The European Alcohol Policy Alliance (Eurocare), a group of 57 public health organisations from 25 European countries, who are all working on the prevention and reduction of alcohol related problems, has written an open letter to the FIA President Jean Todt to express concern about alcohol sponsorship in Formula 1, citing the involvement of Johnny Walker, Smirnoff and Martini in the sport. The alliance is requesting “an end to alcohol sponsorship in Formula 1” and expects rapid action from the FIA. The alliance says that it is “deeply concerned of the heavy marketing exercise seen in Formula 1 and is therefore requesting an urgent change”. The organization says that “allowing alcohol sponsorship in Formula 1 seems to contradict many official guidelines for the marketing of alcohol. It runs against the EU Directive (2010/13/EU) which states that marketing for the consumption of alcohol should not be linked to driving” and claims that “it does not seem to fall in the category of ‘the widespread promotion of responsible drinking messages’, part of the mission supported by the alcohol industry itself.”
This smacks of the same kind of campaign that led to tobacco being phased out of the sport but the alliance claims that it is unjustified to argue that the removal of alcohol sponsorships will be a significant financial blow to the sport. There is only one way to find out if this is the case and it is fair to say that, for all the bluster, the Eurocare people will not be caring much if two teams collapse as a result of losing their support – which could happen. The arguments against such a ban are just the same as they were against the tobacco industry with the usual counter arguments that if a product is bad for people then the product should be banned, rather than banning the advertising of the product, and the fact that governments make squillions from taxing alcohol.
The letter is signed by Mariann Skar, who is Secretary General of the European Alcohol Policy Alliance and copies of the letter have been sent to Bernard Ecclestone, various European Commissioners and World Health Organisation officials.
One cannot help but wonder whether or not there is more than a little manipulation going on here, because an ban on alcohol sponsorship would be hurting two of the most exposed F1 teams at the moment, at a time when finding new sponsors is anything but easy. The question is: who is behind such activity and who stands to gain from it? I am pretty sure that this is not happening by accident.
joeblogsf1 
Johnnie Walker also runs a very active anti-drink driving campaign through it’s involvement in Mclaren. I would have thought activities such as this would be welcomed by such groups.
Shirley, you jest! This is a one-issue group, and nothing will be accepted as an extenuating circumstance. “Alcohol Delenda Est” is their motto.
Sigh. Moral crusaders, morality police, do-gooders and social justice warriors are almost as much of a drag on my enjoyment of F1 as rapacious vulture capitalists.
I do find the use of “social justice warrior” as an insult or criticism hilarious. It rather implies that the speaker or writer is in favour of social injustice.
For me it implies he’s against social justice warriors, not against social justice.
I think everybody got that. But thank you for your comment anyway. It says more about you than about the original commenter.
I’m with Jem 🙂
I’m with bigbrof1. Social Justice is strictly “social justice” as the SJWs define it to be, and their knickers are in a twist because whatever it is they don’t like is completely unacceptable to them, no matter how many others do like it, find it acceptable, or just don’t care either way. So yes, SJW is a pejorative term.
It’s very rare I disagree with Joe, but here goes… It is eminently sensible to ban alcohol sponsorship from F1. I do not see this happening now or next year, but probably in or or under a decade. I’ve lost friends to alcohol and alcoholism, and will probably lose more. But like most people, enjoy drinking the stuff without too much harm to myself or others. Drink driving over 80mg is not personal choice, it’s a moral issue. It doesn’t really make sense to have adverts for alcohol on the backs of other athletes, but especially on the side pods of fast cars. Other opinions are available, but they’re wrong. I’m getting ready to duck! 🙂
Explain why one should ban the advertising of the product and not the product itself.
‘ It runs against the EU Directive (2010/13/EU) which states that marketing for the consumption of alcohol should not be linked to driving”
It does not state that (see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:095:0001:0024:EN:PDF), it talks about advertising not sponsorship. Elsewhere it talks about the sponsorship of tobacco products so a clear distinction is being made:
Article 22
Television advertising and teleshopping for alcoholic beverages shall comply with the following criteria:
(a) it may not be aimed specifically at minors or, in particular, depict minors consuming these beverages;
(b) it shall not link the consumption of alcohol to enhanced physical performance or to driving;”
For a start, alcohol is the direct reason our baby sons only have one grandfather. The USA tried banning alcohol, and look how that turned out. I doubt anyone outside the middle east will ban it this century. But it shouldn’t be on the side of fast cars, and at some point, it should, and will, be banned. I reckon while you’re still at the races. European bodies keep making statements like above. Unlike most people in the UK, I think this is generally a good thing.
(Having said that… Your excellent blog, and the odd pint of ale both brighten up my life!)
I agree with you, but this is not new. The French banned alcohol advertising years ago- the football Champions League sponsor Heineken can’t have hoardings in French grounds and I remember the spraying of champagne being verboten at the French GP
In the USA we used to have a ban on advertising prescription drugs. Of course, all the anti-gov’t-regulation hysteria got rid of that.
Now, you can’t watch a ballgame with your child or grandchild without having a seductive blond trying to sell you boner pills… at which point the 7 year old asks you “what is an erection”, “what’s the difference between getting an erection and keeping one”, and so on. I’m no prude but I’d much prefer the young child be asking me questions about the sport rather than about boner pills.
Just because you can sell something doesn’t mean you should be able to plaster it all over TV. TV is a very powerful thing and should be used with care, especially during the hours that children are likely to be watching. Since raw capitalism doesn’t have any room for decency and common sense, we need to have some rules.
Just because some rules are stupid doesn’t mean there should be no rules. Having appropriate rules of behavior is what civilization is about. I don’t see why advertising should be exempt from that.
yup.
Hm, After seeing Caroline from you know who promote to the world on Twitter that really FI should be in trouble (not news altogether, its pretty clear for over a year now that the owners have had better days) based on their financials, its not hard to imagine a strategy …
Of course the big difference between tobacco and alcohol is that the former is nothing but a serious and addictive detriment to health while the latter is not. We know that the immoderate abuse of alcohol is harmful but there is considerable and growing evidence that moderate consumption of alcohol has health benefits. You can say the same thing about various kinds of food.
Doing something like this is a perfect example of (a) the kind of thing that gives active government a bad name, and (b ) why you need some anti-gov’t folks around, just to keep the do-gooders honest.
As for the possible Machiavellian implications, there would seem to be two likely suspects. Both of them are short. Beyond that, I’m not smart enough to read the tea leaves.
Joe, given that I’m no good at this sort of thing, will you please talk down to me about it? (Or at least drop a hint or two…)
There are others with agendas. People who want to replace the short people, for example…
Is there not a chance of throwing the Bernie out with the bathwater?
JOE* you must not write this sir…
Oh, good grief… I’m entirely hopeless then…
If you decide to take pity on me, send me an email… I’ll read its contents and then eat the message, no one but me will be the wiser…
RShack, you can’t possibly be ignorant enough to not understand that alcohol has the most severe impact on society of any drugs known to man .
Tobacco is negligible; no behavioural issues, and health issues minor compared to alcohol and drugs, obesity and malnutrition .
Tobacco is a scapegoat – banning smoking is easy, banning booze impossible, so is banning bad food .
While I agree with you about alcohol and bad food, it’s downright silly to say that tobacco is just a scapegoat… or that it’s impact is negligible… that’s taking a somewhat sound argument and turning it into a bad one…
Tom_de, have you heard of Personal Responsibility by any chance? Many things in life are dangerous and bad for your health. Jumping off a 50 storey skyscraper without a parachute could be described as bad for one….however, it is Personal Choice whether one does so or not.
I have seen family and friends die from over use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Class A,B drugs….they were not killed by these things personally, as they are all inanimate items. They killed themselves by using these things in a way that is incompatible with human existence.
I’ve also had friends killed in car and train crashes, but I would not ban cars or trains as a result.
This Eurocare rubbish is just political people finding work for themselves, and it’s the sort of rubbish that allows the Minority to dominate the Majority, reverse democracy in action. But then there is nothing remotely democratic about the EU.
Where do you draw the line? Hoiw many peole are killed in road accidents every day around the world? Surely cars are bad for your health, why not ban all forms of automotive advertising.
Perhaps the next target group should be the fast food industry, lets ban Bruger King, Pizza Hut and KFC(other equal fast food firms are available 😉 ) from advertising on the grounds that in excess they contriubute to obesiety and heart disease.
At some poin the world will realise that personal responsibility does have a place in a balanced society. I htink the issue with tobacco was that there had been decades of misleading advertising totally failing to account fo rthe healtth and addicitive tendancies.
Best
M
Sorry about my typos, I cant find an edit link !
You FOOL! There is no such thing as personal responsibilty! The EVIL Corporations have insidiously corrupted The People’s minds! Individuals have no free will!
Now, back to my usual programming (WAIT! What have I been programmed to do?)
Neither can anyone else…
Vodafone sponsoring McLaren all those years surely led to an increase in using mobile phones whilst driving. Oh no wait it didn’t…
An interesting argument. Is there any real difference between drinking and driving and texting and driving? Hmmm…
Maybe texting and driving is even more dangerous?
Texting while walking and texting while cycling certainly is more dangerous.
Data?
From what I’ve read, texting while driving is, statistically, at least as dangerous as drinking and driving. The thing is, sponsorship of a racing team has never been meant as encouragement to consume the sponsor’s product while driving. Remember when Durex used to sponsor Surtees?
Remember when Penthouse used to sponsor Hesketh? Using their product while driving would certainly result in raised eyebrows. Yes, eyebrows, definitely only eyebrows.
I was (and still am) a huge fan of McLaren during the golden era of Prost & Senna. I never had even the slightest inclination to touch a Marlboro cigarette. (I was encouraged to by a TAG Heuer but that’s another story!)
Any chance you could direct me towards some of the stats you’ve read? I’d be interested to read the numbers, I suspect it’s a very thorny issue.
And as for this :
“sponsorship of a racing team has never been meant as encouragement to consume the sponsor’s product while driving”
I hate to be pedantic (I’m lying, I love to be pedantic) but I suspect that Petronas, Total, Shell, Pirelli, Michelin, Bridgestone, etc, etc, etc all beg to differ.
But yes, clearly the viewer is supposed to make their own informed decisions about how to engage with a sponsor’s product.
The Ontario Provincial Police have claimed that distracted driving (not completely synonymous with texting, I know) resulted in more deaths last year in Ontario than any other type of crash.
How universal this is, I have no idea.
And of course, you’re right about Petronas etc. – but we should ad Elf to your list, in honour of the late M. Guiter!
Sorry Jem, I replied earlier but included a link to a news story, forgetting that links aren’t allowed. That story reported that according to the Ontario Provincial Police, distracted driving (not completely synonymous with texting, I know) resulted in more deaths last year in Ontario than any other type of crash. The OPP said that 78 people died from distracted driving-related crashes on roads patrolled by the force in 2013, compared to 57 deaths in impaired driving-related crashes and 44 people who died in speed-related crashes in that same year.
How universal this, I have no idea.
And of course, you’re right about Petronas etc. – but we should ad Elf to your list, in honour of the late M. Guiter!
Does that show “distracted” driving to be more dangerous than “impaired” driving or simply more common? Similar stats would show that a gunshot to the head is less dangerous than catching the flu.
I know I’m being a bit silly for the sake of rhetoric, but it’s genuinely a subject I’m interested in (I work in safety engineering for a reason) but suspect it’s incredibly hard to get a full dataset.
It shows that distracted driving is a greater threat to the safety of other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. This may be because it’s more common, but from the perspective of the person at risk that doesn’t matter. It identifies the problem that needs to be addressed.
But of course, statistics can be viewed any way that someone wants them to be viewed. They mean one thing to one party and a completely different thing to another party. It’s usually the case in my personal opinion, that the predominant view is that of a Minority viewpoint, and the Majority view is usually rejected by the Media, because the Majority of people don’t shout as loudly as the Minority do!
They called it the small family car!
That’s an assumption that having a mobile phone while driving = texting , rather than speaking handsfree – just putting other side of the story.
having worked at Voda during the F1 sponsorship, that was out angle anyway.
In the UK it is an offence to “use” a mobile whilst driving. The police and courts take this to mean holding the phone in one’s hands. So using a hands free is not an offence.
In testing, hands free is not much safer than hand held.
Right… it’s equivalent to a 0.8 alcohol level.
But we only learn that *after* changing laws to require hands-free, and *after* both consumers and car companies spent gazillions to on hands-free gear… once that’s done, *then* they tell us that hands-free is just as dangerous as driving drunk…
You’d think they might have looked into this first, wouldn’t you?
Obviously . . .
The latter doesn’t impair memory and thus makes it easier to reflect on one’s ‘stupid arsehole’ moment.
It is certainly more prevalent in the UK, in my 15 min trip to work I see two or three people a week texting or reading texts. Nothing quite as off putting as just seeing the top of the drivers head when they are slowly drifting onto your side of the road.
The biggest safety issue on UK roads that I find daily, is unacceptably low driving standards. This is compounded by a lack of spatial awareness that many drivers display, and the awfully low driving ability of many Eastern European drivers, in left hand drive cars displaying their country identity on their number plates, and who seem to think that whatever they do whilst driving, if it all goes pear shaped then God will look after them! I say this because on several occasions when I have almost been involved in some dire road catastrophy that was only narrowly avoided by other road users, the driver at the centre of the action has crossed himself as he realises his actions may well result in his demise!!
Apart from Drink Driving, which is still an ongoing problem, although not nearly as much as it used to be 20 years or so back, the other big problems are that many drivers have bad eyesight and know this, but are too vain to wear specs, and drug use is the other huge issue.
According to my friends in the Medical profession, the number of people with Health problems related to alcohol/alcohol related deaths (inc Drink Driving) will be like a drop in the ocean compared to those who’s poor dietary habits will contribute to the obesity / diabetes epidemic which will hit in the next 5 – 10 years.
Very good point Joe. My personal view is that no, there isn’t – well not much. They’re both potentially dangerous and, have the potential to cause fatalities given the right circumstances. Conversely, you could also say that, if used responsibly, then both are OK.
Can anybody claim that it’s safe to play football while driving? Perhaps they should ban football from TV. And sexy films… and old war movies about killing Nazi’s… lots of things.
If you really think about it, the only thing they should show on TV is people driving safely… (which would mean the end of Maldonado’s career…)
Perez is done too…
This is exactly what is happening now.
With smoking banned in public areas and the work place (in most of Europe), the anti-tobacco people had to find a new hobby. They chose alcohol. In the Netherlands the legal drinking age has been raised recently (and I suspect it will be raised further in the future) and those anti-alcohol people will go after advertising and try to get alcohol out of supermarkets. And then, hamburgers will be next.
Those people (unfortunately) are helped by two social trends in the Western world. Our societies become ever more risk averse and, when something does happen, blame must be applied immediately. This will help the anti-[enter-any-pleasure-here]-people to get their point accross. Politicians only seem interested in common sense and personal responsibility anymore when it makes money.
So I doubt this is a plot to bring down Bernie or F1, it’s just the health-Taliban getting on a high horse.
Health Taliban – great line!
Can you see 2 sides to every story and that anti-tobacco people are not necessarily anti-alcohol, anti-any pleasure people?
The taliban banned, among other things, music, arts, education about a lot of subjects, because a couple of guys decided they knew what’s best for everyone. No one should or could decide/choose for themselves.
I sense a similar train of thought amongst the most vocal of the anti-..-people (the ones you see on tv, the ones that write letters to sporting authorities): they decide what’s acceptable and no one should choose for themselves.
Now, with substances like alcohol, tobacco and drugs etc, there are valid reasons to object to the use of it. I’m not against regulation in the public domain.
You can divide people roughly in two categories: people who make life (slightly) better and people who make life (slightly) worse. People who know what’s best for everyone usually fall into the second category.
More than likely there are some but the pursed lip brigade seem to out number that group
And I suppose they’ll also want to ban the Champagne on the podium as well… Celebrating with magnums of Mumm’s finest sends the wrong message. Yeah, right.
But surely more prominent than that today Joe, is the latest from the London Gnome on the subject of putting Upgraded GP2 cars on the F1 Grid????
Any printable thoughts Joe?
distractions flying left right and centre, GP+ and Horner’s call for return to V8s! Ridiculous both.
if this is the hand the magician is showing us, what is he doing with the other one?
Anyone calling fro V8s to return is playing a political game. It is nonsensical. Thus CH must therefore be playing some game… I don’t et it because the idea is so stupid that it was buried months ago.
The second announcement of his in recent days which called his judgement into serious question…
What about short people in London, calling for GP2+ on the grid? Just what is going on Joe? I think people here would like it if you could do a post on what is the reality of where things are now and where they maybe in 2015 and beyond.
At present there are 4 cars gone, but they might be back in Abu Dhabi?
There is talk of 3 car teams from Bernie, which he also denies!
CH calls for V8’s to reduce costs,is this because Renault cannot catch up with the current rules in place?
Are Renault hinting that they cannot afford to develop their PU?
Bernie says it’s his fault there isn’t the money for the small teams?
Then he says they don’t matter!
Now he says GP2+ is the way forward together with 5 Big teams?
What is really going on Joe, and what is most likely to happen?
There is one school of thought that BE is aiming to take the sport with him to Heaven (or an alternative venue). Others say he is going to buy it back cheaply. Some say that they think he’s simply lost control of it. I don’t know the answer but I don’t really care either. It is the job of those involved to protect and preserve the sport.
The present farce makes me thankful . . .
That I’m old enough to have been a teenage track marshal at a Grand Prix which John Love won in a Brabham BT20.
Although I care not a jot for nostalgia or sentimentality.
Let him burn it to the ground and then it can be rebuilt.
Bernie would charge God $50 million to host a race in heaven.
I dont know if the supersoft Pirelli’s would hold up well at the track temperatures where Mr E. is going.
Hey, Hell’s human rights record is no worse than any other country’s. And Mr Satan is a great guy.
Next thing you are going to tell me that the honorable Mr. Satan will be allowed to sit at the driver’s press interview at the end of the races… Not to launder his image of course!
Sorry Joe, I didn’t mean to call GP+ ridiculous! I meant GP2+, Bernie’s fancy for 2nd tier teams.
He was winning alot more with a V8!
His had has been screwed up by a ginger person
Smells like Old Spice . . .
With apologies to Nirvana
Must admit I thought the idea of GP2+ came from Fearnly of Force India and The Bolt simply picked up on the idea. It’s a crap idea and I think he knows it.
On the contrary, the podium celebration clearly shows responsible attitudes to drinking, subconciously fixing an association in the viewers’ minds that drinking is only to be done when the day’s driving is over…
OMG! The sport I love is insane!!!
Can I just ask: If there is a grand plan to remove the less well budgeted teams from the sport, Why??
I can generally grasp or guess at a desired outcome when politics in F1 goes all “back-stabby” and divisive. But I cannot see any of the current machinations leading to anything other than major discord.
The engine fiasco, which I find so very annoying it’s difficult to put into words. You had YEARS and YEARS to sort your engines out. You all knew it was coming. Unfreezing engines must lead to greater costs. These will almost certainly be passed on to engine customers. Moving back to V8s… See you Honda, see you Mercedes, see you Renault (All teams have said they don’t want to run V8s as they have no relevance and no internal R&D benefit. Honda are only back because of this engine formula for goodness sake). As an aside, moving back to V8s would definitely mean Porsche/Audi (from their comments on the previous formula as well as their comments about F1 generally) want no part of F1 even if they had a slight interest at the moment.
Pushing out the smaller teams. To what eventual end? Customer cars? There goes the constructors championship. The other option: Bigger (3/4 car) teams. OK. This might work, but if one team is constantly at the back, how long before it goes bust/leaves the sport. Does anyone think Mercedes would allow itself to be associated with a back running team for long? Then what?
Honestly, absolutely everything about F1 at the moment is driving me crazy, all against the backdrop of one of the most fascinating endings to what I consider to be a very decent season. Constructor places below second place are all still in flux due to double points. Undecided drivers championship with lots of possibilities open to intense drama (The only thing that could ruin the race dramatically is for an early Nico Rosberg retirement. Even an early Lewis technical retirement could leave people on the ends of their seats… Can Nico make it to the end or not…) PLUS the biggest thing for me. Almost every race has been memorable. That is all I ask for out of an F1 season.
I can’t stand these kill-joys. At this rate F1 will look like snooker with enormous gambling sponsors.
F1 has that big disclaimer “Bernie says ‘Think before you drive'”. Isn’t that enough? 🙂
As opposed to think while you drive?
Or Drink before you thrive?
Does anyone understand what “Think before you drive” means? Think of what? Not driving?, Other road users?, Did I lock the house?….
Condescending nonsense from the ex-ringmaster.
It’s not just the teams…F1 now has an official whisky supplier??
Next up energy drinks. When Williams and Force India fail because of disappearing alcohol sponsorship Lotus, Red Bull and STR will pack up as well…
If the FIA does what it usually does (nothing) then no one stands to lose anything. Hurrah for flaccid govornence!
@joe and did you read that other thing about an IPO being planned for the start of 2015, but now being cancelled, due to teams folding…
All this news…
Ah! Joe, I see you’ve kind of answered my main question in a hint above. This is a pro-actively destructive strategy, possibly aiming at contractual shortfall to allow the governing body to re-negotiate the 100 year deal with a new or existing partner, and/or to remove certain individuals from the commercial rights holders management infrastructure.
That at least gives me a working hypothesis, but it strikes me that there are simply too many disparate vectors at play currently in F1 for this type of strategy to be a worthwhile one at the moment. If you’re going to take advantage of chaos and turmoil amongst the enemy ranks, you should strike very quickly, and very strongly. Taking a slow steady approach just gives your enemies time to gather themselves.
If the aggressor is the FIA, then what they should do is act immediately on this information, banning all alcohol advertising for the next race. I doubt they will though, and so the waters will remain murky at best (from my outsiders eyes).
When I see a reference to Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” in an F1 blog, I know things have gotten really bad.
Alonso’s bedtime reading….heh heh!
Aren’t Ferrari still sponsored by a tobacco company?
They do set up a smoking shelter behind the garage. Which none of the team smokers appear to use…
Saw this coming; but then again, I´m from California, where you can´t smoke in your own house, eat fois gras or light your fireplace. Sounds like someone gave it a little `nudge´ however.
I live in California…never heard of not being able to smoke in your own house. The fireplace law probably applies, fairly, to high-danger wildfire areas. And it’s foie gras…a lot of cruelty for some hipster gourmet’s pleasure. So, pretty bad examples, but hey.
The average French peasant in a well known hipster…
Parisian dining demographics are quite different than CA! There are enough delicacies to live without foie gras, but I won’t force my opinion on the French…just fellow Americans. We haven’t been eating it long enough to claim cultural heritage.
Good
Did you see this argument from the letter? Are they saying F1 marketing of booze is actually illegal in Europe?
“Sponsorship of this type[F1] operates differently from
conventional advertising, as its means of persuasion is indirect and implicit. It allows companies not only to create and reinforce awareness, but also to generate positive associations between the sport and the product. The intended result is that the sponsorship creates a link between the company and a highly valued event or occasion in the minds of consumers; a process known as “brand
transfer.” It is this transfer that is particularly troubling.”
And in the meantime, in the land of WEC, a fourth manufacturer joins the party…
Is this the FIA’s hidden agenda? Finding a new pinnacle of motorsport that doesn’t involve CVC or BE?
The average attention span does not run to six hours… A fundamentally flawed concept.
obviously not a fan of international test cricket?
It seems to be getting nearer to six minutes. With shorter races proposed several times, no doubt it will be in the secret rules.
American sports prove that many millions regularly flock to 3-hour+ sporting events. AFAIK, it’s mainly the TV-people who have the short attention span, much more so than do regular people… but, just as they always do, the TV-people project their own brainless tendencies onto the rest of us…
I wish F1 races lasted another half-hour worth of laps… which is still shorter than many of them used to be… as is, they get especially interesting just before the 2-hour mark… I’d like to see them play out a bit more…
Who is it?
More interferrance from the poisonous, menacing tentacles of the EU and its regulations… 21st century Fascism.
That said, there’s more than a hint of hypocrisy from team owners; one in particular is very well known for his strong attitude against alcohol and tobacco, but for years has been most grateful, to embrace it for funding his pursuits.
I grew up in the years of tobacco sponsorship. Never smoked. Used to drink like a fish, but not for 20 odd years. A beer a year now, I reckon. Sorry but we’re not all the brain washed morons these campaigners think we are. I’m grown up enough that I can make my own decisions, thank you.
> 21st century Fascism.
Wow! Is that -really- the great Nigel Planer? Yeah, wow, you tell the fascists!
LOL. You want to be flippant about it, tf, great, but F1 is being told how to run its business… having already rolled over big time to satisfy the demands of the green eco brigade! And I don’t mean just the engines, the evidence is all over the team factories too. Correct me if I’m wrong,
In defence of the EU and their “poisonous menacing tentacles”, they have (currently) nothing to do with this. They have taken no action and not publicly made any statements supporting either position as of today.
The organisation involved are Eurocare, who’re seemingly a lobbying group backed entirely by national level alcohol lobbying groups. Though Kevin Eason of the Times wrote that they are “underwritten” by the EU, there’s no sign of this on their website – Eurocare freely admit to receiving some funding for specific projects commissioned by the EU and EC (amongst others) but are mainly funded by their 57 members, the “non-governmental public health and social organisations” which back it.
You can find their message to Jean Todt, including a link to the full text of the letter, here : http://www.eurocare.org/jean_todt_president_formula_one
(Note : Eurocare haven’t even sent a copy to anyone at the EU)
Eurocare are picking up on a particular details of a European Directive, which they have the right to do because democracies, even weird semi-federal ones (with menacing tentacles), are like that. You can find the full text here :
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:095:0001:0024:EN:PDF
To my reading of the document, Eurocare are targetting Article 22 (b) which states :
“Television advertising and teleshopping for alcoholic beverages
shall comply with the following criteria:
(b) it shall not link the consumption of alcohol to enhanced
physical performance or to driving;”
I’m no expert, but my layman’s reading of this makes it look like a pretty weak argument. Firstly because I’m not entirely sure whether sponsorship of a televised event even counts as “television advertising” (hooray for semantics) and secondly because F1 doesn’t link the *consumption* of alcohol to driving.
One to watch, but likely to be a slow burner.
>> but F1 is being told how to run its business…
Well, it’s clear that somebody needs to tell them how to run it…
> 21st Century fascism…
Oh, dear… I wish people would bother to learn what fascism really means before they go throwing it around as a response to any-gov’t-thing they don’t like… using it that way is just ignorant…
An educated view is that 21st Century fascism is indeed a real and growing threat… but that threat comes from the more (so-called) “conservative” end of the spectrum (which is anything but conservative) that encourages gov’t favoring corporate power over regular people… it’s not from over-zealous do-gooders… (which doesn’t mean I’m in favor of over-zealous do-gooders either…)
Actually, fascism means different things to different people. As long ago as 1944 George Orwell wrote: “The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else … Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.”
Well, I agree that it is often used incorrectly… but that doesn’t mean you can correctly label anything or anybody you don’t like fascist.
Part of the problem is that there is no obvious, explicit credo of fascism. With communism there is an coherent philosophy that defines it (even though no Communist government ever stuck to it). But with fascism there’s not. Thus, one must look a bit more to see what it truly has meant.
Clue one: While there have been several fascist governments, the only significant one to use that label for themselves was the Italian version… and they clearly equated it with “corporatism”. (Their word choice, not mine.) The others had their own self-chosen label to fit domestic circumstances.
Clue two: All of the significant fascist governments shared at least a half-dozen traits:
* Claims that their national culture and/or race is inherently superior, thus positioning the nation as deserving to extend its rule via conquest beyond its borders;
* Practices that resolved to a small ruling class comprised of politicians, corporate leaders, and the military;
* Imposition of law that expand the rights of that tripartite ruling class while restricting/destroying the rights of the populace at large, such that corporate and military interests assume powers over the populace otherwise reserved for political gov’t;
* Explicit efforts to undermine the legitimacy of any political competition at home, such that the only valid gov’t is their own, with all political alternatives cast as dangerous to the nation, perhaps run by treasonous enemies;
* Propaganda that promoted fear among citizens of largely mythical forces, both within and without the nation, in order to get citizens to support actions and values contrary to their own interests;
* A strong preference for self-justified military action over diplomacy.
As you can see, fascism is not just a random collection of bad traits. Rather, it is something cohesive. The main reason that it lacks an explicit dogma is that (a) it’s terribly hard to justify on any basis other than a foundation of glory and fear, and thus generally poses as something else, and (b ) it requires the illusion that it is a natural extension of national exceptionalism, so each instance has to appear to be somewhat unique to the host nation.
I think Bernie, Eurocare and Jean Todt should get together for a beer or two to discuss this.
And a cigar…
Yes outside in the rain by the FIA smoking shelter but only if they have been inducted, risk assessed and wearing hi viz, safety boots and using plastic glasses just in case.
Quite apart from the F1 machinations and arguable morality of the advertising it is sad that a so-called ‘high-profile, global sport’ finds it so hard to attract a wealth of sponsorship from ‘legitimate’ sources.
Jock – exactly! F1 folk should be very worried about this…
Somehow football teams manage to attract sponsorship from airlines, banks, car companies, consumer electronics companies as well as the inevitable gambling firms
Banning alcohol from F1 would sink Force India, too. I hate politicians, but you allude to ‘someone’ being behind this, which implies inside F1. Any idea who that you’d be willing to suggest? I can keep a secret…
Can I say “bullshit!” in this blog reply?
What a bunch of non-sense. If drivers imbibed on the circuit, fine,but that’snit happening. What all of this is, isre people looking for attention. Feed their egos at the potential expense of other people’s livelihoods. “Bullshit!”
Don’t think that it will stop with a ban on alcohol sponsorship. The time is surely not far off when some bozo in Brussels will call for a Europe-wide ban on F1 and other forms of motorsport, citing climate change concerns …
climate change, health & safety, single sex participation, disparity of competiton, mid-season rule changes, governmental subsidy, ….to name but a few
OMG they might come down on us before Abu Dhabi !!
Yeah, Martini – drink of choice for 90% of alcohol abusers!
As an ex-smoker (since Febuary) I do not find it tempting to light a cigarette whenever I see an old photograph or video of a Malboro sponsored racing car or feel the need to drink whenever I see a Johnny Walker sponsored car.
That’s always been my point as well. I’ve been in love with motor racing ever since I knew it existed. My parents are open minded about it, but are not fans. One of my first memories is a TV report about Gilles Villeneuve breaking his leg in a Formula Atlantic accident.
I went to my first Grand Prix with a friend and his dad, in 1983. I knew Osella’s sponsor Kelemata was a brand of Italian cosmetics, that Smeg (one of Gilles Villeneuve’s personal sponsors) made appliances, that Parmalat made dairy products (not sold in Canada at the time) and that John Player’s Special, Marlboro and Gitanes were tobacco products.
I don’t smoke. I’ve never smoked. I will never smoke.
My sister, not a motorsports fans, did for 15 years.
PS: There are few things that I love more than either looking at old motorsport pictures or going to a historics meeting and googling who the sponsor was…
1) This is all presuming people can’t tell the difference between racing and driving. Wheel to wheel racing, sparks from cars etc.. all not part of driving, but seen more frequently racing than johnny walker, smirnoff or martini logos…
2) This is forgotting the impact of safe driving campaigns that get promoted because of alcohol advertising. You wouldn’t see McLaren doing safe drivingwith johnny walker if johnny walker wasn’t a sponsor. Now surely that connection is arguably better than not. And before someone says the FIA could do more, there is always a step more than the FIA or FOM (bernie says bull) takes.
3) And +1 to the great point above about vodafone
I thought this was going to be an article about Kimi Raikkonen….
Hahahahaha! Very funny Paul! Made my day.
I nominate this for the ‘POST OF THE DAY’……
If this is a power struggle between FOM and FIA then doesn’t Bernie have it covered anyway…5 teams forced to run 3 cars will satisfy the reported 14 car minimum grid for the FIA break clause. So JT needs to bankrupt 4 more teams to get his “ball” back?. But how? Five teams have signed up for the loyalty bonus so the bulk of their costs are covered before sponsorships and they are free to spend that money on making the car competitive and so increasing their prize money.
Seems to me BCE and JT are playing poker with 1,000’s of F1 livelihoods here.
What will be left of value when the real racing teams have gone?. Just a series wholly dependent on the marketing budgets of corporations….that didn’t work out too good in other formulas.
If it is a power play the FIA can win easily. From the 2015 FIA Sporting Regulations:
13.6 No more than 26 cars will be admitted to the Championship, two being entered by each competitor.
All the FIA has to do is NOT change the regulations; three car teams would not be allowed, the grid will fall below the required car count, and the FIA can cancel the (stupid) 100 year contract with CVC.
I’m not sure this is akin to the ban on tobacco advertising per se. That ban was part of a blanket ban across all media. Eurocare seem to be going after F1 first and foremost because of the association with cars and thus drink driving. As such this argument reminds me of the similar opposition when the sale of alcohol in petrol stations was mooted in the late 1980s/early 1990s
I wrote about this industry at the time, and this was a major issue as so many independent UK forecourt operators where teetering on the margins, and in many cases shop, and alcohol sales were the only profit in the business.
However, as in this case, the anti lobby argued that a link between booze and driving, however tenuous, was wholly damaging and dangerous and that alcohol should not be sold to drivers on petrol forecourts, lest they be tempted to chug down a few brews while behind the wheel.
It was a preposterous argument and one against which Shell led the charge, firstly arguing that, by that logic, no pub in the land should be allowed a car park. The anti lobby came back with a more nuanced position that no business for whom the main purpose was the sale of petrol should be allowed to sell alcohol.
Shell proved that, far from selling petrol, by far and away the main profit source of their roadside locations was the sale of convenience goods – there being little or no margin in the sale of fuel, and in some cases – notably supermarkets – the sale of fuels is a loss leader, and as such the sale of petrol was far from a ‘main purpose’ of the business. Of course this argument, and common sense won the day, and not surprisingly drivers have resisted the urge to pull over, down a readily available bottle of vodka and carry on their merry way…
I would suspect the FOM’s lawyers might argue that F1 is a televised entertainment first and foremost, which happens to have cars as part of that entertainment, and as it is perfectly legal to advertise alcohol on TV, the sponsorship would simply switch to on-air above-the-line advertising spend.
If Eurocare want to start banning alcohol advertising on TV…that is another matter entirely.
Here in the U.S the major food retailers have all opened up fuel stations and offer their gas at 10 cents a gallon less than conventional filling stations. Then they give additional discounts based on the volume of spending within their stores which can net anywhere from an additional 10-50 cents a gallon off.
Is there perhaps someone in the EU looking for a “Bernie”?
One is reminded of the hilarious sequence that happened in the UK around the banning of tobacco advertising. (A “Bernie” was a million Pounds)
In Russia the general ban was partly lifted to allow tv advertising to link alcohol to sporting events. The concession is until 2018.
Did Bernie ever actually recover his £1m?
I think “call me Tony” gave it back.
The whole sport is screwed, you’re right, controlled and run by the money men. Joe, how about an article that goes back and covers the low lives that sold the sport for short term greed to these money men – expose the people who put the sport in this position, it seems to me, they’re truly the bad guys here. Blaming the investors for wanting to make money as you continually seem to do is one thing, and while fair, sort of misses the point. Let’s go back and review the shame (and likely under the table deal) that sold the sport for peanuts!
There is only one person who did this.
The FIA sold their own sport, didn’t they? They (and they’re greedy self-interested teams) only have themselves to blame. Or am I misunderstanding how all this happened.
The FIA transferred control of the sport to somebody with roots squarely in the F1 community… they did not sell out the sport to a group of vulture capitalists… the former action was stupid, the latter action was a crime-against-racing…
There is no reason why Bernie could not have been the statesman of F1.., he chose instead to be F1’s metaphorical-so-Joe-won’t-get-sued-rapist… nobody made him do that… he did it because he wanted to take all the money… how clever he thought he was: he figured out how to have his cake and eat it too… well, he certainly has eaten it and we see are seeing the consequences…
No, I think you are misunderstanding it. The FIA leased the commercial rights for 100 years to Bernie Ecclestone. He sold his company to financial people. The teams did deals with him.
Are you able to say where the money went? Did it arrive where it was supposed to or did it end up in a private bank account. The money oft quoted certainly wasn’t peanuts, but would make a very nice retirement fund.
It’s a very weird target
Taking money from J Walker et al seems to me much less of an ethical problem than taking money from governments with appalling human rights records and/or which should be spending their $$$ on improving their crumbling infrastructure rather than sport
A very sound point
Just more EU silliness. You know, research shows that cars are a leading cause of vehicular fatalities ergo their advertising should be banned from f1.
Any idea what happens if Max Verstappen gets on the podium at Silverstone next year. Advertising alcohol is one thing but encouraging a minor to play with alcohol, in daylight, on television, working at height on a podium.
Surely worthy of debate by the do-gooders somewhere, maybe Todt will stand firm and make a decision, sorry nodded off for a minute, hope I didnt say anything daft.
Well stated, summarized, and left us with obvious indicators of possible motives.
Thank you.
Here’s my proposal. Revise the F1 “formula” so that the drivers race street-legal SUVs (Porsche Cayman, Merc AMG G-Class, etc) while reading and answering at least one SMS text per lap on their phone, while simultaneously consuming one alcoholic drink per ten laps. Each spelling error on a text will incur a stop-and-go penalty. Any use of emoticons will result in an instant disqualification ;=)
Costs reduced by 99%. VERY entertaining racing. Oodles of passing. Footage of the inevitable mega-stackups will be supplied free of charge to the social police for use in their anti-texting & anti-drinking TV adverts.
Problem solved! I hereby accept, in advance, your forthcoming nominations to run for President of the FIA.
This is complete genius. And of course the alcoholic drinks get stronger and the text messages get longer as the race goes on, until the inevitable high-value public demonstration of why doing this is bad. Let F1 sink into its own effluent and start this up as a racing series instead. Vote for JB!
I’ve always thought the idea that alchol advertisement on race cars encourages people to drink and drive is just silly. Full stop.
I’d rather think this was the move of some moral crusaders than some political scheme aimed at small teams. But, I certainly trust your take on the situation. I just hope it doesn’t work to the effect.
Common sense surely dictates just smoke and mirrors. I wonder what is really behind this as it’s a non starter and designed to waste people’s time. It would be interesting too see what the Americans would say in Nascar if this subject got raised over here but it’ll never happen.
Coincidences happen.
Unless proven otherwise, I’m not going to think that these organisations are playing someone else’s game, I’d rather believe they are unaware who would be at loss, and they don’t care.
Tend to agree with you here.
Ban tobacco. Ban alcohol. While we’re at it, ban delivery company sponsorship too. A UPS deliveryman broke our garden gate’s latch last Tuesday. Surely Ferrari’s UPS sponsorship deal is only encouraging this kind of wanton behaviour.
Makes you think…
Akin to the fall in viewing figures in F1, Dorna have done the same kind of thing with MOTOGP and suffered an even greater decline in viewing figures. The F1broadcasting wordpress blog gives the bad news, also Adam is leaving hisGP2 commentary to concentrate on F1.
This blog also of course carries the F1 audience figures.
What we really need now is some spoilt people on the inside suggesting we go backwards. No Christian, Seb’s not got it in reverse its just an illusion, the other cars are actually going past yours, still all things are relative, except F1 money of course, that is beyond reason.
Justification: Spoilt by winning too easily the previous few seasons, spoilt rotten by being up to the armpits in funds.
I think you mean Will.
Will who?
buxton
Adam who?
Joe, will you be doing a feature on the Red Bull Spice engagement ??? 🙂
Top of my list
No wonder Vettel left RB. Surely not a coincidence!
F1 seemed to get on fine when the drivers coveralls had a tiny Shell badge sewn on the front, and the cars had only a national colour paint applied along with the drivers name and number! Let’s face it lads, in four to six years time self driving cars will become available . Sporting competitive use of passenger vehicles will cease to be of interest to the casual viewer , event attendee. On the subject of booze/sport association, I used to enjoy watching mr Cooper celebrate with his team after a successful outing ,pouring the bubbly into the trophy and passing it round so that every body in the team pits felt part of the success! When Dan Gurney celebrated by spraying the expensive fluid it was a spontaneous and exuberant gesture. Now it looks tired, and even naff. The only time I can recall the podium theatre reflecting honest feelings is when Lauder poured the drink over the side to illustrate his disgust over another Catastrofic event.
I’ve watched most GPs this season and never felt the need to drink Johnnie Walker whiskey. But as a result of this nonsense I remembered I had a bottle at the back of the drinks cabinet and just poured myself a large one.
That is both a victory and a defeat for the do-gooders who believe there is no free-will nor personal responsibility…
Will they want to ban energy drinks next?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C.S Lewis.
Well if this campaign is serious, the first place to target is Mumm Champagne. That is after all the only alcohol actively ‘enjoyed’ during an #F1 broadcast by the Drivers and Teams.
This could become a mess. Diageo, Martini, United Spirits.. Obvious link to alcohol.
But then dig deeper. Energy Drinks high in caffeine shouldn’t be marketed at kids or excessively consumed.
Monster, Burn, Hype…. RED BULL
Could the sport cope then?
Ultimately, from watching #f1 I can tell my Camel’s from my Benson & Hedges from my Mild Seven from my Gitanes and often when in my local corner shop engage in an element of name the Team from the fag packet.
However despite this, I have never smoked and do not want to smoke.
Formula One and commerce always finds a way for the future and I have a prediction, in the next 18 months, we will have a new sponsor in Formula One,
e-Cigerettes!
I bet Vype (British American Tobacco owned) or NicoCigs (Phillip Morris) will be the first! (Possible in a Ferrari driven by one of the Nico’s! [or both in a Mercedes?]
I always thought the ban of the cigarette sponsors were ridiculous when you see racing cars with alcohol brands on them.
That’s not me saying they should ban both of them tho, I just find it very hypocritical especially when you know how much tax money those same governments get from these products… yet you can’t advertise it on cars.
Either ban the products or stop being overly protective.
The timing of this… smells like politics going on. Guess they really want those 3 car teams then.
I think that sometimes sponsorship can have a negative effect. For example, I would not buy Shell when Micheal Schumacher and Ferrari were winning everything.
I love a good conspiracy theory and when I saw this story my thoughts went to Bernies recent German court case and whether someone in the EU was holding a grudge. But before anyone tels me it’s a rubbish idea, I’ve already come to that conclusion.
If we all promise, no matter how much advertising we see not to have a drink and get into our F1 cars. Will thy accept we are adults.
So alcohol may get banned, opening the door for Coca Cola and McDonalds – only for fast foot to get banned a few years after they jump in 🙂
While I am a firm believer that it’s your choice to drink smoke gamble and what not. I did notice as a former smoker that when going to an airport were there is a lot of tobacco commercials and smokes available creating an increased temptation (Zurich having smoking lounges sponsored by cigarette brands etc.)
However I believe that in the end it’s the responsibility of the person to smoke or drink and that the government should focus on the wellbeing of the people without violating their freedom of choice.
I would not mind seeing the tobacco sponsors back in the sport as I found that their livery really popped in that time.
Out of curiosity : what benefits does Philip Morris have by sponsoring Ferrari as they cannot show it in they livery again.
Guess I can give up on my hope of an Ardbeg sponsored drive.
What a shame F1 has reached its current state. Through all the financiers, teams, drivers, regulators, sponsors, and anti-something-or-other groups who are daily generating new problems, the one consistent factor that all of them consistently disregard, if not outright ignore, is the fan base. It must be so difficult to see daylight with their heads so firmly inserted up their own backsides. This is a business/sport that is sadly spinning itself into an increasingly irrelevant circle of self-destruction and bad behaviour.