F1 says No to Andretti

The news is not unexpected but the Formula 1 Group has announced that it does not believe that Andretti has shown that it would add value to the FIA Formula 1 World Championship and so the application should not be successful. F1 added that “we would look differently on an application for the entry of a team into the 2028 Championship with a GM power unit, either as a GM works team or as a GM customer team designing all allowable components in-house. In this case there would be additional factors to consider in respect of the value that the applicant would bring to the championship, in particular in respect of bringing a prestigious new OEM to the sport as a PU supplier.”

In a lengthy statement F1 said that the process after the FIA said it was satisfied with Andretti’s application was for there to be “an assessment by the Commercial Rights Holder of the applicant’s value to the championship”. F1 said that it had written to Andretti with a series of questions in October and subsequently offered a meeting to discuss the entry, which Andretti did not take up.

F1 said that it looked at the “broad range of ways in which value could be provided, including value to fans, the prestige and reputational value of the sport, the competitive balance of the championship and the sustainability goals of the sport”. It also looked into power unit supplies, the opinions of “key stakeholders” to understand what they thought, and an assessment of the operational impact of adding an 11th team, in addition to the financial impact of new team on F1’s financial results as an indicator of value; and the financial sustainability of the team. The assessment did not involve any consultation with the current teams, but F1 says it took account of the impact of the entry of an 11th team on all commercial stakeholders in the Championship.

The conclusions reached were that the presence of an 11th team would not, in and of itself, provide value to the championship.  It said that the most significant way in which a new entrant would bring value is by being competitive, in particular by competing for podiums and race wins.

“This would materially increase fan engagement and would also increase the value of the championship in the eyes of key stakeholders and sources of revenue such as broadcasters and race promoters”.

F1 said that the application “contemplates an association with General Motors (GM) that does not initially include a PU supply, with an ambition for a full partnership with GM as a PU supplier in due course, but this will not be the case for some years. Having a GM PU supply attached to the application at the outset would have enhanced its credibility, though a novice constructor in partnership with a new entrant PU supplier would also have a significant challenge to overcome.”

It said that Andretti proposed to build a car in 2025 and then a completely new car for the new rules in 2026 but that it was dependent on a compulsory supply from a rival PU manufacturer which would “be reticent to extend its collaboration beyond the minimum required while Andretti continues its plan to collaborate with GM in the longer term. F1 says that any compulsory PU supplier would this see as “a risk to its intellectual property and know-how”. Consequently, F1 concluded that trying to build two completely new cars in the first two years “gives us reason to question their understanding of the scope of the challenge involved”.

F1 said that it was a technical challenge “of a nature that the applicant has not faced in any other formula or discipline in which it has previously competed, and it proposes to do so with a dependency on a compulsory PU supply in the initial years of its participation”. On this basis, F1 said that it did not believe that Andetti would be a competitive participant.

The process thus concluded that an 11th team would not, on its own, provide value to the championship because the value would come from being competitive but F1 did not believe that this would be the case. F1 accepted that the Andretti name “carries some recognition for F1 fans,” but said that “our research indicates that F1 would bring value to the Andretti brand rather than the other way around”. 

It also concluded that an 11th team would place an operational burden on race promoters, would subject some of them to significant costs, and would reduce the technical, operational and commercial spaces of the other competitors. F1 said it could not identify “any material expected positive effect” on its financial results.

Andretti was obviously expecting the bad news as stories emerged yesterday, showing n Andretti 2025 model in the Toyota wind tunnel in Cologne.

We will see what happens next.

197 thoughts on “F1 says No to Andretti

  1. I’m sure there will be more appropriate requirements for future expansion teams in the next set of commercial agreements.

    Now let’s see if Mr Andretti and his investors were here for the racing or the arbitrage.

  2. So not happy to let them join now because they would learn enough to be a clear threat by the new regs. But ok to join as a newbie under the new regs cause the learning curve will be impossible to square with a realistic threat of front running.

  3. Given this news it would seem logical for Andretti to build a ‘Mule’ to develop their design/build/engineering team,prove they could do it and apply with GM for the 2026 rules,supposing they are for real.

            1. I the costs to get a team and an engine to even match the pace of the tail end of the field $500m would be small change.

            2. An estimated +$60-80M per current team – if Andretti can afford that.

              However, as F1 decides to go against the FIA (the governing body), I would take away the ”World Championship” stamp for as long as F1 is a closed series.

                1. Thanks for your comment, Joe!
                  Why would they?
                  F1 could, if they cannot deliver the contracted broadcasts…so they would still pay up and send it, just calling it ”F1 GP Show” for some years?!

        1. Disagree. Imagine them starting in 2028 with both a new chassis and a new GM engine – can you spell total disaster? Would be better to let the Andretti team get operationally better and the chassis better in 2026 and 2027 so the only variable in 2028 is the new GM engine.

  4. more bullshit. the FIA is very aware of the fact that a breakaway series is being seriously proposed and decided after leading them on that NOW was the best time not to rattle the race teams cages. the paragraph about winning and podiums adding value is hogwash. 40 percent of the grid could be disposed of immediately then.

      1. Statistics, Statistics and damned lies. The data you mention is true, but if you present it in graphic form it’s different. Also circumstances like George Russell at Spa in the Willians, the Tin Can junior win at Monza and Ocon in Hungary. Haas and Sauber are the two who have not?

  5. Not sure the argument forward by Liberty is convincing. The rationale that they likely wont be competitive is subjective. Also teams have to start somewhere – when Honda came back as a PU supplier in 2015 they were not competitive. If Andretti were unable to meet financial cost of entry, then fair enough but there is no mention of this.

    I’m not sure why having a OEM is critical anyway. History have proved you need privateers when the the OEM take their bat and ball home when they aren’t winning.

  6. Having read the statement wouldn’t it be nice if FI had to go through such a rigorous process to add new tracks to the calendar? And wouldn’t it be nice if such processes were transparent?
    I don’t want to be a ‘sky is falling’ person, but I really question the long-term ‘value’ (other than short- to medium-term $$ value) that Liberty is bringing to F1. The format is changing, the ownership model is changing, the calendar is unsustainable, all to bring $$s into the pockets of shareholders.
    I wonder how many of the new fans who have been attracted by the confection of Drive to Survive will hang around for more than a few seasons as other new shiny things come to the fore?
    Netflix just launched its NASCAR version of Drive to Survive …

    1. Agreed, it is already starting to happen. young people are jumping off the band wagon in droves. The ridiculous gouging prices being charged in the US presently is not sustainable. As stated “as other new shiny things come to the fore” the money will quickly disappeart.

  7. Let the lawsuits begin…… Andretti lawyers are going to have a field day given the European Union Anti-Competition laws

      1. It struck me that the report was very carefully worded to preclude legal challenge (as much as possible, given the US’ taste for litigation), especially by leaving the door ajar for ’28

      2. You may not, but it won’t stop a law firm trying if instructed. I was involved in a contract and they tried to redefine “default “. They lost in the High Court, they lost in the Court of Appeal. But anti-trust is a different aspect. Although I agree with you, but neither of us may be right.

    1. Of course it *could* go to court – I’m sure Andretti would have no problem finding a number of firms willing to take the case and charge him the earth for doing so, but I wonder if any would be confident enough to work on a ‘No Win – No Fee’ basis?
      But *winning* in court – and bearing in mind that any ‘win’ for Andretti would likely be appealed anyway and take years to resolve – is a very different proposition!
      I would also suggest that any legal action would probably keep Andretti out of F1 pretty much forever.

  8. Seems short sighted by F1. The past is prologue. What happens when one of the current PU suppliers says they are leaving do to expense or lack of ROI? A new OEM PU might be a good idea.

    The fact that requiring a current PU supplier to supply units has never been done before doesn’t mean much. I sure we can all name things that F1 has done that “were never been done before”

  9. Joe, well that seems a fair and honest evaluation of the situation and allows the Team and GM time to gear up. What is the betting the team start a lawsuit and create more ill feeling? Seems to me a smart lawyer would tell them they gave you a blue print forward. Now go make it happen!

      1. All speculation, but any lawsuit strategy may be to force F1 and the teams to turn over their communications with the goal of pressuring F1 to a 2026 start. The reasoning given by F1 looks like a smokescreen to get to the new Concorde Agreement so there is probably a treasure trove of loose emails and WhatsApp messages out there. 2025 is unrealistic, but joining the grid in 2026 with the new regs would be a nice compromise point from where they are today. Start with a subpoena to F1 and the teams (especially to Williams and Vowles to see if Williams interfered with Andretti’s engine contract with GM) and line up some depositions for top F1 and team brass. They will really enjoy three weeks of depositions next winter in Indianapolis. Suddenly Andretti on the grid in 2026 with a Renault PU isn’t looking so bad. :). If they fail, then F1 can say I told you so.

      2. Given the historical EU anti-trust actions, FIA were bound to say yes to a new team. The question is whether the EU anti-trust settlement allows the commercial rights holder to dictate the entries to the championship. Surely that’s just a big a foul as the FIA controlling the commercial rights?

    1. 2028 is just stringing them along.Holding out a carrot.If it wasn’t they would have given them a 2028 entry with explicit publically known conditions attached.
      Terrible and entirely predictable decision by a cartel

      1. This is actually libel. In libel law (believe me I know) you have to prove what you write. You can say: “I think it is cartel” and I can reply: “I think you’re wrong!” You have left yourself open to being sued by 10 rich teams with very expensive lawyers. Good luck with that…

        1. A cartel is defines as “an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and reducing competition”.
          How is this a controversial description of the teams bodies let alone libellous?
          From reading a lot of comments and stories about the Andretti decision in the last few days they will be starting tens of thousands of court cases if my comments are near any legal threshold.

          1. It isn’t a cartel. You are accusing them of something illegal. You cannot prove it is illegal, so it is defamatory.

            1. A cartel is not an illegal thing per se.If you look at the definition it says nothing about the legality of what they are doing.That is dependent on the laws where they are operating.
              It is a description of how they operate.

  10. Well, the justification for exclusion reaks of hypocrisy. Expectations of podiums and wins? Ask the nine teams not named Red Bull how that’s working out for them. I guess it’s rules for thee but not for me, moving goal posts, and all that jazz..

    Well done F1.

  11. It almost reads like “reapply for 2028 with Cadillac from the start, and you’ll stand a better chance”.
    Then again, parts of it read like there’ll never be an 11th team if the expectation is to immediately fight for podiums and wins. That’s already a stretch for many existing teams.

        1. Eight is eight. There is no such thing as a fake race. It might not have been a high point in the sports history but there were not a lot of choices in Belgium in 2021.

          1. I think the best option was to accept they couldn’t run the race and for f1 to give the wet fans their money back. I guess you don’t get rich by writing cheques. There’s no way that can be described as a race. The cars were not allowed to change position…

  12. “F1 accepted that the Andretti name “carries some recognition for F1 fans,” but said that “our research indicates that F1 would bring value to the Andretti brand rather than the other way around”. ”

    A bit cheeky considering Haas openly joined the sport to expand his business sales worldwide i.e. F1 bringing value to his brand!

      1. That part of their argument in itself sounds somewhat illogical to me. Of course Andretti wants to promote his brand by joining F1. But the same is true for every team or sponsor in the sport, even the biggest names like Mercedes or Red Bull (who can arguably be called as being on par or even more well known than F1 itself) expect promotional value from their participation. Otherwise why do it in the first place? As an act of charity?

        1. For the pleasure of competing, which is actually what F1 is all about. Most of these people would do it without the money.

          1. You are touching on a fundamental point here. Is F1 still a sport or not? If it is then you are right by bringing up “the pleasure of competing”, but then FOM is wrong when it rejects Andretti whith arguments like “you can’t come in unless you are instantly competitive”, because in sport there is no guarantee of competitive success, that’s why it is called sport and that’s why people love it. Just remeber Toyota. They would tick all the boxes today the same as they did in 2002 and they failed miserably. When was it they got their first podium? Fourth season in F1 or something like that?

            1. You cannot compare things 12 years ago to today. It just doesn’t work. Circumstances are very different, thanks mainly to the great work that F1 has done. That programme is half-finished but the racing is fairer and closer, the finances are stable and growing, the audiences are bigger. OK, so some of grumpy old men fans think it was better in the old days, but I’m afraid I don’t agree. I think the sport is stronger and better than it has ever been.

              1. Let a not so old but still a grumpy man ask you one more question. What do you make of this newfound (and in my view somewhat unnatural) stability of the driver market nowadays? As recently as 2013-2015 Lewis was betting heavily on a move to Mercedes and succeded, Alonso risked a lot returning to McLaren and failed but still it was a big, bold move. Now everyone seems so keen on staying where they are. Is it also a consequence of a new financial model, if so how?

              2. If you could magically transport yourself back to 1976 I bet you would find the sport more exciting and way more fun

  13. While this is not a requirement:

    “The conclusions reached were that the presence of an 11th team would not, in and of itself, provide value to the championship. It said that the most significant way in which a new entrant would bring value is by being competitive, in particular by competing for podiums and race wins.”

    That is a very high bar that no team other than the Ferrari team winning one race able to do.

  14. How much of this is to make them wait until there is a new Concorde agreement with a $800 million “dilutions fee” or whatever it is called versus $200 million in the current agreement?

    1. This is also about people thinking that this is a team trying to buy something worth $1 billion for only about $500 million…

      1. So what should be done,just maintain the status quo of the ‘Old Boys Club’ ? Seems there are easier ways to turn 500 Mil into 1 Billion.

          1. With all due respect, I would add that these additional requirements and justifications set forth by F1 fly in the face of, not only precendent, but the actual rules set forth. The rules allow for up to 12 teams with a $200 million buy-in. Period. Furthermore, it’s portaryed as Andretti are looking for a sweetheart deal when in fact, the governing bodies (and treams) are the very ones who agreed to these requirements that they deem unreasonable. I get the business is business argument but have difficulty in seeing how this process is in any way objective or consistent with proper governance.

            1. And there’s the whole smelly business in a nut shell. They all agreed to the plan but now are reneging because it’s no longer conducive to their business plans. Formula 1 has evolved from a gentleman’s sport into an exclusive club of lying, cheating, stealing, dishonest venture capitalists. Bravo!

            1. That should be billion!

              Ok Joe I want you doing karaoke Anarchy In The UK for the outro music Next time you’re on Missed Apex…

          2. Start a with a 500m F1 team and work your butts off,find good sponsors,drivers ,engineers and you’ll get there,hopefully,or go to a casino and pray for one hell of a run of luck. Is HAAS a billion dollar team ? Not trying to be smart but is that really what the value of a small team is in this day and age ?

            1. Haas got in 10 years ago. Things change in 10 years. And yes, Gene Haas recently turned down an offer which valued the team at $1 billion…

          3. That would seem to be a problem with the rules. You seem to be saying you think ignoring the rules when expedient is a reasonable approach 🙂

  15. Not counting buyouts, how many greenfield start-up F1 constructors were immediately competitive for podiums? Jordan, Sauber, BAR (only the entry preexisted) and Stewart all needed 3-4 years. Haas still hasn’t.

    1. They have scored w points in seven of their eight seasons, with a bunch of decent results, but true the best has been fourth…

  16. by doing this F1 have given Andretti Cadillac a massive favor in form of decent preparation time, unlimited spending and testing. All depends now of what AC will do now – keep building or abandoning their F1 plans

  17. It seems pretty obvious F1 had already decided the outcome before the investigation. I also don’t believe that the existing teams had no input. I don’t think any sport should be a closed shop which new comers have no chance of joining. If the announcement was totally honest it would just say ’we COULD block them so we DID’.

    1. The fact that you do not believe something does not mean it is not a fact. F1 is not a closed shop. Newcomers can still join in F1. You just have to buy a team. It is only recently that values have shot up. Look at the price paid by Stroll for Racing Point, or what Dorilton paid for Williams. Why have the values shot up? Because thanks to F1 owning a team is now basically a licence to print money as a result of the budget cap and the sport’s growing revenues.

      So now everyone is trying to jump on the bus, but it left a while ago… and so they blame F1 for not waiting for the latecomers…

  18. It seems to me, that the person that really gains from all of this is Hass. He now has a willing buyer, and can extract the maximum price. This would also explain the recent (strange) decisions and lack of investment in the team. Could I be right?

  19. So their decision is based at least in part that the Andretti name is insufficiently prestigious for F1. Compared with Haas (has never won a race), or Sauber (or whatever they are called today) or Alpha Tauri (or whatever they’re branded with today). Yes, of course. Sure. Right.

    1. It is 10 years since Haas went through this process. The world has changed. Things are different. Ten years in a long time.

  20. Is this a bad joke? this “8 teams scored podiums” i mean – how many of these 8 scored based on performance – not pure luck and circumstances? Olivier Panis won in Monaco – let’s bring back Prost GP

    1. Panis won Monaco in 1996. You may not have noticed but 28 years have passed since then. It’s ancient history. Look at things in the modern age. Eight teams have scored podiums in the last three years. This is a reflection on how close things are. Not on luck. All 10 teams have finished fifth or better in the last three years. Do you not watch the races?

  21. Today, after hearing the decision and rational behind it, here’s what I see and what I’d like to see down the road.

    What happened today was F1 essentially gave, not only Andretti the finger and “F&;# you” saying they felt they didn’t measure up, they also did it to GM, essentially saying they would love to have GM in 2028, or did I misread something? It’s a bunch of lip service. Today F1 turned down a manufacture. So theysay they want GM in 2028. They know full well that Andretti and GM are bonded at the hip.

    The fact is that F1 has turned down a manufacture.

    What I would like to see is Andretti and GM go elsewhere.

    The coffee has been brewed and it’s now time for the American race fans to wake up and smell it.

    Today I would love nothing more than for Americans to stop attending all three of the American Grands Prix and let F1 go play with themselves.

  22. I very much preferred when you could join F1 by any means – do it all like Toyota, buy as most as you can like Haas, or like most of the current grid, build a car, buy an engine and go race.
    But alas, we can have a fictional 11th team for a movie…

  23. Such BS.

    The bottom line is that the teams think they are the ones that turned F1 into this mighty entertainment machine and they don’t want anyone sharing their pot of gold.

    F1 is now pure entertainment and money grubbing, it is no longer about engineering and competition. It also shows that going after the American market is nothing more than shaking down American consumers for every last penny, still regarding them as ignorant hicks.

    Would Andretti be competitive right out of the box? No, of course not. Letting them in now with Renault engines would allow them to get 2 years of experience before GM were to come in. Then it may be another few years until the engine were dialed in. F1 wants GM so they can be added to the mix of 10 teams, not 11 or 12.

    F1 has about run it’s course in America as the ‘golden boy’ of influencers, entertainers and celebrities. NASCAR also thought it had infinite growth and they monkeyed with the product when unsustainable viewership numbers started to tail off. Now it’s a boring, laughable product with no soul, nothing to keep their former hard core dedicated fan base.

    As an American fan who has been a die hard since about ’93, I personally don’t care whether Mikey succeeds or fails (I think they’ll fail). And I don’t care if he brings an American driver or not. But F1 should be concerned that now as I’ve bcome older and have much more disposable income I’m caring less and less about F1, have no desire to pay to go to a fake street race, and can now find better things to do than waste my time 24 times a year to watch a mid-pack battle.

      1. Liberty may be an American company, but the core business is UK/European. How many Americans are actually on the sporting side. %-wise very few, especially on the broadcacst side.

        The head honchos may be American but they listen to Domenicali and previously Brawn about sporting matters. Companies like Liberty ultimately care not about the product as long as it’s profitable. They’re always looking to sell on and profit. The one thing Liberty has taught F1 is that greed trumps competition.

  24. We all know what this is about. Existing teams are not worried about Andretti taking positions from them, they are worried about Andretti taking their sponsors. They don’t want to lose American companies like Google, Oracle and Cisco and they don’t want to lose companies that market to Americans like Red Bull and Shell.

      1. To some extent that is true but Andretti has GM for leverage and I would bet they do a lot more business with Oracle than Red Bull does. How much lube oil would GM buy from Shell?

          1. Au contraire Joe, one infamous American golfer allegedly used his Cadillac Escalade for precisely that purpose

      1. I tell new fans that the drivers of today are good. But, the greatest was Prost and Senna. And I had the privilege to watch them race and win.

        1. I have followed F1 since the 1960s and seen all the greats race since then. It is impossible to say Prost and Senna were the best. Different era, different cars, more attrition etc. Max Verstappen has been the most dominant in an era when there is near zero attrition and the closest fields ever (based on qualifying times). Hence, given what Verstappen is up against, he is arguably the best.

          1. I agree. Comparing eras is not possible. Statistics don’t work. Senna was magic. A bit of a mystic. Incredible human being. Astonishing driver. For me he was different to all the others.

            1. I’ve had the privilege to have seen everything from Fangio’s last year, 1957, and his magical Nurburgring victory aged 46, to Verstappen’s current masterclass.
              In that time there have been a number of superstars, I believe fewer than 10, but I just couldn’t and wouldn’t try to rate one against another. All of these guys have been world champions but not all world champions have been superstars.
              Contrary to what I’ve just said in my opinion top of my list would be Jim Clark who excelled in everything he drove, made it all look incredibly easy and cherry on the top was modest and charming. For me in natural ability and ease Verstappen comes closest.
              Maybe the exception to my generalisation would be Gilles Villeneuve though I think I may be overly influenced by others dazzled by his exploits.
              None of which has anything to do with Andretti where, as previously stated, I share Joe’s opinions and his well stated reasons for having them.

        2. SSALLENPARK _ I understand your point but, differently, when asked by younger people, here in São Paulo I say ‘yes drivers are super, a few 5 or 6 are above rest and one has huge talent and vocação (sorry don’t remember exact translation) for winning which will probably set him above all he raced against” (still racing of course, the current Champion). And must say I started watching Fittipaldi vs Stewart, then vs Lauda __ Anyway what lacks to consider when we make these statements, I think are the changes (huge too) in the way we spectators can watch and follow the Championship , specially now compared to 80s and 90s ( not going further back cause then, well for me for example it started by means of radio and/or B&W television 😱 ). But the extraordinary driving skills are always present, at each generation, and now the extra + is been shown by the young neerlandés no doubt – and I make a point of, to draw attention to the fact that is a privilege to see him performing, for example, in Interlagos .

      2. Then they are not real fans, sport is not today and last week. I am a Jocken Rindt model, my children are Fernando and Kimi. They know who Senna is, Jody Scheckter, Mickey Lauder (as their grandfather calls him), John Surtees, Jim Clark, Ronnie Peterson and agree a great lost talent in Francois Cevert. Modern so called fans need some bint who cannot sing to entertain them, they not fans. Next week someone will upset them and off they go. As a student of history Joe you shoukd appreciate more than most that you ignore the past at your peril

        1. Be that as it may. I have met several young F1 fans who have never heard of Senna. I agree about history but also think that time doesn’t stand still and we should develop.

      3. In Senna’s day, many had not heard of Clark. Rather scarily, Senna’s death is further in the past than Clark’s was at the time.

        1. I think a lot has yo do with the TV age. When I yell people the Lewis Hamiltons of their day raced in East London in South Africa, they do nor believe me. Most do not even know there is a race track on the West Bank of the Buffalo River. Now with productions like Rush and Senna there is no excuse of you love motor racing

  25. I expected nothing less, but looking around various social media cess pits… sorry, I mean platforms, there is little to no fan support in turning Andretti away. Personally, I’d be happy to see another team on the grid, and more importantly two more drivers. With the likes of Alonso sticking around until he’s at least 43, Hamilton is 40 in a years time it’s a closed shop for teams, and a closed shop for up and coming drivers as well. What’s the value of Formula 2 right now? It’s a road to nowhere.

    1. If these guys are better than the youngsters, why should they not stay? We should want the best of the best. So we need to clean out the slow ones, not the quick old boys!

      1. So we need to clear out the drivers that are only there because they bring sponsorship? How do you achieve that? Ahh wait.. sell AM to Andretti…

  26. How much do you think Andretti has spent so far Joe? The cynic in me thinks that they’ve increased the value of their brand/company massively just by getting turned down for an F1 entry, and whilst the aim is to get an entry, its not been a bad investment to not get one.

    1. I’m not so sure. I don’t think that failing/losing as a competitive organization ever raises its profile. Particularly when it’s done less than gracefully, as we see here.

  27. In the major franchise sports – NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, EPL (I think) – you are allowed to own just one franchise for some very good reasons. But in F1 you can apparently own two. If F1 determines ten is the best number fine. I would like to see ten independently owned teams.

  28. Same logic applies to the teams. Williams hasn’t won since 2012, AT/Toro Rosso won once in 2008 and Haas have never won. Renault hasn’t powered a winner since 2014.

      1. Renault spends, what, $200 million a year? So $2 billion in 10 years gets them two wins? That’s a great return.

          1. Alpine sold 4,300 cars in 2023. Boffo numbers. Spend $200M year on the team and another $200M marketing that connection and you come up with F1 related spending of almost $95K per car. Make it up in volume!

    1. Who won the Italian Grand Prix in 2020? Gassy and Ocons wins may have been a huge amount of luck, particularly Ocon as Alonso really won it for him that day keeping Hamilton behind for so long. But the record book does not lie.

  29. Thanks for the sane comments Joe from someone who would know. And as an aside, as a Texan and F1 fan since my previous long time employer FedEx Express who used to sponsor Ferrari during the Schumacher years that initially got me into F1 in the first place, I thank you again.

  30. This is disappointing, but the decision is made and nobody’s going to change their opinions about it now. The question for me is, is there any realistic chance of an Andretti-Cadillac entry being accepted in 2028? If I was GM, I wouldn’t put any more money into it unless I was assured that a future entry would be accepted, so if GM do keep putting money into the project…?

  31. I’m surprised that so many people think the rejection is so outrageous. Regardless of what the bid says, Andretti’s performance across all of its various racing enterprises is middling at best. They just aren’t impressive across the board. If they are not wiping the floor with the other teams in series that are far less tricky to be successful in, you could reasonably conclude you’ll see even worse results in F1.

    I say that ignoring the fact that they don’t have a formal, mature engine partner. And also don’t seem to think that collocating the team in Europe is necessary. It just doesn’t add up. And. I say all this as an American racing fan.

    1. In the series that I would say is their real headline act, Indycar that is very true. Ganassi and Penske have ruled the roost for a decade. I think part of it is running too many cars. Sometimes less really is more.

  32. I’d love to see Andretti take this up as a challenge, build a car for 2028 and absolutely wipe the floor with everyone after putting in the time to properly build and develop a car.

    If they had started in 2025 they would already be behind, as current teams are looking at 2025 and have been developing the cars for 4 years by this stage, Andretti 1 year only (arguably 2 but half staffed). 2026 is also in the current teams minds, so before the wheels have touched tarmac for Andretti in 2025 they would be 2/3 years (maybe more) behind technically.

    So I don’t think this rejection for 2025 is unwarranted, but hopefully Andretti actually takes up this moniker for 2028 and get something built will show his real metal.

      1. Yep Christmas 2027….

        More what I was wondering is if all the men and women that started there would now be out of a job or if they’ll attempt maybe in vain to keep going. What do you reckon?

  33. Hi Joe and other knowledgeable fans.
    I was wondering; can Andretti turn up to the pre-season test with their car now it is “ready to go”?

    1. I love your sense of humour. The “car” is a 60 percent scale model in a wind tunnel. It does not have an engine.
      Perhaps the FIA could issue 50 percent of a licence?
      Oh, it already has…

      1. As much as I liked Michael Andretti as a driver, he was never going to be World Champion, Mika clearly was. Salary was irrelevant, even if part of the consideration

  34. After quick perusal of ‘libel law’ –
    I believe I can safely say :-
    ‘If you can’t hit the ground running, don’t join the race’
    (this is just my personal non-expert opinion)

  35. This is anti-competitive. Is there any other sport which bars entry to qualifying competitors on these grounds? It’s 57 years since I attended my first GP and 3 years since my most recent. I don’t think I’ll be going again.

  36. The way people have been blowing on this for months just seems like Andretti have hired some professional outrage. Mostly constant attacks on Haas.
    Haas made the bold move when there was no money printing tree.
    Desperate bleating that haas want to sell as well.
    Haas has the ultimate toy in his garage like all older folk dream of having once they have a few quid. Normally its just an old classic car of sporty number.
    Andretti just wanted to join this club .
    Should have brought one of the other teams a few years back for 500 quid.

  37. Question. Would it help Andretti Global if they ran an F2 operations for a couple of years in advance of 2028?

      1. I do find it odd that people who claim to have been fans of F1 for decades and follow a niche reporter like Joe do not comprehend the huge difference between the technicalities of single make championships and racing prototypes that must fit within very tight boundaries.

        Does F1 need to be so complicated is a reasonable question. Employing 600+ engineers to put 2-cars on the grid every fortnight would seem to be a huge waste of resources, but that is where F1 is in 2024. Comparing it to the days when a competitive team consisted of less than 20-people with contracts with Cosworth, Hewland and a few skilled sheet metal workers is, frankly, stupid.

        It does show a failure on the part of F1 to communicate the complexity of the cars in lay-terms. Instead it concentrates on talking-heads pontificating why driver X, is superior to driver Y. albeit driving different cars.

        I do believe that F1 is on the right pathway, the grid has closed up massively to the point where the 7.5% rule is pointless, but the skill level of the drivers at the back of the grid is quite astonishing.

  38. Visa Cash App RB and Stake F1 Team Kick Saber racing for 9th is the “value” we get to sit through this year.

    1. I’m not sure you understand what it takes to be competitive in F1. All the teams finished fifth or better in the last three years. Seven won races

  39. Joe, the key word in F1’s statement is “might”. F1 didn’t say they “would” allow Andretti they said they “might” Let’s not forget a key statement that Cadillac made clear when they announced they would be entering F1. they stated that they were going in exclusively with Andretti. This clearly means that F1 is giving lip service to anyone such as myself who says F1 is tossing out both Andretti and Cadillac. They say “Oh, Cadillac has plans on entering F1 in 2028”. That was their plan up until this week. Although what we do no is limited, Cadillac made it clear they would only be going in with Andretti.

    So, they are expecting Andretti to sit on his $Billion+ for four years and then bank his hopes that they “MIGHT” allow him in? Joe, I don’t have to tell you, that is a farce. If I may, lets look at an even larger farce. F1 is saying to Cadillac “Yes, you go ahead and design and develop your power unit for 2028, spend a billion dollars on it if you like. We know that you are tied with Andretti exclusively, and we’re not sure, but we might let them in.”

    That’s essentially what they said. “Might” is the key word. They made no commitments. They didn’t offer so much as to offer a contract guaranteeing an entry. Lets look at it from a point blank range. As it stands now, Cadillac can spend all it takes, over the next four years, and go in front of F1, who may very well say “Sorry, we’re not accepting Andretti Global”.

    Okay, lets look at it from another angle. Forget the insults (Andretti is not ready for F1), false information (The expectation of a works entry, when Stake, McLaren, Aston Martin. and Haas are all customer clients for engines. 40% of the current field) and ridiculous expectations Expecting them to be fighting for podiums and wins) F1 had in their final evaluation. Forget all of that. All that is, is the emphasis created to bolster the real issue.

    The brass tacks of it all, what it all boils down to is elementary. The issue is the age old saga, known as money.

    The FIA has a pie that gets divided into ten equal shares. If Andretti Cadillac join, that pie gets reduced to eleven pieces. So Todo, Christian and everyone are naturally upset at losing their portion of the pie.

    The bottom line is this: In the defense of the teams, they should not be penalized.

    There is only one solution.

    The FIA needs a bigger pie.

    Now, having said that, the FIA has said they would like, not one new team in the mix, but two new teams. As we see this, the reality is that the FIA is looking for a free ride. They want to take it out of the team’s annual allocation. That’s not going to work.

    If today the FIA cannot up the base pay for all of the teams to include say, the Andretti Cadillac entry, if anything it will be worse in four years, with a calculated inflation, bumping everyone’s bottom line even higher.

    If that’s the case, the possibility of anyone new joining the World Championship, is bleak.

    1. The FIA only take money (entry fees) from the teams and drivers. Also fees from F1. They don’t pay anyone. That is why, for them it is a no brainer to say “more teams, more teams” because that is more money for them.

      People say it’s all about money but that goes to the start of the FIA opening up their “process”. All about making more money.

  40. Probably not going to be the most popular view but I believe F1 were justified in rejecting Andretti’s entry as it stands. Something just hasn’t added up since they announced it imho. The insistence on building a new car for the final year of this ruleset in 2025 has always struck me as a transparent attempt to get in under the door in the current concorde agreement so that they fully benefit from the next one. The sporting rationale is non existent and the entire operation really just a prop to seed a “legacy” f1 team at the last second. They subsequently tried to muddy this transparent cash grab with a non binding agreement with GM that’s about as solid as jello. F1 is correct in demanding they apply as a fully backed and 100% works GM project in 2028. If they’re really serious about going racing they should be able to manage to do so.

  41. Per Chris Medland/ESPN – Andretti Cadillac hits back at F1’s comments, stating:

    – It was working towards 2026 (not 2025 as the length of the process took that out of contention)

    – It was not aware that the offer of a meeting had been extended and would not decline a meeting with FOM (and wants one)

    – According to @JennaFryer the email invitation to an in-person meeting was from a FOM staff member but went into a junk folder. I would say that this is entirely possible, and would explain why Andretti never responded to meet with FOM.

      1. The rules say you cannot work on a 2026 car in a wind tunnel until the start of 2025. Andretti said their focus had turned to 2026 as it was now too late for 2025. The model in the tunnel was to validate their design methodologies.

  42. Thanks for the article and insight, as always, Joe. The comments section of this one has been at once insightful and amusing.

    Perhaps it would help people to look at this as a buy-in to a company or franchise. The price for the franchise was set at the close of the last Concorde Agreement, and since then the value of such a franchise has increased substantially. Under the current Agreement, the purchase of a franchise can’t be priced at it’s value, so it makes sense to push the conversation until the negotiation of the next Concorde Agreement is complete, which will value the property properly. It makes no sense for the franchisor to offer the franchisee a discounted price.

    Looked at a similar way, it would be nice to buy a stock that has steadily increased in value for the past three years at the price it was in 2021.

    Looking forward to an exciting 2024 season and to more of your reporting.

    1. All true enough, but who set the ‘price’? At the time the Dilution Fee was set they arrived at a figure and put it in place for a given amount of time as they saw fit – no-one was twisting their arm to set it that way. From memory, at the time it was considered a staggeringly large amount of money for a new applicant to have to find.

      Sounds like nothing more than a classic case of seller’s remorse. With the increase in value of the Championship, and as a result the individual teams as well, they’re simply now regretting the figure previously arrived at. Hence the invitation to submit an application to join in 2028, following a renegotiation of the Concorde Agreement and presumably a new Dilution Fee many multiples greater. But who’s to say they don’t consider that figure too low by 2031 (assuming continued value growth) and again come up with a list of tenuous reasons to deny an entry being granted – Come back again in 2032, or 2037, or 2041, or whenever it is they finally feel the figure is large enough to satisfy their greed.

      What’s the bet that in future the Concorde Agreement will have the Dilution Fee indexed annually, or pegged at some multiple of the total value of the Championship, or some other mechanism?

      1. If it is going to be pegged to anything, it should always be pegged to the loss of prize money by the existing teams, for, say, 5 years.

  43. That’s funny, you said: “I love your sense of humour. The “car” is a 60 percent scale model in a wind tunnel. It does not have an engine.
    Perhaps the FIA could issue 50 percent of a licence?” Entirely possible Andretti is researching both 2025 and 2026 cars to see what is different and how that would affect a ’26 car on the track.

  44. As a sheepish measure of personal discontent, is this the most commented upon post of all time? Lewis Hamilton moving to Ferrari hasn’t matched it yet.

  45. Joe, F1’s response makes it look like F1 is not currently open to expansion.

    You frequently reference the NFL as a model that Liberty is moving F1 towards. Liberty’s work is largely responsible for the massive increase in F1 team value. It’s hard to argue they haven’t been extremely successful at replacing Bernie’s model with one that’s better for the sport..

    But if we use the NFL (or MLB or NBA or whatever) as a model, nobody just applies for a franchise. Instead, the league announces that they’ve decided to expand, and then entertain applications, whittle them down to a smaller number, then finally select the one or two winners of new franchises.

    Can you see Liberty/FOM doing something similar? Or does adopting the American model for expanding sports leagues seem a bridge too far?

    Will FOM signal when they’re open to new teams, or will this involve the kind of tea-leaves-reading BS we had to do with Bernie? Whatcha think?

    1. The F1 statement clearly says that with GM in 2028 they can try again. Therefore it is not closed (unlike most US sports).

  46. I wonder how committed GM really was to F1, maybe they knew they would not be approved, let Andretti do all the talking and went along for some free publicity.

    After all, Mary Barra has made a string of lousy decisions running GM, don’t take it from me, Warren Buffet bought the stock to ride a turnaround which never materialized and has recently dumped it all the while praising Barra for treading water.

    Barra bungled the EV version of GM, see no 4th Generation Volt, and did not put any money into the trucks, a huge money maker for GM, as they ceded market share to Ram (Ford to some degree also) she also muddied Cadillac. I don’t like the looks of the new Corvette, but at least she did not screw that up.

  47. Sad to say it seems the bulk of Americans just do not understand what F1 is all about. Not only do not but do not want to and demand that F1 should change to suit their version.
    Ouch !!!

Leave a comment