In a detailed statement, Martin Green, Director of the Eurovision Song Contest on behalf of the EBU, has responded to the growing wave of criticism surrounding the 2025 edition (link here). He praises winner JJ and Austria’s broadcaster ORF, highlights the complexity of the voting system, and points to audits, oversight mechanisms and safeguards that are meant to prevent fraud or manipulation. But despite the carefully crafted tone, many fundamental questions remain unanswered.
Transparency or Diversion?
At first glance, the statement sounds reassuring: an eight-eye verification system, independent oversight by EY, monitoring teams across multiple cities, and custom-built fraud detection tools. But the core criticism — the stark gap between jury and public votes, the imbalance caused by diaspora voting, and the influence of organized online campaigns — is never addressed head-on.
Instead of offering real transparency, such as a breakdown of vote counts per country or channel, the statement offers structure in place of clarity: “We have a system, therefore it works.”
The Role of Promotion Campaigns
One noteworthy point is Green’s implicit admission that some delegations may have gone too far in their promotion. It was technically within the rules. But he admits promotion should not “unduly affect the natural mobilization of communities and diasporas” — an indirect way of saying it might have done exactly that.
He says this will be reviewed in June. But with reports that some campaigns were backed or boosted by government-linked entities, that timing feels more like a delay than a solution.
No Response to Coordinated Influence
Strikingly absent from the statement is any mention of reports about organized disinformation campaigns. Or the use of automated social media accounts to sway public perception and voting patterns. And that’s exactly what sets 2025 apart from previous editions.
Dismissing this behavior as “natural community motivation” is not just misleading. It’s deeply concerning. It reframes structural manipulation as innocent fan enthusiasm. But in reality, it’s something entirely different.
In Summary
The EBU’s statement is polished. But it sidesteps the core questions many viewers, broadcasters, and participants are asking. It focuses on internal processes, not verifiable outcomes. As a result, it reads more like damage control than genuine reflection.
If the Eurovision Song Contest wants to stay credible, backroom audits won’t be enough. What’s needed is radical transparency and open access to data. The voting system needs a fundamental overhaul — one where democratic engagement weighs more than geopolitical influence or online pressure campaigns.
Also read this article: Eurovision-2025 the art of saying nothing and still awarding 12 points
