When U2 aren’t enough, Ireland is banking on music

“You can dream, so dream out loud”, sing U2 in “Acrobat”. You can dream, so dream out loud. But between a dream and a song, there is often a far less romantic issue at play: making ends meet. Ireland, the country that gave the world one of the greatest bands in history, seems to have decided to take this aspect seriously too. Whilst U2 are preparing to return to San Siro on 5, 6 and 9 July 2027, the Irish government has chosen to guarantee support for professional artists even when the market does not adequately remunerate their work.

In February 2026, Dublin transformed the Basic Income for the Arts – which had been piloted since 2022 – into a structural component of its cultural policy. The programme is organised into three-year cycles: in the first cycle, from 2026 to 2029, two thousand artists selected via an anonymous draw from among eligible applicants will receive 325 euros per week. This is not a universal basic income: applicants must be of legal age, reside in the Republic of Ireland and demonstrate that they are engaged in professional artistic activity in the country. Those who receive support are not eligible for the immediately following cycle, but may reapply for the one after that. The allocation provided for in the 2026 budget is 18.27 million euros.

The programme was confirmed by Patrick O’Donovan, Minister for Culture from the Fine Gael party, after being launched by Catherine Martin, Minister for the Greens, during the pandemic. It was the results of the pilot scheme that ultimately convinced Dublin. According to a report by the Department of Culture, published in September 2025, after two years the beneficiaries were devoting 11 more hours per week to their creative activities than the control group. They were also more likely to be able to support themselves through their artistic work and reported a greater sense of well-being. The cost-benefit analysis carried out by Alma Economics estimated that 1.39 euros of social value was generated for every euro of public money invested. In short, the programme has not only enabled artists to work more: it has produced economic and social benefits that have convinced the government to make it a permanent feature.

However, there remains a contradiction in the selection process. In the 2025 public consultation, in which over 17,000 people took part, 97 per cent said they were in favour of making the programme permanent. But only 14 per cent preferred a lottery to select the beneficiaries. Forty-seven per cent would have chosen on the basis of financial need, and 37 per cent on the basis of professional background. The government has, however, retained the anonymous lottery system amongst eligible artists: once professional credentials have been verified, the State does not presume to determine which works deserve support. It provides an opportunity, without, however, resolving the issue of who is most in need of that support.

But why should a country invest public money in artists who may never produce a commercial hit or become the next U2? To understand this, we need to look back at the four musicians from Dublin who, in the 1980s and 1990s, helped to change the international perception of Ireland. ‘The Joshua Tree’, released in 1987, transformed them into a global brand. With around 28 million copies sold worldwide, it is one of the best-selling albums in rock history. U2’s economic impact is also measured in their concerts: the 360° Tour (2009–2011) grossed 736.4 million dollars, a record that stood until 2019. In Dublin, three nights at Croke Park in 2005 attracted 250,000 spectators, generating, according to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, €60 million in economic benefits. In 2017, a leg of The Joshua Tree tour generated an estimated further €12 million in economic benefits.

The U2 brand has also boosted music tourism on the island. Windmill Lane Studios, where the band recorded their first three albums, "Boy," "October" and "War," have become a destination for fans. In 2018, when the studio made 150 places available for a guided tour, it received three thousand applications in just 24 hours. This interest prompted the studio to open its doors to the public on a permanent basis in 2020.

U2 were not merely a product of the Irish music scene; they also helped to create opportunities for other musicians. In the early 1980s, they founded Mother Records, an independent label that offered emerging bands a channel for production and distribution in a market where opportunities were limited. Among the bands they supported were In Tua Nua, Cactus World News and Hothouse Flowers.

This is where the difference lies between having a superstar and having an ecosystem. The former is a rare occurrence; the latter must function even when no one is filling a stadium. It requires artists, studios, record labels, venues, professionals, spaces for experimentation and employment opportunities. Digital platforms can boost visibility, but they cannot replace these structures.

Basic Income for the Arts seeks to address precisely this issue. It does not promise to produce the next U2, nor does it determine which works deserve funding. It offers an income that allows artists to continue working even when the market does not guarantee an immediate return. It recognises that the market knows how to reward success, but does not necessarily support everything that precedes it: research, experimentation, failed attempts, and the years during which an artist works without knowing whether they will ever find an audience.

U2 have demonstrated just how much a band can contribute to a country’s economy: concerts, tourism, merchandising and international exposure. But Ireland cannot pin its musical future on waiting for the next rock star. A music scene cannot thrive on exceptions; it must continue to produce music even when there are no superstars on the horizon.