Tuesday, 14 April 2026

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.








Wednesday, 1 April 2026

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.