With the FIA and FOM looking to circumvent Ferrari’s veto of the F1 strategy group's latest cost-cutting initiative, is it time to look at reeling-in the Scuderia? For a team that proudly boasts its history of competing in every Formula 1 season since the inaugural championship in 1950, it seems Scuderia Ferrari remains decidedly uninterested in the sport’s long-term survival. The FIA announced on Monday that a measure to more than halve the roughly €20 million annual fee paid by the sport’s engine customers had been vetoed by the Italian manufacturer, despite being “adopted with a large majority” by the F1 strategy group. The veto is something Ferrari are entitled to as part of their individual contract with Formula One Management. With that proposal now put on the backburner, the FIA will look to introduce an independent “client engine” that is available to all teams by 2017, but that does nothing to solve Ferrari’s continued political and financial dominance. Undoubtedly the most recognisable team to compete in F1, Ferrari have been able to manoeuvre their way into a position of strength unrivalled by any of the other teams, and not just in the political arena either. It’s common knowledge that the Scuderia receives a substantial cash bonus just for competing, which when combined with their own engine clientele and performance payouts make them one of the few teams able to consistently turn a profit in the sport. In comparison, teams like Force India are struggling just to make ends meet, with news breaking overnight that the Silverstone outfit is seeking an advance on their 2016 payments – coincidentally, they are one of the teams that stands to lose most from Ferrari’s continued blocking of cost reduction efforts. Ferrari’s position seems to be very much a case of “my way or the highway”, as vetoing the strategy group’s proposal keeps the door open for true customer teams, or a move to three-cars per constructor – two ideas that have long been favoured by the team. In either case, it would only boost the Scuderia’s standing at the front of the grid, while keeping the Saubers, Lotuses and Force Indias of the sport fighting over the scraps. Of course, there is an argument to be made in favour of Ferrari’s preferential treatment, namely that Ferrari essentially is Formula 1, and having had such success over the years – both on-track and in fostering a passionate fanbase – they should be compensated accordingly. It’s easy to see where Ferrari gained the leverage to negotiate such a strong position, but the reality is that the sport has changed, and this should be reflected in how much influence the team has in relation to its competitors. Simply on the basis of recent results, Ferrari’s continued insistence on a larger slice of the F1 pie seems unfair in comparison to its immediate rivals, at least. Does the iconic red livery really account for enough of F1’s popularity to warrant such a position? The concern is that Ferrari might up and leave should they lose their current privileges, but it’s those privileges that are driving a wedge in the sport, and that jeopardises more than just Ferrari’s involvement. Perhaps F1 does need a radical solution like three-car teams, but let it be a matter of consensus among all the competitive teams – not as a result of a Ferrari agenda. Allowing this to continue to play out is just as likely to drive away big teams and manufacturers as it is the lower-tier ones. In the end, as beneficial as Ferrari’s presence is to F1, it will mean little if there’s no F1 left to race in.