How to survive Eurovision 2026: the PR crisis every artist and broadcaster now has to navigate

Eurovision has weathered political arguments before, but never anything on this scale. Following the EBU’s decision to keep Israel in the 2026 contest, the organisation has created a reputational problem that it will not be the one to solve. Instead of taking a clear, values based position, the EBU has effectively stepped aside and left broadcasters, delegations and artists to carry the moral and political weight of the moment.

The contradictions between the EBU’s strong stance on Russia in 2022 and its far more accommodating approach to Israel have already been widely dissected, including in my previous Eurovision pieces. There is no need to repeat that analysis here. What matters for this article is the practical reality: the EBU has chosen a route that protects itself and leaves everyone else to manage the consequences.

As of 5 December 2025, four countries have withdrawn or confirmed they will not broadcast the show next year. Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands and Slovenia have all stated publicly that participation is incompatible with their values given the ongoing situation in Gaza. More may follow, and everyone knows it.

Eurovision 2026 will still be watched by millions. It will remain lavish, noisy and commercially enormous. But the reputational climate around it has shifted. Anyone who competes, hosts, funds or supports the event must understand that taking part is no longer neutral. It is now something you may have to defend.

This piece focuses on what that means in practice. If you are participating in Eurovision 2026 in any capacity, here is the PR landscape you are stepping into and how you can navigate it without damaging your credibility.

The EBU has passed the burden downwards

Instead of making a decisive ruling on Israel’s participation, the EBU framed the issue as something each broadcaster must decide independently. In PR terms, this is a tidy way of removing themselves from criticism. They keep the contest intact, maintain their sponsor relationships and avoid being the ones to set a precedent.

The result is simple…. The EBU emerges unscathed-ish (in their deluded minds) while everyone else becomes answerable for decisions they did not make.

Broadcasters will be questioned…

Delegations will be scrutinised…

Artists will be asked to articulate moral clarity during press weeks they never signed up for.

The EBU has (they believe) protected its own “reputation” (I say this with a grain of salt) by risking everyone else’s.

Is it reputationally smart to compete in Eurovision 2026?

The honest answer depends entirely on who you are and what public record you already carry.

If you have been heavily outspoken about Palestine, or have taken public stances on boycotts, then no, it is not reputationally smart to compete. The contradiction will be obvious, and the audience will interpret it as choosing career opportunity over consistency. You may have nuanced reasons for taking part, but nuance does not survive in online discourse. The risk of being seen as hypocritical is extremely high, and for artists with strong activist identities, that can follow you for years. Essentially, you risk being cancelled by those you actually agree with.

If you are a lesser known artist, operating below roughly fifty thousand followers, with a small but engaged audience and no long political footprint, the calculation looks very different. In your position, Eurovision may still be worth the risk. The contest will reach well over a hundred million viewers, possibly more given the controversy, and that scale of exposure is not something most emerging artists will ever experience again.

It feels intense now because the loudest voices are online, and the online audience skews heavily towards people who treat Eurovision as a cultural obsession. They are invested, emotional and vocal. But they do not represent everyone watching. A huge portion of the European audience will tune in casually. They will not scrutinise your past Instagram stories. They will not analyse your moral positioning. They will simply hear your song. Some will like it. Some will follow you. Some will stream it the next day.

None of this removes the ethical discomfort attached to participating. But reputational risk is not binary. For many emerging artists, Eurovision remains the largest professional opportunity they will ever be offered. If you go in with a clear PR strategy and a carefully prepared explanation for why you chose to compete, the long-term benefits may outweigh the criticism. The key is not pretending the criticism is unreasonable. The key is demonstrating that you can occupy a complicated space without posturing or contradicting yourself (too much).

Participation will be seen as a political stance, whether artists intend it or not

A large part of the audience’s perception is already settled.

If you participate, many will interpret that as tacit support for Israel’s inclusion. This does not mean they think you approve of the war, but they will absolutely read your involvement as an acceptance and support of the EBU’s decision.

And for artists with a public record of supporting Palestine, even mild commentary or solidarity posts, this becomes reputationally difficult.

The hypocrisy narrative will form instantly, and it will be harsh.

The logic is blunt.

If you have publicly cared about Palestinian suffering, why would you stand on a stage that many now see as compromised by political inconsistency and double standards.

The accusation will not be that you suddenly support Israel, but that your activism only applied when nothing was at stake for you personally. That is the interpretation you must anticipate. It is not entirely fair, but it is not irrational either.

This is the reputational trap the EBU has created by refusing to apply the same precedent to Israel as they did to Russia.

The reality is that most artists are not political actors

Eurovision is the biggest music stage in Europe. It opens doors, develops careers, pays bills and reaches audiences that newer artists could never otherwise access. Most entrants grew up watching the contest for the spectacle, the culture, the fun. They are not strategists, activists or spokespeople. They are not responsible for the EBU’s political contradictions.

Yet they will be the ones on stage, expected to answer geopolitical questions while trying to promote a three minute pop song. They will be the ones accused of hypocrisy if past posts about Palestine resurface. They will be the ones navigating an online environment that conflates participation with political alignment.

It is brutally unfair, but it is the reality for Eurovision 2026.

The emerging expectation of boycotts

The withdrawals from Ireland, Spain, Slovenia and the Netherlands have normalised the idea that it is reasonable for nations to step back. That creates cultural permission for fans to do the same. Even countries remaining in the contest will face their own domestic pressure.

And this is where the reputational danger becomes very real for artists.

If you have ever publicly supported Palestine, criticised brands for operating in Israel, or encouraged boycotts yourself, taking part in Eurovision 2026 is incredibly high risk. Fans will not treat this as a separate issue. They will interpret it as a direct contradiction. The reading will be simple: you boycott when it is easy, but not when it might inconvenience your career.

This perception might feel unfair, especially when most artists enter Eurovision because it is a rare opportunity, not because they are making geopolitical statements. But the audience does not separate these things anymore. For many, the moral line has already been drawn, and Israel’s inclusion places Eurovision firmly on the wrong side of it.

If you are an artist representing a broadcaster that chooses to stay, you will need to be prepared for criticism that is not actually about you as a person or a musician. You are stepping onto a stage that has been morally preloaded. The question is not whether Eurovision will survive. It will. The question is whether you have the PR strategy to survive participating in it, particularly if you have previously been vocal about Palestine or boycotts in other contexts.

PR guidance for artists and delegations

What to avoid, what to say, and how to protect your credibility

The following is not about pleasing everyone, which is impossible. It is about avoiding reputational damage that could affect your career long after Eurovision ends. There is no perfect answer for this, I’d probably advise to avoid walk up interviews and try your best to stick to EBU only interviews. You also need to accept that you will be asked about it at some point, so have an agreed answer in your head with yourself, your team, your PR and label. When asked, its ok to take a deep breath and make sure you deliver in a way you’re comfortable with. You’re a musician not a politician, EBU have put you quite frankly in a disgusting position, and sadly the upset and vocal audience won’t care or see it this way.

What not to say

These answers create immediate problems, either by suggesting hypocrisy or by appearing detached from the suffering in Gaza.

1. “We discussed this as a team and felt it was important to be here to use our platform for good.”

This sounds noble on the surface, but it instantly raises the question of why using your platform requires participation in a contest many see as morally compromised. It suggests selective activism, and fans will not miss the contradiction.

2. “We believe it is important to show our support for peace and unity by being part of Eurovision.”

This reads as a diplomatic slogan and will be openly mocked. Participation is not currently interpreted as a neutral message of peace. It is interpreted as acceptance of the EBU’s stance. Claiming moral purpose while doing so only highlights the inconsistency.

3. “We wanted to be here to show solidarity with everyone affected.”

Solidarity, in the eyes of many supporters of Palestine, means stepping away from the contest entirely. This statement therefore undermines itself. It becomes an admission that you are trying to occupy two incompatible positions.

4. “Eurovision is a unifying space, and our presence is about connection, not politics.”

This is simply not credible in 2026. Audiences will interpret this as avoidance or wilful naivety. It damages trust.

5. “We support humanitarian causes, and that is why we wanted the biggest platform possible.”

If your stated humanitarian concern relates to Palestine, the platform argument collapses completely, because it implies that promoting your career outweighs political alignment. It is the fastest route to being labelled opportunistic.

6. “We did not want to abandon the fans who have supported us.”

This sounds sweet, but it suggests personal benefit outweighed any discomfort with the situation. In the current climate, that is not a flattering conclusion for audiences to reach.

7. “We debated not taking part, but in the end we felt it was right.”

This line signals that you knew the moral implications and still continued. It frames participation as a conscious override of your own values.

What artists can say instead

These statements protect your integrity-ish without contradicting past activism and without making claims you cannot realistically defend.

1. Acknowledge the complexity without claiming ownership

“I understand why people have strong feelings about this year. The wider context matters. I cannot solve the political decisions behind Eurovision, but I can approach my participation with care and respect for everyone affected.”

2. Shift the structural responsibility back to the broadcaster, where it belongs

“The decision to take part was made by my broadcaster. I respect that, and I also respect those who feel differently. My role is to perform my song and represent my country as thoughtfully as I can.”

3. Protect your values without creating contradiction

“Anything I have said in the past about humanitarian issues still stands. Taking part in Eurovision does not replace those beliefs. I am simply fulfilling the role I have been chosen for while being mindful of the wider situation.”

4. Humanise the position rather than posture morally

“I know this is a sensitive year. I am here as an artist, not as a political figure. I will handle this moment with as much empathy and responsibility as possible.”

Why these work a little better

• They do not deny Gaza.

• They do not deny your past commentary.

• They do not claim that Eurovision is neutral.

• They do not place you in direct moral contradiction.

Most importantly, they show self-awareness without self-incrimination. Are these answers bulletproof? Absolutely not, if you’re there and publicly supporting Palestine, you’re understandably contradicting yourself in the eyes of the audience.

So in summary…

Eurovision 2026 will still run as per, but reputationally the landscape has shifted dramatically. The EBU has taken the politically convenient route by placing the burden on everyone beneath them. Broadcasters must now justify participating. Delegations must prepare crisis plans. Artists must navigate a geopolitical storm they never chose to enter.

The irony is that the people least responsible for this situation are the ones who will be judged the most.

Eurovision will continue. But those who step onto that stage in 2026 need to understand the new reality. It is not just a performance, it is a reputational calculation. And the EBU has ensured that artists, not the organisation itself, will pay the price if the public decides they chose wrongly. As much as people think boycotting will work, it won’t. Millions are going to tune in as per usual, potentially more to see how awkward and weird it will be.