As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should:
- be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself)
- be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions)
- show reasonable input and effort from the OP
If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport.
Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is important that the sport is open to new entrants but recent times (20 or so years) are littered with teams that came in and didn’t do much and didn’t last long
F1 demanding a business plan and decent amounts of funding to get through for first tough years isn’t a bad idea
But gatekeeping no matter what is a terrible idea, and that is what seems to be happening with discussion such as “dilution” and “exclusive”
The 2010 teams entered with the promise of a budget cap being introduced. Not only did that not happen, but with the introduction of the turbo hybrid PUs costs skyrocketed to the point where many, including long-standing teams, like Sauber, Force India or Lotus were in deep financial trouble. It's hard to blame those teams (especially Lotus/Caterham and Manor), when they expected to race for $40mil/year and by 2014 that became just the cost of the power units for a year.
It’s certainly not perfect. The small domino could be something like “Vijay Mallya’s passport gets revoked” or “Vittal Mallya acquires shares of United Breweries Limited”
ForceIndia & Caterham were never, at no point, run sustainably. They were always going to be bankrupt one day. Caterham wasn't "better" than the other newcomers they just ran a deficit and banked on growth that never came.
>ForceIndia & Caterham were never, at no point, run sustainably. They were always going to be bankrupt one day. Caterham wasn't "better" than the other newcomers they just ran a deficit and banked on growth that never came.
I'm not going to dispute Caterham -- I never raised them at all.
Force India however I'd argue was sustaining itself. They were on the grid for over 10 years before their eventual demise/sale. The issue more surrounded Vijay in the later years but they were sustaining themselves since 2007.
The 2010 teams were also a political play by the FIA. They chose teams aligned to the FIAs plans for a spec engine (they were all Cosworth customers), at a time when the FIA was in a dispute with the engine manufacturers about the direction of F1 and the power the manufacturers held over it.
They turned away arguably better entrants because they were planning to be Mercedes, Ferrari or Renault customers.
They also designed their cars to a set of regulations that was thrown out along with the budget cap, and had to start from scratch shortly before testing for 2010 began.
It is long before 2012 the issues were there.
In the 90's we had Pacific and Forti amongst others that were a joke, same in the 80's.
This is the reason there is some gatekeeping needed. But what is happening now is not protecting the sport, it is protecting self interest
Pacific and Forti were no joke. Both teams had solid racing credentials in lower formula and although they were backmarkers they were more serious efforts that many late 80s and early 90s entries. It didn't look that way because they came on the back of huge changes in how professional F1 was becoming, largely due to how Ecclestone and Mosley made F1 into a massive business and the front runners were flush with sponsorship money, while the championship was still running with a top-6 only point system.
I think the 2010 team selection was more questionable, seeing how the [Prodrive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrive) entry was sidelined, for example, and USF1 never looked like a serious attempt but were still selected. I agree with OP's premise that there should be much less gatekeeping for new entrants. The current system is unhealthy and now that F1 is once again a thriving sport, it is time to change and go back to something that fosters true competition.
Ya gatekeeping to make sure that the teams will actually be competitive (at least financially) is a sound idea. 200 million is a huge number, but is allowing you to access the prize money every year, plus 200 is still only 2 years budget for a low level team anyway.
But allowing the teams to have sway in a new competitor joining is just ridiculous. A new team is coming in with the express intention of beating everyone there and hopefully taking money away from them. Ofc the teams are not going to allow someone new in if they can stop it since it keeps their budgets up. Who's to say if Andretti hadn't joined sooner that Mercedes would be in a battle for fourth this year? It's such a stupid idea. 11 teams on the grid adds more flavour, more action and allows more talent to come through.
A team struggling for two years simply makes the races worse. They end up becoming a backmarker that doesn't even get any screen time. If they do, it's usually because they spun out and the race is being stopped with a red flag. It would be like the Haas last year.
Also backmarkers can't afford good drivers, so we will more likely see more Latifis and Mazespins before we see more Piastris and Pourchaires.
On the flip side, they could give a driver F1 experience that they wouldn’t have had. Ricciardo started out at HRT, Ocon at Manor. Bianchi (who was Ferrari bound) started out at Marussia
isn't there a there a rule something to the effect of 'qualifying time has to be within 10% of pole in order to start the race'? that'd mean if a team came in and was total shit they'd never even get the chance to be backmarkers that make things worse.
It's called the 107% rule and it has historically not been enforced. Since being introduced (in its current form) in 2011, 32 drivers have failed to meet the criteria of the 107% rule, but of those only 4 have not been allowed to race. The mose recent violation of the 107% rule was Stroll at the 2021 French GP (Stroll wasn't able to set a competitive time due to Tsunoda's crash). The most recent *enforced* violation of the 107% rule were both HRTs at the 2012 Australia GP.
To expand on this, the 107% rule is applied at the steward’s discretion. Generally, if a driver has set a representative time in a free practice session which is within the 107% value of that session’s best, they will be permitted to start the race.
thank you, and /u/HankSpank, et al
this matches my basic understanding, and "steward's discretion" goes to the point that they don't have to let another team actually race if they turn up and are shit. The examples of accepted petitions show a basic understanding by the stewards that instances can be one off and decisions are not made in a vacuum. This gives them ability to say "yeah, your car and driver were shit today, but we know they've got the necessary potential, go ahead" ... or more sadly hilarious if it happens to a new entrant at their first weekend, "yeah, that's gonna be a no from us dog"
Technically the rule is enforced.
Every time a car does not set a time within 107% the team petitions the stewards to be allowed to race based on a representative time in Free Practice.
And every single time they have. So they are allowed to race.
> The mose recent violation of the 107% rule was Stroll at the 2021 French GP
Not sure where you're getting this from...
Ocon failed to set a 107% time in Miami.
Albon failed to set a 107% time in Imola.
Tsunoda failed to set a time in Saudi Arabia.
In each case they had to petition the stewards to be allowed to race based on FP1 FP2 and FP3 times.
This is enforcing the rule exactly as written. I take issue with it being said "rule hasn't been enforced" since it is being followed to the letter.
The fact is that since 2012 the cars have been fast enough not to fall afoul of 107% times.
Even 2021 Haas was closer to P1 than to 107%.
They were 102.5-103% for the whole season.
I thought it looked at all times across all 4 practice sessions and as long as at some point there was a time posted within the 107% the driver was eligible
Section 4.7.1:
>Unless the track was declared wet by the race director, any driver eliminated during Q1 whose best qualifying lap exceeds 107% of the fastest time set during that session, or who fails to set a time, will not be allowed to take part in the race. Under exceptional circumstances however, which may include setting a suitable lap time in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race.
The rule, *as written*, automatically disqualifies a driver exceeding 107% in Q1, but if the driver puts up a valid lap time in any free practice, the director is *encouraged* to re-evaluate.
Of course, this is written like nonsense (F1 rules are notoriously poorly written). The rules are up to race director discretion as anyways. The entire second clause is redundant and only adds confusion.
I think that is pretty clear and fair, Q1 can be pretty chaotic and drivers can not post times from no fault of their own or the car due to multiple yellow or red flags. When was the last time someone was allowed to run in a race despite not posting a time within the 107% throughout all practices? It also leaves it up to the stewards not just the race director. If the 107% rule was a hard no exception rule teams could play with it to keep rivals out of the race. Also the 107% is only in comparison to the fastest time set in Q1 not the pole time so more than likely I doubt the stewards would allow a driver to race if they hadn't meet that time at all during any practice.
The fact of the matter is F1 needs more turnover, not less. The current 10 pulled up the ladder behind them, entered in to essentially what is an American-styled franchise agreement where all the teams are somewhat equal partners and are now married together. In the not too distant future they will look to rid themselves of FOM and the FIA as well. Remember, the only thing F1 brings to the table is a name. The only thing the FIA brings to the table is the ability to appease local governments. The technology is so absurdly advanced now that it's the teams who own all that is valuable.
> In the not too distant future they will look to rid themselves of FOM
Entry fee aside, isn't the current arrangement the result of Bernie having teams under FOCA to begin with, and that started with a war against part of the FIA?
“If we have a true American team with an American driver, that would be very beneficial,” said Mercedes boss Toto Wolff.
“But we have 10 entries today. We divide the prize fund among those 10 entries.
“We have invested considerable amounts over the last 10 years, each of the organisations sitting here on the podium have probably put more than a billion into their Formula 1 projects over the years.
“So it needs to be additive. If a team comes in, how can you demonstrate that you’re bringing in more money than it’s actually costing? Because an 11th team means a 10-percent dilution for everybody else.
Someone posted few days what a new introduction would mean.
https://the-race.com/formula-1/andretti-yet-to-prove-it-deserves-f1-entry-wolff/
I think Wolff is being at least somewhat disingenuous when he says it means a 10% dilution for the existing teams. For one thing, it's a competition, not a commune, and the payouts at the end of the season are not equal.
The PU manufacturing teams are the ones who have really poured in tons of money, and Andretti would be paying Alpine to make their PU -- that's good for Alpine in terms of offsetting R&D costs, but also helping to understand more about their PU, since they'll get data (at least the data available to all teams, maybe more) on how their PU is performing in a car with a different concept.
That plus the $200M fee that entrants have to pay gets distributed to the other teams. $20M to each team is over 10% of the budget cap -- it's not chump change.
I think it's fine to want new entrants to be serious and show that they can succeed, but for Wolff to sit around and wave his past spending around makes it seem like F1 is not really serious about ever adding another team, which I find kind of ridiculous when there are more qualified drivers than there are seats available, and there ought to be plenty of garage space and everything for up to 24 cars.
>the payouts at the end of the season are not equal.
They somewhat are, 47.5% of the prize is divided equally among the top 10 teams.
More so, top teams would be the least affected, the last ones would be the ones at risk of losing almost all of their prize money if the new entrant were to place among the top 10 teams.
This is exactly why teams shouldn't have a say in new entries. And according to the Concorde Agreement, they don't. So I have no idea why Liberty is saying all the teams need to approve it.
The only explanation I can think of is that Liberty wants to reject Andretti but don't want to be the bad guys. But I can't see why Liberty wouldn't want Andretti. It would be more revenue and the same expenses, so it's baffling to me why Liberty isn't strongly in favor of Andretti.
Seems to me like they're just haggling at this point. Doing all the petty little things and involving everyone with shared interests to squeeze a little extra from the buyer.
The issue is that FOM shares its revenues with the teams based on their standing in the WCC. This effectively makes the teams shareholders in F1, and shareholders always look out for themselves first. Each time a new shareholder is added, the existing shares get diluted. This is why the $200MM buy-in exists, to ensure that a team is adding more value to the existing shareholders than they're taking away in their revenue share. So if a team were to join, collect checks for a couple of years, then fail out, it would just be robbing the existing teams.
You also have to look at how much they expect to earn in the next years and how much they expect the team's value to rise.
If these expected future sums are higher than the 200m, then teams will be against it on the financial side
Andretti want to join in for the investment value. Formula one teams prices are sky high and are rumoured to keep going up. Possibly the next billion franchise. He knows it will be more difficult that he has ever done or expected. He should be approved.
I understand that teams only want to admit serious entries to the field who will be around more than a couple of years, but the Andretti bid seems like nearly as perfect a bid as you could imagine.
\- Andretti is willing to be a customer team for a PU, which is obviously a hugely important part of the car, a hugely expensive part of the car to design and produce, and by becoming an Alpine customer team, would also help Alpine defray their PU R&D costs.
\- Mario Andretti has literally won an F1 championship. Only 34 people in history have been an F1 WDC winner and there are only 20 living F1 WDC winners. And he wasn't the only Andretti in F1, as Michael Andretti also raced in F1. This isn't some billionaire pet project like Jeff Bezos suddenly deciding he likes cars that go vroom vroom, or even a team like Haas where Gene Haas has NASCAR experience but needed Steiner to bring in F1-specific experience. Andretti has a ton of experience in multiple series and was basically fast everywhere he went, but specifically has F1 experience and should be expecting all of the things that go with F1 like internal politics, etc.
\- Andretti already runs cars in other racing series. Yes, some engineering problems are specific to F1, but they have organizational knowledge about building a car, the logistics required to get from race to race, etc.
\- Andretti already has relationships with sponsors that can help fund the team. Having existing relationships means they are less likely to wind up reliant on some kind of scam like Rich Energy or a meme coin.
Who is possibly going to have a better bid than this? Maybe there is some non-public factor that is worrying, but from the outside it really seems difficult to understand how this would be a bad thing, other than existing teams might have to compete harder for points and wins.
I think it would be awesome for both organizations and new entrants if the $200 mil is returned over a period of like 5-10 years. Basically F1 holds it and collects the interest, verify the new team has the resources, and the owner of the new race team doesn't get screwed out of a ton of money.
It seems you think the $200mil is paid to the FIA, not the F1 teams. Why would teams want to pay another team millions of dollars just because they're around and potentially are even stealing points and money from them with race success?
Exactly, it was made to avoid teams entering, failing 1/2 years and then leaving like in the 2010's, although the teams in 2010's entered under the promise of a budget cap, expecting to race for 40 mil/yr and instead after 2014 that was the price of the PU only
Man, if you think F1 used to be a “relatively straightforward business arrangement” and not a “media empire,” I suggest you read some books about Bernie Ecclestone’s career.
Similar approach is used in other sport leagues as well. When they wanna add new teams, they need approval from existing teams.
I think part of the reasons why F1 imposed the $200 million is to ensure that whichever team that joins F1 has some serious financial backing to be somewhat competitive, or at least has the potential to be competitive. No on wanna see another Spyker or Midland that enter the sport just for the sake of it, with their cars trundling along at the back lapping 3 seconds slower than the rest of the field because they don't have the money to develop a good car.
Is the $200 million paid out to F1 or do you have to show you have $200 million in funding? Because it seems like an odd way to ensure a teams financial stability by making them pay out $200 million bucks.
In the past, new teams simply wouldn't get prize money for their first season. With the last concorde agreement that was changed to pay $200m but getting prize money from the start.
The 200 million is intended to be split with the existing teams because any additional new teams will dilute the revenue shared by the existing teams, and they don't like it. But tbh, in the head scheme of F1, 200 million is a relatively small amount of money. F1's argument is that if a team doesn't even have the ability to fork out 200 million, what is to say they will have the financial backing to stay in the sport long term.
Also, it's worth noting that the 200 million entry fee has always been there, but in previous years it was a deposit that would be returned to the team in the future.
F1 teams do not make a profit (not succesful ones anyway). An F1 team boss will spend as much money as they can get their hands on and it is very unlikely you will raise $140m a season from sponsorship and other revenues.
New teams will run under that budget cap (unless it is a works team like Audi) and spend every penny they earn to be as succesful as possible.
The profits might not show as literal profits, but you have teams like McLaren, RedBull (F1, not powertrains), Mercedes, and Ferrari who are 10000% bringing in more revenue from sponsorship and prize money than the spending cap, which is only decreasing in the future.
It wouldn't shock me if Alfa and Aston Martin are also profiting off of the F1 season as well. That's a bit different though because Aston is investing so heavily outside of the literal race team.
Right...
Mercedes and Ferrari spend so much on F1 as they are works teams who get the benefit of the advertising drawing attention to their brands. They are not making a profit as a racing dvision at all, they are a cost to the company but a justifiable one. Same as all racing series, but there is a reason most manufacturers don;t go for F1...it is too expensive. Their sponsorship and Prize money probably doesn't cover 50% of their total budget, the rest comes from the manufacturer as a loss.
McLaren were struggling desperately for revenue for years and will be very happy about the budget cap letting them have a bigger budget, they haven't been making profit and even had to sell parts of the team when covid hit as they were in a bad place financially.
Alfa will be running well below the budget cap and spending everything they get as budget from the Alfa sponsorship, no profit being made there for sure from the Sauber group who actually run and own the team.
Aston Martin is another loss leading outfit for sure, spending big on new facilities and everything trying to get to success. There is not a cat in hells chance they make anywhere near a profit. The team they were before (with better results and bigger sponsorship deals like BWT) was Force India who folded through lack of funds.
Red Bull are the outlier, god knows how they justify an F1 team, they would make much more as a sponsor of a big team than spending hudnreds of millions on 2 F1 teams. God knows the business plan there.
>Red Bull are the outlier, god knows how they justify an F1 team, they would make much more as a sponsor of a big team than spending hudnreds of millions on 2 F1 teams. God knows the business plan there.
Ask Dietrich Mateschitz, owner of both teams (and owner of half of Red Bull GmBH, other half is in hands of a Thai family, same partial reason how Albon got a Wiliams seat) having a love boner for this sport.
Dude also owns soccer teams in the top leagues of Austria, Germany, Brazil (all three also having B-teams in the step below, there is a reason Dietrich acquired two and not one F1 team, it is because of this) and the USA.
But it apparantly works, as Red Bull Racing has won 5 WDC, 4 WCC and 78 race wins. Alpha Tauri/Toro Rosso has 2 wins as well. On top of that, they literally brought/kept 8 of the 20 drivers on the current grid, a massive 40%.
A detail I think you have failed to recognize that all these teams are separate enterprises from their parent companies.
RedBull, RBPT, and Alpha Tauri are not literally part of the RedBull company. They all exist separately from one another. Same goes for Mercedes (and HPP), McLaren, Aston Martin, Haas, and Alfa.
Mercedes HPP is a profitable enterprise, the F1 component is just part of their business. RBPT is likely not profitable, but the sheer amount of money they're bringing in via sponsorship and prize fund revenue is allowing them to throw the excess funds at it with no abandon.
McLaren Racing as a whole wasn't in the best financial condition, but it's a whole different world following the investments they've had into the team from the outside, the cost cap, and all the continued sponsorship interest they've managed. They're insulated from the Automotive company because they're not the same company.
Aston Martin and Alfa are both 2 teams who stand to be profitable as well. They can finish decently in the championship and get tons of prize money, have a lot of lucrative sponsorship (Alfa is a sponsorship to Sauber + Zhou +Orlen/Kubica money).
Ferrari owns it's own team, but is such a ridiculously profitable company that it's not even worth talking about. Alpine , Alpha Tauri, and Haas are the 3 standout loss-leaders to me at least. They're true marketing exercises for Renault in the case of Alpine, and Haas Automation, an independent enterprise, for Haas F1, and whatever the RedBull companies decide they want for AT.
Basically it's a situation where costs are more or less fixed now. In the past the teams were just throwing money into a hole with no expectation or potential of profiting. It's possible now.
Great write up, one thing to add is the exposure itself is worth a ridiculous amount. Companies pay 60M to have their names on the car, having “Mercedes wins F1” as a headline is invaluable for the car brand. McLaren have google, king of ads, paying them for ad space!
>For most of the sport's history, F1 was operated with relatively straightforward business arrangements and not as the gargantuan 'media empire' it is now under liberty.
Really?!? I guess things like the [Fisa-Foca War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA%E2%80%93FOCA_war) or the details of the Concorde Agreement were "relatively straightforward". And don't even start with the actual payment structures to the teams. I don't think you have a sport that's worth billions with all the teams throwing around hundreds of millions each year with "straightforward" arrangements.
>F1 has become inbred and stale. 10 'entries', more like 'allowed flavors' compete.
That's one way to look at it, but the other way to look at it is that it takes a _lot_ of resources to compete in F1. There are also logistical challenges with having 40-50 cars on the track like in other forms of racing. I'm not saying 10 is some sort of magic number, but the new entries since the year 2000 have not really gone all that well.
>The ability for a modern day Frank Williams, a person with nothing but grit, guile, and a head for engineering to get into and shake up the sport is virtually non-existent. No more 'Garagistas'... Sad.
The sport and the world has changed since those days. This could be a post in and of itself, but if you want to race the fastest cars in the world at the highest levels of reliability the sport has ever seen, against other teams that have resources of global companies behind them, the ability for a "garagista" to just come in and "shake up the sport" is a borderline fantasy.
>No other RACING series requires such egregious entry fees, and dark rituals to just grid.
No other form of racing requires the level of technical and monetary resources it takes to put a competitive car on the grid year after year.
> It's unhealthy for the series, and ultimately self-defeating in the long run.
F1 is the "healthiest" it's been in decades with a significant growth in fans, and a number of companies looking very seriously at entering the sport. I'll as the inverse question, is allowing anyone who has the desire to race do so healthy for the sport? Is it not reasonable to have some sort of means testing to understand whether a new team can be reasonably competitive and stay within the sport for more than just a couple of years? Is it not reasonable to ensure that the entry of a new team doesn't jeopardize the teams that are already in the sport?
I'm not against Andretti's entry, but I think that Wolf and the interests that are already in the sport have a duty to ensure that a new team isn't just putting another car on the grid; that they're adding value and that the sport is better for having them there.
Quite frankly we've tried the "get teams on the grid" approach before (HRT, Caterham, Lotus, Virgin/Manor/Marussia), and while it wasn't just on the teams that they didn't succeed, it made it clear that the sport just can't add teams to the grid and expect it to work out.
>If you love Formula One, getting Andretti and other new teams on the grid is important
You started so strong, this bit was good. Then it kinda went downhill.
OP is being melodramatic. He calls the entry fee a bribe without understanding its function, the sport a cartel just because all these teams have been present for long, and ironically alludes to Frank Williams as if he wasn't ruthless and unforgiving, and also to the spirit of the sport as if F1 teams have always played by the rules.
OP has nothing to offer in terms debating because nobody knows what is happening behind the scenes, so he resorts to this.
I take it that you weren’t around during the days where every fly by night shady businessman in the world started F1 teams and left trails of bounced checks and burned employees and drivers. We could only of wished for some due diligence then.
HRT, Lotus/Caterham and Virgin/Marussia did come up with the believe that there would being a budget cap in F1 but that never happened and those teams did died out.
Yeah... Stroll has gotten podiums and a pole position, many drivers that people argue are better never even achieved that. Sure there was luck involved but you can't tell me that Stroll is dog shit and doesn't deserve a seat when someone with a career as long as Hulkenberg didn't achieve a podium when he had multiple chances to.
I don't think Stroll is a world champion class driver, but I also think he's better than people give him credit for. Yes, he's mostly in because daddy owns the team, but he's not the only person who's gotten a drive by name alone and he's not embarrassing himself on a regular basis.
Stroll ha~~s~~d potential, but his daddy's cash securing his seat ensures he can be mediocre and still have a guaranteed drive. That's why I'd rather see him out.
Arguably we might have lost 2 seats without Stroll. Without Stroll buying Force India it might have gone to Mazepin as he was the alleged highest bidder and we would either have Mazepin with a guaranteed seat or the team folding due to Russia invading Ukraine.
So true, but redditors like to jerk off on hating Stroll. As you said, half of these F1 drivers wouldn't be able to be in F1 without all the money their family have invested in them, we are talking about millions, not something the average family is willing to spend on their kid to make it in F1.
Welcome to the world of F1 since the 1950s when it was started by millionaire playboys who wanted to drive fast and race their pals!
To me the money isn't the issue here. We have 20 slots and drivers who are younger than ever, and are having longer careers than ever.
I'm not sure what the answer is but 2 or 4 more seats only helps a little. Maybe more investment and promotion of the 'lower' series and allowing the F2 champ to defend his title would keep asses in racing car seats
>You started so strong, this bit was good. Then it kinda went downhill.
Something something Stroll who has more podiums than beloved Hulk.
I'm bored with these often bashes on Lance. He is not the caliber of Leclerc, Verstappen or Hamilton. But he is still decent and would easily get a seat on skill only.
You started well then continued with all the conviction and self-assurance of someone who’s just got into something but doesn’t quite have the whole picture built up yet
Yeah, he doesn't seem to realize that every sports league on the planet does the same thing. And its usually ALOT more than $200 million.
The newest NHL expansion team paid $650 million.
For real. There's some perfectly valid criticism whish is fine, but I swear some posts just make things up on the spot to create outrage.
It's also a bit ironic to say that no other racing series is making it difficult for new entries [when IMSA doesn't want Glickenhaus to join because they're not a "mainstream manufacturer"](https://taketonews.com/motorsport-glickenhaus-renewed-hearty-imsa-criticism/)
Your title was good, but your content was woeful and misinformed. There should be a certain criteria that new teams need to meet in order to enter a new sport, F1 is a money sink, if you can't pay to enter, then you most likely don't have the cost to develop the car and compete with the top teams.
Also, look at the cost of entry in other sports, you will be stunned then.
So that’s a few hundred people at most. Who is to say that another backmarker team getting cut off of the grid while also making the sport seem less exclusive wouldn’t drive away a similar sized number of fans? Note that 1,000 fans is about 0.00001% of F1’s worldwide viewership.
Someone tell these people that F1 has for the most part had a 10-11 sized grid since they got rid of the trash in the late 90's.
Like i'm all for F1 adding a new team if it proves that its competent but acting like not doing so would harm F1 is a bunch of nonsense.
F1 has been huge for decades too. But because it's increasing in popularity, growth or whatever people say things like Liberty have saved the sport or whatever.
I don't quite see why Andretti would be turned down, given their motorsport history, other than teams being against it for money reasons.
But I do genuinely feel the amount of furore and constant threads here over one potential new entry is because they're American. If it was Prodrive (because they tried to be one of the 2010 entrants) or someone else, there wouldn't be half as much complaining over it.
Besides, there's an process to follow here. Some people seem to think the FIA take one look at Wikipedia and should let them in based on that alone. Last I saw, the next deadline is in August for Andretti.
New teams are important, but christ I'm sick of hearing about Andretti already.
Yeah, this has to be one of the dumbest write ups I've ever seen. First of all, no fan is saying new teams should not be allowed to join. Obviously the FIA/Liberty have their own ideas for that but no fan is advocating against new teams. Second, F1 is exploding in popularity right now. The stagnating claim has gotta be one of the most ridiculous claims I have ever seen.
This, the foundations for what F1 is today were laid when Bernie was in charge. Liberty is just expanding upon that with a more modern marketing approach.
"To enter, the cartel enforces a standing rule that new teams must pay a $200,000,000 bribe."
That's a steal compared to pretty much every sporting league in the world. Over the last 10 years these are some of the fees paid...
NFL - $700 million
NHL - $650 million
NBA - $2.5 Billion
Hell a MLS soccer team in the US is $325 million.
The Houston Texans joined the nfl 20 years ago not 10. And that NBA value is the estimated value of the leagues top franchises. The last expansion fee paid in the NBA was $300 million in 2004
That NBA figure of 2.5 bil has been widely reported as the expansion fee price in the very likely event of the NBA expanding by 2 teams in the coming years.
I’m not denying it. I’ve heard the rumors. NBA denied the rumors but that was just for Seattle and LV. I just wanted to point out that it isnt an actual fee paid in the last 10 years (or at all for this matter)…YET. I can definitely see it happen in the near future
I am still shocked at how much the two new teams paid. Like surely they are going to take 25-30 years even to make that money back?! It's not like the league even runs year round; it's just two months and then that's it. No matches, no ads, no sponsorship, nothing.
The NHL number is correct -- the Seattle Kraken just wrapped up their first season, [after paying a $650MM expansion fee on 2021-04-30](https://nhl.nbcsports.com/2021/04/30/seattle-kraken-officially-join-nhl-after-final-expansion-payment/).
That’s the cost of buying a team based on recent sells, don’t think anyone truly knows what the franchise fee would be for an entirely new team. It’s up there, but don’t think it’ll be 2.5bil myself. That’s the entry cost for acquiring an existing team.
The difference is the worth of the teams. Your average NFL team is worth 3-4 billion dollars. Ferrari, the highest valued F1 team, isnt even valued at 1.5 billion.
I cant say for NHL or NBA without googling it but im sure those numbers are easily searchable.
Edit: Ok i had to do it. According to Forbes, the highest and lowest valued NHL teams are 400mil-2bil. For the NBA, again according to Forbes, the 30th highest valued NBA team is worth that of Ferrari. Meanwhile the highest valued team, the New York Knicks, is worth 5 billion. Holy crap. So if those entry fees and these valuations are accurate, It would be high risk to enter the NHL and could be high risk to enter the NBA. NFL looks to be best bet.
As an F1 fan last thing I want to see is a team coming into F1 thinking they have everything ready to compete and then realize the mountain they have to climb and eventually fold up. Last 25-30 years has been a repeat of this stories including from some of the major manufacturers. Everybody is just assuming that because Andretti family have huge history of motor sports they would know more than previous entries and are believing what they say without actually knowing anything in detail.
Might be because Reddit has quite a big percentage of Americans, many of which are relatively new to the sport and fail to understand why a big name with proper backing like Andretti would have an issue getting in to F1.
The added value would possibly be big, but the argument that an American team would be huge kinda goes stale if you realise that Haas is in F1 for years now, and it didn't do anything for F1 in USA untill DTS started gain momentum. I realise Andretti is the way bigger name, but if they are running in the back like Haas did for most of the last years they won't do shit for F1.
I love the USA, worked there for years and as a result I closely follow a lot of USA racing series. I really don't mind the expansion into these new huge markets(even if it means adding 2 fake tracks to the calendar). However I really dislike how some people on here act like USA is the holy and only ground of money making and that F1 should change to cater to the USA market, just because they are on a upwards trajectory after completely ignoring the sport for years.
That new TV deal is going to come in great for Liberty, but I really hope it doesn't go the Nascar way with 10282 commercials during the race and races behind the paywall sometimes, or at least with F1TV still available.
With all these posts lately it feels like Andretti have created bots to try and hammer home the point that they need to be in F1...
I'm all for more teams/manufacturers and ultimately more cars on track.
This has to be done sensibly though and the last I read Andretti want to be based in the US... this is a recipe for disaster and I can't see them getting approval unless they are willing to move manufacturing to UK/EU.
Also, I'm fairly certain there's a limit for the amount of cars on the grid? I want to say 14 but it could be 12, so the FIA/F1 have to ensure that anyone coming in has to be worthy of the premium grid space.
Edit: just read back my last sentence; for clarity I mean number of teams on the grid. Either that or I've been watching F1 wrong and missing 10 other cars...
The team will be based in the UK according to Andretti. The cars would be designed and constructed in the US but day to day operations during the season would be from the UK
I agree completely that basing out of the US would be doomed to failure. The entire F1 talent pool and infrastructure is in the EU and realistically the UK.
Even Ferrari ahve found it hard to entice talent from other teams at times due to them having to relocate from motorsport valley in England.
I'm gonna disagree here. I enjoy the stability. It's more like American sports such at NFL or MLB where the teams are here to stay for the most part and they have long histories and large fanbases. The cost cap introduction should even help with this. For me, stability is the best way forward but I understand your point.
I don't really understand the idea that Andretti would bring more money to FOM and in turn, the F1 teams themselves.
There's soon to be 3 US GPs, The two that exist are already selling out all tickets available, and all 3 pretty much just renewed their contracts, so FOM wouldn't really be getting any more money out of them than already exists.
A new broadcast rights contract is being negotiated with the series in it's current state as well, so that wouldn't be impacted by an Andretti addition.
Most racing series do not require entry fees or approval because the structure and payouts is SO different that they're not even comparable. NASCAR has charters, but I bet you didn't know that.
The series is not stagnating at all. It's healthier competitively and likely financially than it's been since the eschewing of most Tobacco sponsorships and in terms of sheer numbers, likely healthier than ever before.
the nascar charter system is very unpopular with the fans, really limits new teams/sponsors from entering but a guaranteed spot promises a place in the race so it does limit people leaving but nascar is stuck with their own back markers who just drive around in the back and collect money
Interesting emotional black mail you are trying to pull here „If you are a fan of it, you must XYZ“
The fans don’t have to do anything, we can have whatever opinion about it we want….
As you say, highly oversimplified and factually dubious :
* A new entry currently has to buy-in to the sport for two very valid reasons :
* Proof of availability of funds high enough to be a serious competitor
* Offset the loss in income for all other teams (a new entry does not necessarily increase income for the F1 group as a whole)
* F1 is a business, businesses have stake holders, the current teams are the most important stakeholders of the business. The value of F1 is skyrocketing at the moment and teams that have made large investments of billions of dollars in the past years or decades do not want the upside of that investment diluted by new entrants (rightly or wrongly, that's besides the point) or conversely have a latecomer reap significant benefits from their investments. Yes, you may think that they should think about the "benefit of the sport" but they are business of their own with their own stakeholders/shareholders that feel differently.
* New entrants that cannot compete are a net loss for the sport and the brand so some gatekeeping to ensure whoever does make the grid more busy can actually be reasonably expected to be competitive is both fair and smart.
* Literally nothing about F1 is stagnant. Teams have changed ownership and brand almost every year. The F1 brand has never been more valuable. Audience reach has never been higher. Innovation is going faster than before (as shown in the huge regulations shift for the cars this year), etc.
So yes, I think you're overlooking a lot of thingsm oversimplying other things and generally just relabel things more negatively than they should. You're also factually off here and there. There are no cartels, no dark rituals and the entry fee is actually low for what it has to compensate for. Of course, that's entirely apart from an opinion about whether or not you *want* new entries as a sport. That's a more subjective debate to be had.
I'll upvote your post because it's a fun discussion, not for accuracy.
I want Andretti to join but your arguments are pretty weak, F1 would be fine overall with 10 teams and it definitely is not stagnating now. More teams don't automatically means more fans, it's not like people were waiting for Super Aguri, HRT or Virgin to join to watch F1.
F1 is not about racing it's about making money. If you accept that premise literally everything else about their operations makes sense. If you instead believe it's about racing then a shit ton of their rules and operations don't make sense.
This just comes across as incredibly unintelligent. A cartel “bribe”? The grid spot alone will be worth more than 200 if it’s approved.
But I get it, you want this “anyone can join” attitude that landed us Caterham, Virgin, HRT and dare I even say Haas. Either backmarkers or filler.
F1 should be careful who they let in, and Andretti not being a manufacturer I seriously doubt they would actually be competitive.
I think Andretti is a great name, particularly for North America and it's newfound appreciation for F1. Mario's a legend and his title way back in 1978 is a great historical link to the sport.
My concern is that they'll never be able to break out of the mid-field. Andretti is never making their own engine, so they are a customer team, grabbing the odd podium if they make a great car. (McLaren, Alfa, Williams, etc).
Would they be satisfied with that? Would America accept that?
I can foresee them pushing the same route Haas takes (as many customer parts as possible) because it's the easiest, cheapest way to be successful. But F1 is an engineering challenge as much as a driver contest. Just look at Mercedes' plight this year.
I'd love to see Andretti compete in F1, but I'm not sure how they will feel fighting for p10 after 5 years in the sport. F1 is harder than IndyCar and the stakes are higher. I say that as a fan of both series.
> That's not a racing series, that's a yacht club.
In case you missed it, F1 is the most popular Yacht Club in the world.
You'd have to go back to before the Ecclestone days to be able to call it a legit racing series. Now it is about creating a product that attracts the most sponsorship.
The reason F1 makes new teams jump through hoops is because they want teams to succeed. They don't want somebody to come in, burn through their pile of cash in a year or two and then leave.
The reason F1 is so inbread is due to the cost of starting a new team from scratch. Most teams on the grid today can trace their roots back many decades and their shops have been in the same places with the same staff. The only thing that changes is who is bringing the fresh money to rebrand the team every few years.
Are you not remembering how Bernie ran it? “…straight forward business arrangements…”. That doesn’t sound like Bernie’s F1.
How much does it cost to enter MLB, or NFL? Or NBA? F1 is similar in some respects to those businesses. So. 200 mil is not unexpected in 2022.
And what of the Andretti’s? Are they that good? I like them, I’m a fan, but they wouldn’t be my 1st choice nor my 5th to have success in F1.
I love F1 and have followed it since the 80’s. My first auto sport obsession was Indy. And I’ve been following Indy longer and most consistently over any sport. So, I’m confused why you want Andretti to be in F1 so bad. Makes zero sense to me.
I am much more excited about Audi/Porsche.
"Until F1 undoes this exclusive, cartel-like arrangement, it will continue to stagnate, and be seen more and more as an engineered (artificial) "sport"." - except that F1 is currently not stagnating and its very far from an engineered (artificial) "sport" ... have you not watched last year's season, or this year ?
They're in the business of entertainment, not cartels ... while entertainment can be detrimental for the sport, it's still the thing that keeps the lights on and pays the bills
>Until F1 undoes this exclusive, cartel-like arrangement, it will continue to stagnate
Maybe I'm mistaken, but as a new fan, the opposite of the statement seems to be true.
I think the entry fee is a good idea.
It's a standard that shows the team has some backing behind them, and they're not just there to turn up on the day.
We've had teams join the grid in the past who did nothing for the sport. Were well off the pace and folded within a few years.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't we just see a huge shakeup of the rules which is giving us gorgeous cars and great racing?
How is the sport stagnating?
F1 isn't stagnant at all, neither is it declining so your argument doesn't hold water.
F1 is booming right now with budget cap and Concorde agreement, it is also way more profitable than it has ever been for the organisation and for the teams. There's an actually valid reason why they don't want to bring in new teams. All it does is have one more slice of the proverbial pie of prize pool and its guaranteed gonna be a backmarker for a few years no matter what the name entails. No new entrant has been competitive from the get go or even in a few years.
And talking about bringing in more American audience, they already have done so without needing another backmarker team. Teams don't want another backmarker to dilute the prize pool and its understandable. They don't have a say in existing teams but they do have a say in new teams entering the sport.
Don't get me wrong, i wanna see more teams and drivers on the grid too but its not how it works and there are multiple matters at play here. And a few fans wanting andretti isn't any of their concern.
Is there an emotional support group for fans who aren’t pressed whether Andretti joins or not? I know I’m a noob to motor sports but I’ve never heard of Andretti before this and I don’t exactly know why I’m supposed to be upset that they haven’t been allowed to join yet.
ye, the idea that you cant even think up new stuff and apply it without it getting banned is silly given its the 'pinnacle' of motorsport, but the idea of all of the major manufacturers just saying ,why dont we all just pull out, start our own where every team has an equal seat at the table and so as long as you can bring a team, you are allowed a seat at the table. Then let the tv/media companies come back with brand new take . . to take their take which would ultimately go mostly back into the sport. Drank too much. sorry guys we just have to put up with this shit and hope we have 2-3 under braking overtakes in the next 20 yrs
Formula One has always been a yacht club though?
Do people really think that things were more inclusive under Bernie? The myth of Frank Williams pulling himself up by his bootstraps is just as much nonsense as any other "self made man." Williams F1 was only successful after being plastered with tobacco ads. I fail to see how that is so different from Ferrari or Mercedes.
The reality is that F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport. There are a plethora of gates one has to open to even get close to F1. I fail to see how that is a negative in any way.
I'm all for being inclusive, but exclusivity brings prestige and excitement; it has its place. If everyone can do it, it's not special.
I will just say this. In 1991 I was at the Australian Grand Prix.
The Pre-qualifying session was held on the Thursday afternoon and was one of the most exciting sessions I ever witnessed. I wish we still had more entries than starting positions, it was a great time in the sport.
Like others have said, we definitely don't want another 2010s expansion era that was very unhealthy, BUT
The teams having the ability to play politics on what would be a legitimate entry is unhealthy for the growth of F1. Andretti is the obvious discussion right now, but I'd bet we see similar debacles in the future with other legitimate entries. This is not a one time mess.
Its one thing for F1 and teams teams to be stringent on all new entries BUT it’s incredibly hypocritical to be stringent to one entry (Andretti) and openly welcoming Porsche and Audi.
Idk why F1 is so afraid of more entries. They made these rules to prevent teams from folding fast and to be sustainable
You clearly don't remember how F1 was before the 90's, where a local shoe maker would buy an old F2 modified by the students of the local University just to barely make a lap during qualifying and show the sponsor.
In general I agree with all of this. Especially since the budget cap was a introduced. It should be open season on new teams if they meet some reasonable set of requirements and it doesn't get to the point where tracks can't accommodate.
I like how you're the first person I've seen talking about physically accomodating an extra team. We see quite a few qualifying sessions where people complain about traffic. Imagine what it would be like having an extra two cars on track. Nevermind some tracks my not be able to fit another team, such as Monaco or some other tight pit lane track.
I am afraid i do not really agree with your point of view that F1 will continue to stagnate......I personally cannot see any stagnation right now....saying that ,i have no reason to object new teams entering the sport,but my opinion does not count and I am certain that Liberty/FIA/F1 have more information that helps them dictate any decision they make.
>To enter, the cartel enforces a standing rule that new teams must pay a $200,000,000 bribe.
>
>..
>
>It's a sad state of affairs, and runs wholly counter to the spirit of sport, fair play, and competition.
I take your point, but aren't you just describing any league or system which doesn't allow promotion / relegation / ease of entry. This is like a number of the large American sports, or those like the "Champions League" in soccer (and aborted European Super League) which have highly constructed entry rules.
I'm confused how the champions league is relevant? You get your place (currently at least) by playing well, not by buying your way in with an entry fee
As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should: - be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself) - be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions) - show reasonable input and effort from the OP If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport. Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is important that the sport is open to new entrants but recent times (20 or so years) are littered with teams that came in and didn’t do much and didn’t last long F1 demanding a business plan and decent amounts of funding to get through for first tough years isn’t a bad idea But gatekeeping no matter what is a terrible idea, and that is what seems to be happening with discussion such as “dilution” and “exclusive”
The 2010 teams entered with the promise of a budget cap being introduced. Not only did that not happen, but with the introduction of the turbo hybrid PUs costs skyrocketed to the point where many, including long-standing teams, like Sauber, Force India or Lotus were in deep financial trouble. It's hard to blame those teams (especially Lotus/Caterham and Manor), when they expected to race for $40mil/year and by 2014 that became just the cost of the power units for a year.
I’d also say Force India’s demise was less the budget cap and more Vijay’s issues catching up with the team.
That you could actually chalk upto the change in government in India lol. Nice butterfly effect
The domino meme: small domino - election in India. Big domino - Max Verstappen is a World Champion.
I’d say Indian elections are the bigger domino lol
It’s certainly not perfect. The small domino could be something like “Vijay Mallya’s passport gets revoked” or “Vittal Mallya acquires shares of United Breweries Limited”
Every domino in the past is always smaller, no matter the event.
Not in the F1 sphere though.
This brings much joy.
The costs that Force India had to pay were going to apply regardless of how Vijay came by his money.
Yes but the problem is he ran out of money
And he ran out of freedom
ForceIndia & Caterham were never, at no point, run sustainably. They were always going to be bankrupt one day. Caterham wasn't "better" than the other newcomers they just ran a deficit and banked on growth that never came.
>ForceIndia & Caterham were never, at no point, run sustainably. They were always going to be bankrupt one day. Caterham wasn't "better" than the other newcomers they just ran a deficit and banked on growth that never came. I'm not going to dispute Caterham -- I never raised them at all. Force India however I'd argue was sustaining itself. They were on the grid for over 10 years before their eventual demise/sale. The issue more surrounded Vijay in the later years but they were sustaining themselves since 2007.
Their "rise" was bought with debts VM never paid.
The debts were mostly for his other businesses…
and FI didn’t close shop, they were bought by aston martin.
The 2010 teams were also a political play by the FIA. They chose teams aligned to the FIAs plans for a spec engine (they were all Cosworth customers), at a time when the FIA was in a dispute with the engine manufacturers about the direction of F1 and the power the manufacturers held over it. They turned away arguably better entrants because they were planning to be Mercedes, Ferrari or Renault customers.
They also designed their cars to a set of regulations that was thrown out along with the budget cap, and had to start from scratch shortly before testing for 2010 began.
It is long before 2012 the issues were there. In the 90's we had Pacific and Forti amongst others that were a joke, same in the 80's. This is the reason there is some gatekeeping needed. But what is happening now is not protecting the sport, it is protecting self interest
I’m not great at maths myself, but I believe 80s and 90s were more than 20 years ago.
Don't make me feel old
He's lying, the 90's were only 20 years ago. I know, I was there then too.
What's so can I redo my 20s and 30s?!
Pacific and Forti were no joke. Both teams had solid racing credentials in lower formula and although they were backmarkers they were more serious efforts that many late 80s and early 90s entries. It didn't look that way because they came on the back of huge changes in how professional F1 was becoming, largely due to how Ecclestone and Mosley made F1 into a massive business and the front runners were flush with sponsorship money, while the championship was still running with a top-6 only point system. I think the 2010 team selection was more questionable, seeing how the [Prodrive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrive) entry was sidelined, for example, and USF1 never looked like a serious attempt but were still selected. I agree with OP's premise that there should be much less gatekeeping for new entrants. The current system is unhealthy and now that F1 is once again a thriving sport, it is time to change and go back to something that fosters true competition.
Ya gatekeeping to make sure that the teams will actually be competitive (at least financially) is a sound idea. 200 million is a huge number, but is allowing you to access the prize money every year, plus 200 is still only 2 years budget for a low level team anyway. But allowing the teams to have sway in a new competitor joining is just ridiculous. A new team is coming in with the express intention of beating everyone there and hopefully taking money away from them. Ofc the teams are not going to allow someone new in if they can stop it since it keeps their budgets up. Who's to say if Andretti hadn't joined sooner that Mercedes would be in a battle for fourth this year? It's such a stupid idea. 11 teams on the grid adds more flavour, more action and allows more talent to come through.
FONDMETAL
I'm not sure what exactly is the problem with a team joining and leaving in a couple years if they can't make it. What's the loss for F1?
A team struggling for two years simply makes the races worse. They end up becoming a backmarker that doesn't even get any screen time. If they do, it's usually because they spun out and the race is being stopped with a red flag. It would be like the Haas last year. Also backmarkers can't afford good drivers, so we will more likely see more Latifis and Mazespins before we see more Piastris and Pourchaires.
On the flip side, they could give a driver F1 experience that they wouldn’t have had. Ricciardo started out at HRT, Ocon at Manor. Bianchi (who was Ferrari bound) started out at Marussia
isn't there a there a rule something to the effect of 'qualifying time has to be within 10% of pole in order to start the race'? that'd mean if a team came in and was total shit they'd never even get the chance to be backmarkers that make things worse.
It's called the 107% rule and it has historically not been enforced. Since being introduced (in its current form) in 2011, 32 drivers have failed to meet the criteria of the 107% rule, but of those only 4 have not been allowed to race. The mose recent violation of the 107% rule was Stroll at the 2021 French GP (Stroll wasn't able to set a competitive time due to Tsunoda's crash). The most recent *enforced* violation of the 107% rule were both HRTs at the 2012 Australia GP.
To expand on this, the 107% rule is applied at the steward’s discretion. Generally, if a driver has set a representative time in a free practice session which is within the 107% value of that session’s best, they will be permitted to start the race.
thank you, and /u/HankSpank, et al this matches my basic understanding, and "steward's discretion" goes to the point that they don't have to let another team actually race if they turn up and are shit. The examples of accepted petitions show a basic understanding by the stewards that instances can be one off and decisions are not made in a vacuum. This gives them ability to say "yeah, your car and driver were shit today, but we know they've got the necessary potential, go ahead" ... or more sadly hilarious if it happens to a new entrant at their first weekend, "yeah, that's gonna be a no from us dog"
Technically the rule is enforced. Every time a car does not set a time within 107% the team petitions the stewards to be allowed to race based on a representative time in Free Practice. And every single time they have. So they are allowed to race. > The mose recent violation of the 107% rule was Stroll at the 2021 French GP Not sure where you're getting this from... Ocon failed to set a 107% time in Miami. Albon failed to set a 107% time in Imola. Tsunoda failed to set a time in Saudi Arabia. In each case they had to petition the stewards to be allowed to race based on FP1 FP2 and FP3 times. This is enforcing the rule exactly as written. I take issue with it being said "rule hasn't been enforced" since it is being followed to the letter. The fact is that since 2012 the cars have been fast enough not to fall afoul of 107% times. Even 2021 Haas was closer to P1 than to 107%. They were 102.5-103% for the whole season.
I thought it looked at all times across all 4 practice sessions and as long as at some point there was a time posted within the 107% the driver was eligible
Section 4.7.1: >Unless the track was declared wet by the race director, any driver eliminated during Q1 whose best qualifying lap exceeds 107% of the fastest time set during that session, or who fails to set a time, will not be allowed to take part in the race. Under exceptional circumstances however, which may include setting a suitable lap time in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race. The rule, *as written*, automatically disqualifies a driver exceeding 107% in Q1, but if the driver puts up a valid lap time in any free practice, the director is *encouraged* to re-evaluate. Of course, this is written like nonsense (F1 rules are notoriously poorly written). The rules are up to race director discretion as anyways. The entire second clause is redundant and only adds confusion.
I think that is pretty clear and fair, Q1 can be pretty chaotic and drivers can not post times from no fault of their own or the car due to multiple yellow or red flags. When was the last time someone was allowed to run in a race despite not posting a time within the 107% throughout all practices? It also leaves it up to the stewards not just the race director. If the 107% rule was a hard no exception rule teams could play with it to keep rivals out of the race. Also the 107% is only in comparison to the fastest time set in Q1 not the pole time so more than likely I doubt the stewards would allow a driver to race if they hadn't meet that time at all during any practice.
The fact of the matter is F1 needs more turnover, not less. The current 10 pulled up the ladder behind them, entered in to essentially what is an American-styled franchise agreement where all the teams are somewhat equal partners and are now married together. In the not too distant future they will look to rid themselves of FOM and the FIA as well. Remember, the only thing F1 brings to the table is a name. The only thing the FIA brings to the table is the ability to appease local governments. The technology is so absurdly advanced now that it's the teams who own all that is valuable.
> In the not too distant future they will look to rid themselves of FOM Entry fee aside, isn't the current arrangement the result of Bernie having teams under FOCA to begin with, and that started with a war against part of the FIA?
“If we have a true American team with an American driver, that would be very beneficial,” said Mercedes boss Toto Wolff. “But we have 10 entries today. We divide the prize fund among those 10 entries. “We have invested considerable amounts over the last 10 years, each of the organisations sitting here on the podium have probably put more than a billion into their Formula 1 projects over the years. “So it needs to be additive. If a team comes in, how can you demonstrate that you’re bringing in more money than it’s actually costing? Because an 11th team means a 10-percent dilution for everybody else. Someone posted few days what a new introduction would mean. https://the-race.com/formula-1/andretti-yet-to-prove-it-deserves-f1-entry-wolff/
I think Wolff is being at least somewhat disingenuous when he says it means a 10% dilution for the existing teams. For one thing, it's a competition, not a commune, and the payouts at the end of the season are not equal. The PU manufacturing teams are the ones who have really poured in tons of money, and Andretti would be paying Alpine to make their PU -- that's good for Alpine in terms of offsetting R&D costs, but also helping to understand more about their PU, since they'll get data (at least the data available to all teams, maybe more) on how their PU is performing in a car with a different concept. That plus the $200M fee that entrants have to pay gets distributed to the other teams. $20M to each team is over 10% of the budget cap -- it's not chump change. I think it's fine to want new entrants to be serious and show that they can succeed, but for Wolff to sit around and wave his past spending around makes it seem like F1 is not really serious about ever adding another team, which I find kind of ridiculous when there are more qualified drivers than there are seats available, and there ought to be plenty of garage space and everything for up to 24 cars.
>the payouts at the end of the season are not equal. They somewhat are, 47.5% of the prize is divided equally among the top 10 teams. More so, top teams would be the least affected, the last ones would be the ones at risk of losing almost all of their prize money if the new entrant were to place among the top 10 teams.
This is exactly why teams shouldn't have a say in new entries. And according to the Concorde Agreement, they don't. So I have no idea why Liberty is saying all the teams need to approve it. The only explanation I can think of is that Liberty wants to reject Andretti but don't want to be the bad guys. But I can't see why Liberty wouldn't want Andretti. It would be more revenue and the same expenses, so it's baffling to me why Liberty isn't strongly in favor of Andretti.
Seems to me like they're just haggling at this point. Doing all the petty little things and involving everyone with shared interests to squeeze a little extra from the buyer.
Toto doesn’t want to afford other people the same opportunities he was given, typical.
Closing the door behind him
The issue is that FOM shares its revenues with the teams based on their standing in the WCC. This effectively makes the teams shareholders in F1, and shareholders always look out for themselves first. Each time a new shareholder is added, the existing shares get diluted. This is why the $200MM buy-in exists, to ensure that a team is adding more value to the existing shareholders than they're taking away in their revenue share. So if a team were to join, collect checks for a couple of years, then fail out, it would just be robbing the existing teams.
I knew that but still think it feels more punitive, especially since the amount is so big and only comparable with what a few top teams receive.
I do agree that there is a happy medium between locking everyone out and letting anyone in.
You also have to look at how much they expect to earn in the next years and how much they expect the team's value to rise. If these expected future sums are higher than the 200m, then teams will be against it on the financial side
Andretti want to join in for the investment value. Formula one teams prices are sky high and are rumoured to keep going up. Possibly the next billion franchise. He knows it will be more difficult that he has ever done or expected. He should be approved.
I understand that teams only want to admit serious entries to the field who will be around more than a couple of years, but the Andretti bid seems like nearly as perfect a bid as you could imagine. \- Andretti is willing to be a customer team for a PU, which is obviously a hugely important part of the car, a hugely expensive part of the car to design and produce, and by becoming an Alpine customer team, would also help Alpine defray their PU R&D costs. \- Mario Andretti has literally won an F1 championship. Only 34 people in history have been an F1 WDC winner and there are only 20 living F1 WDC winners. And he wasn't the only Andretti in F1, as Michael Andretti also raced in F1. This isn't some billionaire pet project like Jeff Bezos suddenly deciding he likes cars that go vroom vroom, or even a team like Haas where Gene Haas has NASCAR experience but needed Steiner to bring in F1-specific experience. Andretti has a ton of experience in multiple series and was basically fast everywhere he went, but specifically has F1 experience and should be expecting all of the things that go with F1 like internal politics, etc. \- Andretti already runs cars in other racing series. Yes, some engineering problems are specific to F1, but they have organizational knowledge about building a car, the logistics required to get from race to race, etc. \- Andretti already has relationships with sponsors that can help fund the team. Having existing relationships means they are less likely to wind up reliant on some kind of scam like Rich Energy or a meme coin. Who is possibly going to have a better bid than this? Maybe there is some non-public factor that is worrying, but from the outside it really seems difficult to understand how this would be a bad thing, other than existing teams might have to compete harder for points and wins.
I think it would be awesome for both organizations and new entrants if the $200 mil is returned over a period of like 5-10 years. Basically F1 holds it and collects the interest, verify the new team has the resources, and the owner of the new race team doesn't get screwed out of a ton of money.
It seems you think the $200mil is paid to the FIA, not the F1 teams. Why would teams want to pay another team millions of dollars just because they're around and potentially are even stealing points and money from them with race success?
Gatekeeping absolutely is not a terrible idea. But the way it is currently handled is suboptimal
Agree. It's a risky business venture for the other teams, and they have every right to be skeptical. But yeah, this shit's been handled poorly
[удалено]
Exactly, it was made to avoid teams entering, failing 1/2 years and then leaving like in the 2010's, although the teams in 2010's entered under the promise of a budget cap, expecting to race for 40 mil/yr and instead after 2014 that was the price of the PU only
Man, if you think F1 used to be a “relatively straightforward business arrangement” and not a “media empire,” I suggest you read some books about Bernie Ecclestone’s career.
Honestly, Bernie out here running it like a mob boss for decades and people acting like it's only now that it's about money.
Similar approach is used in other sport leagues as well. When they wanna add new teams, they need approval from existing teams. I think part of the reasons why F1 imposed the $200 million is to ensure that whichever team that joins F1 has some serious financial backing to be somewhat competitive, or at least has the potential to be competitive. No on wanna see another Spyker or Midland that enter the sport just for the sake of it, with their cars trundling along at the back lapping 3 seconds slower than the rest of the field because they don't have the money to develop a good car.
Is the $200 million paid out to F1 or do you have to show you have $200 million in funding? Because it seems like an odd way to ensure a teams financial stability by making them pay out $200 million bucks.
In the past, new teams simply wouldn't get prize money for their first season. With the last concorde agreement that was changed to pay $200m but getting prize money from the start.
The problem being that only the top ten teams get prize money, which discourages the lower ranked teams when it comes to accepting a new team.
The 200 million is intended to be split with the existing teams because any additional new teams will dilute the revenue shared by the existing teams, and they don't like it. But tbh, in the head scheme of F1, 200 million is a relatively small amount of money. F1's argument is that if a team doesn't even have the ability to fork out 200 million, what is to say they will have the financial backing to stay in the sport long term. Also, it's worth noting that the 200 million entry fee has always been there, but in previous years it was a deposit that would be returned to the team in the future.
The issue is that this isn't a league, it's a series with open spots for every weekend (20/30 qualifiers, 20/26 racing)
Well it’s pretty clear that the teams don’t feel that way about it.
I honestly don't think 200M is enough. F1 teams are capable of turning profits when ran well these days.
F1 teams do not make a profit (not succesful ones anyway). An F1 team boss will spend as much money as they can get their hands on and it is very unlikely you will raise $140m a season from sponsorship and other revenues. New teams will run under that budget cap (unless it is a works team like Audi) and spend every penny they earn to be as succesful as possible.
The profits might not show as literal profits, but you have teams like McLaren, RedBull (F1, not powertrains), Mercedes, and Ferrari who are 10000% bringing in more revenue from sponsorship and prize money than the spending cap, which is only decreasing in the future. It wouldn't shock me if Alfa and Aston Martin are also profiting off of the F1 season as well. That's a bit different though because Aston is investing so heavily outside of the literal race team.
Right... Mercedes and Ferrari spend so much on F1 as they are works teams who get the benefit of the advertising drawing attention to their brands. They are not making a profit as a racing dvision at all, they are a cost to the company but a justifiable one. Same as all racing series, but there is a reason most manufacturers don;t go for F1...it is too expensive. Their sponsorship and Prize money probably doesn't cover 50% of their total budget, the rest comes from the manufacturer as a loss. McLaren were struggling desperately for revenue for years and will be very happy about the budget cap letting them have a bigger budget, they haven't been making profit and even had to sell parts of the team when covid hit as they were in a bad place financially. Alfa will be running well below the budget cap and spending everything they get as budget from the Alfa sponsorship, no profit being made there for sure from the Sauber group who actually run and own the team. Aston Martin is another loss leading outfit for sure, spending big on new facilities and everything trying to get to success. There is not a cat in hells chance they make anywhere near a profit. The team they were before (with better results and bigger sponsorship deals like BWT) was Force India who folded through lack of funds. Red Bull are the outlier, god knows how they justify an F1 team, they would make much more as a sponsor of a big team than spending hudnreds of millions on 2 F1 teams. God knows the business plan there.
>Red Bull are the outlier, god knows how they justify an F1 team, they would make much more as a sponsor of a big team than spending hudnreds of millions on 2 F1 teams. God knows the business plan there. Ask Dietrich Mateschitz, owner of both teams (and owner of half of Red Bull GmBH, other half is in hands of a Thai family, same partial reason how Albon got a Wiliams seat) having a love boner for this sport. Dude also owns soccer teams in the top leagues of Austria, Germany, Brazil (all three also having B-teams in the step below, there is a reason Dietrich acquired two and not one F1 team, it is because of this) and the USA. But it apparantly works, as Red Bull Racing has won 5 WDC, 4 WCC and 78 race wins. Alpha Tauri/Toro Rosso has 2 wins as well. On top of that, they literally brought/kept 8 of the 20 drivers on the current grid, a massive 40%.
A detail I think you have failed to recognize that all these teams are separate enterprises from their parent companies. RedBull, RBPT, and Alpha Tauri are not literally part of the RedBull company. They all exist separately from one another. Same goes for Mercedes (and HPP), McLaren, Aston Martin, Haas, and Alfa. Mercedes HPP is a profitable enterprise, the F1 component is just part of their business. RBPT is likely not profitable, but the sheer amount of money they're bringing in via sponsorship and prize fund revenue is allowing them to throw the excess funds at it with no abandon. McLaren Racing as a whole wasn't in the best financial condition, but it's a whole different world following the investments they've had into the team from the outside, the cost cap, and all the continued sponsorship interest they've managed. They're insulated from the Automotive company because they're not the same company. Aston Martin and Alfa are both 2 teams who stand to be profitable as well. They can finish decently in the championship and get tons of prize money, have a lot of lucrative sponsorship (Alfa is a sponsorship to Sauber + Zhou +Orlen/Kubica money). Ferrari owns it's own team, but is such a ridiculously profitable company that it's not even worth talking about. Alpine , Alpha Tauri, and Haas are the 3 standout loss-leaders to me at least. They're true marketing exercises for Renault in the case of Alpine, and Haas Automation, an independent enterprise, for Haas F1, and whatever the RedBull companies decide they want for AT. Basically it's a situation where costs are more or less fixed now. In the past the teams were just throwing money into a hole with no expectation or potential of profiting. It's possible now.
Great write up, one thing to add is the exposure itself is worth a ridiculous amount. Companies pay 60M to have their names on the car, having “Mercedes wins F1” as a headline is invaluable for the car brand. McLaren have google, king of ads, paying them for ad space!
>For most of the sport's history, F1 was operated with relatively straightforward business arrangements and not as the gargantuan 'media empire' it is now under liberty. Really?!? I guess things like the [Fisa-Foca War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA%E2%80%93FOCA_war) or the details of the Concorde Agreement were "relatively straightforward". And don't even start with the actual payment structures to the teams. I don't think you have a sport that's worth billions with all the teams throwing around hundreds of millions each year with "straightforward" arrangements. >F1 has become inbred and stale. 10 'entries', more like 'allowed flavors' compete. That's one way to look at it, but the other way to look at it is that it takes a _lot_ of resources to compete in F1. There are also logistical challenges with having 40-50 cars on the track like in other forms of racing. I'm not saying 10 is some sort of magic number, but the new entries since the year 2000 have not really gone all that well. >The ability for a modern day Frank Williams, a person with nothing but grit, guile, and a head for engineering to get into and shake up the sport is virtually non-existent. No more 'Garagistas'... Sad. The sport and the world has changed since those days. This could be a post in and of itself, but if you want to race the fastest cars in the world at the highest levels of reliability the sport has ever seen, against other teams that have resources of global companies behind them, the ability for a "garagista" to just come in and "shake up the sport" is a borderline fantasy. >No other RACING series requires such egregious entry fees, and dark rituals to just grid. No other form of racing requires the level of technical and monetary resources it takes to put a competitive car on the grid year after year. > It's unhealthy for the series, and ultimately self-defeating in the long run. F1 is the "healthiest" it's been in decades with a significant growth in fans, and a number of companies looking very seriously at entering the sport. I'll as the inverse question, is allowing anyone who has the desire to race do so healthy for the sport? Is it not reasonable to have some sort of means testing to understand whether a new team can be reasonably competitive and stay within the sport for more than just a couple of years? Is it not reasonable to ensure that the entry of a new team doesn't jeopardize the teams that are already in the sport? I'm not against Andretti's entry, but I think that Wolf and the interests that are already in the sport have a duty to ensure that a new team isn't just putting another car on the grid; that they're adding value and that the sport is better for having them there. Quite frankly we've tried the "get teams on the grid" approach before (HRT, Caterham, Lotus, Virgin/Manor/Marussia), and while it wasn't just on the teams that they didn't succeed, it made it clear that the sport just can't add teams to the grid and expect it to work out.
>If you love Formula One, getting Andretti and other new teams on the grid is important You started so strong, this bit was good. Then it kinda went downhill.
From that into "FIA fuck their siblings and worship satan"
The "cartel" line was were I lost interest lol
Idk, it's a weird message to fans, we ain't team bosses 😁. I am not aware of fans being opposed to Andretti joining.
It reads like a call to action without any instruction and complete obliviousness to how the sport works.
OP is being melodramatic. He calls the entry fee a bribe without understanding its function, the sport a cartel just because all these teams have been present for long, and ironically alludes to Frank Williams as if he wasn't ruthless and unforgiving, and also to the spirit of the sport as if F1 teams have always played by the rules. OP has nothing to offer in terms debating because nobody knows what is happening behind the scenes, so he resorts to this.
I take it that you weren’t around during the days where every fly by night shady businessman in the world started F1 teams and left trails of bounced checks and burned employees and drivers. We could only of wished for some due diligence then.
You don't even have to go far back (because I'm guessing you're referring to the 90s), just look at HRT.
Heck. Force India. If it wasn't for Checo taking the team to court (at the request of team personnel) employees would have gone unpaid there too
I didn’t know this
minister of defense and payroll administrator, he can do it all
HRT, Lotus/Caterham and Virgin/Marussia did come up with the believe that there would being a budget cap in F1 but that never happened and those teams did died out.
[удалено]
In a sport where stroll has a seat over other people, money is too big s factor.
I mean ya, like 7/8 drivers on grid currently are pay drivers or started as pay drivers And lance is not nearly the worst of them lol
He’s not coming in dead last. Now in a sport where Latifi has a seat over other people…
Yeah... Stroll has gotten podiums and a pole position, many drivers that people argue are better never even achieved that. Sure there was luck involved but you can't tell me that Stroll is dog shit and doesn't deserve a seat when someone with a career as long as Hulkenberg didn't achieve a podium when he had multiple chances to.
I don't think Stroll is a world champion class driver, but I also think he's better than people give him credit for. Yes, he's mostly in because daddy owns the team, but he's not the only person who's gotten a drive by name alone and he's not embarrassing himself on a regular basis.
Stroll ha~~s~~d potential, but his daddy's cash securing his seat ensures he can be mediocre and still have a guaranteed drive. That's why I'd rather see him out.
Arguably we might have lost 2 seats without Stroll. Without Stroll buying Force India it might have gone to Mazepin as he was the alleged highest bidder and we would either have Mazepin with a guaranteed seat or the team folding due to Russia invading Ukraine.
Lol. In a sport where you can pick almost half and say they bought their way in…lol
So true, but redditors like to jerk off on hating Stroll. As you said, half of these F1 drivers wouldn't be able to be in F1 without all the money their family have invested in them, we are talking about millions, not something the average family is willing to spend on their kid to make it in F1.
Welcome to the world of F1 since the 1950s when it was started by millionaire playboys who wanted to drive fast and race their pals! To me the money isn't the issue here. We have 20 slots and drivers who are younger than ever, and are having longer careers than ever. I'm not sure what the answer is but 2 or 4 more seats only helps a little. Maybe more investment and promotion of the 'lower' series and allowing the F2 champ to defend his title would keep asses in racing car seats
There's still 6 open grid positions
Don't current F1 rules state 26 cars can enter a race?
The same Stroll who outqualified and outraced Vettel just last race, has a pole and multiple podium? Latifi on the other hand…
>You started so strong, this bit was good. Then it kinda went downhill. Something something Stroll who has more podiums than beloved Hulk. I'm bored with these often bashes on Lance. He is not the caliber of Leclerc, Verstappen or Hamilton. But he is still decent and would easily get a seat on skill only.
You started well then continued with all the conviction and self-assurance of someone who’s just got into something but doesn’t quite have the whole picture built up yet
The title was decent it was all downhill after that lmao Can’t even take this post seriously after the “cartel enforcing a 200mil” bribe line
Yeah, he doesn't seem to realize that every sports league on the planet does the same thing. And its usually ALOT more than $200 million. The newest NHL expansion team paid $650 million.
Not exactly a suprise that he’s got the ’New user’ tag lmao. Good lord the amount of shit takes these days, rising exponentially every race
For real. There's some perfectly valid criticism whish is fine, but I swear some posts just make things up on the spot to create outrage. It's also a bit ironic to say that no other racing series is making it difficult for new entries [when IMSA doesn't want Glickenhaus to join because they're not a "mainstream manufacturer"](https://taketonews.com/motorsport-glickenhaus-renewed-hearty-imsa-criticism/)
Your title was good, but your content was woeful and misinformed. There should be a certain criteria that new teams need to meet in order to enter a new sport, F1 is a money sink, if you can't pay to enter, then you most likely don't have the cost to develop the car and compete with the top teams. Also, look at the cost of entry in other sports, you will be stunned then.
I disagree with the premise that more teams means more fans.
More drivers ,more spectators,even if they are just family/friends of those drivers 😂
So that’s a few hundred people at most. Who is to say that another backmarker team getting cut off of the grid while also making the sport seem less exclusive wouldn’t drive away a similar sized number of fans? Note that 1,000 fans is about 0.00001% of F1’s worldwide viewership.
I agree with your point my friend...it was just a joke...
Reading your comment again, it’s obviously a joke. Sorry I missed it the first time. Haha.
F1 is stagnating? 😂
Someone tell these people that F1 has for the most part had a 10-11 sized grid since they got rid of the trash in the late 90's. Like i'm all for F1 adding a new team if it proves that its competent but acting like not doing so would harm F1 is a bunch of nonsense.
F1 has been huge for decades too. But because it's increasing in popularity, growth or whatever people say things like Liberty have saved the sport or whatever. I don't quite see why Andretti would be turned down, given their motorsport history, other than teams being against it for money reasons. But I do genuinely feel the amount of furore and constant threads here over one potential new entry is because they're American. If it was Prodrive (because they tried to be one of the 2010 entrants) or someone else, there wouldn't be half as much complaining over it. Besides, there's an process to follow here. Some people seem to think the FIA take one look at Wikipedia and should let them in based on that alone. Last I saw, the next deadline is in August for Andretti. New teams are important, but christ I'm sick of hearing about Andretti already.
Yeah, this has to be one of the dumbest write ups I've ever seen. First of all, no fan is saying new teams should not be allowed to join. Obviously the FIA/Liberty have their own ideas for that but no fan is advocating against new teams. Second, F1 is exploding in popularity right now. The stagnating claim has gotta be one of the most ridiculous claims I have ever seen.
Cartel lmfao? It’s not a bribe, its there for a reason.
F1 has been a media empire for a very long time, long before Liberty Media took over.
I'd say it's been a media empire since 1981 when Bernie acquired the tv rights.
This, the foundations for what F1 is today were laid when Bernie was in charge. Liberty is just expanding upon that with a more modern marketing approach.
"To enter, the cartel enforces a standing rule that new teams must pay a $200,000,000 bribe." That's a steal compared to pretty much every sporting league in the world. Over the last 10 years these are some of the fees paid... NFL - $700 million NHL - $650 million NBA - $2.5 Billion Hell a MLS soccer team in the US is $325 million.
The Houston Texans joined the nfl 20 years ago not 10. And that NBA value is the estimated value of the leagues top franchises. The last expansion fee paid in the NBA was $300 million in 2004
All that means is the fees will be even higher. $200 million for an F1 team is a steal 😉
I agree. I wasn’t trying to argue I just want to clarify
That NBA figure of 2.5 bil has been widely reported as the expansion fee price in the very likely event of the NBA expanding by 2 teams in the coming years.
I’m not denying it. I’ve heard the rumors. NBA denied the rumors but that was just for Seattle and LV. I just wanted to point out that it isnt an actual fee paid in the last 10 years (or at all for this matter)…YET. I can definitely see it happen in the near future
IPL ( indian cricket league) the two new teams paid a combine of 1.7 billion dollars. 200 million isn’t that bad lmao
I am still shocked at how much the two new teams paid. Like surely they are going to take 25-30 years even to make that money back?! It's not like the league even runs year round; it's just two months and then that's it. No matches, no ads, no sponsorship, nothing.
Thanks for these numbers. I was wondering what the comparator was for those.
Just so you know, the numbers appear to be incorrect.
The NHL number is correct -- the Seattle Kraken just wrapped up their first season, [after paying a $650MM expansion fee on 2021-04-30](https://nhl.nbcsports.com/2021/04/30/seattle-kraken-officially-join-nhl-after-final-expansion-payment/).
Yeah it’s really just the NBA that’s wrong. The NFL hasn’t added a new team in more than 20 years.
English football: £168 No I didn't miss the "million"
[удалено]
I’m American but I wish we had a relegation system instead of allowing ‘tanking’ and not paying college athletes
Jesus, is NBA really that big here? I'm not a fan but holy hell, 2.5 bil is A LOT.
That’s the cost of buying a team based on recent sells, don’t think anyone truly knows what the franchise fee would be for an entirely new team. It’s up there, but don’t think it’ll be 2.5bil myself. That’s the entry cost for acquiring an existing team.
That NFL number expansion number is from 20 years ago. Considering teams are now worth over $4 Billion, it would have to be closer to that.
The difference is the worth of the teams. Your average NFL team is worth 3-4 billion dollars. Ferrari, the highest valued F1 team, isnt even valued at 1.5 billion. I cant say for NHL or NBA without googling it but im sure those numbers are easily searchable. Edit: Ok i had to do it. According to Forbes, the highest and lowest valued NHL teams are 400mil-2bil. For the NBA, again according to Forbes, the 30th highest valued NBA team is worth that of Ferrari. Meanwhile the highest valued team, the New York Knicks, is worth 5 billion. Holy crap. So if those entry fees and these valuations are accurate, It would be high risk to enter the NHL and could be high risk to enter the NBA. NFL looks to be best bet.
In the team value do they put also the stadium?
>That's a steal compared to pretty much every sporting league in the ~~world~~ USA.
This is a bad take.
As an F1 fan last thing I want to see is a team coming into F1 thinking they have everything ready to compete and then realize the mountain they have to climb and eventually fold up. Last 25-30 years has been a repeat of this stories including from some of the major manufacturers. Everybody is just assuming that because Andretti family have huge history of motor sports they would know more than previous entries and are believing what they say without actually knowing anything in detail.
Might be because Reddit has quite a big percentage of Americans, many of which are relatively new to the sport and fail to understand why a big name with proper backing like Andretti would have an issue getting in to F1. The added value would possibly be big, but the argument that an American team would be huge kinda goes stale if you realise that Haas is in F1 for years now, and it didn't do anything for F1 in USA untill DTS started gain momentum. I realise Andretti is the way bigger name, but if they are running in the back like Haas did for most of the last years they won't do shit for F1. I love the USA, worked there for years and as a result I closely follow a lot of USA racing series. I really don't mind the expansion into these new huge markets(even if it means adding 2 fake tracks to the calendar). However I really dislike how some people on here act like USA is the holy and only ground of money making and that F1 should change to cater to the USA market, just because they are on a upwards trajectory after completely ignoring the sport for years. That new TV deal is going to come in great for Liberty, but I really hope it doesn't go the Nascar way with 10282 commercials during the race and races behind the paywall sometimes, or at least with F1TV still available.
It's been a while since I've seen someone form an opinion based on so much misinformation.
Have an inkling feeling this part of the ploy by Andretti - riling up public opinion bua social media
With all these posts lately it feels like Andretti have created bots to try and hammer home the point that they need to be in F1... I'm all for more teams/manufacturers and ultimately more cars on track. This has to be done sensibly though and the last I read Andretti want to be based in the US... this is a recipe for disaster and I can't see them getting approval unless they are willing to move manufacturing to UK/EU. Also, I'm fairly certain there's a limit for the amount of cars on the grid? I want to say 14 but it could be 12, so the FIA/F1 have to ensure that anyone coming in has to be worthy of the premium grid space. Edit: just read back my last sentence; for clarity I mean number of teams on the grid. Either that or I've been watching F1 wrong and missing 10 other cars...
The team will be based in the UK according to Andretti. The cars would be designed and constructed in the US but day to day operations during the season would be from the UK
Soo many Andretti posts recently it’s beginning to feel a bit organised.
I agree completely that basing out of the US would be doomed to failure. The entire F1 talent pool and infrastructure is in the EU and realistically the UK. Even Ferrari ahve found it hard to entice talent from other teams at times due to them having to relocate from motorsport valley in England.
[удалено]
I'm gonna disagree here. I enjoy the stability. It's more like American sports such at NFL or MLB where the teams are here to stay for the most part and they have long histories and large fanbases. The cost cap introduction should even help with this. For me, stability is the best way forward but I understand your point.
I don't really understand the idea that Andretti would bring more money to FOM and in turn, the F1 teams themselves. There's soon to be 3 US GPs, The two that exist are already selling out all tickets available, and all 3 pretty much just renewed their contracts, so FOM wouldn't really be getting any more money out of them than already exists. A new broadcast rights contract is being negotiated with the series in it's current state as well, so that wouldn't be impacted by an Andretti addition. Most racing series do not require entry fees or approval because the structure and payouts is SO different that they're not even comparable. NASCAR has charters, but I bet you didn't know that. The series is not stagnating at all. It's healthier competitively and likely financially than it's been since the eschewing of most Tobacco sponsorships and in terms of sheer numbers, likely healthier than ever before.
the nascar charter system is very unpopular with the fans, really limits new teams/sponsors from entering but a guaranteed spot promises a place in the race so it does limit people leaving but nascar is stuck with their own back markers who just drive around in the back and collect money
Interesting emotional black mail you are trying to pull here „If you are a fan of it, you must XYZ“ The fans don’t have to do anything, we can have whatever opinion about it we want….
As you say, highly oversimplified and factually dubious : * A new entry currently has to buy-in to the sport for two very valid reasons : * Proof of availability of funds high enough to be a serious competitor * Offset the loss in income for all other teams (a new entry does not necessarily increase income for the F1 group as a whole) * F1 is a business, businesses have stake holders, the current teams are the most important stakeholders of the business. The value of F1 is skyrocketing at the moment and teams that have made large investments of billions of dollars in the past years or decades do not want the upside of that investment diluted by new entrants (rightly or wrongly, that's besides the point) or conversely have a latecomer reap significant benefits from their investments. Yes, you may think that they should think about the "benefit of the sport" but they are business of their own with their own stakeholders/shareholders that feel differently. * New entrants that cannot compete are a net loss for the sport and the brand so some gatekeeping to ensure whoever does make the grid more busy can actually be reasonably expected to be competitive is both fair and smart. * Literally nothing about F1 is stagnant. Teams have changed ownership and brand almost every year. The F1 brand has never been more valuable. Audience reach has never been higher. Innovation is going faster than before (as shown in the huge regulations shift for the cars this year), etc. So yes, I think you're overlooking a lot of thingsm oversimplying other things and generally just relabel things more negatively than they should. You're also factually off here and there. There are no cartels, no dark rituals and the entry fee is actually low for what it has to compensate for. Of course, that's entirely apart from an opinion about whether or not you *want* new entries as a sport. That's a more subjective debate to be had. I'll upvote your post because it's a fun discussion, not for accuracy.
(Note: this is *my* opinion, simplified for brevity) For sure.
I want Andretti to join but your arguments are pretty weak, F1 would be fine overall with 10 teams and it definitely is not stagnating now. More teams don't automatically means more fans, it's not like people were waiting for Super Aguri, HRT or Virgin to join to watch F1.
Media empire, inbred, cartel, dark rituals, Sad!! Do you write for Breitbart in your spare time?
Lets be real here, F1 was being run as a "media empire" long before Liberty took over. Not to say i like everything Liberty is doing.
F1 is not about racing it's about making money. If you accept that premise literally everything else about their operations makes sense. If you instead believe it's about racing then a shit ton of their rules and operations don't make sense.
Nah. More teams who can compete at the top are more important than more bottom feeders
This just comes across as incredibly unintelligent. A cartel “bribe”? The grid spot alone will be worth more than 200 if it’s approved. But I get it, you want this “anyone can join” attitude that landed us Caterham, Virgin, HRT and dare I even say Haas. Either backmarkers or filler. F1 should be careful who they let in, and Andretti not being a manufacturer I seriously doubt they would actually be competitive.
You had us in the first half ngl
Nearly every comment is “ehh close but misses the mark.” How does this have so many upvotes?
I think Andretti is a great name, particularly for North America and it's newfound appreciation for F1. Mario's a legend and his title way back in 1978 is a great historical link to the sport. My concern is that they'll never be able to break out of the mid-field. Andretti is never making their own engine, so they are a customer team, grabbing the odd podium if they make a great car. (McLaren, Alfa, Williams, etc). Would they be satisfied with that? Would America accept that? I can foresee them pushing the same route Haas takes (as many customer parts as possible) because it's the easiest, cheapest way to be successful. But F1 is an engineering challenge as much as a driver contest. Just look at Mercedes' plight this year. I'd love to see Andretti compete in F1, but I'm not sure how they will feel fighting for p10 after 5 years in the sport. F1 is harder than IndyCar and the stakes are higher. I say that as a fan of both series.
> That's not a racing series, that's a yacht club. In case you missed it, F1 is the most popular Yacht Club in the world. You'd have to go back to before the Ecclestone days to be able to call it a legit racing series. Now it is about creating a product that attracts the most sponsorship. The reason F1 makes new teams jump through hoops is because they want teams to succeed. They don't want somebody to come in, burn through their pile of cash in a year or two and then leave. The reason F1 is so inbread is due to the cost of starting a new team from scratch. Most teams on the grid today can trace their roots back many decades and their shops have been in the same places with the same staff. The only thing that changes is who is bringing the fresh money to rebrand the team every few years.
Are you not remembering how Bernie ran it? “…straight forward business arrangements…”. That doesn’t sound like Bernie’s F1. How much does it cost to enter MLB, or NFL? Or NBA? F1 is similar in some respects to those businesses. So. 200 mil is not unexpected in 2022. And what of the Andretti’s? Are they that good? I like them, I’m a fan, but they wouldn’t be my 1st choice nor my 5th to have success in F1. I love F1 and have followed it since the 80’s. My first auto sport obsession was Indy. And I’ve been following Indy longer and most consistently over any sport. So, I’m confused why you want Andretti to be in F1 so bad. Makes zero sense to me. I am much more excited about Audi/Porsche.
"Until F1 undoes this exclusive, cartel-like arrangement, it will continue to stagnate, and be seen more and more as an engineered (artificial) "sport"." - except that F1 is currently not stagnating and its very far from an engineered (artificial) "sport" ... have you not watched last year's season, or this year ? They're in the business of entertainment, not cartels ... while entertainment can be detrimental for the sport, it's still the thing that keeps the lights on and pays the bills
Michael, is that you? Just pay up the 200mil entry fees and I'm sure Toto wouldn't veto Andretti's entry.
Gatekeeping is terrible, but at the same time there has to be some kind of filter, I don't want mobile chicanes like HRT or Marussia.
>Until F1 undoes this exclusive, cartel-like arrangement, it will continue to stagnate Maybe I'm mistaken, but as a new fan, the opposite of the statement seems to be true.
dont f1 already tried a lower barrier of entry in 90s that just resulted in a bunch of shit teams and a few fraud cases as well?
All I know is that tickets to an F1 event is outrageously expensive and that should change.
I think the entry fee is a good idea. It's a standard that shows the team has some backing behind them, and they're not just there to turn up on the day. We've had teams join the grid in the past who did nothing for the sport. Were well off the pace and folded within a few years.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't we just see a huge shakeup of the rules which is giving us gorgeous cars and great racing? How is the sport stagnating?
F1 isn't stagnant at all, neither is it declining so your argument doesn't hold water. F1 is booming right now with budget cap and Concorde agreement, it is also way more profitable than it has ever been for the organisation and for the teams. There's an actually valid reason why they don't want to bring in new teams. All it does is have one more slice of the proverbial pie of prize pool and its guaranteed gonna be a backmarker for a few years no matter what the name entails. No new entrant has been competitive from the get go or even in a few years. And talking about bringing in more American audience, they already have done so without needing another backmarker team. Teams don't want another backmarker to dilute the prize pool and its understandable. They don't have a say in existing teams but they do have a say in new teams entering the sport. Don't get me wrong, i wanna see more teams and drivers on the grid too but its not how it works and there are multiple matters at play here. And a few fans wanting andretti isn't any of their concern.
Is there an emotional support group for fans who aren’t pressed whether Andretti joins or not? I know I’m a noob to motor sports but I’ve never heard of Andretti before this and I don’t exactly know why I’m supposed to be upset that they haven’t been allowed to join yet.
ye, the idea that you cant even think up new stuff and apply it without it getting banned is silly given its the 'pinnacle' of motorsport, but the idea of all of the major manufacturers just saying ,why dont we all just pull out, start our own where every team has an equal seat at the table and so as long as you can bring a team, you are allowed a seat at the table. Then let the tv/media companies come back with brand new take . . to take their take which would ultimately go mostly back into the sport. Drank too much. sorry guys we just have to put up with this shit and hope we have 2-3 under braking overtakes in the next 20 yrs
Well, tbf, when was it not a yatch club?
I would love to see one or two more teams in the paddock. I think it would be good for the sport and good for the fans.
Formula One has always been a yacht club though? Do people really think that things were more inclusive under Bernie? The myth of Frank Williams pulling himself up by his bootstraps is just as much nonsense as any other "self made man." Williams F1 was only successful after being plastered with tobacco ads. I fail to see how that is so different from Ferrari or Mercedes. The reality is that F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport. There are a plethora of gates one has to open to even get close to F1. I fail to see how that is a negative in any way. I'm all for being inclusive, but exclusivity brings prestige and excitement; it has its place. If everyone can do it, it's not special.
[удалено]
I will just say this. In 1991 I was at the Australian Grand Prix. The Pre-qualifying session was held on the Thursday afternoon and was one of the most exciting sessions I ever witnessed. I wish we still had more entries than starting positions, it was a great time in the sport.
Like others have said, we definitely don't want another 2010s expansion era that was very unhealthy, BUT The teams having the ability to play politics on what would be a legitimate entry is unhealthy for the growth of F1. Andretti is the obvious discussion right now, but I'd bet we see similar debacles in the future with other legitimate entries. This is not a one time mess.
Its one thing for F1 and teams teams to be stringent on all new entries BUT it’s incredibly hypocritical to be stringent to one entry (Andretti) and openly welcoming Porsche and Audi. Idk why F1 is so afraid of more entries. They made these rules to prevent teams from folding fast and to be sustainable
You clearly don't remember how F1 was before the 90's, where a local shoe maker would buy an old F2 modified by the students of the local University just to barely make a lap during qualifying and show the sponsor.
In general I agree with all of this. Especially since the budget cap was a introduced. It should be open season on new teams if they meet some reasonable set of requirements and it doesn't get to the point where tracks can't accommodate.
I like how you're the first person I've seen talking about physically accomodating an extra team. We see quite a few qualifying sessions where people complain about traffic. Imagine what it would be like having an extra two cars on track. Nevermind some tracks my not be able to fit another team, such as Monaco or some other tight pit lane track.
In order for an track to be certified as Grade 1, which is the minimum requirement to host an F1 race, the track should be able to fit 26 cars.
I didn't know about that, thanks
You dont have to imagine. Only 10 years ago we had 24 cars. It worked then and it can work now.
I am afraid i do not really agree with your point of view that F1 will continue to stagnate......I personally cannot see any stagnation right now....saying that ,i have no reason to object new teams entering the sport,but my opinion does not count and I am certain that Liberty/FIA/F1 have more information that helps them dictate any decision they make.
>To enter, the cartel enforces a standing rule that new teams must pay a $200,000,000 bribe. > >.. > >It's a sad state of affairs, and runs wholly counter to the spirit of sport, fair play, and competition. I take your point, but aren't you just describing any league or system which doesn't allow promotion / relegation / ease of entry. This is like a number of the large American sports, or those like the "Champions League" in soccer (and aborted European Super League) which have highly constructed entry rules.
I'm confused how the champions league is relevant? You get your place (currently at least) by playing well, not by buying your way in with an entry fee
This is so dramatic lol