around 13 positions below the qualifying place are extremely high, almost certain.


In conclusion, we can see that the qualifying place may eventually be an important factor in the running order, according to which the countries are evenly distributed in the Grand Final.

Countries that finished in the top five of the semifinals appear in the middle and towards the end of each half, while the countries that finished in the bottom five (6th-10th) are filling the gaps, while some countries, in a combination with their position, managed to repeat or even improve the result they achieved in the Semi-Final.

This may be partly justified by the fact that songs that are considered as “favorites”, but also countries that have impressed in the semifinals, do not appear one after another in case of a random allocation, but in different positions from the beginning to the end of the final, hence increasing the interest throughout the final night.

In an interview, Christen Bjorkman said efforts are being made to pop out a song and become the diamond it should be. However, we understand that the trophy can only be won by one country, and therefore, knowing in advance who has the strongest possible package to claim the victory, not to try to deprive it in case of a poor position in the Final – without meaning that they promote it to win.

Do you think these statistics are just random numbers and have nothing to do with reality? Is it important to know the statistics and act likewise? Tell us your opinion.