1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Featured Does Ferrari have too much power in Formula 1?

Discussion in 'Formula 1' started by Ben Stevens, Oct 29, 2015.

  1. Yes

    95 vote(s)
  2. No

    42 vote(s)
  1. Ben Stevens

    Ben Stevens

    arrivabene.jpg 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.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 29, 2015
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Haha Haha x 1
  2. Chris Stacey

    Chris Stacey
    Ted Kravitz Appreciation Society Staff Premium Member

    Great article Ben!

    And yes, they absolutely do hold way too much power. The bottom line is that teams should have absolutely no say in the direction of the regulations as they're all trying to pull it in their favour. It's utterly ridiculous.

    Hopefully the strategy group will be dissolved someday soon as you simply cannot have selected competitors influencing the regulations, but I doubt it'll happen.
    • Agree Agree x 5
  3. Aidan Keranen

    Aidan Keranen
    #4 2KF1 Racing RDGPC|LoL/RL Caster@AussieGamingTV Premium Member

    Can't stand how much power they hold. There is no doubt, F1 will lose out with no Ferrari, but on the flip side, what will Ferrari do? If they lose F1 they'll surely lose something too, even if just to be able to boast about it.
    Call their bluff, if they want to leave it is only their decision. The sport has to look at keeping itself afloat. F1 as a whole should come first, not Ferrari then the competition.
    • Agree Agree x 6
  4. I believe there should be some type of a cap money wise to cut cost and level the playing field as long as it's a pretty liberal amount allowed to also continue the ability for innovation through R&D
  5. Rob

    XBO: OctoberDusk06 Premium Member

    I'm no Ferrari fan other than their superb driver choice over the years. However, all the haters out there might want to stop and think for a second. The yearly kickback to Ferrari is repulsive, for sure, but at least it's public. I have no doubt others get the same sort of deal, only privately. Renault was no doubt pressured to sign a letter of intent from many directions. And who knows what sweetheart deals others get. Bottom line is, F1 needs an overhaul and it's going to be painful.

    It used to be that Mosley (although accused of a lot of things, like all risk taking, rich men are) was in line with drivers, Bernie (who is not the problem folks), and the car makers. Now we have Todt, who is a small man, small minded, and a backroom weasel. His ties to Ferrari are so strong that any notion that "the FIA" will fix this must be laughed at. And the notion that the FIA is in "control" of this sport is a facade. Follow the money. Last time I checked, Todt and the FIA have made hardly any right moves recently (from the tracks, to the rules, to ruining the sport's essence) and they get paid quite well. I'd say let the other teams vote on the fate of Ferrari and then together, either move on with another sanctioning body (plenty of better, ready tracks and louder, faster cars) or threaten to with no bluff. The ACO is good, but it's mostly French specific. The U.S. has about 30 sanctioning bodies to Europe's two or three. Something needs to give, and it's not Ferrari, except that stipend. Either take it away or hide it like all good kickbacks. lol.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Call Ferrari's bluff. If they drop out of F1, they are just another supercar manufacturer. What F1 needs is good racing. The people will come, the fanbase will grow and grow and the money will flow like water if the competition is intense and exciting. Move in that direction and let Ferrari do whatever they want to do. If one team becomes bigger than the sport, the sport will always suffer.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. Teams should not be allowed to get their hands into the regulations, and it's not only a Ferrari problem, they all do it (or at least try to). But i don't think we should blame the teams, sometimes people forget it's a competition and teams are going to try and take an advantage on the others, both on and off the track. It's up to the organizers to keep things clean and keep the competition only on track and on the design table.

    The second main issue is the distribution of the money, i'm ok with the big and historic teams getting a bonus, at the end of the day they have the most fans which means they bring more money and attention into the sport compared to the smaller ones.
    But it definately needs to be more balanced, there's just too much difference between top teams and the others. But again, organizers's fault.

    Maybe a little bit off topic, but it would also be good if they started treating F1 more like a sport\competition again, There is too much "we need to improve the show" garbage. Or at least they should do it properly, no drs, a big increase in the braking distances, get rid of most of the micro aerodynamic on the front wing and good tyres that drivers can push for more then 2 laps. :rolleyes:
    But in general if they focus more on the sport side i think the "show" will automatically improve too. :thumbsup:
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. If receiving an additional 187 million "just for existing" isn't holding too much power then no other fact-based arguments will convince a block-headed person :roflmao:.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Chris Stacey

    Chris Stacey
    Ted Kravitz Appreciation Society Staff Premium Member

    In a perfect world, and If I were Commander in Chief of F1, I would:
    1. Disbanden the Strategy group and leave the regulations to the FIA/other independent body.
    2. Distribute the FOM prize money more fairly.
    3. Super durable and grippy tyres but enforce two pit stops per race.
    4. Reduce dependence on aerodynamics.
    5. Ban wind tunnels.
    6. Get rid of DRS.
    7. Ensure that Monaco, Silverstone, Nurburgring, Spa and Monza remain on the calendar irrespective of financial difficulties.
    8. Open F1 up to social media devices. They're currently like 30 years behind the times thanks to Bernie's 'techno-fear'. Allow people to watch races online and ad-free for a fee (much like NBA league pass and the likes).
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. ... “client engine” that is available to all teams by 2017 ... ahahah: F1 death, GP1 birth ... the same :thumbsdown:
  11. MoerasGrizzly

    Premium Member

    I actually would not mind DRS, I just don't like the current rules F1 uses for them. If all cars were allowed to use them all the time this would be a neat way to make the cars a lot more faster (and more fast equals more good!) without much cost.
  12. What's the point of a vote in F1... if (as the article points out)...most teams agreed and one team can simply 'veto' it?
    Neither Ferrari... nor any other team, should get a bonus simply for competing.
    It's absolutely ludicrous given the massive cost to struggling teams.
    I have to believe their is something else tied to the veto.
    Why would any team do something which has a potential to reduce the life if F1?
  13. fortyfivekev

    Premium Member

    Ferrari's veto was negotiated by Todt so good luck getting that changed. ;)

    All the top teams have too much say on the rules (they shouldn't have any) but other than starting a new series it's hard to see any long term solution. :(
  14. Turk

    Premium Member

    I'd agree with the sentiment that it's daft to allow one of the competitors to have a bigger say than other competitors when it comes to setting rules and regs. Of course that competitor is going to try and push things in their favour. Especially when they're on the back foot.

    The problem with Ferrari is they're not a typical company. Unlike a team like Mercedes which sells to the general public and is at the mercy of public opinion, Ferrari doesn't have to give a damn what the general public think. They're not selling cars to normal people. The majority of people on the planet could hate Ferrari and Ferrari would probably still sell every car they make before they even send the plans to the factory to be manufactured.

    I don't think they'll back down, I doubt they'd pull out of F1 over some less preferential treatment either. F1 is a big part of the Ferrari history, the two are synonymous with each other. Ferrari can dig their heels in but I think it's a lot of bluff because they've nothing to lose by bluffing.
  15. Ferrari as to much say for sure & its been for way to long . over sevarls decades Ferrari's tactics to get its own way have been un-sporting.

    Yes they have won a lot of race's but they have also spent long time not winning races, as it ever stopped them trying to get things their way no.

    Like all here just what would Ferrari do if it quit F1 ?
    I am sure F1 would carry on it would maybe take a few years to find its feet again.

    But what for Ferrari . Le- Mans as a works team . lets face it they have been away as works team since the mid 70's

    Almost all Ferrari's none F1 racers are private teams running in the GT classes.
    Ferrari as not had a work team in any other class of Motor racing since again the 70's

    It threw all its eggs into the F1 Basket.

    Though I suspect Mr F1 Bernie has had a big say in unbalanced amounts of money that Ferrari get to keep them in F1 & only in F1 as a full works team & out of other Motor sports.

    Even Fiat suffers from Ferrari's my way or no way policy . some would say the fact that their are no longer works Teams from Alfa & Lancia taking part in motor racing is down to the fact that Ferrari demands to bigger budget from Fiat for its racing program.

    I would let them go , though I doubt they would if push came to shove , but at least that would end this current in- balance in F1's profit sharing.

    No single team should be bigger than the sport its in no matter if they ave been around since the start of F1 who cares their are plenty of other team that beat Ferrari that are no longer around.
    Yes Ferrari are one of the Big names in motor racing but they are not bigger than the sport & thats a fact.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Andrew Scott

    Andrew Scott
    Premium Member

    The fact that one team can veto the sports governing body says "volumes" about the clowns who oversee the F1 circus.

    Under the current controls F1 has gone backwards, the fact that select teams have a large input into the regulations smacks of favoritism, talk about stack the odds in your favor.
    The fact that Ferrari can turn a profit each season while other teams slowly hemorrhage money till their eventual demise from the sport is just BS, I would think the FOM would do all it could to keep teams racing, instead of the attitude, "no money, no garage".

    Can you imagine if sports like the NBL, AFL, NFL or FA cup were run in this manner, it would be criminal, and fans would be spitting chips rioting in the streets etc etc.

    F1's governing body should be the only regulation maker, sure consult all teams regards changes to regs or safety concerns, but the teams should have no influence on the final regs outcome.

    Call Ferrari's bluff I say, If they take their toolbox and go home, it would just show that Ferrari wont play fair.
    So it's possibly a good thing for Ferrari to leave F1, at least then we might see some positive moves that put F1 back on the map for smaller budget teams because the formula has become more affordable for more competitors and is not being influenced by Ferrari, or any other team for that matter.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. This just adds to the growing list of why I can't stand Ferrari. Anyone who is a die hard Formula One fan shouldn't like Ferrari, and this article is a perfect example why. Most of their fans only cheer for them because they are so recognizable and I guess they like their road cars or something.

    It's like people who drink Coca Cola, you don't necessarily drink it over the no name brand cola because it's better, but because it's so well known and you see it everywhere. I agree, they have way too much power.
  18. If Ferrari really had so much power in F1, then they already had won all of the races this season. So my answer is NO
    • Beer Beer x 1
  19. Jake Fangio

    Jake Fangio
    Please don't rain pleeaassee don't rain

    FIA(Ferrari International Assistance).
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  20. Veto powers is absurd. Whatever else they get that should be dismissed without question.