Cheating in the Eurovision Song Contest: A Historical Analysis

Broadcaster RTVE has requested an audit of the televotes recorded for Spain at the 2025 Eurovision Song Contest. And so, a familiar cloud drifts over the glittering aftermath of the Grand Final: has someone been cheating?

The Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) has long been dogged by allegations of voting irregularities. While much of the drama tends to fade with the pyro smoke and sequins, there have been several well-documented attempts to manipulate results—ranging from Cold War backroom deals to modern digital interference.

The 1968 Spanish Vote-Rigging Scandal

It’s perhaps poetic—if grimly so—that Spain now demands scrutiny of the 2025 result. The country’s 1968 victory is the contest’s original vote-rigging scandal.

Back then, General Franco’s regime allegedly orchestrated a behind-the-scenes campaign to ensure La, la, la won over Cliff Richard’s Congratulations. According to various sources—including a 2008 Spanish documentary and reports in The Guardian and New York Times—Spanish broadcaster RTVE executives offered to buy foreign TV shows and sign artists in exchange for jury support.

No official investigation ever took place, but researchers, journalists, and Eurovision historians widely agree that Spain’s win was engineered to help Franco project a progressive image of Spain to the world.

Azerbaijan’s Repeated Voting Controversies

Azerbaijan’s participation has been marred by multiple cheating allegations. After Ell & Nikki won with Running Scared in 2011, Turkish delegation members alleged Azerbaijan had paid millions of euros in bribes to secure high jury scores. The EBU found no formal wrongdoing, but concerns about vote-buying persisted.

In 2023, Lithuanian journalists captured undercover footage of alleged Azeri agents offering cash to organised groups in exchange for multiple televotes using SIM cards and burner phones. The EBU investigated but found no conclusive link to the Azerbaijani broadcaster.

The 2022 jury cull

In 2022, the EBU took its most drastic step yet: disqualifying the juries of six countries—Azerbaijan, Georgia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, and San Marino—after uncovering a statistically improbable pattern of reciprocal high scores during the second semi-final.

In all six cases, the disqualified juries ranked each other’s songs unusually high while ignoring widely agreed frontrunners. The EBU replaced these scores with aggregated results from comparable voting countries, effectively rewriting the semi-final outcome. It was an unprecedented intervention and demonstrated the EBU’s increased willingness to act when something looks fishy.

What about the televote?

Historically, most attention has focused on jury manipulation. But in recent years, and especially in 2025, the spotlight has shifted to the televote.

The introduction of online voting, especially the global Rest of World category, has expanded access—but also introduced new vulnerabilities. VPNs, automated scripts (“bot farms”), and bulk SIM card purchases are among the risks. In 2025, some observers noted unusual vote spikes in countries with large diaspora populations or active political conflicts. Israel’s result, in particular, has drawn online allegations of coordinated overseas voting.

Once Germany GmbH, the EBU’s voting technology partner, uses anomaly detection algorithms to flag irregularities—such as unexpected vote surges or outlier country rankings. Their systems are supplemented by oversight from PricewaterhouseCoopers, who audit and verify results.

Still, questions remain. The average viewer has no visibility into how suspected anomalies are handled. And as the voting window expands and new methods are trialled, the door to exploitation widens.

2025: Familiar Patterns, New Pressure

RTVE’s audit request isn’t happening in isolation. Several delegations have reportedly raised concerns about the 2025 results behind closed doors. There’s unease about the weight of advertising campaigns run in countries not typically engaged with Eurovision—and speculation that third-party influence may have distorted the televote, particularly in marginal cases.

The EBU has remained tight-lipped but is said to be reviewing whether real-time vote auditing dashboards could be introduced for greater transparency. There is also renewed discussion around AI-powered anomaly detection and potential multi-year bans for countries caught manipulating the vote.

Blurred lines

Eurovision has never been entirely pure. It’s too big a beast to completely tame. Diaspora voting, neighbourly loyalties, and cultural blocs are baked into the format. Some viewers argue this isn’t cheating—it’s just Eurovision being Eurovision.

But when manipulation crosses into covert funding, coordinated voting rings, or digital interference, the line between fandom and fraud begins to blur.

The events of 2022 showed the EBU is willing to act. The potential for fresh controversy in 2025 suggests that vigilance must now extend to the public vote too.

If the Song Contest is to survive another 70 years, it will need to keep evolving—not just in how it stages performances, but in how it protects the spirit of competition.