by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
GP Week : Issue 217
F1 >>> BUsinEss president of the FIA and he says that if F1’s minnows had complained about the prize money distribution he would have prevented it from being put in place. “It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the small teams had asked us to intervene in 2009. Bernie and the rich teams would have resisted. It would have been one of those classic F1 standoffs. My plan was simply to say we won’t sign Concorde if the distribution is unfair. We would have said the money distributed under Concorde should be fair, it isn’t.” When the Concorde expired in 2012 it was replaced with separate contracts with each team. They grant the CCB fund to Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull and Mosley suggests the FIA should do something about it. “The FIA would only be justified in getting involved if the competition itself were being distorted. Obviously the FIA should intervene if one team were running a bigger engine than the others and that is covered by the regulations. However the effect of having vastly more money is exactly the same as having a bigger engine.” The team contracts don’t lock down the regulations as technical and sporting matters are now decided by an organisation called the Strategy Group. It was created in 2013 and has three members who each have equal votes: Ecclestone, the FIA and six leading teams. The exclusion of F1’s smallest teams has fuelled allegations, which are being investigated by the European Commission, that the Strategy Group is anti-competitive. Although F1’s minnows are not members of the Strategy Group, they are affected by its decisions. In 2014 it vetoed a $160m cap on team budgets which was due to be introduced this year and would have boosted the chances of the smaller outfits. Mosley says that a budget cap would prevent more of them from going to the wall and, if it was low enough, would put the brakes on the dispute about prize money. “The only certainty is that for real sporting fairness, a cost-cap is necessary. It might also help keep F1 on the rails. A cost cap also avoids all discussion about who gets what provided it is set at a level that the small teams can afford. That requirement would give the big teams an incentive to agree a fairer distribution.” The biggest criticism of a budget cap is that it couldn’t be enforced but between January to May 2008 a group of the teams’ financial officers and two partners from the accountancy firm Deloitte investigated plans for a $60m limit and concluded that it was enforceable. However, it was not to be. The top teams threatened to walk out which soon put the brakes on the budget cap and drove them towards the high-octane costs they have today. Time will tell whether it is a decision they live to regret. 33 GPWEEK.com // 33 GPWEEK.com // PARTNERS: