I think that we tend to live rather insulated lives in Formula 1 and it is always good to hear what people are saying on the other side of the fence, in the real world. It is true to say that most outside observers rarely write positively about the sport, but at the same time, there are times when negative comment should pull up F1 and make us think, just for a moment, whether we are doing the right things. The Ferrari right to veto FIA decisions was accepted in the F1 paddock with shrugs and comments such as: “Yes, well we thought that was the case”.
Why is that? Is it because all those who speak out are worried about being beaten down? Or is it that we have all lost sight of how the sport is viewed? Or is it, perhaps, because this one particular writer has strong views? The last explanation may be the most popular in F1 circles, but it is worth reading and hearing what some are saying about F1. This is a particularly virulent comment from the Scottish newspaper The Herald. Read it here.
Well, this dude with his righteous talk should take a closer look at soccer with all the scandals related to results being fixed. And it’s true, football teams are nothing but money laundering machines. Doping in cycling, athletes being excluded from competition because somebody bribed these commissions or whatever. Hands off Formula 1.
And Formula 1 gets lesser and worse TV coverage than all these useless ball-kicking sports. Ban football instead. I’m disgusted. Ever witnessed F1 fans starting riots like soccer fans? Beautiful game, aye? Yeah, right. And how much would some illiterate footballer’s T-Shirt cost? I bet the same amount of money or more.
Yes, F1 is going thru difficult times but it will kick other sports in the balls. Just watch it, Doug Gillon, pal.
It is harsh, but it is also true. I don’t care that Ferrari gets more money than any other team, but the veto right is very, very bad and as you’ve said before, Joe, something that the EC should indeed look at.
What Max, Bernie, and teams don’t realize is that the heads of companies that sponsor and support Formula One DO live in the real world. When they see 90% of the news coming from the paddock these days, these companies really have to ask if this is a sport they really want to get involved in. Heck you can get a sponsorship on a NASCAR team for half of the cost of an F1 team without the political heartache.
Actually, quick comparison. We may laugh at NASCAR, but some of the things we laugh at are the things which make them successful. The teams and drivers of NASCAR go out of their way to do stuff for sponsors (commercials, personal appearances, ect.) They mention them at every press conference. When is the last time a F1 driver gave thanks for to the company that pays their salaries. I know many of us might find this offensive if it were to come to F1, but the companies that put up the money to sponsor have to see a reason to come into the sport.
The realization that I’ve come to is that these people in F1 take their sponsors and fans for granted. In an economy like this, taking sponsors and fans for granted is suicide.
Yes, I read that yesterday as well.
It is good to see a public voice of opposition. There are many F1 journalists that, when spoken to privately, offer comments of, if not condemnation then at least, disappointment at many of the FIA’s, Ferrari’s, or Max Mosely’s actions only then to write quite innocuous summaries of the issues for their publications. This is understandable. Those journalists need access to the show to earn their living and so need to tread carefully. Doug Gillen obviously feels he needs no such ambiguity and good for him. There are online Formula 1 news sites that do offer criticism of Mosley and his regime ( grandprix.com is a fine example ) however the majority, and a couple in particular which are almost mouthpieces for Mosley and his cronies, offer a quite watered down editorial style. I shall not name anyone, but we all know the site that during the Dennis-Mosley war perpetually had anti-McLaren stories as “Features” even when they were barely relevant to current events. In fact even now it still does. I would be interested to see whether they disappear when/if McLaren sign up for 2010 (as they surely will). But I digress.
As sport fans, ostensibly at least, we should all be outraged by the situation that has been fostered in F1. For years I have written post after post on internet forums about the inequality in Formula 1. I have often ended these diatribes with “it will all come out in the end.” And now, it seems it is. Ferrari’s privileged place within the sport is a concept that has, for far too long, been ignored. It has in fact even been defended by fans of the sport which is a concept that I have always found even more amazing than the support itself.
Why any self professed sports fan, which presumably we do all call ourselves, is happy with, or even a supporter of, a system where one participant has contractually arranged advantages that are unavailable to other participants is beyond my ability to understand. Ferrari’s value to the Formula 1 show should not ever be viewed above the concept of the sport itself. And by sport I do not mean the industry but the actual “game” of F1. That is, driving cars very fast around a circuit for a pre-determined number of laps.
Here in from South Africa we often remind ourselves: “Tough country, tough people.” It’s all about “survival of the fittest.”
Ferrari are on top of this economy. Just look at their financials! Get real folks, Ferrari have got the brand and the legacy to breeze through this economic crunch and survive long beyond the deah of F1. They are the fittest. Live with it. Make your peace. They are the alpha species. Come to grips with it if you wish to live in the den and feed off the spoils… or get the hell out and start following GP2, or Formula Vauxhall.
And then there is this very inconvenient thing about demand and offer in a free economy. If you don’t like it, I suggest you move to Uzbekistan, or Kazakhstan, as long as you don’t ‘stan’ for a free economy. But please, don’t try to shame Ferrari for being the alpha Stallion, demanding and earning more respect and money than the other mules.
F1 will have no effect on the sales of new Ferrari models. As it is, you can’t get a new Ferrari model within a year, no matter what your financial status. And if Ferrari leads in a new dispensation (let’s call it A1-F1), the waiting list for new Ferrari models will be even longer, and Ferrari can bargain on pocketing at least 40% of the total revenue in the new dispensation. The other 11 teams will have to divide the remaining 60% between themselves…
Max? Poor prick in need of a whipping. He’s nothing without Bernie… and Frau Gunther. Without Ferrari in F1, he’ll still be high and dry with a nice pension, thanks to Bernie, the F1 teams, Frau Gunther and some or other naive investigative reporter in need of a juicy headline.
So much for survival of he fittest. Max won’t last a day in Africa! Over here we eat our dead!
Hi Joe,
I’ve found your blog quite recently (I’m from Argentina so I didn’t know about you till then) and well I’m thrilled the articles are great I love reading them.
OK just another thing. I was searching for more news about the “secret veto” and I found a couple interesting things, you will love this!
It appears it wasn’t as secret as they say it was.
this link here is 2005, it shows Mosley denying he gave Ferrari the secret veto.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SPORT/02/07/motor.mosley/index.html
But the most interesting thing I’ve found is this thread in autosport.com forum, where a guy went and searched for old posts and quotes regarding the secret right that Ferrari has.
I’ll copy just a couple in case the link doesn’t work.
—————————————————
August 2005, posting by karlth to Racing Comments, quoting The Times
But it was not just the issue of money that hardened the stance of the “Group of Nine”: they discovered that the Italians have also been promised the right of veto in key discussions over any future changes to the regulations.”
May 2005, posting by riffola to Racing Comments quoting Paul Stoddart
“My understanding is that Ferrari has negotiated in their signing of the new Concorde an absolute veto…just like the U.N. they can veto any decision made by the rest of the teams – on their own,” said Stoddart. “Well, what good’s that going to do?”
February 2005, posting by pluto to Racing Comments
“The championship is fixed in favour of Ferrari and therefore it is not sport”
Shoichi Tanaka president of Honda Racing Development Ltd
–
But it was not just the issue of money that hardened the stance of the “Group of Nine”: they discovered that the Italians have also been promised the right of veto in key discussions over any future changes to the regulations.
—————————————–
here’s the actual link to the thread: http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s=ae6872387df5b26a823f4aaadd7dc5d0&showtopic=109133&st=720&p=3653011&#entry3653011
So, well it appears that it wasn’t as secret as people are saying, right? I assume that during that time there was no real evidence that this was true but still it sounds like everyone knew about it and were quite happy on doing nothing to change this.
Well, there’s a suprise eh? Ferrari sold their souls to the devil.
So if all of the other teams were aware of it, what were their options?
They could jump on the bandwagon and sell theirs also or they could maintain their public integrity and continue about their business.
By keeping their heads down, the rest of the grid ensured that they could still go racing and earn lots and lots of sponsorship money.
While I’m sure that we’d all like to think it’s just about the racing, one must consider the motives of the “corporation” teams. We all know that Formula One is guaranteed to increase a companies global profile and, as a knock on, revenue.
Ergo, surely it is better to race with ensured global tv coverage for second place, than to take the FiA on and risk loosing what you have.
For my money, it’s still about the racing, but, gone are the days of Enzo, Bruce and Ken.
I think the attitude of the Herald piece is more snooty than righteous.
Having given attention to F1 commentary this season for the first time in 30 years, I’m reminded of a weird truth: No one knows what a great race is supposed to look like until it’s already won.
(And that’s not a Spa joke.)
Are cars supposed to be so evenly matched that overtaking is impossible? Does KERS help or hinder such a goal? Is Vettel supposed to be able to pass a slower car or not? (I’m against all blue flags, m’self.) Is a race won through brilliant driving a more exciting, or a greater achievement, then one had by engineering? Is engineering supremacy with a big budget less exciting than someone working on a shoestring?
Here’s what I like about these questions: Bernie Ecclestone doesn’t know the answers to them any more than the Herald’s Mr. Gillon does. And none of the other people who are making money in F1 know, either… But they’re all making money! It’s important to note that last week’s ‘revelations’ about Ferrari did not surprise players in the paddock: They’d made their deals and were content with them; ‘Ferrari made more money this way, Renault made more money that way, but I got mine, so whatever….’ Does Vijay-freaking-Mallya seem like the kind of businessman who can be readily bamboozled?
So that’s the sportsmen… What of the fans?
Y’know, the Hamilton dishonesty in Australia was pretty grim… I really came to think less of the guy, and was disappointed that I could no longer enjoy his career by imagining him as this bouncy teenage virgin, starstruck at his own good fortune, saying “Golly!” every morning when he rolled out of bed.
But the dishonesty was as petty as it was grim. Ryan lost his career and Dennis was rudely banished to his futuristic castle in Woking. Hamilton still races brilliantly, and he does it as a grown man with a broader awareness his weaknesses than comes from a shunt at Mirabeau or a red light in Montreal. Adulthood can be like that.
The truth is that since the scandal broke, no one has suggested that he should leave the sport for being dishonest. We who enjoy this show –and I think it’s some of the finest television drama ever composed– have other plotlines to worry about.
But I’d wager that if Mr. Gallon had been assigned to write a column in the week after Albert Park, his tone of condemnation would have been the same. We who love this enterprise and follow it closely needn’t be shamed by need for moral (and contractual) simplicity. It’s not a “corrupt charade”; it’s a business with tiers of investment. And excepting Messrs. Ryan and Dennis, we know of no one who’s done badly this year.
It seems to me that no one was surprised by Ferrari’s veto privelages because it makes sense for F1 as a business. I find it hard to imagine what F1 would be without them and alwo wonder if I would have been sucked in if they weren’t present…and I’m sure many viewers wouldn’t have for sure. From a sporting standpoint, it definitely does not make sense. I would like to see all teams on an equal level with regards to their input on regulations and that veto right given to the FOTA, where it will require a majority or 2/3 vote to excercise.
I also feel that while this proposed budget cap seems to be unrealiastic in such a constricted timeframe, something needs to be done…but at the same time I really do not want to see that budget cap limiting the marvelous engineering wizardry that these teams pump out every year. The technology of the cars is what initially drew me into the sport…and the sport had me hooked.
I say clean up the FIA and strengthen the FOTA and setup a transparent and balanced working relationship that is beneficial to all and keep F1 the ‘spectacle’ it is…i cant stand NASCAR.
Matt, let me just suggest that we don’t need transparency. I really don’t think it’s the private contracts that made Ferrari so successful in the Schumacher era… Money helps, but it was a deep, talented team, from top to bottom. All the money in the Italy couldn’t prevent recent humiliations.
Saward (or anyone) can correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like a lot of the finances of F1 happen off the books… Well, not off the books, but out of sight. Maybe we don’t wanna know. Maybe we don’t need to know. As long as Bernie can pick up a telephone and turn an engineer like Brawn into a successful team owner –one thriving essentially without sponsorship*– should we care what’s in those contracts? Again, the teams aren’t upset about the Ferrari thing. The money’s where it needs to be.
Transparent rules, yes… Transparent finances, maybe not. Flavio’s checkbook is his own business.
———
* Someone said this week that Virgin’s investment in BrawnGP to date is just 250K… Can’t remember if it was pounds or dollars, but either way it probably wouldn’t be enough to cover shipping expenses for the antipodal portion of the calendar.
When news of Ferraris veto first came to light, I speculated if that contract might be open to legal challange.
As it is, I feel the main reason why there has not been a storm about this in F1, is that there are far bigger fish to fry at the moment…
The tone of the article may have been over the top, but there was much truth in there too.
Mattw, you’re an optimist! I assumed that the other teams were like the bridesmaids in an outdoor wedding procession who happened to watch one of their own have her skirt blown over her head by a gust of wind, hoping that their own their own private business might never be so exposed.
Cridland – I completely agree, and I did not mean to imply transparancy with regards to teams finances. I think the forensic accounting controls are ridiculous and a waste of money themselves…especially since they cannot truly enforce it. I would rather not see a budget cap at all, and I remember thinking when if first read of it, how is this going to change the sport?
I’d like the rules to be set up in a way that allows teams to all be competitive and so that the they can spend what they like, but also that the money spent doesn’t directly translate to wins…and no more ddd debacles.