How to fix F1?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Why don't you think the NFL is worth emulating? All the teams in that have a good solid foundation. Which has been a criticism of F1. On that basis it could do worse.

Oh and I liked it when it was cool too. It reminds of all the bands I liked before they sucked.

I don't know much about NFL, but I don't think the model works because F1 is car manufacturer based.

Protecting the teams is a fine idea until Mercedes and Renault don't want to play anymore and leave, regardless of being protected. Now you're down 4 cars, 50% of the grids engines, and you're asking smaller teams to find an insane amount of money to give to the other teams, just to even be allowed to enter.

It may protect some private teams. It won't protect manufacturers. It will stop smaller teams making their way in - a problem F1 has had for about 20 years now, and appears to be fine with.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Well the word "conspiracy" is somewhat loosely defined. It could be as mundane as just a group agreeing to something, or as aggressive as nefarious or unlawful. I would tend to think it being a secretive act by multiple parties. This limit to expansion is out in the open and upfront that it is to benefit the existing teams. And it would clearly be used as a selling point for teams to sign a new agreement.

Richard

I wear my tin foil hat with pride.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

I wear my tin foil hat with pride.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you!

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I don't know much about NFL, but I don't think the model works because F1 is car manufacturer based.

Protecting the teams is a fine idea until Mercedes and Renault don't want to play anymore and leave, regardless of being protected. Now you're down 4 cars, 50% of the grids engines, and you're asking smaller teams to find an insane amount of money to give to the other teams, just to even be allowed to enter.

It may protect some private teams. It won't protect manufacturers. It will stop smaller teams making their way in - a problem F1 has had for about 20 years now, and appears to be fine with.

Two thoughts...

1. Do we need to protect manufacturers (as team owners). I think the sport might be better served by long term teams that might periodically sell naming rights. But that still leaves the problem you mention which is larger sponsors leaving the sport. But it does ease it a bit by not resulting in teams being dissolved or sold.

2. I am curious how the new business model works when a team leaves. I assume the entry remains a significant asset that someone will snap up. But lets say that somehow a team collapses so hard that the entry goes away. I would assume that to get back to current numbers, a new entry might require a different (significantly reduced) buy in level.

My point earlier is that the F1 pie is only so large. So adding teams makes the slices smaller. But at some point if you start to remove teams, that might make the slices larger short term, but long term it starts to shrink the size of the pie. The sport will have a specific critical mass of team count. Drop below a specific number and the series is weak from a competition and prestige perspective (pie becomes smaller).

In the end, I suspect they (FOM/Liberty) have baked in some flexibility in specific scenarios.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

It will stop smaller teams making their way in - a problem F1 has had for about 20 years now, and appears to be fine with.

what constitutes a small team now days?

a billionaire looking for their kid to get a job (better known as the Canadian way apparently)

regardless of the definition, i would say F1 has had a lot of new small teams in the last 20 years (excluding new entries that immediately took over existing facilities for the following season like BAR-Honda-Brawn-Merc or Renault-Genii_Renault or Jaguar-RB or Jordan-Spyker-Force India- Racing point or Sauber-BMW-Sauber-faceless investment concern).

Super Aguri, Caterham, Campos/HRT, Virgin, Haas ...thats 5 new small teams in the last 20 years. thats a lot imo.

im sure i am missing a few but surely there is no shortage of new teams and/or new money flowing into F1 over the last 20 years.

by comparison, the NFL has only had 1 new expansion team the Houston Texans since 2001 (again i am excluding existing teams which relocated).

adjusting for the relative size of these respective leagues/sports, i would say F1 enjoys far more new entries then other major sports leagues do.

additionally, leagues like the NFL also employ a franchise fee model, where by a new entrant is expected to pay money which is then split up among the other already existing teams plus commitments for building facilities (stadiums, practice facilities etc).

the Texas paid almost 1 billion to the other owners to enter the NFL...these franchise fees are ostensibly a pre paid fee in order to access the shared revenue pool, slice of the TV pie, as well as compensation for the staff and personnel the new team will leach away from the existing clubs. Baseball, Hockey, and Basketball all do the same.

anyways, franchise fees are a very common business and sports or N. American sports leagues at least.

also, one can make the argument that high franchise fees attracts financially stable entrants whereas F1 in the past, with the far lower bar of entry (the FIA surety bond) encouraged far more unattractive entrants (Stefan GP types) to try their hand at F1.

and in fairness, F1's problem over the last 20 years is not the barriers to entry per say, its the annual costs required to just exisit at the back of the grid.

now that the budget cap will attempt to balance the scales surely a higher barrier will be needed to prevent opportunist teams, purely marketing entities, or billionaires from starting teams that never really generate any loyalty among the fan base.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

2. I am curious how the new business model works when a team leaves. I assume the entry remains a significant asset that someone will snap up. But lets say that somehow a team collapses so hard that the entry goes away. I would assume that to get back to current numbers, a new entry might require a different (significantly reduced) buy in level.

one would think that the more money invested the more viable a team will be...so if/when that team wants to leave they would, all things being equal, see the opportunity in finding a new buyer before their exit...otherwise they would be leaving a valuable asset behind and well people like making money.

of course there is Toyota but that is really the lone example of a super rich manu just walking away and not caring about an immediate sale of their assets. although one could say they found other ways to use and monetize their Cologne facilities.

but the point being, do teams really walk away from their assets like this? even in bankruptcy things are sold off to new entrants.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Protecting the teams is a fine idea until Mercedes and Renault don't want to play anymore and leave, regardless of being protected. Now you're down 4 cars, 50% of the grids engines, and you're asking smaller teams to find an insane amount of money to give to the other teams, just to even be allowed to enter.

Renault leaving does not necessarily result in their engine operations in shutting down. they might be rebadged but i would assume Viry-Chatillion will continue to build engines if there was a demand. i would suspect they even have an excess supply for next year now that Mclaren are leaving.

and Mclaren leaving Renault means that even if Merc leaves as a team, they will at least still be supplying engines for several years to come. i suspect Honda has a similar window their RB contracts.

i suppose it would be nice if Ferrari were willing to or able to supply more teams with engines...specifically supplying engines capable of beating the works team.

but this all may be a moot point anyways as we dont really now what sort of PU F1 will have a decade from now. if it is electric we may have a different set of engine makers looking to get into the sport.

i guess my point with these last couple of posts is that the concern that there will not be enough teams, not enough new teams or enough engines hasnt really come to pass has it?

that doesnt mean it cant happen in the future of course.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I don't know much about NFL, but I don't think the model works because F1 is car manufacturer based.

Protecting the teams is a fine idea until Mercedes and Renault don't want to play anymore and leave, regardless of being protected. Now you're down 4 cars, 50% of the grids engines, and you're asking smaller teams to find an insane amount of money to give to the other teams, just to even be allowed to enter.

It may protect some private teams. It won't protect manufacturers. It will stop smaller teams making their way in - a problem F1 has had for about 20 years now, and appears to be fine with.

If it makes a team more sustainable then the manufacturer would have an asset. A profit center too (combined with budget cap?).

One it can sell, “rent out”, rather than just stop.

Just developing what Liberty may be considerI guess. Not arguing one way or another - I’m just trying to understand.

But F1 apparently have been going to disappear up it’s own backside for many a decade now. Too reliant on manufacturers. What happens when they go? One day this may happen, but compare to any other series it is a paragon of sustainability already!

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you!

Richard

Ah, but I have a plan to foil them.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Casper

Ah, but I have a plan to foil them.

I've heard it's not uncommon to wear a tin foil hat, whilst drinking Kool-Aid.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

NFL "model" is not appropriate for F1 because F1 is at it's best when it's open slather.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

NFL "model" is not appropriate for F1 because F1 is at it's best when it's open slather.

I don't see the NFL "model" as being relevant to F1. Anyway, Horner thinks the reduction in downforce could have been greater.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...paign=widget-2

[chillibowl]

depends what you think the NFL model is?

certainly it can be many things ranging from organization/leadership structure or it can be philosophical in nature.

in the context of this thread, i think what Adam was getting at is that the NFL's desires to see parity among all the teams thus any new rule they propose promotes the NFL's stated philosophy of every team having the ability to beat any other team on any given sunday.

Originally Posted by Adam43

First step to NFL franchise model? Protect those within the sport to make them stronger?

if the number 1 complaint about F1 is that one team dominates and that makes it boring then the NFL model, specifically their philosophy, is maybe one worth emulating...and with the fairer distribution of prize money and budget cap, F1 is already on this path.

but parity also means homogenization and that too has its draw backs. while it would be great to see all teams have a legitimate shot at winning, i also dont want to see 10 teams run like Merc or 10 teams run like Williams for that matter. variety is also desirable even though it runs the risk of turning into inequality. mind you, ten teams run like Ferrari would be comically brilliant.

i dont know what the answer is but i do know that Bottas is a better driver then Hamilton but isnt allowed to compete because of luck, god, magic, cheating (take your pick) so F1 should work on fixing that first.

forget reverse grids lets have reverse points so the further back behind Hamilton you finish the more points you get.

we can call it the Finnish Rule in Bottas' honour.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

NFL "model" is not appropriate for F1 because F1 is at it's best when it's open slather.

When exactly was that? Pre 1960 or so?

(note, I had to look up the Australian slang "open slather" as that is a new one on me.)

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't see the NFL "model" as being relevant to F1.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

depends what you think the NFL model is?

Exactly. Who knows if we are all speaking the same language here.

Originally Posted by chilibowl

certainly it can be many things ranging from organization/leadership structure or it can be philosophical in nature.

in the context of this thread, i think what Adam was getting at is that the NFL's desires to see parity among all the teams thus any new rule they propose promotes the NFL's stated philosophy of every team having the ability to beat any other team on any given sunday.

if the number 1 complaint about F1 is that one team dominates and that makes it boring then the NFL model, specifically their philosophy, is maybe one worth emulating...and with the fairer distribution of prize money and budget cap, F1 is already on this path.

I don't follow American football, but when I dig around I see the following key items that generally define the business model that defines the NFL

1. VERY strong revenue sharing and cost controls.
2. A draft system that feeds the best talent into the previously worst teams.
3. The league controls the schedule.

#3 is already handled by FIA/FOM. #2 doesn't apply to F1 (or at least nobody is talking about doing that). We are really talking about #1. And even then, how deeply do we replicate that.

Originally Posted by chilibowl

but parity also means homogenization and that too has its draw backs. while it would be great to see all teams have a legitimate shot at winning, i also dont want to see 10 teams run like Merc or 10 teams run like Williams for that matter. variety is also desirable even though it runs the risk of turning into inequality. mind you, ten teams run like Ferrari would be comically brilliant.

Again, when I look at online criticism of the NFL it is that there ends up being an implicit incentive to not try hard. That regardless of your effort, you still get X amount of money to run your team. That logic works up until the point that you do understand that NFL teams are generally not there with the #1 priority of "making easy money". While they may rake in the cash, they do want to win. Otherwise you wouldn't see the dynasties that show up (such as the New England Patriots). And these dynasties are generally short lived. Which is good.

I found an article that is trying to apply the NFL model to the US economy in general (not that I agree with that), but I did comment on a few "what if" scenarios. Such as what would happen if the NFL dropped the key rules that drives it's business model. Here are some selective quotes.

Now, imagine if the NFL scrapped these rules tomorrow. Without the revenue sharing, owners in the biggest cities would be able to buy up more of the best talent. Without the draft rules, teams with winning records this year would be more likely to win next year, and the year after that, while teams with losing records would have a tough time ever catching up.

Under this scenario, what would the game be like ten, twenty, thirty years from now? Well, the teams from the big cities—the New York Giants, the Houston Texans, the Chicago Bears—would probably go from sucking to winning. Smaller-market teams that have been highly competitive in recent years—like the Indianapolis Colts, the New Orleans Saints, and the Green Bay Packers—would become consistent losers. Over time, some of these smaller-market teams might even fold for lack of revenue. Meanwhile, the same three or four teams would bring home the Super Bowl trophy every year. The game as a whole would be less interesting. It would draw fewer fans and generate less overall revenue. But the winningest teams from the biggest cities would be way more profitable than they are now.

This "apocalyptical" view of an NFL without cost caps and revenue sharing is F1 today!

Here is the article. Like I said, I don't subscribe to the main thrust of the article, but I do think the quotes above are beyond spot on.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazi...e-u-s-economy/

I also found this old 2006 article from the Economist (apologies as there is a paywall, but there are versions of this that you can find online)

https://www.economist.com/business/2...gue-of-its-own

Basically it calls out the cost controls and revenue sharing similar to above, but also calls out another benefit that comes from their strategy...

Second, the system lowers risk. “The NFL is a perfect portfolio,” says John Vrooman, a sports economist at Vanderbilt University, because one team's losing season and sagging revenues are offset by another team's banner year. The co-operative arrangements also make costs stable and predictable. Mr Vrooman reckons that even if another American sports league, or a big European football league, were to have similar cashflows to the NFL, the American league's teams would still be 50-60% more valuable because their business is so much less risky.

(bold above is mine)

This speaks to the long term viability of the teams. Not only are the teams viable, the also have built in value (resale, etc.) This is exactly what FOM/Liberty put in place the recent "buy in" fee.

Frankly, the likely problem with F1 is that they didn't go far enough. We don't know the details just yet, but there likely remains some level of "we pay you extra because you are Ferrari" type of things. Basically some type of formula (combination of historic and performance) that divides up the revenue in a way that "rewards" the status quo. So the system Liberty is building now might be good enough to keep teams alive, but not good enough to create a more level playing field and for the fans to see something "different" than what we have seen for many years. So we may continue to have issues such as a Mercedes (or the next Mercedes) dominating for a long, long time. But lets see the details as they come out and see how it plays out. I would love to be wrong that they didn't go far enough.

Richard

[S griffin]

I think F1 needs it’s own identity. No need for any NFL influence, it’s not relevant to F1

Let’s face it their are more pressing things in F1 atm and I would rather concentrate on making the racing better and keeping costs under control. A NFL cost cap may work there, but would it work for F1. It should be introduced if it is needed, not because some other sport uses it

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I think F1 needs it’s own identity. No need for any NFL influence, it’s not relevant to F1

Let’s face it their are more pressing things in F1 atm and I would rather concentrate on making the racing better and keeping costs under control. A NFL cost cap may work there, but would it work for F1. It should be introduced if it is needed, not because some other sport uses it

This line of thinking completely puzzles me. Music concerts charge for admission. Should we stop that in F1 as there is little in common between those two? Why must F1 create unique and new solutions to its problems (which are not particularly unique to F1)? I also suspect the NFL didn't invent these concepts. They just enacted them and have shown they work.

This is about cost caps and revenue sharing. F1 has had revenue sharing for a long time. It just has been very inequitable. As I say above, it incentivizes the status quo. NFL just has a more equitable solution. F1 has had attempted for decades to "control costs" via various measures that have failed (spending moved from A to B). The truth has remained consistent is that budgets are only bounded by your ability to get sponsorship. And that broadly, you can't succeed unless you are in the upper tier of budgets. Trying to "control" cost, but not limit it in an atmosphere in which money = performance is a doomed strategy.

All of this is about money. Which is the primary problem with F1. Fix that, then move onto the next. The 2022 changes tries to do all of this. More equitable revenue sharing (cross fingers on details), cost caps (cross fingers they made the cap low enough) and shrinking the box of how open the technical regulations are (cross fingers the made the right changes). F1can still screw this up if they got the recipe wrong.

How do you plan to keep costs under control or improve racing? Those are goals, not solutions. Everyone is all about the goals, but thin on solutions.

Richard

[Greem]

Apropos not really knowing where to post this, but... rumours Domenicali could make a return as F1 CEO as Carey takes a step back:

https://www.racefans.net/2020/09/22/...formula-1-ceo/

Fixing F1? There are more ways than one to interpret that term

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Greem

Apropos not really knowing where to post this, but... rumours Domenicali could make a return as F1 CEO as Carey takes a step back:

https://www.racefans.net/2020/09/22/...formula-1-ceo/

Fixing F1? There are more ways than one to interpret that term

Can't run a team properly, now run the whole circus.


Sounds like a ploy to make Toto take the job.

[Peter Mallett]

I have a lot of time for Domenicali. He held the post when Ferrari were still living on the Brawn/Todt/Schumacher era and thus had to mange expectations with Alonso and Massa, neither of whom, as good as they were, came close to Schumacher's capabilities.

Always handled the press with humour and mostly honesty.

He's also an enthusiast, unlike Carey who is a business man, and you can't ask for more in someone running the "sport".

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Greem

Fixing F1? There are more ways than one to interpret that term

If you go back far enough I recall mentioning a certain "wallgate" escapade.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

depends what you think the NFL model is?

certainly it can be many things ranging from organization/leadership structure or it can be philosophical in nature.

Does it? I would have thought the organization/leadership structure and the philosophical nature were geared towards achieving the same thing.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

in the context of this thread, i think what Adam was getting at is that the NFL's desires to see parity among all the teams thus any new rule they propose promotes the NFL's stated philosophy of every team having the ability to beat any other team on any given sunday.

if the number 1 complaint about F1 is that one team dominates and that makes it boring then the NFL model, specifically their philosophy, is maybe one worth emulating...and with the fairer distribution of prize money and budget cap, F1 is already on this path.

but parity also means homogenization and that too has its draw backs. while it would be great to see all teams have a legitimate shot at winning, i also dont want to see 10 teams run like Merc or 10 teams run like Williams for that matter. variety is also desirable even though it runs the risk of turning into inequality. mind you, ten teams run like Ferrari would be comically brilliant.

i dont know what the answer is but i do know that Bottas is a better driver then Hamilton but isnt allowed to compete because of luck, god, magic, cheating (take your pick) so F1 should work on fixing that first.

forget reverse grids lets have reverse points so the further back behind Hamilton you finish the more points you get.

we can call it the Finnish Rule in Bottas' honour.

Is every team having the ability to beat any other team on any given Sunday, the NFL's stated philosophy? Any given Sunday, is from a line from the novel "Any Given Sunday", by former NFL defensive end Pat Toomay, which also became a film by Oliver Stone. The line is actually, a team can win or lose on any given Sunday. I don't know if it is necessarily about parity amongst teams but more to do with not letting one team, or teams, dominate the NFL, which has happened; dynasty teams as there are sometimes called.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Does it? I would have thought the organization/leadership structure and the philosophical nature were geared towards achieving the same thing.

no doubt they are connected as the leadership of the NFL( the NFL Commissioner) is voted in by the team owners so yeah if the owners (or rather some majority of them) want something, then the Commissioner would, as their representative, would no doubt pursue that agenda.

but i did intend to separate the leadership structure and the notion of parity as two separate ways to interpret the NFL model.

as this relates to F1, i like the idea of parity in sport while liking the idea of the teams having total control over the sport via an NFL style commissioner they appoint themselves less.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Is every team having the ability to beat any other team on any given Sunday, the NFL's stated philosophy?

so this is embarrassing...parity in the NFL is something the talking heads do talk about a lot but while i thought i was cleverly turning a phrase it turns out that i have inadvertently cribbed this line from somewhere else.

while looking for a link to support my assertion, i came across a wiki page that basically, almost word for word, suggests the same thing i said.

Many consider the NFL to be the most "fair" or competitive league, with many different teams having a chance to win each year. In the NFL, complete parity would be a state where on any given Sunday, any given team can win any given game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_(sports)

the next line goes on to suggests that NFL parity is an imperfect thing specifically in regards to the issue of dynasties as you mentioned...so for sure there is a lot to discuss on how effective or desirable this philosophy is to emulate.

anyways, i am embarrassed by what could be considered plagiarism but on the other hand, if other people are saying it, then i must be right!

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Why must F1 create unique and new solutions to its problems (which are not particularly unique to F1)? I also suspect the NFL didn't invent these concepts. They just enacted them and have shown they work.

exactly.

this is not to say that F1 has to copy every idea the NFL has exactly and also notions of equality in sport as a tool to promote competition is a well established practice imo. the NFL didnt invent this, they just happen to be one of the bigger sports so naturally they are held up as an example.

rather, why shouldnt every sport be actively looking at each other to see what works and what doesnt. no person is an island and ideas come from all over the place.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Frankly, the likely problem with F1 is that they didn't go far enough. We don't know the details just yet, but there likely remains some level of "we pay you extra because you are Ferrari" type of things. Basically some type of formula (combination of historic and performance) that divides up the revenue in a way that "rewards" the status quo. So the system Liberty is building now might be good enough to keep teams alive, but not good enough to create a more level playing field and for the fans to see something "different" than what we have seen for many years. So we may continue to have issues such as a Mercedes (or the next Mercedes) dominating for a long, long time. But lets see the details as they come out and see how it plays out. I would love to be wrong that they didn't go far enough.

Richard

great post Richard. from beginning to end, it is clear, as you do with all of your posts, that you put time and thought into it.

if we ever meet, i must buy you many many beers!

but for sure interesting days ahead for those of us who have enjoyed talking about a fairer financial business models in F1. we are about to see it in action.

will it or wont it work?...it will be nice to talk about it, specifically whether or not F1 went far enough, with real life F1 specific examples.

i doubt we will all agree but certainly fun and lively discussions are ahead of us!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

great post Richard. from beginning to end, it is clear, as you do with all of your posts, that you put time and thought into it.

I put just enough effort into it to screw up the quote attributions! But thanks. I do try.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

if we ever meet, i must buy you many many beers!

Same here!

Richard

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

When exactly was that? Pre 1960 or so?

(note, I had to look up the Australian slang "open slather" as that is a new one on me.)

Definitely pre 1960. But I'd also include the point it became so lucrative that you have to make such payment as being proposed (late 90s?).

[chillibowl]

wasnt sure where to put this but here makes sense.

i think we would all agree Sochi is a pretty pants track but during the broadcast i heard a comment that i dont believe i had hear before...

paraphrasing...because of the barriers along the track, the bits of tire, the marbles, that fly off have a tendency to hit the barriers and bounce back onto the tracks which is leaving a very dirty track and ultimately as cars go around the track they only leave one clean racing line which of course limits overtaking as the race and marbles build up.

they also mentioned this is not something that happens when there is sand/gravel adjacent to the track. presumably the marbles just fly off/blown off into the traps.

i cant say i have heard this explanation before (just always accepted marbles as a function of how tires degrade) but if this is true about the barriers, then are all street style tracks inherently bad for F1 racing?

or should this just be considered another part of the street course challenge?

and ostensibly (while trying to avoid rehashing an old debate), does this condition make DRS zones even more relevant for those same street circuits?