The two Eurovision 2027 participation contracts that did not settle last week were re-bid hard over 30 and 31 October, and neither Spanish nor Slovenian broadcaster published anything to justify it. Polymarket marked Spain down to about 4% and Slovenia to about 12% after the EBU published its official 36-country field without either of them on 28 October. Six days later Spain traded as high as 37.4% inside a single hour, and Slovenia has roughly doubled. Nothing was announced in between.
18+ | New customers only | T&Cs apply | Please gamble responsibly
Illustration: a designed card showing the hourly price history. No real person or venue is depicted.
Key takeaways
- Spain and Slovenia are the only two contracts still open on Polymarket’s Eurovision 2027 Participants market. The other twelve settled on the EBU list of 28 October 2026.
- Spain moved 6.2% to 37.4% in one hour on the evening of 30 October, then gave back half of it within two hours and has traded between 13.0% and 19.2% since. Figures are hourly closes from the Polymarket CLOB price history, read 31 October 2026 at 16:08 UTC.
- Slovenia sat flat near 11.7% for the whole of 30 October, stepped to 16.2% overnight and reached 22.1% at 14:00 UTC on 31 October.
- No broadcaster news explains either move. RTVE has still not reported a board result, RTVSLO has published nothing since 22 September, and Eurovoix, ESCXTRA and ESCToday carried nothing on either country in the window.
- Both books are wide, Spain quoted 11.7c against 21.1c and Slovenia 18c against 24c, so the quoted midpoint is a gap between orders rather than a price anyone has paid.
- There is a genuine rules question underneath this, and we cannot resolve it for you: on a literal reading of the published criteria, the 28 October list already answered both contracts.
- We are not recommending a side. This is a resolution-risk situation, not a value one.
What’s on this page
What the EBU published, and what it left open · The rule these contracts settle on · What happened on 30 and 31 October · There was no news · Why the midpoint misleads here · Two readings of the same sentence · What would actually settle it · The betting position
What the EBU published, and what it left open
On 28 October 2026 the EBU named the 36 broadcasters competing in Burgas. Canada debuts, North Macedonia returns after 2022, Czechia is out on cost, and of the five broadcasters that boycotted the 2026 contest over Israel’s participation, three — Iceland, Ireland and the Netherlands — were confirmed as not returning.
Two were not. The EBU said RTVE in Spain and RTVSLO in Slovenia “have not yet decided whether they will take part” and that, “in recognition of the complexity of the matter”, it had given both broadcasters until December to confirm. That is reported in full by ESCToday. The field can therefore still reach 38.
So the EBU has drawn a clear line: thirty-six countries are in, two are undecided with a deadline, and everyone else is out. That line is what the market is now arguing about.
The rule these contracts settle on
Each contract in this event carries the same published resolution text. It is worth quoting exactly, because the whole of this story sits inside it:
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the listed country is included in the earliest official list of participants for the Eurovision Song Contest 2027, as announced by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) or Eurovision by May 31, 2027. … This market will solely resolve based on the countries mentioned in the first official announcement; subsequent withdrawals or adjustments will not affect the resolution of this market.
That wording is the reason twelve contracts closed on 28 October. It is also the reason the Netherlands paid nothing despite having been confirmed for a month: by the time the first list appeared, NPO had withdrawn, and the contract settled on the list rather than on the history. We wrote that up at the time in the post on the Dutch contract hitting zero, and the mechanism is not in dispute.
Apply the same sentence to Spain and Slovenia and you get an uncomfortable result. An official list of participants was announced on 28 October. Neither country was on it. “Subsequent withdrawals or adjustments will not affect the resolution.” On that reading both contracts were answered NO six days ago, and anyone buying at 20c today is buying something already settled at zero.
What happened on 30 and 31 October
The market did initially price it that way. Both contracts were written down immediately after the list, Slovenia from 37.0% on 28 October to 7.5% on 29 October, Spain from 15.0% on 28 October to 3.8% on 30 October. Then they turned around. These are hourly closes from the Polymarket CLOB price history, read on 31 October 2026 at 16:08 UTC:
| Hourly close (UTC) | Spain | Slovenia |
|---|---|---|
| 30 Oct 14:00 | 4.4% | 12.0% |
| 30 Oct 20:00 | 6.2% | 11.6% |
| 30 Oct 21:00 | 37.4% | 11.7% |
| 30 Oct 23:00 | 19.7% | 11.8% |
| 31 Oct 03:00 | 17.0% | 16.2% |
| 31 Oct 13:00 | 13.0% | 16.2% |
| 31 Oct 14:00 | 17.1% | 22.1% |
| 31 Oct 15:00 | 19.2% | 21.4% |
Spain is the violent one. It sat between 4.0% and 4.5% for most of 30 October, drifted up through the evening, and then printed 37.4% at 21:00 — a six-fold move in an hour — before halving back to 19.7% by 23:00. Slovenia did something quieter and, in its way, more considered: no move at all during 30 October, a clean step to 16.2% overnight, and a second step to 22.1% in the European afternoon of 31 October.
The money behind this is small but not trivial. Spain traded about $1,586 in the 24 hours to our read and Slovenia about $595, against lifetime volumes of roughly $13.1K and $10.4K. Event volume across all fourteen contracts now stands at about $91.5K, up from the $86.6K we recorded on 28 October.
There was no news
The obvious explanation would be that something was announced. Nothing was. We checked, in the window between the write-down and the bounce:
- RTVE has still reported no result from the Santander board vote that was trailed for mid-October. That is now roughly eight weeks overdue and remains the longest-running unreported story on this board. Chair José Pablo López proposed in September that Spain maintain its suspension; the board has neither adopted nor rejected that.
- RTVSLO has published nothing since 22 September, when it stated that it had not requested a deadline extension and had not sent the EBU an intention to participate. Its decision is tied to the 2027 Programming and Production Plan.
- The fan press carried nothing on either country. Eurovoix’s most recent items in the window are Luxembourg song submissions, Melodifestivalen speculation and an obituary; ESCXTRA has published nothing since 28 October; ESCToday’s newest pieces are the December extension itself and 2027 ticket timing.
So the honest description is that two thinly traded contracts were re-bid without a catalyst. That is a normal thing for small books to do, and it is worth saying plainly rather than inventing a reason.
Why the midpoint misleads here
One technical point matters for anyone reading these numbers elsewhere. Polymarket’s headline price is the midpoint between the best bid and the best ask, not a trade. On a tight book that is a fair summary. On these two it is not:
| Contract | Best bid | Best ask | Spread | Last trade |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spain | 11.7c | 21.1c | 9.4 points | 28.1c |
| Slovenia | 18.0c | 24.0c | 6.0 points | 23.8c |
A 9.4-point spread on a contract quoted at 16% means the “price” is a gap between two orders that nobody has crossed. Spain’s last actual trade, at 28.1c, is well above its current ask — which tells you the trade is stale, not that you could sell there. Read these as a range, not a number. It is the same caution this site has applied all season to the Kalshi board for Eurovision Asia, where most contracts have no bid underneath them at all.
Two readings of the same sentence
Why would anyone pay 20c for a contract the list appears to have answered? There is a coherent case, and it rests on whether 28 October produced the “earliest official list of participants” in the sense the rule means.
The literal reading: an official list was published, it is the earliest one, neither country is on it, both resolve NO. This is how the other twelve contracts were handled, by the same market, on the same day. Consistency favours it strongly.
The competing reading: the EBU did not present 28 October as a closed field. It explicitly named two broadcasters as undecided and set a December deadline for them, which is an unusual thing to do alongside a list that is meant to be final. On this view the document is an interim announcement and the operative list is the one that follows in December. Note that the market itself has behaved consistently with this: it closed twelve contracts and left these two open, which is an odd thing to do if the list settled everything.
We are not going to tell you which is right, because we do not know, and on a betting site the cost of guessing confidently about a resolution rule is somebody else’s money. What we will say is that the risk is asymmetric and under-discussed. A buyer at 20c is taking two bets at once: that Spain or Slovenia actually enters, and that the 28 October list does not count. Most of the commentary we have seen prices only the first.
What would actually settle it
Three things to watch, none of which has a published date except the last:
- An RTVE board vote. Spain’s decision runs through the board in Santander, and it has been deferred once already. A vote to maintain the suspension ends the Spanish question; a vote to return creates a direct test of the resolution rule.
- An RTVSLO decision tied to its 2027 plan. The broadcaster has framed this as a financial and programming question rather than a political one since September.
- December. This is the only firm date on the board, and it is the EBU’s, not either broadcaster’s. Whatever the EBU publishes then will either be the list that these contracts settle on or the confirmation that 28 October already was.
Hungary sits just outside this frame and is worth a glance. It was not on the list and was not named as undecided, and the 7 December deadline reported for it by the Hungarian outlet 24.hu is a separate arrangement that neither the EBU nor MRTV has confirmed. Hungary never had a contract, so the market cannot price it either way.
The betting position
Plainly: we do not have a recommendation here, and we would be suspicious of anyone who does.
The honest summary is that two illiquid contracts moved a long way on no information, that their published resolution criteria point one way while their continued trading points the other, and that the quoted prices are midpoints of spreads wide enough to swallow most of the apparent edge. Those are three good reasons to leave a market alone.
It is also worth repeating what still does not exist. There is no outright winner market for Eurovision 2027 anywhere — no bookmaker and no exchange has priced who will win in Burgas, and the participants board is the only Eurovision 2027 market on Polymarket. Anyone presenting 2027 winner odds today is not quoting a market that exists. Our winner odds page says so, and will keep saying so until a book opens one.
We will read this board again on the next run, and we will report the December announcement whichever way it lands — including, if it comes to it, a plain statement that these two contracts were settled six days before anyone stopped trading them.
All prices in this piece were read from the Polymarket Gamma API and CLOB price-history endpoint on 31 October 2026 at 16:08 UTC. Source for the EBU’s December extension: eurovision.tv and Eurovoix.