Semi Final 2: The Running Order and the Pre-everything Power Rankings

 

The running order for Semi-Final 2 allows us to integrate slot allocation into the predictive model, and the outcome is clear: this is the most competitive Semi-Final we have seen since 2019.

From a modelling perspective, this is a high-density qualification environment, where up to fourteen entries present viable qualification pathways. Unlike Semi-Final 1, which is skewed towards televote-driven entries, Semi-Final 2 is dominated by jury-oriented compositions, with a smaller number of high-efficiency televote drivers layered on top.

A second key structural difference is the distribution of competitive strength across the running order. Semi-Final 2 features a strong second half cluster, which introduces downward pressure on the televote ceilings of early performers such as Bulgaria, Romania, and Armenia.

The model therefore projects minimal separation margins between 8th and 12th place, with qualification likely determined by marginal gains across either constituency rather than dominant scoring.

---

Running Order Impact

Norway emerges as the primary beneficiary of the draw across both Semi-Finals. A hybrid entry with dual-constituency appeal receives the pimp slot, significantly increasing its expected televote conversion and overall qualification certainty. While qualification was already highly probable, the draw now elevates Norway into a high-confidence qualifier with Top-5 upside.

The decision to schedule Denmark, Australia, and Ukraine consecutively (#10–#12) suggests a production buffer (likely interval or staging reset), while also clustering the three strongest contenders. Their relatively early positioning aligns with recent producer strategy: front-loading high-certainty qualifiers to create space for borderline entries later in the show.

On the negative side, Latvia and Armenia are the clearest structural losers. Latvia is trapped in a jury-saturated segment, requiring outperformance against direct competitors. Armenia, meanwhile, faces both running order compression and reduced diaspora support, significantly weakening its qualification pathway.

Romania, Luxembourg, and Czechia also experience moderate negative slot impact, while Azerbaijan remains modelled as a non-competitive baseline entry regardless of draw.

---

Semi-Final 2 Analysis

(50/50 era: 2016–2025; Jury calibration: 2016–2022)

---

1. Bulgaria

Model Classification: High-efficiency opener (hybrid)
Slot Impact: Positive

Bulgaria combines strong jury literacy with reliable televote conversion. As an opener, it benefits from maximum exposure while retaining competitive scoring potential across both axes.

Projection:
Juries: 60–80 pts
Public Vote: 90–110 pts
Total: 150–190 pts

Qualification Probability: >95%
Top-5 Probability: ~65%

---

2. Azerbaijan

Model Classification: Non-competitive baseline
Slot Impact: Neutral

Azerbaijan continues to underperform across both constituencies, with negligible televote engagement and limited jury recovery potential.

Projection:
Juries: 5–15 pts
Public Vote: 0–10 pts
Total: 5–25 pts

Qualification Probability: <5%

---

3. Romania

Model Classification: Televote-dependent hybrid
Slot Impact: Negative (early compression)

Romania relies on diaspora activation and moderate jury tolerance. The early slot reduces televote ceiling, increasing reliance on efficient point distribution.

Projection:
Juries: 35–45 pts
Public Vote: 75–90 pts
Total: 110–135 pts

Qualification Probability: ~65–75%

---

4. Luxembourg

Model Classification: Jury-leaning low-ceiling entry
Slot Impact: Negative

Luxembourg enters a more competitive field with limited margin for error. Qualification requires both overperformance and underperformance elsewhere.

Projection:
Juries: 40–50 pts
Public Vote: 20–30 pts
Total: 60–80 pts

Qualification Probability: ~30–40%

---

5. Czechia

Model Classification: Jury-dependent volatile entry
Slot Impact: Negative

Czechia’s qualification pathway is almost entirely jury-driven. Without a Top-5 jury finish, conversion probability drops sharply.

Projection:
Juries: 60–80 pts
Public Vote: 20–35 pts
Total: 80–115 pts

Qualification Probability: ~45–55%

---

6. Armenia

Model Classification: Televote-reliant outlier
Slot Impact: Strong negative

Armenia faces both structural and contextual disadvantages. Qualification requires a high televote finish combined with minimal jury suppression.

Projection:
Juries: 15–30 pts
Public Vote: 50–75 pts
Total: 65–105 pts

Qualification Probability: ~35–45%

---

7. Switzerland

Model Classification: Jury-dominant stabiliser
Slot Impact: Positive (relative uplift vs competitors)

Switzerland follows a proven model: maximise jury scoring to offset televote volatility. In a jury-heavy Semi, this increases relative strength.

Projection:
Juries: 80–105 pts
Public Vote: 15–30 pts
Total: 95–135 pts

Qualification Probability: ~70–80%

---

8. Cyprus

Model Classification: High-efficiency televote driver
Slot Impact: Neutral-positive

Cyprus offers strong televote potential with sufficient jury baseline to secure qualification. Upside includes Semi-Final podium contention.

Projection:
Juries: 50–70 pts
Public Vote: 110–130 pts
Total: 160–200 pts

Qualification Probability: >95%
Top-3 Probability: ~30–40%

---

9. Latvia

Model Classification: Jury-cluster competitor
Slot Impact: Negative

Latvia must outperform multiple direct competitors within a saturated jury segment. Public vote contribution remains limited.

Projection:
Juries: 60–80 pts
Public Vote: 15–30 pts
Total: 75–110 pts

Qualification Probability: ~40–50%

---

10. Denmark

Model Classification: High-end hybrid contender
Slot Impact: Neutral

Denmark enters the contender cluster with strong jury upside and moderate televote support. Winning the Semi is within range, though not guaranteed.

Projection:
Juries: 100–120 pts
Public Vote: 70–90 pts
Total: 170–210 pts

Qualification Probability: >99%
Win Probability: ~15–20%

---

11. Australia

Model Classification: Peak jury performer / hybrid contender
Slot Impact: Neutral-positive

Australia combines elite jury performance history with sufficient televote recovery. The model identifies this as the highest total scoring projection in the Semi.

Projection:
Juries: 140–160 pts
Public Vote: 90–110 pts
Total: 230–270 pts

Qualification Probability: >99%
Win Probability: ~30–35%

---

12. Ukraine

Model Classification: Televote-dominant elite contender
Slot Impact: Neutral

Ukraine maintains one of the strongest televote baselines in Eurovision history. Jury contribution determines ceiling.

Projection:
Juries: 70–90 pts
Public Vote: 130–150 pts
Total: 200–240 pts

Qualification Probability: >99%
Win Probability: ~25–30%

---

13. Albania

Model Classification: Balanced but threshold-sensitive
Slot Impact: Negative (post-contender compression)

Albania requires balanced scoring across both constituencies. Positioned after the contender cluster, visibility risk increases.

Projection:
Juries: 30–50 pts
Public Vote: 40–60 pts
Total: 70–110 pts

Qualification Probability: ~40–50%

---

14. Malta

Model Classification: Jury-maximisation strategy
Slot Impact: Positive

Malta’s pathway is clear: secure a Top-5 jury result and neutralise televote weakness.

Projection:
Juries: 100–120 pts
Public Vote: 15–35 pts
Total: 115–155 pts

Qualification Probability: ~75–85%

---

15. Norway

Model Classification: High-efficiency closer (hybrid)
Slot Impact: Strong positive (pimp slot)

Norway benefits most from the draw. Strong dual-constituency performance combined with final-slot recall significantly increases conversion probability.

Projection:
Juries: 80–100 pts
Public Vote: 80–100 pts
Total: 160–200 pts

Qualification Probability: >95%
Top-5 Probability: ~50–60%

---

Pre-Eurojury / Pre-Rehearsals Power Rankings

1. Australia — Total: 230–270 pts (Juries: 140–160, Public: 90–110)
2. Ukraine — Total: 200–240 pts (Juries: 70–90, Public: 130–150)
3. Denmark — Total: 170–210 pts (Juries: 100–120, Public: 70–90)
4. Cyprus — Total: 160–200 pts (Juries: 50–70, Public: 110–130)
5. Norway — Total: 160–200 pts (Juries: 80–100, Public: 80–100)
6. Bulgaria — Total: 150–190 pts (Juries: 60–80, Public: 90–110)
7. Malta — Total: 115–155 pts (Juries: 100–120, Public: 15–35)
8. Romania — Total: 110–135 pts (Juries: 35–45, Public: 75–90)
9. Switzerland — Total: 95–135 pts (Juries: 80–105, Public: 15–30)
10. Czechia — Total: 80–115 pts (Juries: 60–80, Public: 20–35)
11. Latvia — Total: 75–110 pts (Juries: 60–80, Public: 15–30)
12. Albania — Total: 70–110 pts (Juries: 30–50, Public: 40–60)
13. Armenia — Total: 65–105 pts (Juries: 15–30, Public: 50–75)
14. Luxembourg — Total: 60–80 pts (Juries: 40–50, Public: 20–30)
15. Azerbaijan — Total: 5–25 pts (Juries: 5–15, Public: 0–10)

---

Model Outputs

• Estimated Qualification Threshold: ~95–110 points
• High Confidence Qualifiers (>90%): Australia, Ukraine, Denmark, Cyprus, Norway, Bulgaria
• Volatility Cluster (7th–13th): Malta, Romania, Switzerland, Czechia, Latvia, Albania, Armenia
• Low Probability Group: Luxembourg, Azerbaijan

Semi Final 1: The Running Order and the Pre-everything Power Rankings

The running order for the Eurovision 2026 Semi-Finals is now confirmed, allowing for a clearer assessment of how the draw shapes qualification dynamics in Semi-Final 1.

At a structural level, this is one of the most unbalanced Semi-Finals of the modern era. The first half is exceptionally dense—arguably comparable only to Semi-Final 1 of 2024—while the second half is historically weak by comparison. With voting open from the start of the broadcast, this split is not just aesthetic; it has material implications. Entries performing after Israel (#10) face a diminishing casual audience, which could significantly suppress televote ceilings.

Within that context, Montenegro’s allocation to slot #8—rather than the widely anticipated pimp slot—should not be viewed negatively. In fact, it may prove optimal. If Montenegro can secure even marginal support beyond the ex-Yugoslav voting bloc (something they have failed to do consistently since 2017), qualification becomes highly likely.

More broadly, the running order has not materially altered the trajectory of most entries. Estonia is perhaps the only case where positioning may actively improve qualification probability, given its relative accessibility compared to what follows.

The EBU continues to apply a now-standard production framework: early slots dominated by diaspora-dependent entries, with broader Western-facing contenders placed later for retention and impact.

Sweden’s placement at #2 is strategically neutral in qualification terms. However, it does signal a course correction from 2025, where slot allocation disproportionately favoured Sweden over Estonia despite a negligible five-point gap in the Semi-Final scoreboard.

---

Semi-Final 1 Analysis

(50/50 era: 2016–2025; Jury data: 2016–2022)

---

1. Moldova

A textbook opener. Moldova is structurally advantaged here and should convert that into a strong televote return. In a weaker field, even a modest jury uplift is sufficient to secure a high aggregate score.

A Top-3 televote result is the baseline expectation, with a Semi-Final podium overall now firmly within reach for the first time since 2018.

• Jury Top-10 results: 4/6 (best: 4th, average: 9.3)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 5/8 (all Top-5: 2nd x3, 4th x1, 5th x1, average: 7.4)

Model Classification: High-efficiency televote driver
Slot Impact: Positive (Opener Boost)

Projection:
Juries: 50–70 pts
Public Vote: 120–140 pts
Total: 170–210 pts

Qualification Probability: >95%
Top-3 Probability: ~65%

---

2. Sweden

Sweden remains structurally insulated in this Semi-Final. Their jury consistency alone guarantees a qualification floor well above the cutoff.

While a stronger Semi might have exposed vulnerabilities, that scenario does not apply here. A Top-5 finish is effectively the minimum expectation.

The Final, however, presents a different landscape, with increasing competition for jury share.

• Jury Top-10 results: 5/5 (worst: 6th, 4 podiums, last win in 2022)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 7/7 (1st in 2022, 2nd in 2023)

Model Classification: Jury-dominant hybrid
Slot Impact: Neutral-negative (early dampening offset by baseline strength)

Projection:
Juries: 90–110 pts
Public Vote: 60–80 pts
Total: 150–190 pts

Qualification Probability: >99%
Top-3 Probability: ~40%

---

3. Croatia

Croatia represents a classic case of fan bubble overvaluation. “Andromeda” performs strongly within a niche audience but lacks broader conversion mechanics.

The staging is overloaded, the vocal execution inconsistent, and—critically—the entry lacks a clear narrative hook. In a high-density first half, surrounded by stronger and more immediate entries, recall value is a major concern.

Absent a significant rehearsal upgrade, this profiles as a borderline non-qualifier.

• Jury Top-10 results: 3/6 (best: 7th in 2016)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 5/9 (win in 2024, otherwise 5th, 8th, 10th x2)

Model Classification: Fan-skewed niche entry
Slot Impact: Negative (compression within high-density cluster)

Projection:
Juries: 25–45 pts
Public Vote: 40–60 pts
Total: 65–105 pts

Qualification Probability: ~35–45%

---

4. Greece

Greece re-enters the competitive tier with a high-ceiling entry. Qualification is not in question; the analytical focus is on win equity within the Semi-Final.

The key variable is jury framing—if positioned as credible rather than novelty, the scoring potential expands significantly. The Semi-Final composition (with a slight Eastern/Southern tilt) further supports televote upside.

This is a direct contender for the Semi-Final win.

• Jury Top-10 results: 4/6 (3 Top-5 finishes, win in 2022)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 7/9 (no podium finishes)

Model Classification: High-ceiling hybrid contender
Slot Impact: Positive (momentum position within cluster)

Projection:
Juries: 90–110 pts
Public Vote: 130–150 pts
Total: 220–260 pts

Qualification Probability: >99%
Win Probability: ~35–40%

---

5. Portugal

Portugal continues to outperform perception metrics. Their qualification model—jury reliability combined with efficient televote accumulation—remains intact.

Running order positioning enhances their visibility, particularly between two more chaotic entries.

This is a stable qualifier with limited downside risk.

• Jury Top-10 results: 3/4 (all Top-5)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 6/7

Model Classification: Low-variance qualifier
Slot Impact: Positive (contrast positioning)

Projection:
Juries: 60–80 pts
Public Vote: 20–35 pts
Total: 80–115 pts

Qualification Probability: ~75–85%

---

6. Georgia

Georgia’s trajectory has weakened significantly. The current package lacks both jury appeal and televote urgency.

In a front-loaded Semi-Final dominated by stronger televote entries, Georgia is structurally disadvantaged. Qualification would require multiple underperformances elsewhere—an unlikely dependency.

• Jury Top-10 results: 2/6 (7th and 8th in 2016–2017)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 1/9 (8th in 2024)

Model Classification: Low-efficiency entry
Slot Impact: Negative (first-half exposure vs stronger competitors)

Projection:
Juries: 20–35 pts
Public Vote: 30–50 pts
Total: 50–85 pts

Qualification Probability: ~20–30%

---

7. Finland

Finland remains a high-probability qualifier with win equity. The draw supports maximum impact, but conversion efficiency remains the key question.

The most plausible path is a jury win combined with a Top-3–Top-4 televote result.

• Jury Top-10 results: 2/6 (best: 6th in 2021)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 7/9 (wins in 2021 & 2023, 3rd in 2025)

Model Classification: High-impact hybrid contender
Slot Impact: Strong positive (late-first-half amplification)

Projection:
Juries: 120–140 pts
Public Vote: 90–110 pts
Total: 210–250 pts

Qualification Probability: >99%
Win Probability: ~25–30%

---

8. Montenegro

This is a high-leverage opportunity. In a weaker Semi-Final, Montenegro’s baseline scoring requirement is significantly reduced.

With predictable regional support and a modest jury contribution, qualification becomes achievable for the first time in over a decade.

Execution—particularly vocal control—remains the primary risk variable.

• Jury Top-10 results: 1/5 (best: 10th in 2016)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 0/6

Model Classification: Threshold-dependent qualifier
Slot Impact: Positive (optimal mid-slot allocation)

Projection:
Juries: 45–65 pts
Public Vote: 45–65 pts
Total: 90–130 pts

Qualification Probability: ~55–65%

---

9. Estonia

Estonia benefits disproportionately from the draw. In isolation, the entry is average; in context, it becomes competitive.

Positioned before a weaker run of songs, it can emerge as the “default qualifier” from that segment.

• Jury Top-10 results: 3/6 (3rd in 2022)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 7/9 (podiums in 2018–2019, 5th in 2025)

Model Classification: Neutral baseline entry
Slot Impact: Positive (relative uplift from weak second half)

Projection:
Juries: 50–70 pts
Public Vote: 35–50 pts
Total: 85–120 pts

Qualification Probability: ~65–75%

---

10. Israel

Israel remains heavily televote-dependent, though this year’s entry has improved jury viability.

A third consecutive Semi-Final win is less likely given the jury reintroduction and regional composition of the Semi, but it cannot be ruled out.

External geopolitical factors remain a non-negligible variable in outcome modelling.

• Jury Top-10 results: 4/5 (win in 2018)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 6/8 (all Top-5 finishes)

Model Classification: Televote-dominant contender
Slot Impact: Neutral

Projection:
Juries: 60–80 pts
Public Vote: 110–130 pts
Total: 170–210 pts

Qualification Probability: >95%
Win Probability: ~15–20%

---

11. Belgium

Belgium profiles as a low-probability qualifier. Weak vocal consistency, limited identity, and absence of structural support combine into a fragile scoring model.

Even in a weaker Semi-Final, pathways to qualification are extremely limited.

• Jury Top-10 results: 4/6 (2nd in 2016)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 4/9 (two 3rd places, best recent: 8th in 2023)

Model Classification: Low-conversion entry
Slot Impact: Negative

Projection:
Juries: 10–30 pts
Public Vote: 5–25 pts
Total: 15–55 pts

Qualification Probability: <10%

---

12. Lithuania

Lithuania introduces differentiation, but with volatility. The entry’s unconventional profile creates both upside and risk.

Qualification will depend on whether juries interpret the entry as artistic or alienating.

• Jury Top-10 results: 3/6 (best: 5th in 2016)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 8/9 (last miss in 2017, best: 3rd in 2021)

Model Classification: Volatile outlier
Slot Impact: Neutral

Projection:
Juries: 55–75 pts
Public Vote: 20–40 pts
Total: 75–115 pts

Qualification Probability: ~50–60%

---

13. San Marino

San Marino lacks a viable qualification pathway under current conditions. While there is some novelty value, it is unlikely to translate into points at scale.

More relevant as a redistributor of jury points than as a contender.

• Jury Top-10 results: 1/6 (7th in 2021)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 3/9 (best: 4th in 2019)

Model Classification: Non-competitive baseline
Slot Impact: Neutral

Projection:
Juries: 10–25 pts
Public Vote: 10–25 pts
Total: 20–50 pts

Qualification Probability: <5%

---

14. Poland

Poland’s qualification model—historically reliant on diaspora televote—is weakening. This entry does not appear to activate that support base strongly.

With minimal jury upside, the margin for qualification is extremely narrow.

• Jury Top-10 results: 1/6
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 7/9 (best: 3rd in 2023)

Model Classification: Diaspora-dependent (declining efficiency)
Slot Impact: Negative

Projection:
Juries: 5–25 pts
Public Vote: 20–40 pts
Total: 25–65 pts

Qualification Probability: ~15–25%

---

15. Serbia

Serbia benefits significantly from the closing slot. Combined with regional support and a clearly defined artistic identity, qualification probability is high.

The ceiling remains limited, but the floor is secure.

• Jury Top-10 results: 5/6 (primarily 8th–10th range)
• Public Vote Top-10 results: 7/9 (best: 2nd in 2022)

Model Classification: Efficient closer
Slot Impact: Strong positive (pimp slot amplification)

Projection:
Juries: 45–65 pts
Public Vote: 50–70 pts
Total: 95–135 pts

Qualification Probability: ~80–90%

---

Pre-Eurojury / Pre-Rehearsals Power Rankings

1. Greece — Total: 220–260 pts (Juries: 90–110, Public: 130–150)
2. Finland — Total: 210–250 pts (Juries: 120–140, Public: 90–110)
3. Moldova — Total: 170–210 pts (Juries: 50–70, Public: 120–140)
4. Israel — Total: 170–210 pts (Juries: 60–80, Public: 110–130)
5. Sweden — Total: 150–190 pts (Juries: 90–110, Public: 60–80)
6. Serbia — Total: 95–135 pts (Juries: 45–65, Public: 50–70)
7. Montenegro — Total: 90–130 pts (Juries: 45–65, Public: 45–65)
8. Estonia — Total: 85–120 pts (Juries: 50–70, Public: 35–50)
9. Portugal — Total: 80–115 pts (Juries: 60–80, Public: 20–35)
10. Lithuania — Total: 75–115 pts (Juries: 55–75, Public: 20–40)
11. Croatia — Total: 65–105 pts (Juries: 25–45, Public: 40–60)
12. Georgia — Total: 50–85 pts (Juries: 20–35, Public: 30–50)
13. Poland — Total: 25–65 pts (Juries: 5–25, Public: 20–40)
14. Belgium — Total: 15–55 pts (Juries: 10–30, Public: 5–25)
15. San Marino — Total: 20–50 pts (Juries: 10–25, Public: 10–25)

Key Model Outputs

• Qualification Threshold (Estimated): ~85–95 points
• High Confidence Qualifiers (>90%): Greece, Finland, Sweden, Moldova, Israel
• Mid-Zone Volatility Cluster: Serbia, Montenegro, Estonia, Portugal, Lithuania
• Low Probability Group: Croatia, Georgia, Poland, Belgium, San Marino

---

The analysis for Semi-Final 2 will follow shortly. In the meantime, Episode 4 of Talk About Things ESC—featuring Panos Zannettos, Matt Rickard and myself—covers the Semi-Final running orders in full detail.

The Inner Circle

 

The Eurovision Data Puzzle: What the Numbers Reveal About Winning the Contest

Every Eurovision season I spend a significant amount of time analysing the numbers. The contest may look chaotic on the surface, but patterns always emerge when you dig into the data.

Last year my analysis focused on the jury vs public vote battle. One of the key observations was the increasing dominance of jury winners, a trend that continued for a third consecutive year.

In fact, the last three Eurovision winners collectively received just one set of 12 points from the public vote — Switzerland in 2024 — out of 114 possible televote douze points.

Another major observation was what I described as the “elephant in the room”: the impact of geopolitics on the public vote. In recent years, Israel and Ukraine have consistently attracted large televote totals, often driven by factors beyond the music itself.

Based on these trends, my prediction for the 2025 winner came down to France or the Netherlands. As we now know, neither outcome materialised. Their inability to convert support into a strong public vote performance raised an obvious question:

What did the data miss?

During the off-season I decided to revisit the numbers in greater depth, searching for patterns and structural clues that might explain Eurovision outcomes more reliably.

Some key questions guided the analysis:

• Are certain countries structurally weaker with either juries or televoters?
• Are there groups of countries that dominate the top scores, leaving little room for outsiders?
• How open is Eurovision really when it comes to producing winners?

To answer these questions, I examined the highest scores in each voting constituency and the countries achieving them.

---

Methodology

The analysis focuses on the 2016–2025 era, the period using the modern 50/50 split between juries and televoting.

To make results comparable across years, I standardised all contests to a 35-country voting lineup. Each edition’s scores were recalculated as if 35 countries voted, plus an additional televote score representing Rest of the World voting.

Why was this necessary?

Earlier contests in this period often had 40+ participating countries, producing score totals that are impossible to reach in more recent editions due to withdrawals and bans. Standardising the dataset removes this distortion.

For clarity, I then filtered only scores above 200 points in each voting constituency.

---

Highest Jury Scores

Across the nine contests analysed, 18 jury scores exceeded 200 points.

Only three performances crossed the 300-point mark, with The Code currently holding the record under the adjusted format (although Portugal 2017 scored more under the original voting system with additional voting countries).

The 2020s dominate the jury rankings, leading the late 2010s 10–8 overall and 7–3 in the Top 10 highest scores.

A total of 12 countries appear in the 200+ jury club, with four countries achieving multiple entries:

Multiple appearances

• Sweden – 4 times (2023, 2022, 2018, 2017)
• Switzerland – 3 times (2025, 2024, 2021)
• Austria – 2 times (2025, 2018)
• France – 2 times (2024, 2021)

One-off entries

United Kingdom 2022
Spain 2022
Netherlands 2019
North Macedonia 2019
Portugal 2017
Bulgaria 2017
Australia 2016

Interestingly, only five of the last nine Eurovision winners appear on this list. Ukraine (2016, 2022), Israel (2018), and Italy (2021) all won without surpassing the 200-point jury threshold.

In other words:

A strong jury score helps — but it does not guarantee victory.

Perhaps the most striking finding is the absence of Eastern Europe.

Only two Eastern European countries appear in the jury 200+ club:

• Bulgaria – 231 points in 2018 (the highest in the region)
• North Macedonia – 2019

For a region that regularly produces strong Eurovision entries, this disparity is remarkable.

---

Highest Televote Scores

The televote tells a very different story.

There have been 31 televote scores above 200 points, 13 more than the jury vote.

Even more striking: 19 countries have achieved this threshold — seven more than in the jury rankings.

Nine performances have crossed 300 televote points.

While the 2020s still lead the late 2010s 18–13 overall, the distribution is noticeably more balanced compared with the juries.

Some countries repeatedly dominate the televote leaderboard.

Multiple appearances

• Ukraine – 4 (2024, 2022, 2021, 2016)
• Israel – 3 (2025, 2024, 2018)
• Italy – 3 (2021, 2019, 2018)
• Finland – 2 (2023, 2021)
• Norway – 2 (2023, 2019)
• France – 2 (2024, 2021)
• Moldova – 2 (2022, 2017)
• Russia – 2 (2019, 2016)

Single appearances

Estonia 2025
Sweden 2023
Netherlands 2019
Belgium 2017
Switzerland 2024
Cyprus 2018
Spain 2022
Serbia 2022
Portugal 2017
Croatia 2024
Bulgaria 2017

Importantly, 8 of the last 9 winners recorded a 200+ televote score.

The only exception?

Austria 2025.

Geographically, the televote distribution is far more balanced: Western Europe leads Eastern Europe 11–10 (with Cyprus and Israel classified geographically as East).

The conclusion is clear:

The televote is structurally more open than the jury vote.

---

Eurovision’s “200+ Club”: The Inner Circle

Of the 12 countries with 200+ jury scores and the 19 countries with 200+ televote scores, only seven countries appear in both groups.

Even more interesting: four of those entries are one-off appearances — often linked to exceptional songs.

These include:

• Portugal 2017 (winner)
• Netherlands 2019 (winner)
• Bulgaria 2017 (runner-up)
• Spain 2022 (third place)

Only three countries have multiple appearances in both constituencies.

Welcome to Eurovision’s Inner Circle:

Sweden

• Jury: 4 times (2017, 2018, 2022, 2023)
• Televote: 1 time (2023)

Switzerland

• Jury: 3 times (2021, 2024, 2025)
• Televote: 1 time (2024)

France

• Jury: 2 times (2021, 2024)
• Televote: 2 times (2021, 2024)

France is particularly interesting. It has achieved strong scores in both constituencies twice, yet those scores remained in the 215–231 range, likely explaining why the country has not converted them into a win.

---

A Structural Imbalance

The deeper numbers reveal something even more striking.

Between 2016 and 2025, 44 countries participated in Eurovision.

Yet only:

• 4 countries scored 200+ jury points multiple times
• 8 countries did the same in the televote

Looking at single occurrences:

• 12 countries reached 200+ jury points
• 19 countries reached 200+ televote points

This means:

• 1 in 4 countries ever reached 200+ jury points
• Almost half reached it with the televote

The evidence strongly suggests that televoting is significantly more democratic, while jury success is concentrated within a small group of countries — largely from Central and Northern Europe.

---

Top-3 Rankings: Who Really Dominates?

Next, I examined Top-3 finishes in each voting constituency.

You might expect the same diversity in both lists — after all, each contest has exactly three podium positions.

But the patterns are surprisingly different.

---

Jury Top-3

16 countries have finished in the jury Top-3 since 2016.

However, in the 2020s alone, that list shrinks to just 10 countries.

Since 2018, every jury Top-3 has included at least one country that had already achieved it before.

In 2025, something unprecedented happened:
All three jury Top-3 countries had been there before.

• Austria (2018)
• Switzerland (2021, 2024)
• France (2016, 2021, 2024)

Only two newcomers have joined the jury Top-3 in the last three editions:

• Croatia 2024
• Italy 2023

Countries with multiple jury Top-3 finishes:

• Sweden – 5
• France – 4
• Switzerland – 3
• Austria – 2
• Israel – 2

Some fascinating patterns emerge:

• Every Eurovision since 2016 has had either Sweden or France in the jury Top-3.
• Yet they have never appeared there together in the same year.
• Every time Switzerland reached the jury Top-3, France was also present — and Switzerland ranked higher each time.

---

Televote Top-3

The televote Top-3 includes 17 countries, slightly more than the jury list.

Even more importantly:

Every Eurovision since 2016 has had at least one country reaching the televote Top-3 for the first time.

Countries with multiple televote podiums:

• Ukraine – 4
• Israel – 3
• Italy – 3
• Sweden – 2
• Norway – 2
• Moldova – 2

Once again, the televote appears much more open to new contenders.

---

The Serial Contenders

Only five countries have managed to finish Top-3 in both constituencies multiple times:

• Sweden
• Ukraine
• Israel
• France
• Italy

A few others have achieved repeated success in just one constituency:

Jury specialists

• Switzerland (3)
• Austria (2)

Televote specialists

• Norway (2)
• Moldova (2)

---

The Last Line of Contenders: Top-5 Finishes

Expanding the scope to Top-5 results provides an even clearer picture.

Among the 35 countries expected in Eurovision 2026, only 19 have ever reached a jury Top-5.

The most consistent performers include:

• Sweden (5 times)
• Italy (5)
• France (4)
• Switzerland (3)
• Ukraine (3)

Meanwhile several countries have never reached the jury Top-5, including:

• Norway
• Serbia
• Lithuania
• Armenia
• Greece

---

Televote Top-5

The televote again proves more open.

24 of the 35 competing countries have reached the televote Top-5 at least once.

Countries with multiple televote Top-5 results include:

• Ukraine
• Israel
• Italy
• Finland
• Switzerland
• Norway
• Sweden
• France
• Moldova
• Bulgaria

However, a few countries still struggle badly with the public vote:

• Germany
• Lithuania
• Armenia
• Greece
• Azerbaijan

---

Why Eurovision 2026 Looks Wide Open

This brings us to the most interesting conclusion.

Eurovision 2026 is considered unusually open because the current favourites share a common trait:

They all have solid or average historical performance, but none of them dominate both voting blocs consistently.

In other words, every potential winner still needs to do something they haven’t quite managed before.

And that is precisely what makes Eurovision so fascinating.

Even in a contest increasingly shaped by structural patterns and voting behaviour, a truly exceptional song can still break the model.

Portugal 2017 proved it.

The Netherlands 2019 proved it.

And every year, another country tries to do the same.

In search of Eurovision transcendence

 

Eurovision 2026 Predictions: The Big Questions Every Favourite Must Answer

The Eurovision season has officially begun — and for the first time in years, the race for the Eurovision Song Contest 2026 trophy feels completely wide open.

Normally I start the season by sharing my first impressions of every entry. This year, however, I’m doing things a little differently.

Instead of covering all the songs equally, I’ll focus my analysis on around 20–25 entries with realistic qualification or winning chances.

At the same time, I want to dive deeper into something that remains surprisingly underexplored in Eurovision coverage:

the numbers behind the voting.

Statistical analysis, voting patterns, and bloc dynamics are still hugely underrepresented in Eurovision discussion — and Eurovision 2026 could become one of the most fascinating case studies in years.

---

Eurovision 2026: Strong Contenders, But a Weak Middle

Compared to Eurovision 2025, the top contenders look stronger this year.

But the overall lineup tells a different story.

Roughly one third of the entries feel minimally competitive, doing just enough to fill the lineup rather than challenge for the trophy.

Some of these songs will still reach the Grand Final — simply because ten songs must qualify from each Semi-Final.

This creates a strange dynamic:

• A small group of serious contenders
• A large middle field
• And several entries unlikely to challenge for high placements

---

For the Second Year in a Row: No Clear Favourite

One of the most fascinating aspects of Eurovision 2026 is the absence of a dominant frontrunner.

Despite what the betting odds suggest, no entry currently feels unstoppable.

Nothing resembles the overwhelming pre-contest momentum of:

• Loreen – “Tattoo” (2023)
• Kalush Orchestra – “Stefania” (2022)

Instead, we may be heading toward one of the most unpredictable Eurovision finals in recent memory.

---

The Jury vs Televote Divide Is Now the New Normal

Another major storyline heading into Eurovision 2026 is the growing divide between juries and the public vote.

Last year’s winner illustrated this perfectly.

The song:

• Received zero sets of 12 points in the televote
• Earned only six sets of 10s and 8s combined from the public
• Still won the contest thanks to a dominant jury victory

In other words:

Winning the juries and collecting mid-range televote points was enough to take the trophy.

And that exact scenario could easily repeat in 2026.

---

Two Major Changes That Could Shake Up the Voting

Two important structural changes could influence the outcome of Eurovision 2026.

1️⃣ Expanded Jury Panels

The EBU has increased jury panels from 5 members to 7 members.

Two of those jurors must now be between 18 and 25 years old, an attempt to bring jury tastes closer to the younger Eurovision audience.

Whether this actually reduces the jury–televote gap remains to be seen.

---

2️⃣ Voting Blocs Are Shifting

Voting alliances may also change due to participation changes.

Returning countries:

• Bulgaria
• Romania
• Moldova

Meanwhile, five countries from Western and Central Europe have withdrawn, potentially reshaping the balance between traditional voting blocs.

---

Eurovision 2026 Could Be Won on Staging

Eurovision 2025 proved something important:

When the songs are average, staging becomes the deciding factor.

The same could happen again.

Some favourites have already revealed staging concepts close to their final Eurovision performances, including:

• Finland
• Denmark

Meanwhile, others — such as France, Greece, Australia, Israel and Ukraine — are still holding their cards close.

That uncertainty could dramatically reshape the odds.

---

Finland (Odds: 2.86) — Favourite With Huge Question Marks

Finland leads the betting odds, but their path to victory is far from guaranteed.

The language barrier

Can a Finnish-language song win the jury vote?

Historically, the answer is rarely yes.

The best result for a non-English, non-Latin language entry remains:

• Ukraine – “Stefania” (192 jury points)

Only two such songs appear in the Top 40 jury scores of the 50/50 voting era:

• Stefania
• Cha Cha Cha (150 points)

Finland’s jury struggles

Despite recent success, Finland has received just three sets of 12 jury points across six finals.

Several countries have never awarded Finland jury points, including:

Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Moldova, Montenegro and Portugal.

Televote competition

Finland also faces a difficult televote landscape.

• Israel and Ukraine could command around 400 televote points combined
• Greece and Moldova have strong diaspora support

So the key question becomes:

👉 Can Finland win Eurovision without winning the juries?

---

Denmark (Odds: 7.8) — The Avant-Garde Gamble

Denmark’s entry is one of the most unusual among the favourites.

Key questions include:

• Can an experimental, avant-garde song appeal to both juries and televoters?
• Will performing in Danish limit its jury appeal?
• If Nordic votes are split between Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Australia, who benefits?

Denmark also faces another challenge:

👉 Will Eastern and Balkan juries support the entry — or ignore it completely?

---

France (Odds: 7.8) — The Eternal Almost-Winner

France continues to deliver high-quality entries, but the country has struggled to convert strong results into victory.

Important questions remain:

• Will France once again overthink the staging?
• Can Monroe’s charisma finally unlock televote support?
• Could Eurovision really produce three consecutive winners with operatic elements?

France may also benefit from being the only jury-oriented contender in Western Europe, potentially consolidating regional support.

---

Greece (Odds: 11.5) — Eurovision’s Potential Wildcard

Greece’s entry may be the most unpredictable among the favourites.

The big questions:

• Can “Ferto” break through the language and genre barrier?
• Will juries treat it as a novelty entry and penalize it?
• Can staging emphasize the fun chaos without turning messy?

And perhaps the biggest question of all:

👉 Is Eurovision finally ready for a novelty winner?

After three consecutive runner-up finishes for fun entries, the moment might finally be coming.

---

Australia (Odds: 13.5) — The Quiet Contender

Australia could quietly become a serious challenger.

Several factors work in its favour:

• It’s the only English-language song among the favourites
• That makes it more accessible for juries and casual viewers

But Australia still needs to prove it can replicate past televote success.

In both 2016 and 2019, Australia reached around 150 televote points.

Replicating that performance could open a realistic path to victory.

---

Ukraine (Odds: 38) — Never Count Them Out

Ukraine always remains dangerous at Eurovision.

Key factors to watch:

• Will Ukraine invest heavily in staging?
• Will the Ukrainian diaspora mobilize again?
• Could voters once again use Eurovision to send a political or anti-war message?

If juries deliver 125–150 points, Ukraine could suddenly become a major contender.

---

The Five Biggest Questions of Eurovision 2026

Beyond individual songs, several bigger questions could define the contest.

1️⃣ Is there a true standout entry?

Or will 4–6 songs fight for the trophy depending on staging and momentum?

2️⃣ Will the jury winner take the trophy again?

A fourth consecutive jury-driven victory could spark debate about Eurovision’s voting system.

3️⃣ Is this the most open contest since 2021?

The odds suggest we may be heading toward one of the closest finals in years.

4️⃣ Will a novelty entry finally win Eurovision?

Fun entries have finished second three years in a row.

Is 2026 their moment?

5️⃣ Can France finally break its Eurovision curse?

Despite multiple Top-3 finishes with both juries and televoters, France still hasn’t secured the trophy.

---

Eurovision 2026 Could Deliver a Nail-Biting Final

At this stage, there are more questions than answers.

But one thing feels increasingly likely:

🎤 Eurovision 2026 could produce one of the closest results in modern Eurovision history.

A scenario where the Top 3 finish within a handful of points is entirely possible.

And if that happens, fans may witness one of the most dramatic Eurovision finales in years.

💬 What do you think?

• Who is your Eurovision 2026 winner right now?
• Which country is overrated in the betting odds?
• And which dark horse could surprise everyone?

Join the discussion below and share your predictions.