planetf1.com

Following from the discussion around revenue distribution in the 'HAAS says Ferrari and MB will ruin F1' thread, and in particular this exchange:

j man wrote:Totally agree with Steiner here. The sport would be far more interesting if the revenue distribution allowed someone other than the top three teams to compete at the front. It is very telling that the most vociferous supporters of the current revenue arrangement seem to be Ferrari fans.

Blake wrote: it's even more telling that you see it that way.

mikeyg123 wrote:Out of interest is there anyone on this forum who supports the current revenue arrangement and is not a Ferrari fan?

I became curious about the question posed. Does anyone, in fact, support the revenue distribution model, and if so how many of them are not Ferrari fans?

That's the question I hope to answer with this data gathering poll.

Note that the question of 'support' or 'against' the model is aimed at one particular facet of the model, namely that certain teams receive bonuses for their history or as a result of agreements signed with the rights holder, as opposed to distribution being equal or based purely on competitive standing. The exact amounts are not the focus of this question. If you believe some teams should receive extra for their age or status, you support the model for the purposes of this poll. It doesn't matter if you think it's perfect the way it is, since I doubt anyone believes that.

And my own vote: I am against the model, and my team (McLaren) receives extra money.

I am of the opinion that older or more popular teams will always benefit from this status organically, through higher sponsorship opportunities, superior merchandise sales, etc. They don't need to have a built-in advantage in the basic distribution of the money. I'm in favor of a system of either totally equal distribution, or at least the majority equal and a small amount based on performance. Teams don't need a financial incentive to be competitive - being competitive is why they're in F1 in the first place.

Similar to Exediron really, Macca are my team at this point, at least until they win again anyway and I'm against the current model for reasons well put above.

Ah yes... The Ferrari devils are on trial in the forum yet again. And apparently Blake as well. Personally, excediron, I prefer not to be singled out as the basis of this thread. I suspect Ferrari/Ferrari fans would prefer to be grouped with all the teams that receive benefits as opposed to being singled out. Also if the poll is to exist, I'd appreciate an inbetween option...It isn't as simple as a strictly yes or no answer.

There are other aspects of revenue that should be in the discussion, but not nearly as fun. My respond to the topic is in the other thread.

Blake wrote:Ah yes... The Ferrari devils are on trial in the forum yet again. And apparently Blake as well. Personally, excediron, I prefer not to be singled out as the basis of this thread. I suspect Ferrari/Ferrari fans would prefer to be grouped with all the teams that receive benefits as opposed to being singled out. Also if the poll is to exist, I'd appreciate an inbetween option...It isn't as simple as a strictly yes or no answer.

There are other aspects of revenue that should be in the discussion, but not nearly as fun. My respond to the topic is in the other thread.

Why do you always perceive criticism of the current model as criticism of Ferrari? Ferrari have every right to negotiate themselves the best deal. The best deal for Ferrari is not always going to be the best deal for the sport though.

As I said in my initial response to your post it will be interesting to see if any non Ferrari supporter comes forward as supporting our current model.

And yes, I do know Ferrari aren't the only team to accept what quite frankly is a bribe to keep them sweet. I do think however that something is clearly amiss when it is impossible for Williams to earn more than Ferrari.

Blake wrote:Ah yes... The Ferrari devils are on trial in the forum yet again. And apparently Blake as well. Personally, excediron, I prefer not to be singled out as the basis of this thread. I suspect Ferrari/Ferrari fans would prefer to be grouped with all the teams that receive benefits as opposed to being singled out. Also if the poll is to exist, I'd appreciate an inbetween option...It isn't as simple as a strictly yes or no answer.

There are other aspects of revenue that should be in the discussion, but not nearly as fun. My respond to the topic is in the other thread.

I'm sorry you see it as being singled out, as I didn't intend it that way. You were one of the three people who started the discussion in that other thread, so you got a quote.

Having read your reply in the other thread, it is clearly a yes. Your opinion doesn't seem to be a middle ground to me: as I stated in my OP, if you support the idea of teams being paid at least in part on the basis of history or status, it's a yes for this thread.

I don't think that's an invalid opinion to have. It isn't my opinion, but I do understand the argument behind it - for Ferrari, McLaren and Williams only. Mercedes and Red Bull to me have done nothing to merit historic bonus payments. Mercedes and Red Bull have both hinted frequently that they'll leave the sport when it no longer aligns with their interests. And putting that aside, neither one has been in F1 for even as long as Sauber, which doesn't get a bonus.

If you wouldn't mind, what's your response to my argument that historic teams will always have an elevated revenue as a result of their fan base and increased sponsorship opportunities? If you think about American sports, there's no question that certain NFL teams have a far bigger draw than others. Yet the pot is split equally, providing a base level where everyone can afford to compete. The bigger, historic teams still make more money, but they make it through things directly and fairly attributable to their popularity - deals and merchandising using their name and image.

The idea of giving an even distribution to all the teams isn't rooted in an idea that it will make Haas suddenly challenge Ferrari, despite how it's sometimes presented. It's rooted in the idea that every team should have enough base money to be healthy and compete, and that what teams spend on top of that should be down to their own willingness and ability to put money into the sport. The teams who get the bonuses are the exact opposite of the teams who need them; Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren and Red Bull will be financially stable with no bonuses at all. But the money would make a lot of difference to the likes of Force India or Manor, teams who struggle to stay on the grid because they have no deep pockets standing behind them.

The system makes no competitive sense, though it does serve to incentivise big players sticking in the game when they might otherwise. see other series as better value-for-money.

F1 says it wants to reduce the gap between the top three teams and the rest of the league, while knowingly paying the top three more than double what fourth-place gets (sans McLaren, who are onto a good thing at $100m a year for finishing well down the order).

Success should bring prizes (though some would argue the prestige and publicity of winning a title is valuable enough), but the current discrepancy in awards is anti-competition.

Voted against. I'm also a fan of McLaren but I don't see the argument for giving them more money than others simply because they used to be successful once. And the example mikeyg123 gave where it's impossible for Williams to earn more than Ferrari does seem very odd.

IIRC the teams were given the opportunity to become stakeholders in the sport but they rejected it. Purely as participants I don't agree that any team should get more than others for anything other than recent performance. The Ferrari historical payment is a bribe by any other name and, while I do like the team (although I wouldn't consider myself a fan of them specifically), I think that gets harder and harder to justify, especially when other teams are drowning.

Unlike some, though, I don't feel that teams should be able to survive on the money they receive from F1 alone. I don't see why simply turning up should guarantee anyone an income for life and they should have a sensible enough business model that allows them to complete. It's a business as well as a sport and shouldn't be seen as a gravy train.

But the way the money is distributed makes it almost impossible for smaller teams to do anything but be mid-field fodder and I don't really see the logic that has more money paid to Ferrari and Mercedes than the bottom six teams combined. By all means reward success but the balance is complately skewed and if they removed all the dodgy extra payments such as Ferrari's historical payemts, the CCB etc then they would have another $30M or so to give to each team based on last year's payments alone, which would mean no team would receive less than $75M in prize money. Ferrari currently gets more than that just for turning up.

Last year Sauber got $45M: Ferrari got $193M. I don't see how that can be justified.

Lets say there is 1bn in prize money or whatever.
It should be split evenly between 10 teams.
100m each.
The end.

It shouldn't even be a discussion.
If teams like Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren don't like it, then tough.

Against. I could be considered as a Ferrari fan, and funnily mainly for "historical" reason. When I was a kid, Ferrari was the other word for motor-racing (I made a longer development of this here years ago...).

But contrary to most of the posters here, I think that the "mega-bonus" given to the "historical teams" is what kept the head of F1 above water, by preventing Ferrari (and may be McLaren, that has an history of racing and winning in other series) to go racing elsewhere. The other teams got a bonus only for them to accept that Ferrari gets one... The viewing figures, as the number of followers, is constantly decreasing. With Ferrari going elsewhere, F1, that is more wealthy as a racket business than as a sport, would simply collapse.

Harpo wrote:Against. I could be considered as a Ferrari fan, and funnily mainly for "historical" reason. When I was a kid, Ferrari was the other word for motor-racing (I made a longer development of this here years ago...).

But contrary to most of the posters here, I think that the "mega-bonus" given to the "historical teams" is what kept the head of F1 above water, by preventing Ferrari (and may be McLaren, that has an history of racing and winning in other series) to go racing elsewhere. The other teams got a bonus only for them to accept that Ferrari gets one... The viewing figures, as the number of followers, is constantly decreasing. With Ferrari going elsewhere, F1, that is more wealthy as a racket business than as a sport, would simply collapse.

No one is bigger than the show. And I say this as a Ferrari fan. And the sport would not collapse, that's just absurd. It didn't collapse when Senna died, they just found another star. Show must go on, and it does.

Consider this, where would Ferrari go if not in F1? They use this argument every year (that they'll go) and I despise it. Go where? E-formula? Indy? DTM? Lawnmower dragsters? Where? It is pure bribery and bullying and I can't believe that no one had the balls all these years to tell them "well, go on then, the door is open".

Which also points to there being much bigger games behind the scenes.

I think they shouldn't exactly stop the historic bonuses per ce. Just steadily reduce them every year to reach a lower rate, something like £10m per team that is there more than a decade or whatever. Two birds (maybe one of them slightly tiddled off!), one stone.

Finally, the reasoning of "we bring most of the fans to the sport" is being one that the big teams normally use. Which is exactly why they shouldn't be getting extra help. They have 10 million Tifosi buying their F1 merchandise, they exploit their popularity by selling T-shirts and flags already. I do suspect however that if they didn't get the historic payment, we'd be paying £300 for a Leclerc T-shirt...

Rant against my favourite team over!

Sutton wrote:Lets say there is 1bn in prize money or whatever.
It should be split evenly between 10 teams.
100m each.
The end.

It shouldn't even be a discussion.
If teams like Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren don't like it, then tough.

I disagree the idea of WCC placings is to receive the appropriate prize money, you should be rewarded for success.

pokerman wrote:

Sutton wrote:Lets say there is 1bn in prize money or whatever.
It should be split evenly between 10 teams.
100m each.
The end.

It shouldn't even be a discussion.
If teams like Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren don't like it, then tough.

I disagree the idea of WCC placings is to receive the appropriate prize money, you should be rewarded for success.

I agree, but I think the whole talk was more of the historical payments, rather than the normal prize moneys received. That is indeed down to the position of the teams in the WCC and it does not work the way Sutton describes it.

As a Hamilton fan I default to supporting Mercedes and I voted against the present system, I'm wondering how the present system would sit with the proposed budget cap, that seems not to make any sense?

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Sutton wrote:Lets say there is 1bn in prize money or whatever.
It should be split evenly between 10 teams.
100m each.
The end.

It shouldn't even be a discussion.
If teams like Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren don't like it, then tough.

I disagree the idea of WCC placings is to receive the appropriate prize money, you should be rewarded for success.

I agree, but I think the whole talk was more of the historical payments, rather than the normal prize moneys received. That is indeed down to the position of the teams in the WCC and it does not work the way Sutton describes it.

Well it looks like he's lumping all the money together and then sharing it out equally, lump it all together into the present WCC system of payments were you receive the appropriate reward for your seasons achievement.

Sutton wrote:Lets say there is 1bn in prize money or whatever.
It should be split evenly between 10 teams.
100m each.
The end.

It shouldn't even be a discussion.
If teams like Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren don't like it, then tough.

I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had on rewarding success. There aren't many sports where the winner gets the same as the loser(s).

Zoue wrote:

Sutton wrote:Lets say there is 1bn in prize money or whatever.
It should be split evenly between 10 teams.
100m each.
The end.

It shouldn't even be a discussion.
If teams like Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren don't like it, then tough.

I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had on rewarding success. There aren't many sports where the winner gets the same as the loser(s).

Indeed in true sporting competition when does mediocrity get equally rewarded?

Exediron wrote:

Blake wrote:Ah yes... The Ferrari devils are on trial in the forum yet again. And apparently Blake as well. Personally, excediron, I prefer not to be singled out as the basis of this thread. I suspect Ferrari/Ferrari fans would prefer to be grouped with all the teams that receive benefits as opposed to being singled out. Also if the poll is to exist, I'd appreciate an inbetween option...It isn't as simple as a strictly yes or no answer.

There are other aspects of revenue that should be in the discussion, but not nearly as fun. My respond to the topic is in the other thread.

I'm sorry you see it as being singled out, as I didn't intend it that way. You were one of the three people who started the discussion in that other thread, so you got a quote.

Having read your reply in the other thread, it is clearly a yes. Your opinion doesn't seem to be a middle ground to me: as I stated in my OP, if you support the idea of teams being paid at least in part on the basis of history or status, it's a yes for this thread.

I don't think that's an invalid opinion to have. It isn't my opinion, but I do understand the argument behind it - for Ferrari, McLaren and Williams only. Mercedes and Red Bull to me have done nothing to merit historic bonus payments. Mercedes and Red Bull have both hinted frequently that they'll leave the sport when it no longer aligns with their interests. And putting that aside, neither one has been in F1 for even as long as Sauber, which doesn't get a bonus.

If you wouldn't mind, what's your response to my argument that historic teams will always have an elevated revenue as a result of their fan base and increased sponsorship opportunities? If you think about American sports, there's no question that certain NFL teams have a far bigger draw than others. Yet the pot is split equally, providing a base level where everyone can afford to compete. The bigger, historic teams still make more money, but they make it through things directly and fairly attributable to their popularity - deals and merchandising using their name and image.

The idea of giving an even distribution to all the teams isn't rooted in an idea that it will make Haas suddenly challenge Ferrari, despite how it's sometimes presented. It's rooted in the idea that every team should have enough base money to be healthy and compete, and that what teams spend on top of that should be down to their own willingness and ability to put money into the sport. The teams who get the bonuses are the exact opposite of the teams who need them; Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren and Red Bull will be financially stable with no bonuses at all. But the money would make a lot of difference to the likes of Force India or Manor, teams who struggle to stay on the grid because they have no deep pockets standing behind them.

(BIB)

Perhaps i've misunderstood, but i was of the impression that neither Red Bull or Mercedes receive these types of longstanding bonus payments?

I think Red Bull receive a specific bonus for being the first to sign the Concorde agreement. While Mercedes receive a specific bonus for winning back to back contructors' titles. For me, the latter payment is slightly more palatable, because it's at least performance based & rewards success.

Siao7 wrote:

Harpo wrote:Against. I could be considered as a Ferrari fan, and funnily mainly for "historical" reason. When I was a kid, Ferrari was the other word for motor-racing (I made a longer development of this here years ago...).

But contrary to most of the posters here, I think that the "mega-bonus" given to the "historical teams" is what kept the head of F1 above water, by preventing Ferrari (and may be McLaren, that has an history of racing and winning in other series) to go racing elsewhere. The other teams got a bonus only for them to accept that Ferrari gets one... The viewing figures, as the number of followers, is constantly decreasing. With Ferrari going elsewhere, F1, that is more wealthy as a racket business than as a sport, would simply collapse.

No one is bigger than the show. And I say this as a Ferrari fan. And the sport would not collapse, that's just absurd. It didn't collapse when Senna died, they just found another star. Show must go on, and it does.

Consider this, where would Ferrari go if not in F1? They use this argument every year (that they'll go) and I despise it. Go where? E-formula? Indy? DTM? Lawnmower dragsters? Where? It is pure bribery and bullying and I can't believe that no one had the balls all these years to tell them "well, go on then, the door is open".

Which also points to there being much bigger games behind the scenes.

I think they shouldn't exactly stop the historic bonuses per ce. Just steadily reduce them every year to reach a lower rate, something like £10m per team that is there more than a decade or whatever. Two birds (maybe one of them slightly tiddled off!), one stone.

Finally, the reasoning of "we bring most of the fans to the sport" is being one that the big teams normally use. Which is exactly why they shouldn't be getting extra help. They have 10 million Tifosi buying their F1 merchandise, they exploit their popularity by selling T-shirts and flags already. I do suspect however that if they didn't get the historic payment, we'd be paying £300 for a Leclerc T-shirt...

Rant against my favourite team over!

We're all registered on a forum that is called planet F1... We're all here because motor racing is or was important in our lives, but let's face it, the F1 planet is getting smaller every year, and most of the people under 30 don't care about F1 racing, to say nothing of motor-racing in general. It's not dead yet, but only because it's been turned in time into a giant interconnected racket of entwined interests, exploiting past glory and fidelity of fans to sell at the highest price, to people who don't care about what they buy as long as they think it will serve their interests, something that is painted bigger every year when it's gradually deflating (and I don't even talk of the interest of the current "show"). Paradox is that it never made as money as nowadays and never was less important... So yes, I maintain what I wrote. The bonus was not the reward of Ferrari blackmailing, it was an investment to preserve and develop the high selling price of the show.

Harpo wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Harpo wrote:Against. I could be considered as a Ferrari fan, and funnily mainly for "historical" reason. When I was a kid, Ferrari was the other word for motor-racing (I made a longer development of this here years ago...).

But contrary to most of the posters here, I think that the "mega-bonus" given to the "historical teams" is what kept the head of F1 above water, by preventing Ferrari (and may be McLaren, that has an history of racing and winning in other series) to go racing elsewhere. The other teams got a bonus only for them to accept that Ferrari gets one... The viewing figures, as the number of followers, is constantly decreasing. With Ferrari going elsewhere, F1, that is more wealthy as a racket business than as a sport, would simply collapse.

No one is bigger than the show. And I say this as a Ferrari fan. And the sport would not collapse, that's just absurd. It didn't collapse when Senna died, they just found another star. Show must go on, and it does.

Consider this, where would Ferrari go if not in F1? They use this argument every year (that they'll go) and I despise it. Go where? E-formula? Indy? DTM? Lawnmower dragsters? Where? It is pure bribery and bullying and I can't believe that no one had the balls all these years to tell them "well, go on then, the door is open".

Which also points to there being much bigger games behind the scenes.

I think they shouldn't exactly stop the historic bonuses per ce. Just steadily reduce them every year to reach a lower rate, something like £10m per team that is there more than a decade or whatever. Two birds (maybe one of them slightly tiddled off!), one stone.

Finally, the reasoning of "we bring most of the fans to the sport" is being one that the big teams normally use. Which is exactly why they shouldn't be getting extra help. They have 10 million Tifosi buying their F1 merchandise, they exploit their popularity by selling T-shirts and flags already. I do suspect however that if they didn't get the historic payment, we'd be paying £300 for a Leclerc T-shirt...

Rant against my favourite team over!

We're all registered on a forum that is called planet F1... We're all here because motor racing is or was important in our lives, but let's face it, the F1 planet is getting smaller every year, and most of the people under 30 don't care about F1 racing, to say nothing of motor-racing in general. It's not dead yet, but only because it's been turned in time into a giant interconnected racket of entwined interests, exploiting past glory and fidelity of fans to sell at the highest price, to people who don't care about what they buy as long as they think it will serve their interests, something that is painted bigger every year when it's gradually deflating (and I don't even talk of the interest of the current "show"). Paradox is that it never made as money as nowadays and never was less important... So yes, I maintain what I wrote. The bonus was not the reward of Ferrari blackmailing, it was an investment to preserve and develop the high selling price of the show.

I hear you and I somewhat agree. I just don't think that the sport will collapse without Ferrari. They have bigger problems to solve at the moment if you ask me.

Look, I am happy for Ferrari having negotiated themselves in this lucrative revenue system. Kudos to their financial and marketing people. But I do not agree that a) the racing would collapse without them nor b) that they would actually go, as there is nothing like F1 around the world and I never bought into the runaway series threats (how would they even start something like that?).

Siao7 wrote:

Harpo wrote:
We're all registered on a forum that is called planet F1... We're all here because motor racing is or was important in our lives, but let's face it, the F1 planet is getting smaller every year, and most of the people under 30 don't care about F1 racing, to say nothing of motor-racing in general. It's not dead yet, but only because it's been turned in time into a giant interconnected racket of entwined interests, exploiting past glory and fidelity of fans to sell at the highest price, to people who don't care about what they buy as long as they think it will serve their interests, something that is painted bigger every year when it's gradually deflating (and I don't even talk of the interest of the current "show"). Paradox is that it never made as money as nowadays and never was less important... So yes, I maintain what I wrote. The bonus was not the reward of Ferrari blackmailing, it was an investment to preserve and develop the high selling price of the show.

I hear you and I somewhat agree. I just don't think that the sport will collapse without Ferrari. They have bigger problems to solve at the moment if you ask me.

Look, I am happy for Ferrari having negotiated themselves in this lucrative revenue system. Kudos to their financial and marketing people. But I do not agree that a) the racing would collapse without them nor b) that they would actually go, as there is nothing like F1 around the world and I never bought into the runaway series threats (how would they even start something like that?).

What I was trying to say is that if Ferrari (and McLaren ?) is no more for us, motor-racing encyclopedists, the alternate name for motor-racing (though I could discuss this), it still is for 99,99 % of planet-not-F1. That is the part of the world to which F1 owners sell their over inflated show at an over exorbitant price. Remove Ferrari from the offer and F1, what F1 has become nowadays, will collapse. Not as the racing series, but as the massive worldwide racket that Bernie developped.
My opinion is that, among the big problems they have to solve to regain some credibility and get a chance of a future, the model of business is not the smallest. And the excessive amount of money involved, shared - fairly or not - and used by the teams (even the little ones) is part of the problem. Starve an obese, he dies.

Harpo wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Harpo wrote:
We're all registered on a forum that is called planet F1... We're all here because motor racing is or was important in our lives, but let's face it, the F1 planet is getting smaller every year, and most of the people under 30 don't care about F1 racing, to say nothing of motor-racing in general. It's not dead yet, but only because it's been turned in time into a giant interconnected racket of entwined interests, exploiting past glory and fidelity of fans to sell at the highest price, to people who don't care about what they buy as long as they think it will serve their interests, something that is painted bigger every year when it's gradually deflating (and I don't even talk of the interest of the current "show"). Paradox is that it never made as money as nowadays and never was less important... So yes, I maintain what I wrote. The bonus was not the reward of Ferrari blackmailing, it was an investment to preserve and develop the high selling price of the show.

I hear you and I somewhat agree. I just don't think that the sport will collapse without Ferrari. They have bigger problems to solve at the moment if you ask me.

Look, I am happy for Ferrari having negotiated themselves in this lucrative revenue system. Kudos to their financial and marketing people. But I do not agree that a) the racing would collapse without them nor b) that they would actually go, as there is nothing like F1 around the world and I never bought into the runaway series threats (how would they even start something like that?).

What I was trying to say is that if Ferrari (and McLaren ?) is no more for us, motor-racing encyclopedists, the alternate name for motor-racing (though I could discuss this), it still is for 99,99 % of planet-not-F1. That is the part of the world to which F1 owners sell their over inflated show at an over exorbitant price. Remove Ferrari from the offer and F1, what F1 has become nowadays, will collapse. Not as the racing series, but as the massive worldwide racket that Bernie developped.
My opinion is that, among the big problems they have to solve to regain some credibility and get a chance of a future, the model of business is not the smallest. And the excessive amount of money involved, shared - fairly or not - and used by the teams (even the little ones) is part of the problem. Starve an obese, he dies.

Ok, this makes more sense, I get you. So essentially pure F1 fan vs a casual one

Siao7 wrote:

Harpo wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Harpo wrote:
We're all registered on a forum that is called planet F1... We're all here because motor racing is or was important in our lives, but let's face it, the F1 planet is getting smaller every year, and most of the people under 30 don't care about F1 racing, to say nothing of motor-racing in general. It's not dead yet, but only because it's been turned in time into a giant interconnected racket of entwined interests, exploiting past glory and fidelity of fans to sell at the highest price, to people who don't care about what they buy as long as they think it will serve their interests, something that is painted bigger every year when it's gradually deflating (and I don't even talk of the interest of the current "show"). Paradox is that it never made as money as nowadays and never was less important... So yes, I maintain what I wrote. The bonus was not the reward of Ferrari blackmailing, it was an investment to preserve and develop the high selling price of the show.

I hear you and I somewhat agree. I just don't think that the sport will collapse without Ferrari. They have bigger problems to solve at the moment if you ask me.

Look, I am happy for Ferrari having negotiated themselves in this lucrative revenue system. Kudos to their financial and marketing people. But I do not agree that a) the racing would collapse without them nor b) that they would actually go, as there is nothing like F1 around the world and I never bought into the runaway series threats (how would they even start something like that?).

What I was trying to say is that if Ferrari (and McLaren ?) is no more for us, motor-racing encyclopedists, the alternate name for motor-racing (though I could discuss this), it still is for 99,99 % of planet-not-F1. That is the part of the world to which F1 owners sell their over inflated show at an over exorbitant price. Remove Ferrari from the offer and F1, what F1 has become nowadays, will collapse. Not as the racing series, but as the massive worldwide racket that Bernie developped.
My opinion is that, among the big problems they have to solve to regain some credibility and get a chance of a future, the model of business is not the smallest. And the excessive amount of money involved, shared - fairly or not - and used by the teams (even the little ones) is part of the problem. Starve an obese, he dies.

Ok, this makes more sense, I get you. So essentially pure F1 fan vs a casual one

First this thread is totally to bash Ferrari so not sure you can have a fair discussion with this. Second we keep restricting things in F1. Let's take Pro sports in the USA. F1 is a worls sport not a UK sport so for discussion purposes let's do us Pro Baseball MLB.. MLB started in mid late 1800's 's let's take a team like the Boston Red Sox they have been around since the start of MLB. Over the years they developed players, built stadiums etc. At some point the owners of teams started to band together and say we are going to take hold of all revenue streams coming into MLB and we also are going to self police this by installing a commissioner to oversee rules, policies, team violations and also to collectively negotiate its commercial rights ( TV when it became popular, Gate receipts, overseas rights, merchandise) and also said in the market you play in say the New England area (Boston red Sox home) you can negotiate private TV rights just fo rthat market. by doing so MLB owners have set franchise areas not uncommon in retail, food service etc. Certain revenue is shared and certain revenue is taken just by the local team.

MLB also says hey any new teams that want to enter MLB must pay an entry fee last time a new franchise was awarded was years ago however that fee was paid equally amoung all the teams currently in the MLB. This fee is a very large number hundreds of millions of dollars to join the MLB league.

This creates a problem the large market teams (NY, LA, Boston, Chicago as example) can demand larger local market revenue then say Kansas City, or Dallas. This revenue can be considerable hundreds of millions in some cases. The MLB owners said OK in oder to keep some balance these teams can not use this huge revenue gains to buy the best players you must kleep within a certain budget. This budget is enforced by saying if a team goes over this budget to sign better players you pay a tax on the difference between the budgeted agreed number collectively and the final cost of these players annually. so in Red Sox case let's say the Budget or Cap is set at 250 Million US dollars and the Team player payroll is 300 Million dollars well then Red Sox pay a tax off of the 50 million in excess of the budgeted agreed number. Let's say that tax is 20% so Red Sox must pay this tax and it is redistributed to all the teams that stay within the budgeted can of 250 Million dollars.

Why Can't F1 do the same? Teams that have been in F1 longer should enjoy more revenue by way of entry fees. F1 teams should control all commercial rights just like other sports and F1 teams should control all revenue streams when they do this there is no need for Liberty and no need for these silly payments they make.

The problem is the teams are not united for the benifit of the collective good and that was Bernies amazingly brilliant move, he knew the teams eventually would not need a commercial rights holder so he creatd these one off deals so he can control the commercial rights. if I am Ferari and someone sayd hey I give you 6o million per year to just get to grid plus millions moreif you win, millions more if you do this why not? Ferrari has not signed any agreement with Williams collectively only under a concorde agreement hat ties teams to commercial rights holder not EACH OTHER, There in lies the problem with this whole line of discussion. When teams collectively take onweship then I would support equitable distribution of revenue until then do not blame Ferarri or Red Bull for deals they make to better themselves.

My point of view.

Good post Astoria, but I can't see this being implemented in F1 as it is. Concorde agreements and the F1 rights will not let that happen.

They would need to unite and actually do something. But that does not look possible

Siao7 wrote:Good post Astoria, but I can't see this being implemented in F1 as it is. Concorde agreements and the F1 rights will not let that happen.

They would need to unite and actually do something. But that does not look possible

Totally agree and there in lies the issue. Do not blame the teams for making a deal, thes teams had the chance to breakaway a few years ago they were ready to go then Brrnie started to give money to all teams like he was giving it away...he was and again he is brilliant for doing so, he kept control. These teams could have the billions in revenue to share and honestly they still can...they just let the concorde agreement expire then start there own series. You need Ferrari and one other team to do this then they all fall in line however this breakaway only works with Ferrari. Bernie knew this and Liberty knows this. Ferarri is the key to any deal.

As per my post that triggered this thread, I am against the current revenue model. I don't support any particular team, I see them all as nothing more than faceless engineering companies and to me the drivers are the stars of the show who create that human interest element. Not that I'd want to take the car out of the equation altogether, the engineering competition is intrinsic to F1's DNA, but the sport would become considerably more interesting to watch if all the teams competed on the same playing field financially; then it truly does become an engineering competition rather than a spending one.

In whose interest is it to maintain a funding model that ensures that the top teams cannot be challenged? A funding model that prevents new, independent entrants from ever reaching the top table? Other than those top teams and their fans? I would strongly argue that a close, fair competition would boost F1's brand appeal far more than ensuring that a famous marque always wins.

Only three Ferrari fans willing to give their opinion so far??? I thought we had a lot more Team Red aficionados around here than that.

AstoriaisBACK wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Good post Astoria, but I can't see this being implemented in F1 as it is. Concorde agreements and the F1 rights will not let that happen.

They would need to unite and actually do something. But that does not look possible

Totally agree and there in lies the issue. Do not blame the teams for making a deal, thes teams had the chance to breakaway a few years ago they were ready to go then Brrnie started to give money to all teams like he was giving it away...he was and again he is brilliant for doing so, he kept control. These teams could have the billions in revenue to share and honestly they still can...they just let the concorde agreement expire then start there own series. You need Ferrari and one other team to do this then they all fall in line however this breakaway only works with Ferrari. Bernie knew this and Liberty knows this. Ferarri is the key to any deal.

Has anyone on this thread criticised Ferrari for getting themselves a good deal. The only criticism at all is one poster talking about their constant threats to leave. It's hardly a Ferrari bash thread. Hell, the Ferrari agreement isn't even the dirtiest. At least you could make a logical argument for them getting more money. Red Bull's extra cash is just a straight up bribe. I can't believe the media has never made a lot more of it.

I dont think a lot of people even understand the revenue distribution. Keep in mind that only half of the Ferrari Bonus comes from Prize money. Rest does not. Neither does the bonuses of other teams, thats why they are called BONUS.

It comes from FOM from their revenue and it is for business reasons and not sporting reasons. Whether that is fair deal or not is a different question but keep in mind the other teams are never getting a single penny out of it. It comes form 50% FOM share, if it goes, more money goes to FOM and not the other teams.

So all this talk of fair distribution of payment is only possible if and only if FOM agrees to lesser cut of the entire pie and does anyone here see it happening???

Because as it stands, all these bonus amounts are given out by them voluntarily from their 50% share for various business and marketing reasons. They are deciding how much to give to what team and its mostly based on their judgement call based on how they see the marketing value of the team's brand and recent success. That it. The bonuses does mean more money to these teams but these teams do bring in more perceived money into F1 according to right holders and to keep them happy they are getting these payments.

I will have zero issue if FOM agrees to distribute say 80% of the money to teams, get rid of all bonuses and let the merit decide how much someone gets the next year. But like any league, F1 is more than just a sport. Its a televised entertainment business as well. And there things work differently. Last thing I want to see if FOM getting more money than what they do right now instead of the top 4-5 teams who have shown their commitment to the F1 over time.

This is why you do not really see much resistance when push comes to shove from even the smaller teams. You see these odd statements here and there but at the end of the day they know that the bonuses are not coming from prize money and are coming out of FOM pocket.

This is one of the reason I am not voting in this poll. Its useless. And yes, I am Ferrari fan. But I am a fan, I dont care about the money they get. I care about them doing well in championships and races.

This chart should help better understand how the money is actually distributed. Look at it from a business point of view and then you will understand why it works like it does right now.

I often think the money should be put into 3 pots

The biggest pot, maybe 50% distributed evenly
The 2nd pot, prize money on a reducing scale from first to last
The 3rd pot, loyalty/historical. Teams that commit to F1 for a long time, should be rewarded to a degree. It is good for the sport to have commitment. This could be a sliding payment that starts after 5yrs commitment, and maybe capped after 25yrs.

I think that graph shows 45 million going from the teams side to Ferrari? I think most people would just like FOM to add the bribe money to the prize fund pot and just distribute based on performance. Ferrari's special 90 million payment which is close to double what you actually get for winning the championship.

The least Ferrari can earn is $171 million.

I hadn't realised how stark it actually was. It's actually impossible for any team over than Red Bull to earn more than Ferrari.

How on earth can that be right or sporting?

mikeyg123 wrote:I think that graph shows 45 million going from the teams side to Ferrari? I think most people would just like FOM to add the bribe money to the prize fund pot and just distribute based on performance. Ferrari's special 90 million payment which is close to double what you actually get for winning the championship.

The least Ferrari can earn is $171 million.

I hadn't realised how stark it actually was. It's actually impossible for any team over than Red Bull to earn more than Ferrari.

How on earth can that be right or sporting?

This is old chart. This is the only one I was able to find. The figures are obviously different now that Mercedes have won both championships for last 4 years (as you can see this includes payment to Marussia & Caterham.

This has seen some tweaks as well. Ferrari and RedBull did not take such large pies last few years. It is Mercedes who is taking biggest chunk for last few years.

I posted that chart so that people understand how and from where bonuses are coming from.

NO ONE DOES outside the teams who currently get the biggest pieces of the pie regardless of their results.

AstoriaisBACK wrote:First this thread is totally to bash Ferrari so not sure you can have a fair discussion with this.

This is false. I am not anti-Ferrari, and I have never been. This sort of defensive straw-manning just makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion, and makes Ferrari fans look like paranoics suffering from fortress mentality. I know you're not all like that, so why make statements like that and hurt your argument before it even starts?

funkymonkey wrote:I dont think a lot of people even understand the revenue distribution. Keep in mind that only half of the Ferrari Bonus comes from Prize money. Rest does not. Neither does the bonuses of other teams, thats why they are called BONUS.

It comes from FOM from their revenue and it is for business reasons and not sporting reasons. Whether that is fair deal or not is a different question but keep in mind the other teams are never getting a single penny out of it. It comes form 50% FOM share, if it goes, more money goes to FOM and not the other teams.

So all this talk of fair distribution of payment is only possible if and only if FOM agrees to lesser cut of the entire pie and does anyone here see it happening???

Because as it stands, all these bonus amounts are given out by them voluntarily from their 50% share for various business and marketing reasons. They are deciding how much to give to what team and its mostly based on their judgement call based on how they see the marketing value of the team's brand and recent success. That it. The bonuses does mean more money to these teams but these teams do bring in more perceived money into F1 according to right holders and to keep them happy they are getting these payments.

I will have zero issue if FOM agrees to distribute say 80% of the money to teams, get rid of all bonuses and let the merit decide how much someone gets the next year. But like any league, F1 is more than just a sport. Its a televised entertainment business as well. And there things work differently. Last thing I want to see if FOM getting more money than what they do right now instead of the top 4-5 teams who have shown their commitment to the F1 over time.

This is why you do not really see much resistance when push comes to shove from even the smaller teams. You see these odd statements here and there but at the end of the day they know that the bonuses are not coming from prize money and are coming out of FOM pocket.

This is one of the reason I am not voting in this poll. Its useless. And yes, I am Ferrari fan. But I am a fan, I dont care about the money they get. I care about them doing well in championships and races.

This chart should help better understand how the money is actually distributed. Look at it from a business point of view and then you will understand why it works like it does right now.

Not sure I'd agree with that. FOM would clearly have a business model which supports paying out x amounts to the teams, whether it be classified as bonus or prize money. If they didn't make the extra payments and re-classified them as prize money instead then it wouldn't affect their bottom line at all. And you can bet that one of the rationale for keeping the prize money at the level it is now is the other payments they make, so it does have a direct influence

aice wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Blake wrote:Ah yes... The Ferrari devils are on trial in the forum yet again. And apparently Blake as well. Personally, excediron, I prefer not to be singled out as the basis of this thread. I suspect Ferrari/Ferrari fans would prefer to be grouped with all the teams that receive benefits as opposed to being singled out. Also if the poll is to exist, I'd appreciate an inbetween option...It isn't as simple as a strictly yes or no answer.

There are other aspects of revenue that should be in the discussion, but not nearly as fun. My respond to the topic is in the other thread.

I'm sorry you see it as being singled out, as I didn't intend it that way. You were one of the three people who started the discussion in that other thread, so you got a quote.

Having read your reply in the other thread, it is clearly a yes. Your opinion doesn't seem to be a middle ground to me: as I stated in my OP, if you support the idea of teams being paid at least in part on the basis of history or status, it's a yes for this thread.

I don't think that's an invalid opinion to have. It isn't my opinion, but I do understand the argument behind it - for Ferrari, McLaren and Williams only. Mercedes and Red Bull to me have done nothing to merit historic bonus payments. Mercedes and Red Bull have both hinted frequently that they'll leave the sport when it no longer aligns with their interests. And putting that aside, neither one has been in F1 for even as long as Sauber, which doesn't get a bonus.

If you wouldn't mind, what's your response to my argument that historic teams will always have an elevated revenue as a result of their fan base and increased sponsorship opportunities? If you think about American sports, there's no question that certain NFL teams have a far bigger draw than others. Yet the pot is split equally, providing a base level where everyone can afford to compete. The bigger, historic teams still make more money, but they make it through things directly and fairly attributable to their popularity - deals and merchandising using their name and image.

The idea of giving an even distribution to all the teams isn't rooted in an idea that it will make Haas suddenly challenge Ferrari, despite how it's sometimes presented. It's rooted in the idea that every team should have enough base money to be healthy and compete, and that what teams spend on top of that should be down to their own willingness and ability to put money into the sport. The teams who get the bonuses are the exact opposite of the teams who need them; Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren and Red Bull will be financially stable with no bonuses at all. But the money would make a lot of difference to the likes of Force India or Manor, teams who struggle to stay on the grid because they have no deep pockets standing behind them.

(BIB)

Perhaps i've misunderstood, but i was of the impression that neither Red Bull or Mercedes receive these types of longstanding bonus payments?

I think Red Bull receive a specific bonus for being the first to sign the Concorde agreement. While Mercedes receive a specific bonus for winning back to back contructors' titles. For me, the latter payment is slightly more palatable, because it's at least performance based & rewards success.

They are still extra payments that they shouldn't really be receiving in respect to fair competition.

Zoue wrote:

funkymonkey wrote:I dont think a lot of people even understand the revenue distribution. Keep in mind that only half of the Ferrari Bonus comes from Prize money. Rest does not. Neither does the bonuses of other teams, thats why they are called BONUS.

It comes from FOM from their revenue and it is for business reasons and not sporting reasons. Whether that is fair deal or not is a different question but keep in mind the other teams are never getting a single penny out of it. It comes form 50% FOM share, if it goes, more money goes to FOM and not the other teams.

So all this talk of fair distribution of payment is only possible if and only if FOM agrees to lesser cut of the entire pie and does anyone here see it happening???

Because as it stands, all these bonus amounts are given out by them voluntarily from their 50% share for various business and marketing reasons. They are deciding how much to give to what team and its mostly based on their judgement call based on how they see the marketing value of the team's brand and recent success. That it. The bonuses does mean more money to these teams but these teams do bring in more perceived money into F1 according to right holders and to keep them happy they are getting these payments.

I will have zero issue if FOM agrees to distribute say 80% of the money to teams, get rid of all bonuses and let the merit decide how much someone gets the next year. But like any league, F1 is more than just a sport. Its a televised entertainment business as well. And there things work differently. Last thing I want to see if FOM getting more money than what they do right now instead of the top 4-5 teams who have shown their commitment to the F1 over time.

This is why you do not really see much resistance when push comes to shove from even the smaller teams. You see these odd statements here and there but at the end of the day they know that the bonuses are not coming from prize money and are coming out of FOM pocket.

This is one of the reason I am not voting in this poll. Its useless. And yes, I am Ferrari fan. But I am a fan, I dont care about the money they get. I care about them doing well in championships and races.

This chart should help better understand how the money is actually distributed. Look at it from a business point of view and then you will understand why it works like it does right now.

Not sure I'd agree with that. FOM would clearly have a business model which supports paying out x amounts to the teams, whether it be classified as bonus or prize money. If they didn't make the extra payments and re-classified them as prize money instead then it wouldn't affect their bottom line at all. And you can bet that one of the rationale for keeping the prize money at the level it is now is the other payments they make, so it does have a direct influence

Its not that simple. These big teams with huge following and marketing pull allow their brand, brand name and its marketing value to be used to promote F1.

Consider these payment as licensing and royalty payments because that is what they are. Nobody will just give away the money to these teams without any reason.
If tomorrow a big brand from some other series or sector joins and brings the sort of following we see the top 3-4 teams have right now, you will see them getting the slice of this pie.

The entire model is structured around having dedicated fans, dedicated viewership for long term and to generate new viewership from new places. WHat will happen if we go to fair prize money model but Ferrari and Mercedes refuse to let FOM and FIA use their brand to promote F1 across the globe. Will they get new race promoters? Will they retain current one? How will stands look without face of Ferrari or Mercedes drivers plasters on the stadium hoardings, tickets and adverts?

Its not just F1 but these things are taken into consideration when running all sport leagues in the world.

Its not just about FOM bottom line per season but maintaining that bottom line for longer and finding a way to grow it going into the future. And only way they can do that is by leveraging popular teams, their history and their drivers and brand. These are the payments towards that.

Aint nobody gonna buy ticket to see Marussia or HRT back on the grid. (Just making a point, I would actually love to see them both back in the sport).

I am just fine with little more restructuring of the revenue model from current one. But I also fully support additional payments to teams that are loyal to F1, are dedicate to F1 no matter what. Nobody has been more dedicated to F1 than Ferrari. And huge contributions by McLaren and Williams as well. Mercedes too have been in the sport in one form or another for a long time now and have shown their commitment by becoming a factory team. I do not see anyone other than possibly Renault being willing to show that kind of commitment going forward. Renault has been hot and cold over last 2 decades, so if I am FOM, I will wait a while before adding them to the list of teams that receive these bonuses and I will be just fine if they get this bonus by cutting bonuses of existing teams.

In ideal world, we will have 10 or more equally dedicated and ambitious teams and no need for the bonus structure. But that is not the case.

funkymonkey wrote:

Zoue wrote:

funkymonkey wrote:I dont think a lot of people even understand the revenue distribution. Keep in mind that only half of the Ferrari Bonus comes from Prize money. Rest does not. Neither does the bonuses of other teams, thats why they are called BONUS.

It comes from FOM from their revenue and it is for business reasons and not sporting reasons. Whether that is fair deal or not is a different question but keep in mind the other teams are never getting a single penny out of it. It comes form 50% FOM share, if it goes, more money goes to FOM and not the other teams.

So all this talk of fair distribution of payment is only possible if and only if FOM agrees to lesser cut of the entire pie and does anyone here see it happening???

Because as it stands, all these bonus amounts are given out by them voluntarily from their 50% share for various business and marketing reasons. They are deciding how much to give to what team and its mostly based on their judgement call based on how they see the marketing value of the team's brand and recent success. That it. The bonuses does mean more money to these teams but these teams do bring in more perceived money into F1 according to right holders and to keep them happy they are getting these payments.

I will have zero issue if FOM agrees to distribute say 80% of the money to teams, get rid of all bonuses and let the merit decide how much someone gets the next year. But like any league, F1 is more than just a sport. Its a televised entertainment business as well. And there things work differently. Last thing I want to see if FOM getting more money than what they do right now instead of the top 4-5 teams who have shown their commitment to the F1 over time.

This is why you do not really see much resistance when push comes to shove from even the smaller teams. You see these odd statements here and there but at the end of the day they know that the bonuses are not coming from prize money and are coming out of FOM pocket.

This is one of the reason I am not voting in this poll. Its useless. And yes, I am Ferrari fan. But I am a fan, I dont care about the money they get. I care about them doing well in championships and races.

This chart should help better understand how the money is actually distributed. Look at it from a business point of view and then you will understand why it works like it does right now.

Not sure I'd agree with that. FOM would clearly have a business model which supports paying out x amounts to the teams, whether it be classified as bonus or prize money. If they didn't make the extra payments and re-classified them as prize money instead then it wouldn't affect their bottom line at all. And you can bet that one of the rationale for keeping the prize money at the level it is now is the other payments they make, so it does have a direct influence

Its not that simple. These big teams with huge following and marketing pull allow their brand, brand name and its marketing value to be used to promote F1.

Consider these payment as licensing and royalty payments because that is what they are. Nobody will just give away the money to these teams without any reason.
If tomorrow a big brand from some other series or sector joins and brings the sort of following we see the top 3-4 teams have right now, you will see them getting the slice of this pie.

The entire model is structured around having dedicated fans, dedicated viewership for long term and to generate new viewership from new places. WHat will happen if we go to fair prize money model but Ferrari and Mercedes refuse to let FOM and FIA use their brand to promote F1 across the globe. Will they get new race promoters? Will they retain current one? How will stands look without face of Ferrari or Mercedes drivers plasters on the stadium hoardings, tickets and adverts?

Its not just F1 but these things are taken into consideration when running all sport leagues in the world.

Its not just about FOM bottom line per season but maintaining that bottom line for longer and finding a way to grow it going into the future. And only way they can do that is by leveraging popular teams, their history and their drivers and brand. These are the payments towards that.

Aint nobody gonna buy ticket to see Marussia or HRT back on the grid. (Just making a point, I would actually love to see them both back in the sport).

I am just fine with little more restructuring of the revenue model from current one. But I also fully support additional payments to teams that are loyal to F1, are dedicate to F1 no matter what. Nobody has been more dedicated to F1 than Ferrari. And huge contributions by McLaren and Williams as well. Mercedes too have been in the sport in one form or another for a long time now and have shown their commitment by becoming a factory team. I do not see anyone other than possibly Renault being willing to show that kind of commitment going forward. Renault has been hot and cold over last 2 decades, so if I am FOM, I will wait a while before adding them to the list of teams that receive these bonuses and I will be just fine if they get this bonus by cutting bonuses of existing teams.

In ideal world, we will have 10 or more equally dedicated and ambitious teams and no need for the bonus structure. But that is not the case.

But why do these big teams have such a large following and marketing pull? Because they are the teams who are winning and employ the star drivers. And why is this the case? Because they receive the majority of the TV revenue. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Brawn GP proved that any team can become widely popular and sell lots of merchandise if they are winning the championship and have a popular driver; a historic name matters not at all.

I'm also sure that Manor/Marussia would have been completely loyal to F1 if they'd been provided with any funds with which to compete.

j man wrote:

funkymonkey wrote:

Zoue wrote:

funkymonkey wrote:I dont think a lot of people even understand the revenue distribution. Keep in mind that only half of the Ferrari Bonus comes from Prize money. Rest does not. Neither does the bonuses of other teams, thats why they are called BONUS.

It comes from FOM from their revenue and it is for business reasons and not sporting reasons. Whether that is fair deal or not is a different question but keep in mind the other teams are never getting a single penny out of it. It comes form 50% FOM share, if it goes, more money goes to FOM and not the other teams.

So all this talk of fair distribution of payment is only possible if and only if FOM agrees to lesser cut of the entire pie and does anyone here see it happening???

Because as it stands, all these bonus amounts are given out by them voluntarily from their 50% share for various business and marketing reasons. They are deciding how much to give to what team and its mostly based on their judgement call based on how they see the marketing value of the team's brand and recent success. That it. The bonuses does mean more money to these teams but these teams do bring in more perceived money into F1 according to right holders and to keep them happy they are getting these payments.

I will have zero issue if FOM agrees to distribute say 80% of the money to teams, get rid of all bonuses and let the merit decide how much someone gets the next year. But like any league, F1 is more than just a sport. Its a televised entertainment business as well. And there things work differently. Last thing I want to see if FOM getting more money than what they do right now instead of the top 4-5 teams who have shown their commitment to the F1 over time.

This is why you do not really see much resistance when push comes to shove from even the smaller teams. You see these odd statements here and there but at the end of the day they know that the bonuses are not coming from prize money and are coming out of FOM pocket.

This is one of the reason I am not voting in this poll. Its useless. And yes, I am Ferrari fan. But I am a fan, I dont care about the money they get. I care about them doing well in championships and races.

This chart should help better understand how the money is actually distributed. Look at it from a business point of view and then you will understand why it works like it does right now.

Not sure I'd agree with that. FOM would clearly have a business model which supports paying out x amounts to the teams, whether it be classified as bonus or prize money. If they didn't make the extra payments and re-classified them as prize money instead then it wouldn't affect their bottom line at all. And you can bet that one of the rationale for keeping the prize money at the level it is now is the other payments they make, so it does have a direct influence

Its not that simple. These big teams with huge following and marketing pull allow their brand, brand name and its marketing value to be used to promote F1.

Consider these payment as licensing and royalty payments because that is what they are. Nobody will just give away the money to these teams without any reason.
If tomorrow a big brand from some other series or sector joins and brings the sort of following we see the top 3-4 teams have right now, you will see them getting the slice of this pie.

The entire model is structured around having dedicated fans, dedicated viewership for long term and to generate new viewership from new places. WHat will happen if we go to fair prize money model but Ferrari and Mercedes refuse to let FOM and FIA use their brand to promote F1 across the globe. Will they get new race promoters? Will they retain current one? How will stands look without face of Ferrari or Mercedes drivers plasters on the stadium hoardings, tickets and adverts?

Its not just F1 but these things are taken into consideration when running all sport leagues in the world.

Its not just about FOM bottom line per season but maintaining that bottom line for longer and finding a way to grow it going into the future. And only way they can do that is by leveraging popular teams, their history and their drivers and brand. These are the payments towards that.

Aint nobody gonna buy ticket to see Marussia or HRT back on the grid. (Just making a point, I would actually love to see them both back in the sport).

I am just fine with little more restructuring of the revenue model from current one. But I also fully support additional payments to teams that are loyal to F1, are dedicate to F1 no matter what. Nobody has been more dedicated to F1 than Ferrari. And huge contributions by McLaren and Williams as well. Mercedes too have been in the sport in one form or another for a long time now and have shown their commitment by becoming a factory team. I do not see anyone other than possibly Renault being willing to show that kind of commitment going forward. Renault has been hot and cold over last 2 decades, so if I am FOM, I will wait a while before adding them to the list of teams that receive these bonuses and I will be just fine if they get this bonus by cutting bonuses of existing teams.

In ideal world, we will have 10 or more equally dedicated and ambitious teams and no need for the bonus structure. But that is not the case.

But why do these big teams have such a large following and marketing pull? Because they are the teams who are winning and employ the star drivers. And why is this the case? Because they receive the majority of the TV revenue. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Brawn GP proved that any team can become widely popular and sell lots of merchandise if they are winning the championship and have a popular driver; a historic name matters not at all.

I'm also sure that Manor/Marussia would have been completely loyal to F1 if they'd been provided with any funds with which to compete.

Brawn is the worst example you can give. The result of race winning car was not because of the Brawn but 100s and millions of $$$ spent by Honda. And we all saw what happened. They were not able to sustain themselves. They won because of early car advantage they had because of Honda chassis and aero package and were actually not winning come second half as there was limited development.
ANd what happened? They grabbed the cash and fame and were sold to Mercedes. This is precisely what I mean. At least Mercedes were long running engine supplier before they became factory team. They worked their way up. They were not winning championships immediately. They worked towards it. Same with Ferrari. Ferrari are self built team with more than half a century of history in F1. They became popular because they kept racing, they committed to sport for decades and built exciting race and road cars. Nothing fell in their lap. McLaren is similar story. Success or failure, these teams stuck with F1 with dedication and commitment to race and try to win championships.

Lot of people say redbull bought success, but we forget how even they build their team gradually. We forget 2-3 years of steady buildup to championship winning cars. Ferrari hasnt won any championship in over a decade. This is not new, they went through this phase before as well. But they are still there trying as hard as anyone. They are not sitting idle on pile of cash doing nothing. Williams and McLaren are going through that. They didnt pack their bags and left. Williams may finally fall soon though.

Keep in mind even with all the money they receive, Ferrari and Mercedes do not make profit from F1 venture in fact they make losses regularly. Only RedBull and some midfield teams do turn profit these days. The top teams are in F1 for completely different reason.

funkymonkey wrote:

j man wrote:

funkymonkey wrote:

Zoue wrote:

funkymonkey wrote:I dont think a lot of people even understand the revenue distribution. Keep in mind that only half of the Ferrari Bonus comes from Prize money. Rest does not. Neither does the bonuses of other teams, thats why they are called BONUS.

It comes from FOM from their revenue and it is for business reasons and not sporting reasons. Whether that is fair deal or not is a different question but keep in mind the other teams are never getting a single penny out of it. It comes form 50% FOM share, if it goes, more money goes to FOM and not the other teams.

So all this talk of fair distribution of payment is only possible if and only if FOM agrees to lesser cut of the entire pie and does anyone here see it happening???

Because as it stands, all these bonus amounts are given out by them voluntarily from their 50% share for various business and marketing reasons. They are deciding how much to give to what team and its mostly based on their judgement call based on how they see the marketing value of the team's brand and recent success. That it. The bonuses does mean more money to these teams but these teams do bring in more perceived money into F1 according to right holders and to keep them happy they are getting these payments.

I will have zero issue if FOM agrees to distribute say 80% of the money to teams, get rid of all bonuses and let the merit decide how much someone gets the next year. But like any league, F1 is more than just a sport. Its a televised entertainment business as well. And there things work differently. Last thing I want to see if FOM getting more money than what they do right now instead of the top 4-5 teams who have shown their commitment to the F1 over time.

This is why you do not really see much resistance when push comes to shove from even the smaller teams. You see these odd statements here and there but at the end of the day they know that the bonuses are not coming from prize money and are coming out of FOM pocket.

This is one of the reason I am not voting in this poll. Its useless. And yes, I am Ferrari fan. But I am a fan, I dont care about the money they get. I care about them doing well in championships and races.

This chart should help better understand how the money is actually distributed. Look at it from a business point of view and then you will understand why it works like it does right now.

Not sure I'd agree with that. FOM would clearly have a business model which supports paying out x amounts to the teams, whether it be classified as bonus or prize money. If they didn't make the extra payments and re-classified them as prize money instead then it wouldn't affect their bottom line at all. And you can bet that one of the rationale for keeping the prize money at the level it is now is the other payments they make, so it does have a direct influence

Its not that simple. These big teams with huge following and marketing pull allow their brand, brand name and its marketing value to be used to promote F1.

Consider these payment as licensing and royalty payments because that is what they are. Nobody will just give away the money to these teams without any reason.
If tomorrow a big brand from some other series or sector joins and brings the sort of following we see the top 3-4 teams have right now, you will see them getting the slice of this pie.

The entire model is structured around having dedicated fans, dedicated viewership for long term and to generate new viewership from new places. WHat will happen if we go to fair prize money model but Ferrari and Mercedes refuse to let FOM and FIA use their brand to promote F1 across the globe. Will they get new race promoters? Will they retain current one? How will stands look without face of Ferrari or Mercedes drivers plasters on the stadium hoardings, tickets and adverts?

Its not just F1 but these things are taken into consideration when running all sport leagues in the world.

Its not just about FOM bottom line per season but maintaining that bottom line for longer and finding a way to grow it going into the future. And only way they can do that is by leveraging popular teams, their history and their drivers and brand. These are the payments towards that.

Aint nobody gonna buy ticket to see Marussia or HRT back on the grid. (Just making a point, I would actually love to see them both back in the sport).

I am just fine with little more restructuring of the revenue model from current one. But I also fully support additional payments to teams that are loyal to F1, are dedicate to F1 no matter what. Nobody has been more dedicated to F1 than Ferrari. And huge contributions by McLaren and Williams as well. Mercedes too have been in the sport in one form or another for a long time now and have shown their commitment by becoming a factory team. I do not see anyone other than possibly Renault being willing to show that kind of commitment going forward. Renault has been hot and cold over last 2 decades, so if I am FOM, I will wait a while before adding them to the list of teams that receive these bonuses and I will be just fine if they get this bonus by cutting bonuses of existing teams.

In ideal world, we will have 10 or more equally dedicated and ambitious teams and no need for the bonus structure. But that is not the case.

But why do these big teams have such a large following and marketing pull? Because they are the teams who are winning and employ the star drivers. And why is this the case? Because they receive the majority of the TV revenue. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Brawn GP proved that any team can become widely popular and sell lots of merchandise if they are winning the championship and have a popular driver; a historic name matters not at all.

I'm also sure that Manor/Marussia would have been completely loyal to F1 if they'd been provided with any funds with which to compete.

Brawn is the worst example you can give. The result of race winning car was not because of the Brawn but 100s and millions of $$$ spent by Honda. And we all saw what happened. They were not able to sustain themselves. They won because of early car advantage they had because of Honda chassis and aero package and were actually not winning come second half as there was limited development.
ANd what happened? They grabbed the cash and fame and were sold to Mercedes. This is precisely what I mean. At least Mercedes were long running engine supplier before they became factory team. They worked their way up. They were not winning championships immediately. They worked towards it. Same with Ferrari. Ferrari are self built team with more than half a century of history in F1. They became popular because they kept racing, they committed to sport for decades and built exciting race and road cars. Nothing fell in their lap. McLaren is similar story. Success or failure, these teams stuck with F1 with dedication and commitment to race and try to win championships.

Lot of people say redbull bought success, but we forget how even they build their team gradually. We forget 2-3 years of steady buildup to championship winning cars. Ferrari hasnt won any championship in over a decade. This is not new, they went through this phase before as well. But they are still there trying as hard as anyone. They are not sitting idle on pile of cash doing nothing. Williams and McLaren are going through that. They didnt pack their bags and left. Williams may finally fall soon though.

Keep in mind even with all the money they receive, Ferrari and Mercedes do not make profit from F1 venture in fact they make losses regularly. Only RedBull and some midfield teams do turn profit these days. The top teams are in F1 for completely different reason.

You've missed my point. The circumstances surrounding Brawn's success is irrelevant, my point is that a team's popularity and commercial value to the sport comes primarily from success and having a popular driver and not from its historical achievements. Silverstone that year was a sea of Brawn/Button merchandise, for a team that had existed less than a year to draw the level of following that it had surely points towards F1 not needing to pander to the famous marques to maintain its status.

And I assure you that Mercedes would quit the sport tomorrow if they thought that their F1 venture wasn't making them any money.