Budapest’s Sziget Festival may happen next year, but time is running out and a lot depends on politicians

Last week, it became clear that the American investor backing the company organising the Sziget Festival no longer wishes to manage the loss-making event and is withdrawing from the market. There is a potential replacement, but first, the original company must terminate its land use contract with the city. The proposal has already failed twice last week.

Tomorrow, the mayor plans to seek approval from the Budapest City Council, but since the guarantees demanded by the Tisza coalition and Fidesz are still missing, the outcome remains uncertain. Meanwhile, Károly Gerendai, the festival’s founder, has already set up a new organising company and found at least one partner, but time is pressing.

The 2026 Sziget Festival could become impossible

According to 444.hu, a company named FestPro IoF2025 Befektető Kft. was registered on 20 October, created by Gerendai to save Sziget. He currently owns it exclusively, though Budapest Park’s leaders have joined to support the cause. Gerendai is searching for more investors, especially those whose business is intertwined with the festival and who stand to lose huge revenue if it doesn’t happen.

• Long-awaited railway link to Budapest Airport and new terminal finally set to become reality

Europe’s festival scene is facing serious challenges, mainly due to changing habits among festivalgoers, less alcohol consumption, and fewer people willing to engage in multi-day events amid today’s fast-paced, media-saturated world. As a result, the Sziget Festival has accumulated growing losses over the years, which the American-backed KKR investment fund behind the Sziget Cultural Management Office is no longer willing to handle.

The committee has rejected the proposal twice, despite the urgency

For Gerendai’s new company to take over the festival, the city must approve ending the previous organiser’s land use contract and sign a new one with his company. This proposal has failed twice in the city’s ownership committee. The main reason? The Tisza coalition’s representatives did not vote, but instead of switching off their voting devices (which would count as absent and not block the majority), they kept them active without voting, preventing a majority.