Bernie Ecclestone is absolutely right to push Formula 1 into the far corners of the world. Okay, it costs everyone more, but a truly global sport – and, let us not forget, a marvellous marketing tool – needs to be everywhere. With the announcement that there are to be races in the United States and Russia, Formula 1 will soon have a presence in nine out of the top 10 consumer markets in the world, namely: the US, Japan, Germany, UK, China, Italy, Brazil, Spain and Canada.
The missing market, oddly, is France, but one can argue that the race in Monaco can be counted as being French. F1 will also soon be in India, which is hurtling up the list at speed, and Australia and Turkey are in the top 15 as well, leaving Mexico as the next major place where F1 really needs to be. I suspect that we will be there soon. This is all perfectly logical from a business point of view. If companies become involved in F1 they know that they will delivering their message in all the major economies of the world. But how does that sit with the fans of what is still a sport? Should Spa be allowed to survive simply because it is a great race track? That is an interesting discussion. Having history is obviously a good thing, but the great events like the Monaco GP must move with the times. Spa is a spectacular racing circuit, but spectators do not go to the race. It is not financially-viable and the Belgian market is basically irrelevant to the F1 sponsors. Should there be a race? On the other hand, Turkey has one of the best race tracks in the world, the country pays for a Grand Prix but no-one goes to see the race. No-one wants to be there. Should that event remain on the calendar?
The fundamental reality is that, in this day and age, all the Formula 1 races should be supported by governments. The power of F1 is such that sponsors are willing to pay vast sums to enjoy the coverage that the sport brings. Countries that wish to enjoy that kind of exposure must be willing to pay for it. Quite a lot of the races these days seem to think that they warrant a free ride. In my opinion, there is only one race with that kind of clout: Monaco, and its power will wane as events like Singapore and perhaps Abu Dhabi edge towards the same kind of glamour.
The Olympic Games remains bigger, but that happens only every four years and the demands made by the IOC are extraordinary. Good for them for having convinced people that they are worth it. F1 does a better job, week-in, week-out, but still does not have the clout to demand infrastructure changes. This is wrong when one considers that an Olympic fortnight will cost a city several billion dollars, while a Grand Prix is priced at a most reasonable $40 million a year. Is the resulting publicity really that different? One might even argue that Bernie is undercharging, as governments willing to spend on the Olympics, ought to be willing to spend more on F1.
The key, to my mind, is to keep some of the traditional events; some of the brands: Monaco, Monza, Silverstone and Spa are great names and it would be unwise to drop them all from the F1 calendar, but there has to be a good reason for them to remain. Monaco is exciting and spectacular. It is where the F1 business deals are done. Monza is all about speed and passion. Silverstone is at the epicentre of the F1 industry, and a great circuit; Spa is fabulous. But is that enough? It is a great circuit, but it is in the wrong place. Promoting it is tough. Should it be given a special deal? Perhaps. Should the Belgian government get involved? If it paid more, tickets would be cheaper and the grandstands would be full.
The future of the Turkish GP is also bleak. And that is a shame. The track is great. What is really needed is a Monty Python-esque spade descending from the sky to scoop up Istanbul Park and deposit it on the outskirts of Austin, Texas. That would be perfect.
There is an answer to all this somewhere. New tracks are fine as long as they have been well-designed. Hermann Tilke does a nice job in some places, and a terrible job in others. It is pretty much established these days that the design of the circuit dictates how the racing will be. Thus the focus is on Tilke to get it right every time. If not, he should stand aside and give others the chance to show what can be done.
“Spa is a spectacular racing circuit, but spectators do not go to the race. It is not financially-viable and the Belgian market is basically irrelevant to the F1 sponsors.”
It’s not financially viable if you have to pay ridiculous race fees to FOM that seem almost designed to ensure a venue cannot run at profit.
“The fundamental reality is that, in this day and age, all the Formula 1 races should be supported by governments.”
I understand the arguments, I just feel unable to agree.
“There is an answer to all this somewhere. New tracks are fine as long as they have been well-designed. Hermann Tilke does a nice job in some places, and a terrible job in others. It is pretty much established these days that the design of the circuit dictates how the racing will be. Thus the focus is on Tilke to get it right every time. If not, he should stand aside and give others the chance to show what can be done.”
On this I CAN agree. We are inexorably moving towards a stage when virtually the entire world championship is run on tracks designed by Hermann Tilke. I fail to see how this could be a good thing even if he was designing better tracks. There needs to be a tender process, and the rules on track design need a little more freedom.
Robert McK,
I agree with you on tenders.
I’m sure it seems perfectly logical in your own mind, and you would happily defend your argument, but I thought it would be worth crystallising here:
Yesterday you echoed the view that governments shouldn’t be contributing any money (which ultimately comes from their electorates) towards the basic or emergency healthcare of their respective populations. Today you say that governments should be paying seven- or eight-figure sums to host a motor race once a year.
I wonder which the average F1 fan would rather have, let alone the average person in the street.
Good point about Spa ! There are rumors already in the Belgian press that the GP might disappear. On top of that I don’t see any of the Belgian governments, federal & regional, to pay more to keep it. They simply can’t afford it.
So in the medium term it is very possible that this GP will be written off from the calendar.
The only ones to cry will be the real fans.
It is just so sad!
Jacques
I don’t watch F1 as a travel programme. I watch it for MOTOR RACING. I want good circuits. Spa, Monza, Suzuka, Silverstone, Interlagos…
If a circuit causes boring races (here’s looking at you Monaco), I’m not going to ignore the racing and watch Briatore’s boat or the Dubai skyline or whatever instead.
Stating that F1 should be government sponsored makes no sense at all.
It should be politically supported yes, but with no governmental spending.
Here in Brazil it will never happen.
Spot On. F1 is probably the only truly global sport – but therein lies the challenge to its hegemony.
For a lot of F1 fans it is not the marketing that gets them up in the small hours to watch the Japanese GP, it’s the racing, particularly at circuits that have a bit of character. Hermann Tilke has no doubt added to the worldwide appeal of F1 by designing identikit racetracks that really don’t connect with their surrounding in a way that the more historic layouts do. Monza, Monaco, Silverstone, Spa and Suzuka all have their roots embedded firmly in the history of where they are. Turkey, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi and Valencia do. The only reason that I haven’t added Singapore to this last list is the novelty value of a night-race. If Singapore wasn’t a night-race then it would be lumped in with all of the clone tracks.
The problem that F1 faces is that as it grows, it loses the charm that attracted people to it in the first place – the grease, the noise, the passion and the history. It then becomes ‘just another sport’ which can be played anywhere.
As with big business, they get too large to respond effectively to their customers and smaller companies emerge to take their business away because they understand what customers want. In the same way, if F1 becomes this mega-global-corp sport, who is to say that a replacement series on the ‘old’ F1 tracks using ‘old’ F1 cars could actually take the attraction away from Bernie’s Retirement Package.
Why keep the European gp?
The Valencia track is not that great?
I think F1 has become a product more than a sport. Sponsors are more important than fans.
Why?
It’s all about what a team can afford to spend in development.
Great racing will not get sponsorship results, but great sponsorship will get great racing results. Get the wins, get the fans. Get the fans, sell them merchandise, make a little extra cash.
Of course, I’d love it if tickets were cheaper, but doing that means more government intervention, which means it’s at the whims of a public official who might try to use F1 funding as some sort of bargaining chip if it’ll get them a bigger pension.
The problem is that Bernie is pretty dismissive of people outside the F1 fraternity. If F1 was packaged better, it’d have less resistance from the general public.
For example, Melbourne runs at about a 40 million dollar loss now. To my mind, that is more than adequately made up for with a higher profile for the city, tourist spending while they are here, greater focus on support classes and the extra exposure of the local motor industry (Would the Holden Monaro had as much chance at becoming the Vauxhall VRX or the Pontiac GTO if Australia had not already had a motorsport profile?)
Unfortunately, Bernie doesn’t seem to mention these things, just tells the state what number to put on the cheque.
Perhaps if his successor was a little more adept at massaging public opinion, things would go smoother.
Hi Joe,
You are in the most enviable position to be able to go to all the GP circuits around the world. (Well I am jealous!)
As such, your experience is not the same as the vast majority of ‘fans’ in the world.
Turkey may not attract many actual visitors, but it is a great circuit to watch on TELEVISION. Singapore may be spectacular when actually there, but it is one of the most boring ‘races’ to watch.
I think that the television audience should be taken into account far more than they are at present.
And as a TV fan (I have been to F1 at Silverstone and Brands though) I think that Tilke should be supervised far more! I think he designed Turkey (?), but some of his others are boring. I agree with Robert McKay on the subject of Tilke.
Monaco, Monza, Silverstone and Spa. The tracks and their history define the product that is F1. In my mind, they absolutely have to be included in the schedule. Other races, including Canada (where I’m from) could skip a year every 3-4 years, creating expectation locally and possible diversity globally.
“Is the resulting publicity really that different?”
Yes. Hugely different. Just about everyone is aware of the Olympics, for years before right up to when it happens.
F1 on the other hand, only people that are interested in F1 are aware of it, let alone where it happens. I follow F1 and I am no more interested in going to X, Y or Z because the races happen at these places. Totally irrelevant. I am interested in a variety of foreign places but none to do with X, Y or Z or F1. I don’t purchase fuel or insurance or over priced watches etc because I’ve seen them advertising at an F1 race. I’d be surprised if many people did.
F1 and the Olympics are not even remotely comparable. I’m surprised the comparison is being made.
Disagree about Monaco. Its boring, not exciting. Should be dropped, or at the very least made to pay. Not as if it can’t afford to pay. You can’t overtake on that track. McLaren vs Arrows. Even with that performance disparity, no overtaking.
I completely agree with the Tilke comments. He has had enough chances to prove himself. He has failed. He should stand aside. The guys that improved Silverstone seem to understand a lot more about the job than Tilke.
Lets get S.Africa or Mexico to replicate the Spa circuit, and then drop Belgium from the calender!! Get Russia to replicate the Monaco circuit with a track more suited to overtaking, and then drop Monte Carlo……before some unlucky sod gets launched into the ocean. A tongue in cheek comment from me Joe! #:)
I totally agree that its good for F1 to move into new markets; South Africa and another race in South America would be perfect additions to the calendar in this respect.
But traditional circuits MUST be preserved in the calendar, and its imperative it cannot be overrun by modern ‘cloned’ circuits – all the modern circuits tend to have the same average speed, same length, same laptime, and to be honest the same excitement level – around average, unless it rains. Its hard for fans to get passionate about a race in Bahrain, but at the other end of the scale we have Spa and Monza. The latter rarely produces memorable races these days, but the history and atmosphere of the place always make it a favourite with fans.
The calendar is getting squeezed out, and I believe that it should be similar races on modern tracks that should make way rather than the traditional European tracks with big fanbases – for example, Bahrain/Abu Dhabi should alternate each year, as should China/Korea – the tracks are similar, the locations are very close together, and less regular races could mean increased attendance from the locals every other year.
A quick point on these Tilke designed circuits…..its no good building race tracks with 1 kilometre straights, when modern F1 cars need 2 or more kilometres to get up to speed before they can start overtaking…….Im so fed up knowing a car is faster than most of the others, but then cant overtake because the straights are too short!!! We need 2 kilometre straights to differentiate who is building the fastest car, as most overtaking is only done on the straights!! Longer straights with more chance of overtaking would also put more emphasis on car reliability and durability, thus making a far better spectacle and throwing more reliability issues into the mix! #:)
As fas as I am concerned it all adds up to what I call the Ian Fleming formula, i.e., glamour/intrigue/travel/exoticism/peril/technology/dash or in other words drivers like Hamilton, Mansell, E. Senna, Jim Clark, G.Hill, Kamui Kobayashi or in other words overtaking, which of course is down to intelligent track design, and places/circuits like Monza, Monaco (location, location..) otherwise it would be like Indy Car (which is great, no lack of overtaking there, but isn’t there and Idaho Potato 500 or something?) and Blofeld-like villains who instruct their drivers to crash, not to mention that very Fleming like quality, those bounders behind the scenes with a liking for a little sadism, but yes, Global domination is the plan Mr Bond.
In essence its a science and an art.
Joe,
I don’t disagree with the basic premise of this article but the comparison with the Olympics is quite a stretch. The Olympics are special and apart from other sporting events. They are truly Global – F1, while it has fans around the world, is not. Every country that wants to participate will not have a chance of selection whether they have an appropriate track or not.
The cities that do spend billions to stage an Olympic event do not always come away empty handed. In all cases, the construction that takes place provides numerous jobs, economic boost for local companies, and publicity that remains after the event – the Olympics last weeks and a city and/or nation receives prolonged publicity and opportunities to benefit.
F1 comes in for three days (ok, the teams may be there all week) provides some boost to the local economy (insignificant compared to the Olympics) and poof, it’s gone until next year. Examining the stands, if the cameras inadvertently pan across, shows that interest in some countries is limited and perhaps ticket prices have something to do with it.
I have been a fan of F1 for over 50 yrs and, if they right the ship, will remain so but I think it is over the top to compare F1 to the Olympics.
There are many complex motivations involved in staging and participating in sporting events. What ranks high in F1 is money. Without money there would not be an F1 but dropping historic races that drivers and fans enjoy for more euros has nothing to do with the sport. Since F1 has been supposedly working to reduce costs, what’s the problem. There is already a strain on the teams with the amount of travel increased due to far flung venues – impacts the carbon footprint a little also.
I’m assuming Tilke has some serious dirt on Bernie or how else does he constantly get the f1 circuit design contracts?! Surely there are other people out there with the necessary talents and availability. Would be nice to have a bit of variety in terms of these new tracks. Spa, Monza, Silverstone, Monaco, Suzuka, Interlagos and Montreal are the tracks I regard as must-haves. I think it’s insane that France doesn’t have a grand prix. I fail to see why Spain has 2 races (both on dreadfully boring tracks) and Hungary, a hideously dull circuit. I’m all for those two countries having a race if they can come up with decent places for racing.
WHY NOT:
have 5 top designers design the track.
F1 fans go to the official site and vote. At least if one track got 80% of the votes it shows a clear choice!
In any case, Spa is a great track but agree that other greats are upcoming.
But… WHERE is the excitement from in Monaco.
There is no overtaking!! (Unless overtaking a Lotus which doesn’t count, I can run faster)
It’s truly not a race, it’s pointless and not Formula 1 to go that slow.
The limit must be 20, even monebags B realises that.
Austin won’t last, Americans DO NOT change their sporting preferences.
One can see the advantage for countries with lots of money and no presence in the world of tourism to pay lots to have a Grand Prix. But Belgium ? Or France ? Do they need the exposure ? Nope, everyone knows where they are. Do they need the tourists ? Nope, they come anyway. Does the F1 generate another 40million of local turnover ? I doubt it, but I’d be interested to know, Joe. Western governments have too many calls on their purses these days to shell out for something that doesn’t cut the mustard.
A travelling circus, setting up it’s tents in the middle of nowhere, then moving on, “leaving not a wrack behind”. Hmmm. It’s a model, but not one that many of us find very attractive.
And I’m not sure the comparison with the Olympics is the right one. London must be kicking themselves they ever won the thing, and with economics as they are, who’s going to shell out the huge amounts necessary over the next 30 years ?
[...] F1 expansion [...]
I think with Spa there’s an ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ syndrome going on, in that some people are too scared to rock the ‘fanboy’ boat by speaking out.
I love Spa, even the scenery’s cool, but like you say Joe, it doesn’t any longer attract spectators in large enough numbers, and habitually bobs along at the bottom of the TV ratings table.
Mr.E offered the beleaguered German GP a safety net, in that he would pay 50% of any loses the track might make, he can’t do that to every track that’s badly promoted.
Spa has another problem, environmentalists!
Of course they only complain about the F1, never the 24 hour race, which presumably is 12x more polluting.
I think it’s inevitable that Turkey, (one of the best tracks) will go, Rome shouldn’t happen alongside Monza, neither should Barcelona alongside Valencia.
As for Tilke, his major problems are not of his own making, his hands are tied on location, size and safety, and having to make tracks suitable for other motorsports like motorcycles restrict what he can do even more. But he’s an easy target for people without any viable solutions, because whoever was employed to design the tracks would face the same problems.
Joe,
What about TV ratings?
I agree with you that Spa is not ideally located. My company had a VIP terrace there and it was always a struggle to attract relevant guests.
However, like Suzuka (and Monza), I would not miss it on TV because it is just fabulous to watch them drive there. On the other hand Bahrein, Valencia and Barcelona will guarantee a very dull show.
I was wondering if this was reflected in TV ratings and if so would be a justification to keep Spa on the calendar.
I totally disagree with you about governments paying for F1 races. In fact, I cannot see an argument for government paying for any sporting event, even the Olympics. If it cannot be done on a commercial basis, then it shouldn’t happen.
A model should be built that makes an F1 race commercially viable for the circuits and promoters. Something like this:
* A nominal sanctioning fee, say £10M.
* FOM would be entitled to 50% of the takings.
* If a race doesn’t meet certain attendance figures, it should be dropped from the calendar.
* The circuit/promoter should get all the revenue from any advertising they can sell around the track.
* All moneys collected by the FOM should be distributed among the teams, except for a management fee of say 15%.
I like it, but there is several things that must be discussed:
- Spa Francochamps is not only for the belgian market alone. It’s central location is important for the other markests, like Holland, Luxembourg, Germany and France. It serves much more than 10 milions, maybe 25 or 30. But… it’s the same issues: Bernie asks too much money, the tickets are high, the weather is unstable, there is no profit. But we need Spa, not only because of tradition, but because it’s track is unique.
Joe said that the goverments should pay for the races, but on Europe, they have toom many things to pay. I can give you the example of my country, Portugal. We have sonce late 2008 the circuit of Portimao, in Algarve. A superb circuit, but it won’t go to the F1 calendar for two reasons:
1 – The portuguese goverment won’t give 30 milion euros for Bernie every year. They don’t have money and the public opinion would never agree to see that money on it, they would tell you that it’s a waste
2 – Portimão’s design was not made by Hermann Tilke.
And the drivers tell you that it’s a great one, and having a Portuguese GP in there, would have two obvious advantages: another race on the Iberian Peninsula, and the spaniards would have another race to go and suppport Alonso, and a sunny place to be, like Turkey.
And of course, when I say of Portimao, I would tell you of Paul Ricard, Zeltweg, Brno or even Zandvoort. But nobody wants to pay 40 million a year, like in the arabic coutries and in Asia….
There’s a paradox here somewhere, and I could write forever and not quite put my finger on it. There’s lots of little points to be made, but I don’t want to write an essay about how much of this I disagree with.
It’s written as if it’s justification of Bernie’s racetrack price tag.
Why should “the US, Japan, Germany, UK, China, Italy, Brazil, Spain and Canada” support a single yearly auto race?
The Olympics are a one-of-a-kind event, where thousands of athletes convene in one place for two weeks for the mother of all global athletic competitions.
You can’t go to the U.S. or Japan or Brazil or Germany and say “pay me to bring you a one-of-a-kind event like the Olympics” if there are 20 of them a year around the globe.
You can’t go to the U.S. or Japan or Brazil or Germany and say “pay me to bring you a one-of-a-kind event like the Olympics” if your race isn’t even the only major auto race happening in the country that weekend.
You might get a few smaller countries looking for a tourism industry, or looking to say “hey, we rub shoulders with those big guys!” to bite.
It’s yet another iteration of Bernie’s brand of peeing on my shoes and telling me it’s raining. Bernie threatens European racetracks to pay up or he’ll pack up, and then goes to the Middle East and Asia and tells them to make the races convenient for European viewers or he won’t go there.
A more cynical fan than I would suggest that your support for 21+ Berniestravaganzas guaranteed lifetime pit access. Maybe not a good deal for the soul-seller if the lifetime is Bernie’s.
NASCAR spent a decade pissing all over its fans and the auto manufacturers, and now they are no longer able to disguise their empty grandstands and poor TV ratings.
Mr. Ecclestone has treated the fans of a European sport with surpassing shabbiness, equalled only perhaps by his dismissive treatment of Indianapolis and the USA market. The absence of a Grand Prix de France is an abomination, and jerking more races from European circuits for glorified go-kart tracks in countires which have never heard of auto racing will not strengthen auto racing anywhere.
“Abba dabba dabba dabba dabba dabba said the monkey to the chimp,” sang Debbie Reynolds. Suggesting that Abu Dabi can or should replace Monaco as the “glamour/dealmaking” stop on the circus is absurd.
A reality check is in order for Mssrs Ecclestone & Saward.
“The fundamental reality is that, in this day and age, all the Formula 1 races should be supported by governments.”
Not sure I agree but it shouldn’t even be considered until there is much more transparency than there is at the moment about how much money is involved at every level and who gets it
Robert McKay,
you might find it interesting Dover race track just released its financials and they are paying NASCAR US$6million and US$5 million for each race in 2011, and they receive all trackside ad revenue in addition to tv revenue,unlike FOM.Average attendance 85,000 to 100,000.
I think you paint a sad picture of the future of F1, quite honestly.
It is one where business is more important than racing. I understand business is, and always has been, a part of the F1 circus. But, to me, racing has always been the draw…not all the other BS. For me, there needs to be a balance. If the sport continues down the path you’re laying out, I will likely cease to follow it eventually. We already have enough Tilkedrones; I’d rather not have a calendar full of them in places far-flung around the world that have no interest in F1 other than marketing themselves.
Joe,
I question your statement that “The fundamental reality is that, in this day and age, all the Formula 1 races should be supported by governments.”
In a time of global economic recession, resources remain scarce. Countries such as Brazil, India, and China still suffer from extreme poverty and hardship on a scale we do not fathom. F1 is a luxury and an indulgence. I, for one, would not want to explain to the electorate why hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to host a race. Feed and shelter your people first, and then worry about racing.
I love our sport and all that comes with it, but responsible governments must set priorities and draw limits. I appreciate what you are saying but wonder if we are asking a bit too much.
This is a strange post Joe. Bernie perhaps can do what he likes its his toy set it seems – but surely how photogenic a circuit is given the mass audience watching on TV (possibly far more important than the spectators) and atmosphere – are both very important – and tracks like Spa and Monaco would be hugely missed. It surely doesn’t just come down to how much someone is prepared to bid to stage the race.
I am the probably wrong demographic to matter to Bernie (55) but more and more of the new circuits (including the wonderful Singapore – not – am I the only one that thinks it’s like the race in an underground car park?) Have no romance or atmosphere whatsoever
I think there is a handful of circuits that should be preserved and if necessary special action should be taken to secure that. The four you mention – Monaco, Monza, Silverstone and Spa, plus Suzuka. They should be there every year and form the foundation of the calendar.
As proof on my own feeling I watched all the activity from Suzuka this year, except the second free practice session, even though it meant re-arranging my sleep patterns completely. The fact that the Australian V8s from Bathurst filled in the gaps on Saturday night/Sunday morning certainly helped.
But the fact is that I won’t be doing the same for Korea because I’m not interested in the same way. It’s just another Tilke circuit. I won’t say boring, because it may be another Turkey, but I doubt it. There may be problems with the new surface and consequent delays, but I’m happy to catch up afterwards.
It’s a great shame that Turkey hasn’t worked out financially, because it is a very good circuit, but could no-one see this coming in advance?
“The fundamental reality is that, in this day and age, all the Formula 1 races should be supported by governments.”
I totally don’t understand this argument. If it can be measured that economy receives net benefits as a result then yes. But arguing that governments should be spending public money on supporting private company only because “countries that wish to enjoy that kind of exposure must be willing to pay for it” is ridiculous. What kind of exposure Belgium has from Spa? Or Hungary from Hungaroring?
If you or anybody can do cost-benefit analysis and prove the benefits justify the investment, then why not. But if such analysis is not done, then it’s just for involved companies to decide whether they want to spend on marketing or not.
Perhaps if the Belgium GP was re-branded the French or German GP then that solves the problem…
Bernie should continue to be ruthless but that doesn’t mean some of the new circuits should be immune from the cull.
My toopeneth the following should go:
Bahrain – Done its job got a foothold in the Middle East but should be dropped as UAE is a better circuit/bigger market.
Malaysia – 12 years old now and starting to look a bit shabby. Can having both Malaysia and Singapore be sustainable?
Turkey – Not commerically viable/small market. If Tilke’s going to steal 1 corner for Austin might as well as go the whole hog and recreate the circuit in Texas
Valencia – Can’t see how this works on either a commerical or sporting level
Hungary – Did its job in the 80s opened up the Iron Circuit should be replaced by the new Russian track.
That should generate some space and controversy…
What we need to know is who at the FIA gave Bernie the right to decide where races are held? It’s the FIA Formula One World Championship after all, not the FOM championship.
Surely things like crowd figures and what else is being done to promote motorsport in a country should also be taken into account?
Yes, being in the big economies is good for business, but the sport needs a soul as well as cash.
I agree that Mexico should really be on the calendar. Unlike Turkey or Malaysia (not sure about South Korea) it’s really a place with a motorsporting culture, and I’m sure that unless the put the track somewhere stupid, the crowds will come. In the dog days of Champ Car, the Mexican races appeared to be the only ones with a decent crowd.
As a taxpayer, though, I really object to the idea that my tax money should line the pockets of FOM/CVC (as after all, if FOM weren’t charging silly fees, races wouldn’t need financial support of governments and could be funded from gate receipts alone, at least in places like the UK where people come to watch). And if I feel that way, as a racing fan, I can’t help but think that those who don’t share my fascination with watching cars go round in circles will be even less impressed. Its interesting that FOM are having a lot more trouble persuading governments in mature democracies to part with their cash than in places with rather less democratic accountability where impressing the right senior government officials is all that’s required, rather than putting together a watertight business case.
Probably better value for money than the Olympics, yes, but in years to come, I suspect that “better value than the Olympics” will come to be a Treasury equivalent of the phrases “shorter than War and Peace” and “funnier than Psycho”…
Easy answer on this one Joe… Spa becomes the European Grand Prix. Drop Valencia.
I almost agree with everything but the story of the olympics and I see why you have such an opinion. You’re so much into FORMULA 1 that you don’t see how limited is the FORMULA 1 audience in any country safe UK and Italy maybe.
The olympic games or the football world cup are so much more huge than a FORMULA 1 event even if Bernie grants the country that event for a 100 straight years. Why that, because if you organise a football world cup or the olympic games, there’s no human being with a communication device be it a phone, a radio, a tv who doesn’t know about the event or doesn’t hear about the results because in the olympics your country is part of it and in football because it is the SPORT and if your country has the chance to organise such events, that enhances your sporting equipments (football stadiums in world cup and many sports arenas in the olympics) and here we speak of equipments used week in week out contrarely to a racing track used few weeks per year.
Besides that and most importantly these events put your country in the history books forever and they will be remembred because of what happened in that event.
Another factor, and I witnessed that in FRANCE they bring a sens pride to the country.
Very few people worldwide are interested in FORMULA 1 and circuits as famous as MONZA SILVERSTONE and SPA are largely unknown. Only Monaco and FERRARI are the exception, they are the crown jewels of FORMULA 1 and if you decide to organise a race in your country its value for your country are limited to the F1 audience and it is limited to the time where you have the grandprix while the Olympics implications are there for decades.
So Joe, please stop thinking that everybody is interested in F1. Your visit to Abu Dhabi gave you a hint and you’ve seen nothing yet….
Go to a given country and ask people about HAMILTON, BUTTON or ALONSO and ask them about MESSI and RONALDO.
Now ask about FANGIO and SENNA and ask about PELE and MARADONA, you’ll notic how much impact has FORMULA1.
I love FORMULA 1 more than any other sport and if I had to choose I will go for the olympics or the world cup in my country rather than F1 no matter the difference in costs.
“all the Formula 1 races should be supported by governments. The power of F1 is such that sponsors are willing to pay vast sums to enjoy the coverage that the sport brings.”
One should never use the word government in this context, only the word taxpayer.
The quoted sentence then reads:
“all the Formula 1 races should be supported by the taxpayer in order to provide trans-national corporate bodies with access to a subsidised promotional infrastructure.”
Perhaps I should also give some thought to ringing Tesco and asking if they need any help with their advertising budget this year?
Off-topic, but I just wanted to send you this link: http://sniffpetrol.com/2010/09/29/lotus-and-lotus-fight-over-lotus/
Just brilliant. My impression all along. To any casual observer the whole thing must have sounded a bit strange – that Lotus was somehow annoyed that the Lotus name was revived for Formula 1. I think someone somewhere is extraordinarily aggrieved that someone else stole their dream and made it come true. That finally cements the fact that someone somewhere wasn’t able to get it done themselves.
Joe,
It’s such a pity that Tilke is only man being given track design contracts. Does he have some kind of monopoly on this or what is the problem with getting other designers? Personally I find his work shoddy. Valencia is a terrible layout.
Brian
F1 must be global and must be everywhere. Indeed, it is too expensive for private enterprise to fund, so clever types of PPP will be the way forward.
However, with about 20 races as the limit, to add more, some races will inevitably be dropped and therefore the investments behind these events (China, Valencia, etc.) will have to be written off. This will make investing in F1 a very risky business and potentially prevent new entrants. Hopefully this will simply be the point of equilibrium and will not endanger further investment in existing events.
One solution could be (not my original idea I’m sure) to have a core of successful/essential GPs that are on every year and a group that are not on every year, and maybe even a few slots every year for one-offs up for the highest bidder.
It is an interesting question Joe – and the interesting answer is YES, Spa Must be allowed to survive. (‘End of’ as the say)
However I totally disagree with you on the subject of government funding. Government should be spending their money on education, healthcare etc – not on funding a fully professional business.
We are constantly told that F1 is a business, so it’s about time that Bernie started running it as a business, and not relying on state handouts.
Indeed it is quite hypocritical of him to say that the UK government should get rid of the NHS, but should plow £££££ into the British GP…..
Sorry, just my 2p worth.
Massively profitable enterprises crying for government subsidies make me vary.
And make no mistake, Formula 1 is massively profitable. The fact that the way the income is counted on the books creates dependent third parties, the so-called race promoters, that incur losses while the company running the show racks up inflated profits, doesn’t change that.
Although the physical numbers at Spa might be low, it would interesting to know if there is a spike in the TV audience for the event.
Also why does no one go to Spa? As far as I can tell there is the best part of 230 million people living within a 1000km radius of the place. It would need is less than 0.1% of those 230 million people to attend to make it a sellout. The place should be a hot spot. In Australia 1.45% of the Australian population attends the Grand Prix in Melbourne. So 0.1% doesn’t seem like a massive ask to me. Does it lack infrastructure, hotels, and public transport, or are people just too lazy to leave the house?
As for Tilke and the difference between what is considered to be a good and bad circuit I think it all comes down to land selection, which I imagine is in the control of the circuit owner. I believe that if you give Tilke some land with some good topography, he’ll give you a classic race track, like Turkey. Give him some flat land like Bahrain, or China and it makes the task of creating a classic circuit a lot more difficult.
“The fundamental reality is that, in this day and age, all the Formula 1 races should be supported by governments.” Mmmm …. Do you mind if I rephrase that as “Some of the richest companies and individuals in the world should be further enriched with taxpayer’s money”?
It’s a flawed argument that F1 should be in all the major markets – it already is. TV is everywhere. I would be curious to find if a full grandstand or a huge viewership is more valuable to the sponsors. I suspect it’s the latter that matters and I would wager that the ‘classic’ races draw in larger audiences.
TV-wise, although China and India are huge TV audiences the former dropped a whopping 30 million viewers last year. Europe and Brazil have huge TV viewing figures and they are fans that really appreciate F1′s tradition, so toying with them may not go down well.
I wholeheartedly agree that a world championship should go to all corners of the globe and expanding the fanbase is the right thing to do, but promote the hell out of it in those countries before setting foot there. Make them want a Grand Prix, rather than giving it to them then hoping for the best.
Unless the country looks ready to provide something really special (Singapore) or invest further in motorsport (Malaysia) then they should wait until the TV and press coverage reflect a major desire to get involved. It is good business for Bernie and a certain architect to persuade new, unproven countries to pour millions into their coffers, but is it really good for the sport on the whole?
If I was a sponsor I would rather invest in a team or driver to get the attention of a particular market. After all, the Olympics hasn’t been to whole continents, let alone countries, but it still has a following anywhere if the national team is in contention for honours.
Here’s a good example of how to build the audience. The Spanish race was traditionally one of the lowest attendances and those that were there were seemed to be predominately foreigners, if my experience there was anything to go by. Local TV coverage was even in the process of being dropped before Flavio (boo, hiss) and Renault got involved in saving it. Then Fernando shows up and bam! Two grand prix. Investment in TV, strong feeder series and junior teams by Renault paid of spectacularly (a few new venues helped too). Couldn’t FOCA and the FIA make supporting racing on the whole a condition of signing up to F1? They seem to be able to persuade these governments to do anything and it would be chump change for them to fund a feeder series or two. OK, so when Fernando retires there will be a slump in Spain, but it won’t take long to find the heir to his throne.
Apologies for the giant reply!
Joe, disagree with you. Grand Prix racing is not the Olympics. Therefore, it does not deserve public money (government) for the races.
I say let them present a product based on commercial support……
We will see what we get…..
Steve Selasky, you wrote “Grand Prix racing is not the Olympics. Therefore, it does not deserve public money”. Is that a given for you? Why are the Olympics eligible for being supported by public money? And why do you think it’s crystal clear that something else doesn’t? What specific attribute of F1 makes it ineligible for being supported by public money?
I can think of some reasons one could put forward to support that opinion, but I don’t see anything which makes your statement a done-and-dusted, no-brainer kind of judgement.
I agree with you Joe. It’s a World Championship, not a Historic Places’ Championship.
Competition is everywhere in our globalized world, and if a country does not want to invest more through this Formula One tool, then F1 has to look for other places willing to host it. Your argumentation is perfectly identical to mine, so I won’t go any further…
Joe, interesting comparison to the Olympics and most critics of your comparison cite popular Olympic mantra. The reality of the Olympics is that, beyond short-term temporary employment there is no long-term workforce gain, other than specialist competencies aligned with large scale sport events (and the people gaining such skills tend to event-hop), the infrastructure gains often end up as liabilities or take priority over more-needed infrastructure requirements, the extra revenue generation surrounding the event is captured by multi-national corporations who expatriate profits, and the net tourist effect over time is negligible. Plenty of research to support this. The reasons so many cities bid to host Olympics are more ego-related than strictly rational. This gets parlayed out as nationalism, but has more to do with key players having an opportunity to be seen on the world stage. Bernie, I suspect, is keenly aware. Of the role of ego and is expert at pandering to those needs in key decision makers in the countries to which he has introduced Formula One. One only needs to see the photo opportunity that Putin and Bernie provided last week. To enlist government support in European (traditional) markets Bernie needs to leverage the ego opportunity but it is perhaps more limited due to the public perception of motor sport as being elitist and rich (perceptions are wonderful things). People still perceive the modern Olympics to adhere to the spirit in which they were founded i.e. Amateur and sporting rather than the elitist and hyper-rich competition they actually are. I think Bernie’s strategies are spot on to achieve what he wants (even though I loathe many of the modern circuits and revel in Spa and Monza) and I think his vision for F1 to be a truely global sport is brave and to be applauded. Otherwise motor racing will end up in a backwater. If we want a World Championship it should represent exactly that rather than the US World Series which is anything but.
Agree with your subscriber – shift European GP to Spa and get EC funding.
I checked into Tilke’s background a little and surprisingly few of the Associates in his company have any academic or work experience in race circuits (or other road/track construction). My guess, and I will try to do more digging when I am next in Germany, is that there is an element of ownership in the hands of Bernie. I cannot imagine that he would promote one organization so highly unless there was such a link. One only needs to understand the way other commercial aspects of F1 have been parcelled out to realize that there has to be some material linkage between the complex network of Bernie’s companies (excluding CVC) and the Tilke organization.
A good point raised by a few people here; Bernie the arch-capitalist is relying on state handouts to pay his debts off! Damn benefit scroungers, etc…
All the more ire-generating after reading two heavily right-leaning interviews with him this week where he said the UK should run the NHS as a business. I seems spending tax payers money IS his idea of a business!
Joe,
I am an Australian and have been to probably 10 out of the last 13 Australian F1 events. This year some friends and I decided that we should go check out a race overseas and did an incredible amount of research into which track would offer us the most exciting race based on two criteria, track layout and value for money. On paper, we decided it would be Suzuka. (Given we only planned this after the Australian GP). While we enjoyed the race itself (could only have been better if Webber won it! (sorry about my Australian bias)), I dont beleive that the spectacle was even close to matching the ‘event’ that Melbourne puts on.
Every year, Albert Park has other races going on (Formula 5000, Australian GT Championships, V8 Supercars), displays (Shannons Classic display – which normally pulls cars from around the world and brings out some of the cars which Australians only ever get to see after buying a UK classic car magizine), Parade laps (without the drivers) a Marque of the year (this year was Alfa given its centenary), there was a post race concert (and a music festival in the Albert park grounds on the Saturday), and you are allowed on to the track after the event to watch the podium presentation or just walk the track. This year the Mclaren team even had a garage where regular punters could have a go at changing a wheel on a F1 car.
So what was offered in Suzuka? A couple of Porche Cup races and couple of Formula Nippon races. And in the paddock, not much, a heap of merchandise stores, some sort of Toyota open wheel race car, Bridgestone tyre display and thats about it. You cant even get on the track after the race. Granted there is a themepark next door, but in reality there arent many kids at F1.
I will also note, that the transport was appalling. For a country that has a global reputation for for efficent transport, Melbourne does a better job. On the Saturday after the rain, it took us 2.5 hours to get back to Nagoya (50 minute train trip out to the track).
So what is my argument here? It is not only the track and the size of the market that grows the fans base and gets people to show up to the race. Its the whole event. Its what one can do between FP1,2,3 Quali and the Race. Its about making sure fans have good time at the event. They will keep coming back. Given I havent been to any races other than Melbourne and Suzuka…I probably am a little uninformed about what goes on in some other places, but my understanding is that Singapore, Monaco and Silverstone put the best spectacles up for fans. Lets have some more the ‘spectacle’ and ‘glamour’ at F1 events.
So with that in mind, why don’t some of the GP organisers take a leaf out of the Australian’s (and Singapore, Monaco and Silverstones) book and start getting some other things happening.
Now I am well aware that the Australian GP loses money each year, but I would be interested to see which events actually make money. And how much money F1 tourists put back into the Melbourne economy.(Possible blog topic for you Joe?)
PS. Could some tell me why the Turkish track is so good? Its boring in my opinion. Tilke is not doing a great job. Althought Austin, does look pretty good on paper.
I’ll never understand the popular hatred of Tilke.
> A quick point on these Tilke designed circuits…..its
> no good building race tracks with 1 kilometre
> straights, when modern F1 cars need 2 or more
> kilometres to get up to speed before they
> can start overtaking……
Who wants to wait that long? What is this, dragsters? How about we just get rid of the blue flags? Wimbledon finalists don’t play without a net, so why is Lewis permitted to pass Glock without effort? You want overtaking?: I’ll give you overtaking!
Tilke meets Bernie’s needs: He shows up at the venue, does a slick powerpoint presentation for the vendor, and drops some asphalt on the hillside… Which was, after, sculpted by God in Heaven. What is the magical voodoo you guys imagine can be applied to these places, especially when the track owners insist on their own pet lunacies— such as the exit from the pit tunnel onto the racing line in Abu Dhabi?
And hillsides are the problem, of course. Far too many circuits are in reclaimed swampland. Hello Valencia! Hello Korea! Without its ancient hillclimb, even Monaco would be a sprint through a shopping mall.
(A shopping mall habituated by topless European daughters and granddaughters of wealth sunning themselves in the harbor, but still.)
No, the problem isn’t the circuits, and it isn’t Tilke. For the genius of Turn 8 alone (followed by Faux Rouge!), that man deserves an Oscar, a Pulitzer, a Nobel, the Presidential Medal of Honor, and OBE, and sex with your favorite movie star.
The insanity of the regulations couldn’t be more apparent when people complain that AERO thwarts their pornographic fascination with overtaking… As if you could tell the cars apart if they were all painted white! They’re so heavily spec’d and innovation-free that a bloke in this forum can seriously, seriously contend that the straights aren’t long enough. As if the back end of Shanghai was beloved, instead of mundane. This is moon-barking lunacy.
Tilke is NOT the problem.
From a global perspective, it’s simplistic to divide markets up by country, especially in Europe. Sure, France is one of the top 10 economies in the world, but it’s also right in the middle of Western Europe.
It’s easy for a French fan to complain about not having a Grand Prix in the country, but it’s also easy for the same fan to drive north to Spa, south to Monaco, northwest to Silverstone, southwest to either race in Spain, northeast to Germany, or southeast to Monza.
***For a fan living on the west coast of Canada, also one of the top 10 economies, it’s further to drive from Vancouver to Montreal than to drive from Paris to Moscow.***
French fans can whine about driving all the way to Belgium, and the Belgians can complain about not having enough people interested in coming to the best race on the calendar, but the fact remains that both the F1 world and Europe are blind to the rest of the world where countries are the size of entire continents and there isn’t a racetrack every few hundred meters down the road.
I find it odd that so many think no public money should be spent for F1 rights. If economic benefits for the region outweigh the cost, it’s money well spent.
That said, I do think Bernie / CVC have overpriced the events, or at least the current model is wrong. F1 will shoot itself in the foot in the long term if ticket prices are too high for ordinary people. In addition to that, doesn’t it undermine the idea of having a huge event in every consumer market if no one in said consumer markets is attending?
We should realise that even though those who read this blog are passionate motor racing fans, we are in fact a small part of the population in most countries. F1 is no where near the Olympics or soccer in wide popular appeal, though our selective perception makes us think it is. The unresolved race fixing in F1 is shrinking this fan pool more or certainly not helping growth. Governments have to step in to pay the huge 40 mil race fees simply because there is no private investors willing to spend that much, as there is no real business case for this sort of money being spent. Its left to ego driven government ministers spending taxpayers money and trying to sell it as exposure and generated imported economic activity associated by the event. There is some intangible exposure value for cities one weekend a year, no doubt. But a city needs a cluster of global sporting/cultural events to make this work. Like Melbourne has with the Australian open tennis, F1 GP, Moto GP, Flower show(its huge) , Int comedy festival, Sail Melb, AFL Grand Final etc… One alone does not work as well to create jobs. Ironic how Bernie who is so politically opposed to big government spending is happy to take their money for his car races.
Cobbs,
The numbers are not based on one race versus the Olympic Games. It is based on the fact that there are 80 races to every Olympic Games. That is what gives F1 its value for money. One cannot simply say multiply the F1 audience by 80 and that puts it into perspective, but think about marketing. A constant expsoure is better than a one-hit wonder ever four years.
I don’t mean to be rude, but comments like this (and bernies’) make the F1 community come across as somewhat insular. Suggesting that governments, “should” pay for races and prop up ones that are unprofitable isn’t really viable, and bernies cash demands often seem somewhat detached from reality. maybe a bit more subtlety is needed from everyone.
But in saying that, i would be upset if circuits like spa, monaco, silverstone, monza and suzuka were lost. I’m liking comments some people have made about keeping certain historical favourites and highly profitable ones on the calendar each year, but rotating other ones. I don’t know how good or bad that would work for the countries involved and the promotors though.
As an Adelaidean who still laments the loss of the F1 Grand Prix to Melbourne – government (yes, taxpayer) support is paramount. We had a great race. Its legacy still rings loudly in Formula One ears given its end of term feeling, world championship deciders, a challenging street track and a massive motorsport carnival that infected the whole city. It was government hand-wringing that had it snatched from under our noses.
There’s a brouhaha here at the moment regarding the State government paying an “appearance” fee of $2m to Lance Armstrong for participating in the 2010 Tour Down Under and not giving any back to local charity. For the exposure we got – money well spent I say. All sport must be treated the same way.
The only reason track promoters lose money is because Ecclestone and CVS are bleeding the sport dry. Most democratic governments are reluctant to subsidize races when most of that subsidy is going to provide obscene profits for the greediest bloodsucker in the racing business.
Ecclestone provides nothing to F1 anymore – the cost of the enterprise, the creative work, the show itself is provided by the teams, track promoters and sponsors.
All the financial problems F1 faces are due to the exorbitant amounts being siphoned out of the sport by Ecclestone/CVS – without them, all the teams, and all the tracks, would actually make a profit. No more ride-buyers, no more great races dumped because of Bernie’s extortion,
When the next Concorde agreement is negotiated, FOTA needs to tell Eccelstone he gets 10% and the rest goes to FOTA and the tracks. If he doesn’t agree, they can walk – Bernie has nothing they need except a trademark to the phrase “Formula One”.
Chris,
There are two issues here. Yes, CVC is bleeding the sport dry, but that is the arrangement in place. The next one should be different.
If F1 wants to maintain the same kind of status and ability to have an impact then governments should be involved.
If it wants to be a backwater sport, then so be it.
Joe,
Its a simple answer to fix the tilke tracks. Look at his history. His first circuit (??) was Malaysia. Not a bad track, where we do get the odd bit of overtaking. He has followed up with Bahrain, China, the new Hockenheim, valencia, Abu dahbi, korea, Singapore and Turkey. Except Turkey, they all produce rubbish racing (ok korea we wont know this for sure till next week). They are boring as for the spectators, and TV alike. What do they have in common? No hills, and no sections that have some danger. Its pretty hard to create a great track out of a flat piece of ground. Of all the tilke circuits, only malaysia and turkey have elevation changes. No surprises then that they are the more exciting to watch. Elevation changes add to the challenge for a driver, and the more challenging… the more chance of mistakes being made and good racing happening.
Think of the best tracks in the world. Almost all have large elevation changes. (Spa, Old Nurburgring, Interlagos, Bathurst, Suzuka, Brands hatch etc)
Regardless of how much fun the tracks appear while there Joe (Singapore and Abu Dahbi im looking at you), its vital that the tracks are great to watch on TV, and produce good racing. TV audience numbers are what matters, and spectacular racing on spectacular tracks is what people turn on for. So where should we be going?
Let tilke design the tracks, but with the following parameters.
1) Min of 100 meter elevation change over the length of the track
2) No more than 5 slow (2nd gear corners). Enough of the Go kart tracks!
3) Bugger the bikes, put the walls close.
4) Build as many possible in places where it always rains!hehe, ok thats a bit harder.
So spa? Having travelled from Oz to sit in the rain at the double left (no idea whats its called) I can tell you its the best place to see a F1 car. I never enjoyed being wet and cold so much. The issue there is accomodation, the hour long walk into the track and maybe the 5 hour traffic jam I sat in after it. But for the rest of the worlds audience, it is THE most important race of the year. Its what racing is about, scary, exciting, dangerous. Bugger Abu dahbi, id watch every spa race there has been 5 times over before watching them race on a open field inbetween fancy blue painted lines. If Monaco is sacred for glamour, then Spa should be sacred for the TV audiences…
Well Joe, it isn’t often that you get it this wrong. An occasionally interesting race lasting approx. 1 hour 30 mins versus the Olympics?! You cannot be serious. I think this article was just a wind-up like Bernie’s in The Guardian.
Barcelona was rebuilt because of the 1992 Olympics and London’s East End is being rebuilt for the same reason. I dare say parts of Rio will get a permanent face-lift. F1 will never, ever get anywhere near the popularity of baseball or the NFL over here or football in Europe or South America. Tonight there was a baseball game where the score was 2:0, 2:4, 4:4, 5:5 and finally 6:5 to the SF Giants. Tomorrow’s game could be the decider so even
President Obama rearranged his trip to the Bay Area and is having dinner in Palo Alto instead as dinner in the City would have caused a monumental traffic jam and would have pissed of an awful lots of fans. (voters) That is the power of baseball at this level. F1′s hype machine is exceptional but a reality check once in a while wouldn’t hurt at all.
andrew f,
I think you missed the point. I am not talking about the social changes brought by the Olympic Games, I am talking about the impact. I think that F1 is far more cost-effective for a city. An awful lot of these Olympic constructions are never put to proper use afterwards. The Games are more often to do with the ego of a city than with whether it is a question of value for money.
hi Joe
sorry, I had some thoughts but most after reading other readers’ comments; still in line with the post, I hope.
– What I read, somewhere, of Tilke’s background is that he did the project of Kuala Lumpur airport, which was highly appreciated and led to another Malaysian government comission, the Sepang circuit. A bit of a fairy tale story I admit, but makes all sense to resort to that expertise for building a proper modern racetrack.
– we are aware of the many technical restrictions regarding track designs for F1 – like the mandatory low gear first corner after start, and only slight ground level variations – but I cant grasp why not have at least one long, very opened angle type of corner, like the old curva do Sol in Interlagos, or Peraltada in Mexico City?
Why not, even more if the terrain is subjected to the earthing of extended useless areas like now in Korea?
Yes it seems to have a fast corner this new track, number 17, but, given the stretch just before, we will have to wait and see if delivers.
– for long I have thought that TV audience is the only one considered. I thought that by now we would be watching GPs with no more than a dozen cars on the grid, cause that would be enough to make a good show on screen. And would fit well with the medals.
– the idea of certain GPs at one-and-off years seems interesting as a possible solution for accomodating so many races, but led me to one development, not to be appreciated by many I am afraid: create a Grand Slam of circuits, in so keeping a few sacred venues now in peril (Spa, Interlagos, Montreal) and maybe giving a way towards making F1 become olympic (Grand Slam races winners go to some special finals along Olympic Games).
– of course all this for the sake of using imagination over an issue related to the sport I like most, yet…
Is the fact that few spectators go to watch the GPs at Spa, Turkey etc. to do with the fact that the tickets are so expensive?
Lower (subsidised?) entrance fees would surely get more bums on seats.
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/where-does-one-draw-the-line-on-f1-expansion/ [...]
Surely the issue of the low TV viewing figures for Spa is simply one of timetabling. The Belgian race is often held at the end of August, when a very high proportion of Europeans (who presumably still make up the majority of the viewers) are on holiday and don’t want to spend Sunday afternoon in front of the television. Hold the race in May or June or September and the viewing figures would likely be comparable to the other European races.
I imagine the argument works in reverse for races like Canada and Brazil. They take place on Sunday evening European time, and so more people are at home with the television on anyway. I don’t think it has anything to do with more people being interested in a race from Canada or Brazil than in one from Belgium.
As far as spectator numbers at Spa are concerned, I do wonder if the fabulous nature of the track is – strangely enough – the reason for its downfall. The track is so long that the spectators don’t get to see the cars as often as at other tracks. The drivers aren’t even allowed to do a slowing-down lap there! So I’m sure some people do wonder why they should pay a fortune to see the cars 44 times at Spa when they could pay a similar fortune to see them 70-odd times at Hockenheim or 60-odd times at the Nürburgring, neither of which are a million miles from Spa.
Will, you say “F1 is probably the only truly global sport”. I think you will find that football (soccer) is the only truly global sport! Pretty much every country in the world plays football. How many African countries can you name that have motor racing tracks…..
At a time when governments are generally trying to spend less money, advocating that they support Formula One racing seems rather perverse. Formula One is essentially a private sector business. If it cannot support itself financially without injections of public money then perhaps it is time to reconsider its prevailing business model. There was never a requirement for state support for Watkins Glen or Mosport – and whilst you could argue that the sport was much smaller then, I would also argue that part of the viability of those events was that the circuits were themselves already well-established affairs with local or national-level events occurring most weekends of the spring and summer and made a profit from doing so. Circuits that are used only very sparingly indeed because of a lack of any grassroots racing activity are inevitably running at a loss even before the ridiculous FOM “escalator” fees are factored into the equation. In this way, government support for such events is effectively a means of transferring public money that could be used to fund services that those on low to modest incomes are dpendent on more or less directly into the hands of people who stow it away in offshore tax havens or behind a multitude of “holdings” companies.
The money that the government pays into the Olympic Park in London may be colossal, but at the end of the day there will be a whole new urban area created out of the Olympic village, the stadium itself will most likely be used by West Ham as a Preimership ground week in, week out and lots of new sports facilities end up in municipal use for runners, cyclists, etc. The site will contribtue to urban regeneration in the Stratford area (to some extent anyway), so there is a long-term benefit from the government support for the event. Can we really say the same of government funding for F1 races? They are more like closed-off red carpet affairs for a very wealthy group of people and leave very little local legacy. When F1 inevitably abandons Istanbul in the next coulpe of years what kind of legacy will be left from all the government support for that race?
I have never come across a single piece of research that shows conclusively that these countries (by which I mean the local economy) benefit from the extraordinary levels of subsidy that their governments pour into the sport. Does China benefit from the F1 race? Does the income generated locally offset the level of expenditure? Does the presence of a Grand Prix assist “brand China” in any way, shape or form to prosper in a manner that it would otherwise not? Has the presence of an F1 race at Interlagos in any way reduced the poverty surrounding the circuit? Have the people living there benefitted from the presence of the race in any significant manner? I very much doubt it, but as I say I can’t find any serious studies on this topic.
The classic tracks should be kept on the calendar, if it was up to me. They bring the heritage to F1. Otherwise it wouldn’t be much different then A1GP or the soccercar-cup.
If i am watching a a race on tv on a new track in the middle of nowhere with empty seats, or banners across the grandstands to hide the lack of spectators, for me it’s missing some atmosphere. It’s like watching football in an empty stadium. (turkey, china…)
Spa used to be packed, when Jos Verstappen was driving, wich means there is a big fanbase in the surrounding countries. But if you have to pay 150 euro to stand knee-deep in the mud in a forest in Belgium and your local hero is not driving, it’s just too expensive.
And please ask some other designers for the tracks, there are more people with skills. Too bad Mr. Hugenholtz is not around anymore…
For the life of me I don’t know why Turkey don’t give free tickets.
It’s designed around attracting visitors to Turkey and subsidised by the government, yet all the empty grandstands are saying to the world is either “No one like Turkey enough to visit” or “Turkey is very expensive”
Free tickets would mean a full house every year, mostly I would expect europeans coming and spending plenty of money in local hotels and restaurants.
What better advert & stimulus for tourism in Turkey than loads of people coming to Turkey for a holiday?
The great tracks have to be kept as they contribute to the sport as a whole. I watch F1 for two reasons 1 to see the racing and 2 to see who wins the championship. The races at Spa Monza etc provide the spectacle and racing and the new tracks simply allow the championship to play out. If the calendar was full of Tilke designed tracks with no real hope of any decent races I and a huge number of others would lose interest and stop watching. This would reduce the attractiveness of F1 to sponsors and countries which is why the old tracks have to be retained.
Bernie of course understands this but does have a responsibility to his employers to generate the max amount of revenue per race. As for Governments supporting races that is a matter for them but it is worth noting that $40 million is pretty small beer in governmental terms and if its worth it then why not?
Funny you mention Tesco as they have just put an advert board up near my work featuring a generic F1 car with Tesco Mobile advertising on it with the headline something like “You’ll never see us doing something like this”. Yes they are advertising that they wont get involved in F1 marketing off the back of F1 appeal!
(Tesco is the largest supermarket in the UK for those overseas)
Personally i’d rather have the NHS than Silverstone thanks. I think the average UK taxpayer would very much prefer not to have the Olympics either!
F1 is probably more similar to the Commonwealth games in the areas it appeals to..
The problem with Governments proping up F1 is that the olympics is seen as a personal sporting achievment.
F1 is a team sport using cars which are (usually or at least in recent history apart from this year) made by car manufacturers. The promo is good but its a lot harder to sell to the public.
The problem with moving away from a lot of the classic circuits is that it devalues F1 as a whole. If your a country / city you want to have a race in the global series which has the likes of monaco, spa, silverstone etc. They have proven their worth.
Having a F1 race without monaco on the calendar would be like hosting the olympics the without the 100m sprint.
Soeren,
My comments are based on the times we live in. The world has seen a major Recession in Western Countries.
The reason why I support the Olympics is not because of commerical reasons but rather that it can promote goodwill among many nations.
Beyond that public money on sporting events versus items such as: road improvement, education, health care is a no brainer to me. We can argue the 30 million is insignificant.
However, it is the principle.
I understand, B. Ecccelstone commercial goals. However, I don’t think F1 needs Worldwide expansion to survive.
With our without the expansion … the show should just expand/contract to the amount of funds available.
Joe
We can’t, musn’t, lose Spa, it has a wonderful past and is still a wonder, and the numbers could (should?) still work in its favour.
Your list of nations approximates GDP, in which case Belgium, small as it is, is yet as high as 20th which ought, just, to rule it in for now! (if not for much longer, though likely won’t drop many places in the next decade)
You mention that Mexico as “the next major place where F1 really needs to be”, and the next largest market after that is… Netherlands!, which does not have an F1-standard track of its own, but is of course slap bang next to Belgium — [add in little Luxembourg and] we have a BeNeLux GP in a market about the size of wealth of Canada. Then again, Spa is in the French-speaking part of Belguim and a little over a Grand Prix race distance from Pairs. One way or the other, is a marketing sleight of hand not out of the question? It must be the nearest F1 circuit to the main [Brussels] EU headquarters too — they erroneously use the EU flag for the European Grand Prix, it might find a home in Spa!
Or in reality, are issues such as transport links and accomodation too likely to remain a problem come-what-may?
“Spa is fabulous. But is that enough?” It is too much to lose to the sport.
“Should it be given a special deal? Perhaps.” Perhaps, for now at least.
Ditch Hungary and Valencia for starters, the former will be redundant once Russia’s race commences, whilst the latter is unnecessary with Barcelona.
Turkey should also be removed due to its unpopularity amongst locals as unlike China it can’t justify itself economically.
I ran businesses in NZ & AUS paid my taxes, never asked the Govt of either country for help for over 40 yrs. I just find the idea of govts paying for sporting events with limited returns anathema. They never release the real costs, they always refer to “commercial in confidence”. Having said that, I think youve raised some good ideas that should be debated.
Joe,
Just one add you forgot to mention South Africa it’s a beautiful country so important in this day for a car industry.F1 it’s on in every continent of the globe except Africa. Another thing is all about to find the balance get a sense to cancel some race such as Bahrain, Turkey. Keep the motor sport Grand Slam as Hamilton call. It’s good for the drivers, for the fans and for the sport point of view. In the other hand we can’t forget the expansion of the the sport critical as a well. New places are always welcome for everyone Companies, Fans, Media, Governments etc…
On the assumption that this is a serious article and not a leg-pull, here is a “normal journalist’s” view, frm today’s Grauniad : “Exactly what Formula One is today is a matter for long debate. It is a miracle, a preposterous balancing act, an expensive trick delivered by smoke and mirrors presented by some seriously clever men.
But it is also self-obsessed to the point that it is unable to look at itself with any objectivity. There are white elephants in the shape of new F1 circuits that do not reflect any tradition and do not have a strong local following; look at Bahrain and China.”
He’s not wrong.
When you say : “If F1 wants to maintain the same kind of status and ability to have an impact then governments should be involved.
If it wants to be a backwater sport, then so be it.”
I would agree with every word, once you remove the word”backwater”.
I think being a sport is quite sufficient. Global glam events do not interest me.
I think there are some football fans rather missing the point. Football is very popular but there are thousands of games going on around the world every weekend and people only watch the teams that interest them. There is only one Grand Prix and every F1 fan around the globe watches that 1 event, this is what makes F1 so appealing to sponsors. Its no good saying that more people watch footballl in total because those numbers are divided by the huge number of games going on. Even the world cup only attracts fans from the countries involved untill the latter stages when general football fans will start watching but this only happens every 4 years. As for Baseball and the NFL, they may attract big viewing figures in the USA but worldwide? Forget it!
F1 remains the most watched single event worldwide when you take into account that there are 20 races every year. These numbers dwarf anything else and are the reason global companies spend so much to promote their brands with f1, they are not stupid you know!
Governments should pay for F1, because the businessmen involved can’t come up with working business plans? If Bernie Ecclestone isn’t able to keep his product interesting to his customers (i.e. provide the action and races they want) and keep his company financially stable at the same time (because he has to expand infinetely and is bound to go to whatever uninteresting venue pays most) he has got to change his business plan or go out of business. Same goes for the racetracks, if they can’t afford F1, they should drop it.
F1′s business model at the moment basically is a snowball system, driven by CVC’s debts it has to expand or it will collapse like a house of cards. Most of the teams aren’t financially stable either. I would even say a lot of them are on death marches.
Ecclestone was always a glowing devotee of free markets. If your business doesn’t work anymore, don’t cry for the taxpayer or the government.
Joe,
A very interesting debate you kicked off here, and I wonder whether the fact that you are in an almighty minority might not be giving you pause for thought? However, to be honest you made a rod for your own back by comparing F1 to the Olympics. The fundamental difference between the Olympics and F1 is that the IOC is a not-for-profit foundation whereas FOM is a cash-sucking leech that exists solely to make a very small group of staggering wealthy people yet wealthier still. This will always mean that F1 is going to suffer when demanding public funds, as to provide more than just a dribble is electoral cyanide in most western countries.
The Olympics (and to some extent the FIFA World Cup) capture the public imagination in ways that F1 will never be able to do. They have a reach well beyond their host city and unite a country. Having just lived through the Winter Olympics here in Canada I can tell you that it was an amazing experience, even 4000km away here in Ottawa. It was the major topic of conversation in most public places, and even managed to oust hockey in terms of newspaper and television news headlines. Having visited Canada on numerous occasions I am sure that you realise just how much that says. I was also fortunate enough to be in Trafalgar square on July 6, 2005, and have kept a stash of Olympic confetti as a souvenir. There were more people in the square for those 30 minutes of the Olympic bid announcement than attend an entire British Grand Prix weekend. F1 has very little effect outside of its host area. I love being in Montreal on GP weekend, the atmosphere is phenomenal, but I know from experience that even just down the road nobody cares. When the Habs play the Leafs the streets are noticeably quiet; when F1 is on you wouldn’t be able to tell.
When Montreal lost the Grand Prix it was as though the town had died a little. This is why you now have the Montreal and Quebec governments pumping cash into the race, but there isn’t a hope in hell that the Feds will ever do that. Similarly Belgium, Australia, Spain, Germany, and most of the other traditional centres. Where a race directly affects the local community (and by that I mean people less than half an hour’s driving from the circuit) then local governments are willing to put up some money. However, Bernie seems to be suffering under the delusion that it should be the national government that funds the whole show and prices it accordingly. The Australian Grand Prix lost nearly $50m this year. Even assuming a generous taxation take of 20% the race would have to generate $250m in extra income (principally extra temporary employment, as away from Grand Prix weekend Melbourne reverts to its usual self and there is no ongoing financial benefit) for this to be even sustainable. Are you seriously claiming that it does that? Below this level you are talking now about government employment subsidies, and this has to be weighed against other such schemes as tax breaks for teachers, reduced-cost housing for nurses, and so on. This is a comparison that F1 is always going to be on the losing end of.
The fact that I read your blog daily (and subscribe to GrandPrix+) should tell you that I am definitely in favour of more Formula One around the world, but baldly stating that national governments should pay for that is simply wrong. Where the nation doesn’t benefit then nation shouldn’t pay. Curiously, here I would put the UK in the camp that should have national funding, owing to the multitude of jobs tied up in motorsport valley. Italy also sees huge income from motorsport and Malaysia seems to have plenty of nous in terms of leveraging maximum economic benefit from their motorsport associations, but the truth for most of the rest of the world is that F1 is a passing circus that energises a small corner of the country for three days a year. You claim that you get 80 Grands Prix for each Olympics but that isn’t true, you only get 40 (don’t forget the Winter Games). In the west the cost of each games seems to be running at about $1.5bn, so by your own logic that makes an F1 race “worth” $35-40m. This is clearly where Bernie is getting his estimates from. Unfortunately for F1 the lasting effect of F1 is minuscule, as I already discussed, and its depth of social penetration is very shallow. In addition, you only get one Olympics every two years so there is little competition for headlines (only the World Cup even runs it close) so your ongoing halo effect is quite lengthy. Nobody really talks about an F1 race until the previous one has happened, and after it has been run people are looking forward to the next. So for most races you are being asked to trade your pot of gold for one or two weeks in a fairly weak spotlight.
The financial structure of F1 is fundamentally flawed. Bernie’s bluster, which you seem to have swallowed hook, line, sinker rod and reel, isn’t going to cover that up. As we are already seeing with Turkey and China these new governments are beginning to find that actually F1 isn’t the magical panacea for international recognition that FOM sell it as.
Joe, sometimes I think that if someone is exposed to something for long enough, their opinion may be somewhat clouded from reality – perhaps alittle rose tinted.
It remains the fact that in most countries around the world, F1 – and motorsport in general – remains a neiche sport, and not something that is on the lips of 8 out of 10 people in the street.
To say that F1 is bigger than baseball, american football or soccer is simply not true.
Love this body of work: the contributors to your blog are in the main intelligent, reflective and optomistic motor race fans. The soul, the passion, the fun is what it should be about and it is here. Thanks all of you, and thanks, Joe, for giving me a reason to bother staying with F1.
F1 should be about competition, excellence, joire de vivre. Draw the line when this is all lost.
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/where-does-one-draw-the-line-on-f1-expansion/ [...]
Chris Roberts
F1 may not be bigger than baseball or American Football in America but these sports generate zero interest in the rest of the world. Globally F1 is much much more watched. I assume by the fact that you call football Soccer you are from the US and therefore hold an America is the centre of the universe view but in reallity it isn’t and the global companies who use F1 for marketing understand this. As for Football (soccer) being bigger it is but as I said in my previous post the Football fans are spread too thinly around the huge numbers of games that go on around the world, the point is there is only 1 F1 and in much of Europe South America, Australia, and increasingly the mid and far east F1 is a major event and definitely not a “niche sport”.