Formula One sporting boss Ross Brawn wants to help the sport’s smallest teams avoid needing to hire pay drivers.
In an interview with Sky last week Brawn described how he would like to restore Formula One to being a “proper meritocracy”.
“The front end of the grid, it’s just ‘who’s the best driver we can find?’ The back end of the grid is ‘what’s the best driver we can find, and maybe bring some commercial sponsorship?'”
“And if we can put the smaller teams on a sound enough footing they don’t have to make that decision. Then I think the whole sport will improve. You get more of the Verstappens coming into the sport than we have now.”
The FIA has in recent years tried to ensure new drivers coming into the sport reach a minimum standard of talent by requiring them to amass a certain number of superlicence points.
Brawn also reiterated his doubts about whether the Drag Reduction System, which was introduced in 2011, has improved the racing.
“I’d like to see the back of it,” said Brawn. “I don’t like it.”
“If we could find a configuration of car and car design that gets us back how it should be I’d be much happier.”
2017 F1 season
- Sepang pays Haas compensation for Grosjean’s 2017 crash
- Williams revenues rose in 2017 after Bottas deal with Mercedes
- Australian Grand Prix cost government £56 million last year
- “Grand Prix Driver” takes you inside McLaren’s nightmare final year with Honda
- Undisputed champion: 10 titles name Hamilton top driver of 2017
Robbie (@robbie)
6th March 2017, 15:03
Keep talking RB…you’re saying all the right things.
Tayyib Abu
6th March 2017, 15:13
Doing the right things is a lot harder though
Robbie (@robbie)
6th March 2017, 16:14
Sure, but it is early days post-BE, and at least Brawn talks of taking the right amount of time to ensure everyone is on the same page as to the long term goals F1 should have going forward and how to implement them without knee-jerk changes without real direction.
G. (#F1insperations) (@greggriffiths)
6th March 2017, 21:18
True enough we all want to see action. He’s got a lot of barriers that hes going to have to wait to open for him but in that time you can rest assured he’s fine tuning his plan and making sure that all parties are happy so it’s a smooth transition.
Joao (@johnmilk)
6th March 2017, 18:47
Agree @robbie but this is a tricky one
I’ve always said that in the long term hiring good drivers would ultimately bring a bigger cash flow, the problem is that the teams at the bottom of the grid don’t need a big budget in the future, they need a good enough budget right now.
Force India and Sauber are good examples of this, and look how both teams are atm.
If Ross Brawn manages to create an environment of sustainability for the smaller teams while they build around good drivers and start taking fruits out of them in a long term plan I can see this working, but they have to start nesting that environment soon, otherwise teams like Sauber have their days counted if they don’t rely on pay drivers and new teams won’t have any interest in F1.
Offordef
6th March 2017, 15:25
Oh yes, more Verstappen can only mean the return of Jos the Boss himself ;-)
On a more serious note, F1 needs a healthy balance with more privateer teams instead of car manufactures that bail out when not winning. I hope Brawn succeeds.
IJW (@)
6th March 2017, 17:25
Doesn’t Max have a younger sister who also races?
JeffreyJ
6th March 2017, 18:12
She did kart for while but droppen out already for school reasons.
RogerA
6th March 2017, 15:35
Totally unrealistic goal.
Pay drivers have been around forever & regardless of what they do or how much money the teams have that will always be the case. And let us not forget that even some of the best drivers have brought F1 drives in the past (Niki Lauda been one such example).
Robbie (@robbie)
6th March 2017, 15:57
Very realistic goal. I highly doubt Brawn is going to try to push for zero tolerance on pay drivers. He just doesn’t want to see an F1 that continues to have smaller teams have no choice but to take a lesser driver with a big chequebook over a more qualified driver. I’m sure if in the future a team wants to do that nothing will stop them, but Brawn would rather see it not necessary ie. Rather see smaller teams healthy enough that they can attract higher caliber drivers over richer ones.
knoxploration
6th March 2017, 18:37
It’s only a realistic goal if Brawn removes Ferrari’s hugely unfair financial advantage, as well as they of any other team which gets paid extra just for showing up. The chances of that happening are nil, so this statement from Brawn is merely lipstick on a pig.
invisiblekid
7th March 2017, 6:26
Yeah lest just not try anything to make the sport better and continue to give in to the teams.
Has BE actually TREID to cut Ferrari’s turn up bonus come contract time? Nope.
These bonuses are one thing, winning fee’s and other incentives are another that can easily be changed. As @robbie said, options for the teams can be done. Don’t have paid for seats and get something else in return.
It’s early days and nothing can be done really for a couple of years. Lets not kick the best thing to happen to F1 in decades just because it might be a bit difficult.
GeeMac (@geemac)
6th March 2017, 15:39
The term “pay driver” is one which causes confusion. If you look at the 2017 grid, there are several drivers who bring funds to their teams in one form or another and are therefore “pay drivers” in the broadest sense. These include not only drivers who probably shouldn’t be in F1 like Marcus Ericsson, but also Sergio Perez (because of the significant financial backing he brings to his team) and the likes of Pascal Wehrlien and Esteban Ocon (because of the engine price cuts Mercedes offer teams to give them a seat). People used to often say Alonso could be classified as a pay driver because if you put him in your car, certain sponsors followed him (like Santander or Mutua Madrileña).
Now obviously the Alonso argument is silly, but Perez’s situation is exactly what muddies the waters. His backing secured him a seat after a good (but not great) junior career and he then proved he deserved to be in F1 through the strength of his performances. He is now a pay driver who you want to have in your car. The likes of Stroll and Palmer could argue that they are in F1 on merit because they have won key championships in the junior formulae, but the primary reason for them being in F1 is their financial backing.
I agree with Brawn’s sentiment, F1 needs to have a grid filled with the 20 best drivers in the world. We have no room for the likes of Taki Inoue or Jean-Denis Deletraz, but there is fundamentally no issue with a talented driver bringing a budget to a team given the economic climate of the day.
JimG (@jimg)
6th March 2017, 15:55
@geemac I agree. Could we define a “pay driver” as someone who has personal backers (for example a rich family) rather than commercial ones?
Robbie (@robbie)
6th March 2017, 16:10
I think in this case the only definition Brawn needs concern himself with is whether or not the best 20 drivers possible are on the grid, or if some are there because smaller teams had no choice from a budgetery aspect, to take the money over the talent. So I think he is accenting moreso not what defines a pay driver, but what defines F1 if some teams absolutely must bring lesser quality drivers into the fold and bring down the quality of the grid in doing so.
anon
6th March 2017, 19:59
@jimg, not necessarily, because some quite renowned drivers used their family’s personal wealth to break into the sport. For example, Ayrton Senna’s family were fairly wealthy by Brazilian standards and Ron Dennis has indicated that, when Senna joined Toleman, the deal did include some form of payment by Senna towards the team; equally, there have been other fairly successful drivers who have got where they did thanks to support from friends of their family.
@geemac, since you bring up Alonso, there is perhaps an argument that his early career was influenced by his sponsors – I might be wrong, but I think that Telefonica sponsored him during his junior career and at the start of his F1 career, and I believe that they did help open up links with Adrian Campos by paying for the test sessions that got him hired by Campos and helped broker Alonso’s initial talks with Minardi (whom they were sponsoring at the time).
Kie
6th March 2017, 17:54
+1 Yeah you pretty much nailed pay driver sliding scale there. To judge in recent years the cut off point for me would be Bruno Senna – Drivers such as Max Chillton, Will Stevens and certainly Yamamoto are on the wrong side of the scale. Marcus Ericsson started in the wrong side but seems to have slowly improved over seasons, though he’s probably the weakest driver on grid (Stroll not ranked).
Kie
6th March 2017, 18:00
Obviously Pastor was a pay driver, he deserved his shot at f1 and delivered. Should he of done better? Of course, was he erratic, hotheaded and at times very dangerous, yes of course.
Like I say above, B Senna’s meagre haul of points in the Williams prob represents the ‘deserves a drive’ fulcrum.
Sven (@crammond)
6th March 2017, 22:36
As far as I know the contractual situation for Alonso (Santander), Perez (Carlos Slim/Telmex and America Movil) and other pay drivers is pretty much the same, the sponsor pays, gets sponsor space and the driver drives. The only difference that us fans tend to make is that we do not call them pay drivers as soon as we think the investment is reasonable and potentially paying off due to the drivers skills and successes.
Estaban de los Casas
6th March 2017, 15:42
How many people from fans to those involved in the highest levels of success in Formula One have to say DRS needs to end ???
Who should we focus to, in hopes of making this nonsense go away?
When Brawn speaks many listen
grat
6th March 2017, 17:26
Start by addressing your concerns to Daniel Bernoulli. He won’t care, being dead and all, and even if he were alive, it’s unlikely he’d give up his principles. :)
The trick is to find other ways of generating downforce that won’t be abused. Personally, I’m in favor of active suspension and allowing the floor to be sculpted a bit to improve downforce (IndyCar style– not full ground effects with skirts), followed by a reduction in the number of elements in the front wings.
Strontium (@strontium)
6th March 2017, 16:00
I still cannot get over how these restrictions were brought in because of the very driver who everyone is saying we need more of in F1.
Robbie (@robbie)
6th March 2017, 16:03
What restrictions? What driver?
Gabriel (@rethla)
6th March 2017, 16:09
@robbie I assume hes talking about Max Verstappen and the harsher age and points restriction that followed in his wake.
Robbie (@robbie)
6th March 2017, 16:19
Ok but if so that’s not really about the pay driver issue of this topic. Max was not brought in for his chequebook. He was brought in because he has appeared that good at such a young age. The only danger with that was that it makes F1 look too easy if ‘a kid’ can do it. The cars are already harder to drive, though, which bodes well for separating the men from boys.
Tony
6th March 2017, 16:03
I definitely think the lower teams can get a huge amount more than they are getting at the moment, No reason not to. This would lead to improvements all round.
OmarRoncal - Go Seb!!! (@)
6th March 2017, 16:07
Agree. Sauber was critiziced for bringing Ericcson and Nasr (for being “pay drivers”) but actually they look much more talented than Stroll.
Of course, they are nowhere near the kind of talent brought when Raikkonen an Massa started their careers at Sauber.
However, and luckily, this current grid has a strong level. Who would you name as “weak” currently? Now that Gutierrez is gone, the weakest driver might (and I put special emphasis on MIGHT) be Stroll. But check the grid overall:
4 world champions (Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Raikkonen)
Ricciardo and Verstappen (RBR), Massa (Williams), already race winners.
Perez, Grosjean, Magnussen, Bottas, Kvyat, already podium achievers.
Hulkenberg (podium soon please), Sainz (no podium but nobody would say he is a bad driver),
Ocon, Palmer, Wherlein, Vandoorne (very good new talents, many of them with points already)
That leaves only Ericcson and Stroll as “bad pay drivers”. Ericcson has already locked points in F1, though.
It is a good grid.
Gabriel (@rethla)
6th March 2017, 16:18
@omarr-pepper Thats a very strange ranking. Race winners, podiumachievers, and points you all get from a good car and not a good driver and thats why paydrivers exist. If you want better drivers you dont give the teams more money because they will build a better car for that money, you have to make the driver skill matter more if you want better drivers to be attractive.
OmarRoncal - Go Seb!!! (@)
6th March 2017, 18:17
@rethla yeah, in the surface it looks as all you need to shine is a good car. But let’s remember most of the greats driving nowadays have shown their skills in underdogs as well. Vettel’s getting a point in his very first race for BMW (which was not a race winner that year, good car but not great), Alonso getting points for Minardi (an achievement that speaks for itself). Please don’t forget to remind me of this topic on Round 3. Why? Let’s see how good Bottas turns out to be in that great car (I’m still unconvinced of him being able to challenge Lewis).
Joao (@johnmilk)
6th March 2017, 18:52
Ericcson, Kvyat and Palmer.
Stroll is too soon to tell
NewVerstappenFan (@jureo)
6th March 2017, 16:25
Amen, only maybe 26 drivers…
There is still this question of getting money to teams. There will always be teams in financial difficulty.
If they get 100M per year then they would spend 120 and find a pay driver for even the balance.
As long as people come with truck full of cash, there will be paydrivers.
Andeleh
6th March 2017, 16:33
IMHO the drivers who deserve to be in F1 just because they are considered to be in that 20 bracket are:r
Lewis
Vettel
Alonso
Verstappen
Ricciardo
Perez
Hulkenberg
Kimi
vDoorne (what he have shown us so far)
I do not rate Bottas, Massa, Grosjean, Magnussen, Sainz etc.
thats it….I would like to see some other drivers to fill the gap
Gabriel (@rethla)
6th March 2017, 16:36
I dont see what Hulkenberg, Alonso and Kimi has done the last couple of years to earn a place on that list.
Robbie (@robbie)
6th March 2017, 16:47
Let’s see…two of them are proven WDC’s. I hardly think they are who Brawn is talking about. If they don’t belong on a list of 20 of the world’s best then I don’t know who you’re looking for that doesn’t have to do with a ton of speculation about how good they might be if they were in F1. Methinks FA and KR have earned their wings.
Gabriel (@rethla)
6th March 2017, 17:09
None of them are proven WDCs the last couple of years so i rest my case. If you are gonna fill up that list with past WDCs you will need more than 20 spots and it will be a completly different list.
Robbie (@robbie)
6th March 2017, 17:20
@rethla The last couple of years has nothing to do with this, and by your assertion of that are you suggesting only LH and NR deserve to be on the grid then? Pretty small grid.
This topic is about Brawn wanting to see in the future smaller teams not in a position where they have no choice but to take on a rich driver over a more talented one. FA and KR don’t belong in this discussion. Nor does the grid have to be all WDC’s onviously. We’re talking about drivers entering F1 and the concept that the smaller teams shouldn’t be in a position to have no choice but to take them for their money, forgoing talent.
Gabriel (@rethla)
6th March 2017, 17:12
“I hardly think they are who Brawn is talking about. I don’t know who you’re looking for that doesn’t have to do with a ton of speculation about how good they might be if they were in F1”
And thats exactly the problem Brawn points out. We can only speculate about the best drivers because with the current system they doesnt automaticly end up in F1.
Robbie (@robbie)
6th March 2017, 17:29
@rethla Right. And I’m sure he wants to address that too to ensure only qualified drivers of the highest caliber are on the grid. The good news is that F1 has gotten harder, so we may already be starting to see a bit of a return to the past where it was much harder to get into F1 as you truly needed more experience before you could even stand a chance. The ultra-conservy cars they’ve been driving have not challenged drivers.
Mashiat (@mashiat)
6th March 2017, 17:30
@rethla What has Alonso done? Seriously?
Gabriel (@rethla)
7th March 2017, 7:11
Again no answear. Kimi, alonso, button, massa and so on all go round on past achievments and the fame they got from those. Show me an impressive drive from any of those during the hybrid era and im ok with you putting them alongside verstappen on a list.
GeeMac (@geemac)
6th March 2017, 16:46
I wonder if you would have picked Perez over Hulkenberg or Bottas based solely on their results in junior formulae…
Andeleh
6th March 2017, 17:10
GeeMac, I didnt pick Perez over Hulkenberg. The drivers are in random order. And no, not solely on their junior results but merely on their talent and what they have shown so far.
If I had to pick a top 5 it would be: Lewis, Vettel, Verstappen, Ricciardo and Alonso
OmarRoncal - Go Seb!!! (@)
6th March 2017, 18:21
At least I agree with your top five!
Phil-F1-21
6th March 2017, 19:41
Not Massa? I know he’s past his best but surely he would deserve a drive? He lost a WDC by 1 point I think it was.
S.J.M (@sjm)
6th March 2017, 16:38
My fear with the whole “Pay Driver” category is that it cant and wont go away. If the teams at the back of the grid are given more money via a change to the prize fund (which is critical to helping them), then really, are we going to see the back of the “Pay Driver”?
I don’t think so.
Its like the amount of money given to the teams in the English Premier League after the most recent TV Deal, people thought that they could use the bumper cash intake could be used as a reason for clubs to reduce ticket prices for the attending fans. That hasn’t happened at all, instead its just more money they get to spend. And its similar to what will happen in F1. If the prize money is increased for the teams that need it, they will still use Pay drivers for that bumper cash inflow and that money will go into the R&D for getting more performance from their car. Pay drivers have been in this sport since its conception, and they’re not going anywhere now. What might happen is the quality of the pay driver might actually become a bigger factor.
Melvin (@)
6th March 2017, 16:54
The thing is that for the back of the field, pay drivers actually makes the car faster then when you have to pay them. The difference between those drivers on skill is maybe a couple of tenths, while the cash they bring in for development can make the car a lot more faster. So the best choice is usually the driver with the most money. And i don’t see liberty just handing out cash to the backfield teams to get the driver they want.
Robbie (@robbie)
6th March 2017, 17:25
@thetick I think that is highly debatable. It is not just about lap times. It is about racecraft, and feedback to the team and many other things beyond just how fast they can get a car around a track.
A pay driver who is lost in terms of helping find setups etc etc and who is crashing the car and costing time and parts, will quickly squander the money he has injected into the team. A better more qualified driver can help the team advance much more quickly.
Mashiat (@mashiat)
6th March 2017, 17:32
@robbie I highly doubt teams would be hiring pay drivers if it wasn’t beneficial to them.
Robbie (@robbie)
6th March 2017, 17:48
@mashiat I think that term beneficial needs to be defined in this case, and I think it can be applied a few ways. Beneficial financially? Of course, that’s why they were hired…and then the team can only hope that they lucked out and that driver with the big wallet can actually help them progress the car too. It’s a chance they take. They know they would prefer a driver of higher caliber, always, but if they have no choice then they are taking a chance and hoping for the best. It certainly has far from always worked out. All they can do, when a rich driver who doesn’t have as much on his CV comes by, is hope it will be beneficial in more than just the short term financial way…but they have less assurance of that with a pay driver than a ‘real’ one.
hahostolze (@hahostolze)
6th March 2017, 20:39
@thetick That’s a fallacy. 30m in development may give a couple of tenths at best. A good driver (Verstappen level vs Palmer level, to name two recent newcomers of varying degrees of pay) adds way more than that.
Melvin (@)
6th March 2017, 21:36
True, but the back teams don’t have the choice of those drivers. The best are already in programs of the top teams. This leaves a lot of same level drivers and then the money does make a difference.
Neil (@neilosjames)
6th March 2017, 17:37
Good to see he’s being realistic about DRS… we need to ensure passing between two cars of fairly similar performance would actually be a realistic possibility without it before just getting rid of it.
shadow13 (@shadow13)
6th March 2017, 18:07
Is the not easiest fix to ‘pay drivers’ just to properly implement the FIA’s idea of a points system? I’m not saying how they’ve currently awarded points is fair or correct, but if they created a system whereby teams could only pick the better drivers from junior formula then we would probably only end up with the Perez’s of the pay driver scale rather than the Chiltons, Yamamotos…etc. Obviously this would still probably leave drivers such as Stroll to push themselves forward with their financial backing but they would have to at least meet a certain standard. I think although their reasoning for implementing it was silly it is actually one of the best ideas by the FIA in years.
Kenny
6th March 2017, 18:11
When you compare F1 to other pro sports it’s rather strange, isn’t it? Teams and the leagues in other pro sports handle all of the sponsorship and they don’t depend on players bringing anything but their ability to perform. However in F1 and other motorsport series, the players/drivers are often expected to bring along sponsorship and their abilities are often secondary considerations.
The most glaring difference between F1 and other sports is that EVERY team is playing in every race. I think that limits the amount of exposure that any single team can “sell”. Obviously works teams have the backing of a huge corporate entity and has less pressure to “sell” sponsorship while at the same time they have much more money to bring to the table for development and to pay top drivers. All of which equals greater success, great TV time exposre to their cars and exposures for their sponsors, etc. The independent teams are less successful and have less money from sponsors, etc. and the cycle continues.
This all points to the obvious: spending must be limited and income from TV rights, tickets sales and other F1 income must be more equitably distributed to the teams. As difficult as such a change might be, there is no other solution to insure F1’s long term success.
PETRUS A J HAAN (@pdehaan)
6th March 2017, 18:20
It gets more complicated when ‘markets’ come into play. For example, Renault preferring a Spanish driver due to the Spanish market being an important one, or Ferrari wanting an American racing driver, etc. A proper meritocracy can’t exist either with markets being a crucial differentiator.
OmarRoncal - Go Seb!!! (@)
6th March 2017, 18:27
Last time Renault had a Spanish driver was back in 2008. Last time Ferrari had an American driver was … I don’t remember sorry.
But yes. I remember just short time ago someone here mentioned how teams prefer to have drivers from different countries to get more sponsors (except for Lewis and Jenson together until 2012). By that logic, pairings such as Alonso/Sainz or Vettel / Hulkenberg wouldn’t happen (not that they are likely to happen now either).
Robbie (@robbie)
6th March 2017, 18:32
That’s a good point. And I would suggest that Brawn is not looking to eliminate that possibility. If a team wants to hire a Spanish driver so be it…he just doesn’t want to see them have no choice, out of need for money. A sign that the smaller teams might, in the not too distant future, start being weaned off pay drivers is a sign of a healthier series of teams that can all afford high quality drivers that are not just there for their wallet.
Again, I don’t think Brawn’s commentary is meant to spark a debate about what defines a pay driver, or what drivers in the past have been pay drivers and went on and did fine, or flopped. He is moreso speaking to the state of F1 and the state of the smaller teams and a direction he’d like to promote for the future of F1 where smaller teams are healthier.
PorscheF1 (@xtwl)
6th March 2017, 18:26
The problem with the ‘no pay driver’-ideology is that it completely forgets about the way up to Formula One. Mark Webber once posted his his ‘plan’ to get into F1 (http://www.ausmotive.com/images2011/Mark-Webber-career-path.jpg) and it hardly shows a cheap path, and that’s back in 1996. Once someone ‘very good’ and not Verstappen gifted is a choice to consider for a F1 team he has already spent a million or so. If they don’t make racing in general cheaper and even more important, more accessible it won’t matter how ‘cheap’ you can get a Manor seat, as the more rich will always have a step ahead.
asherway (@asherway)
6th March 2017, 18:31
a “proper meritocracy”? So after this we’ll have a meaningful WDC? Can’t wait for that…
Richard (@rick1984)
6th March 2017, 18:53
In an ideal world a fair split of revenue would see the end of pay drivers, but this is not a fair world, even if you are giving the teams lower in the championship lots more money for taking part they will still look to advance their balance sheets.
EG: lets say that the way the prize money is distributed is overhauled and put on a system closer to the English premier league. in this scenario you would still have teams towards the bottom of the championship who receive less funding from the prize pot than the teams at the top. potential sponsors (PDVSA with Pastor, though that money does seem to have ran out) or parties with a vested interest (daddy Stroll with his billions) will still come along and say here is a MASSIVE pile of cash please put driver in the car. even when you have a fairer distribution the millions from a pay driver will still help pay for work on the car (and the spare parts that the pay driver goes through if he isn’t up to the job). so unfortunately as much as i and most of us here would wish to see an end to the pay driver it is not going to happen overnight.
also (and a few people above have mentioned this) just because a driver comes through with some sort of financial assistance does not mean they are a bad driver, just that there is someone interested in sponsoring that driver instead of just a random sponsorship agreement with a team where the drivers that bear no relation to the country where the sponsor originates from.
and to finish, even if the pay driver is completely rubbish if he brings enough money to a lower ranking team who can then spend that money on a good driver to be his team mate and a car a second or so faster this could still ultimately be of overall benefit to said team.
i really do wish Ross good luck with weaning teams off pay drivers, but i feel there are other things wrong in the sport that are a LOT simpler to fix.
hahostolze (@hahostolze)
6th March 2017, 20:35
There are two problems here, the way I see it. Brawn can quite easily remedy both.
– The financial situation of F1. Better distribution of wealth, more and better collective bargaining for commercial deals and rights, more emphasis on cost saving measures that mean marginal gains don’t cost 30 million but only a few. All of these are easy to do and would probably attract more teams as well. All you need is to convince the big teams that a dying version of their sport is less attractive than a healthy version. Considering this is already year SIX of falling TV viewership, the dying part is quite clear. Make the distribution of income more equitable, reduce the margin in prize money, and stop running F1 for your own gain (a la Bernie) and you already reduce the need for pay drivers.
– The rules about what teams can and can’t invest in. Lance Stroll is an extreme, but man is he a perfect example of the unequal distribution. His father has spent anywhere between 60 and 100 million on securing him a super license, a seat at Williams and the most extensive pre-F1 preparation since Jacques Villeneuve. If you want F1 to be fair and equitable, you enforce these rules. It shouldn’t be possible for a person to come in, spend 100m, spend weeks testing all over the world at F1 tracks (first big no-no) in a car as recent as 2014 (second no-no) and get to F1 in the first place by basically buying titles and thus the super license (hard to prove, but definitely the case for Stroll). All teams and drivers should be bound by the same rules, not have the rules open to abuse simply because of money.
– F1 is a self-supporting community. If the engine manufacturers suddenly decided to stop delivering to other teams, the internal pressure would be so high they’d reavaluate that decision within minutes. Yet for some things the self-supporting part is so ridiculously out of whack. Have the same rules for every team. Enforce them. If we say no testing, don’t create these ridiculous loopholes that money can exploit. It’s what we call distortion of competition. If happens both on the level of prize money and what rich get away with. F1 is like La Liga in football, it’s completely inequitable. Hope Brawn sees that the solutions could actually be quite simple. Maybe then talent will become the defining factor in reaching F1. Or not, and we’d better get used to 2018-2032 World Champion Lance Stroll.
Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
6th March 2017, 21:13
One point which Brawn has overlooked is the TV coverage given to the teams at the back of the grid. Manor Racing, Sauber, Force India, Williams, and often Haas got hardly any “air time” last year, so it is hard for them to attract the necessary corporate sponsorship. Now add to that the restrictions on TV coverage around the world, where it is very common to find F1 races are placed behind the Pay Wall, which means teams can’t charge as much for to display adverts on the cars as they need to. The Pay Wall needs to go, the TV coverage that concentrates on just a few cars needs to go.
If F1 wants only the best drivers then they have to present them as the best drivers. They need to believe Ericsson, Ocon, Vandoorne, Stroll, etc are as worthy of air time as Hamilton, Bottas, Vettel, Raikkonen, Verstappen, etc.
mark jackson
6th March 2017, 21:37
There will always be paid drivers. As long as money = car development = laptime.
BasCB (@bascb)
7th March 2017, 8:10
It is good that Brawn keeps repeating these points. I fully agree that getting more equeal oppertunities for teams (a somewhat more even distrubution of funds) as well as getting rid of DRS by changing the cars so that it no longer is “needed” should be targets for the commercial rights holder.
Off course it will take a lot of time and discussion, but starting to say these are goals soon and saying it often enough can create an atmosphere where it might be possible to close down on both of them over the follwing years.
Imamsukoco
7th March 2017, 16:04
Just copy English Premier League in term of price money or team money .. then you can kick n rush from top team to the “promoted” team