Spreading the wealth

It’s funny how one figure lifted out of context and wrongly quoted suddenly becomes “fact” and spreads like wildfire all over the Internet.

When the Times of Malta carried a report on the “unlimited budget” allocated to this year’s Eurovision Song Contest entry, people were outraged and, on the face of it, it was understandable. “€3 million!” they shrieked in disbelief. “That’s how much they spent!” Previous Eurovision hopefuls spoke up, giving their own two cents’ worth, objecting with hot indignation because that kind of money was certainly never spent on them. Again, understandable. That’s a lot of money to be splashing around.

But when I read the article in question to try and understand how readers had come up with this figure, it became obvious that there had been a lot of jumping to conclusions resulting in a huge misconception. Here is the relevant sentence in full:

“PBS refused to provide this newspaper with an account of expenditure so far despite several requests, with the Times of Malta pointing out that PBS is fully owned by the State and received about €3 million in taxpayers’ money.”

It is easy to see what happened. People read €3 million and went berserk. But, that figure is not only for Eurovision but for all of PBS’s Public Service Obligations. That means the amount which it receives for all its cultural, social and educational programming. This is not just my assumption, but a fact. 

But it was too late, the figure was and was still being repeatedly quoted as the actual amount spent, until finally PBS tried to set the record straight by pointing out that so many sponsors and advertisers came forward because Ira Losco was participating, that “the Board noted that through this financial success PBS did not have to use funds given by the government as part of the Public Service Obligations which the government gives to the station.”

In other words, the money spent did not come from our taxes. Now, of course, there will be those who will adamantly refuse to believe this until they see PBS’ audited accounts for this year. Fair enough.

Meanwhile, however, what I find hard to believe is that there is such scepticism about advertisers and sponsors wanting to back Ira. If there is one thing that businesses are good at recognizing, it is when there is a product, event or a person (or all three) which is good for their brand. So yes, it is very plausible that the offers came flooding in to financially support this year’s participation at the Eurovision because companies wanted their names attached to it.

Being in the private industry they have every right to pick and choose which singer they wish to support without having to be accountable to the public. It may not be “fair” to previous and maybe even future singers, but that is how the free market works – you cannot dictate to those who are in private enterprise where they wish to channel their money or marketing. In a nutshell, the festival does generate income.

On the other hand, while I definitely agree that more government funds should be spent to finance different sports disciplines and other performing arts, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether too much of our public funding is spent on Eurovision. While the laments may be completely justified, the logic behind the argument is not. There are plenty of ways to ensure that the wealth is spread evenly, especially as we keep being told that the economy is booming. So why snatch money from one sector to diversify it to another? Why not have funds available for everything?

If money can be found for all sorts of questionable white elephants, surely money can be found to invest in areas which are vital to our overall wellbeing?

Now some may argue that the Eurovision falls into the white elephant category. But whether we love it or loathe it, it is clear that most of the country watches the Eurovision – the audience and demand for it is there, so the advertising money follows. 

You have no guarantee, if we woke up one day to find that Malta will no longer take part in the Eurovision, that the money will automatically be funnelled to the sports discipline or music genre of your choice instead. As unjust as it is, life simply does not work that way. And I see no reason why those who don’t like it wish to put a damper on things and ruin the fun for everyone else.

I can think of several things which bore me to tears: football, religious feasts, mass meetings, and events which attract huge crowds because they are free. But I am hardly going to insist that money should not be spent on them just because I don’t like them. And for those who will claim that they are not financed by taxpayers, the fact is we do indirectly pay for them every time extra police manpower is needed to close off streets and ensure public safety and order.

Having said this, I agree that non-mainstream sports definitely need to be given more recognition. We are obtaining excellent, noteworthy results in such sports as netball, gymnastics, motor sports, badminton and rugby by athletes who are passionate about their sport and who sacrifice their time and use their own money to get ahead. What is needed is ongoing government investment to support these sports since they do not necessarily attract big sponsorships because of their niche appeal.

We also need to continue promoting good results by any athletes in any sports ourselves, giving them a round of applause, bringing them to public attention, so that maybe sports programmes will also give them the recognition they deserve. It is a domino effect. These sports associations also need to market themselves better, as the rugby union is doing, by taking rugby to schools to try and attract more children to the sport.

So let us stop with this, “we should stop taking part in Eurovision, because we never win”. That is a very loser type of mentality. After all, all those involved in sports know well enough that one of the basic tenets of good sportsmanship is learning how to be a good loser. And in any case, with any hobby or passion, you cannot force others to like what you like, but you also have no right to take their interests away from them. That’s called democracy.