Do Ferrari deserve more money? (Poll)
Is a prancing horse worth more to F1 than another car?
Bernie Ecclestone hit back at FOTA and Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo this week by reminding him that Ferrari gets more money from F1 than the other teams do. Is this fair?
Should Ferrari get more money than the other F1 teams?
- Yes (22%)
- No (75%)
- Don't know (3%)
Total Voters: 1,408
Loading ...
The teams are determined to force Ecclestone to hand over more money. Toyota boss John Howett, who accompanied Montezemolo to the cost-cutting discussions with Max Mosley, backed Montezemolo’s call for more money for the F1 teams:
I believe in the Champions’ League [European football tournament] it is upwards of 96-97% of revenues that is redistributed depending on where you finish in the championship, whereas at the moment we receive 50% of EBITDA [earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization]. So given the current circumstances people would like to reopen that discussion.”
However Alan Henry suggests Ecclestone will not accept any re-negotiation of teams’ earnings before 2013:
Bernie thinks that if 10 teams can’t get by sharing $450m of annual commercial rights revenue in addition to their sponsorship funding, then they’re probably not very good businessmen.
Presumably one of Ecclestone’s arguments will be that nine of the teams could have more money if Ferrari sacrificed the extra $80m they receive for, well, just being Ferrari. The extra money given to Ferrari is justified by them being the longest-standing F1 constructor, who have been in the sport since 1950.
Should Ferrari, as one of F1′s most famous teams and as much a part of the sport’s history as the Monaco Grand Prix, get extra money? Or should all the teams get equal funding regardless of how old they are? Does it give Ferrari an unfair advantage?
Cast your vote above and share your thoughts in the comments.
Read more: Ecclestone’s response to Montezemolo is an attempt to break FOTA’s unity
Patrickl said on 24th December 2008, 18:48
Oliver, McLaren was constructor champion in 2007 not second. Well they were neither because their points were taken away, but still.
Pink Peril said on 24th December 2008, 22:24
Absolutely not. Name me one other sport or organisation where the oldest team gets more money for well, nothing? It’s just more proof (as if we really needed any) that F1 is rigged in FIA-ari’s favour and has been for ages.
Personally not only would I still continue to watch F1 without Ferrari, I’d enjoy it more. There’d be no cheating, no boring dominance, and you could be assured that results would stand & not be altered by the stewards hours after the race.
And if you wouldn’t watch F1 because Ferrari was no longer competing, then you’re not really an F1 fan. Jumping on the bandwagon of a winning team is not actually ‘following’ the sport, you know.
Sean said on 26th December 2008, 23:50
Well, Pink Peril, “no cheating” in a Ferrariless F1 might be taking it a bit far – after all, we’d presumably still have Briatore and his ilk, and I dare say Max, Alan and Bernie would find some other cause to support. But I know what you’re saying. I didn’t miss Ferrari in those long tracts in the 1980s when they were doing nothing, I was too busy being spellbound by Senna vs. Prost at McLaren, Mansell vs. Piquet at Williams and so on. It’s just ludicrous to suggest that they’re essential to F1 and the whole thing would collapse without them. It just wouldn’t. The argument smacks to me of of the “we’re too big to fail, you can’t survive without us so now prop us up” arguments being presented to the US congress by certain industries and companies.
Sometimes I look back at photos of, say, Senna’s black and gold Lotus hurling sparks high in the air on a quali lap into Eau Rouge, or splashing through the rain in Portugal. Nothing is missing – in that instant caught on film, everything that was ever great about motorsport is right there, either directly or in the context of the moment. The Lotus team is now gone, so is Ayrton Senna and yet it didn’t destroy the drama of the best moments of 2008. It’s just life.
Ferrari brings something a bit different – especially coming from a certain part of Italy rather than the F1 hub in southern England – and, for me, has always added an extra edge to the show. That the team of Lauda and Villeneuve (Gilles, I mean), Ascari and Bandini is still in F1 is nice, when many others aren’t. But many other great names have fallen by the wayside and it would matter not a jot in the big picture if F1 found itself without the red team one day. There is absolutely no need to distort the competition by bribing them to compete, it’s just ludicrous.
bernification said on 28th December 2008, 12:57
I agree with you Sean, F1 could survive without Ferrari- whether Ferrari would have survived without F1 is a different matter.
Fiat made a big gamble when they took complete control of Ferrari- they had been investors since 1969, but took over in 1988.
The Ferrari’s I remember also ‘from those long tracts in the 80′s when they did nothing’ were beautiful machines, that I willed to win, knowing full well that they would look and sound magnificent, but ultimately fail before the chequered flag.
It’s a romantic image, but not one that ultimately sells cars.
The rebranding of Ferrari during the Schumacher era was a master stroke. A well known unreliable beauty tied in with this terminateresque driver gave the pair of them something neither had before.
The Ferrari gained reliability (the 10′s of millions of £ spent here also helped) and Schumacher was given the adoration of the passionate tiffosi- he was given a heart (to paraphrase The Wizard of Oz).
But all of the political wranglings of this era have left a bitter aftertaste, and the Ferrari of today doesn’t posses the passion and beauty of it’s former self. I don’t suppose they care. As long as they win. Because wins mean sales.
GeorgeK said on 29th December 2008, 1:33
Does anyone else here see the potential for Luca taking over for Max? I see Luca taking the lead of the FOTA group as a way of sanitizing his reputation (breaking up the GPMA) and establishing himself as the sport’s spokesman as opposed to Ferrari’s shill.
At this point I’d take Luca and his phoney “di” as opposed to continuing with Max.
JDL said on 29th December 2008, 12:37
I have read most of the above comments and I have to say there are some interesting points and some outright blinded ones.
First things first to all those angry McLaren fans… Ferrari get paid the most, then McLaren, then Williams and then the rest. The payments are tired through the teams, so you are not different to Ferrari in that aspect, but yes Ferrari get more money.
Secondly until a few years ago it was proven that Ferrari generated 90% of F1 revenue worldwide…… you cant ignore that. It is now more like 60-70% with uprising of Alonso and Lewis. However should Ferrari walk from F1 even if half of that 60% of revenue went with them there would be a massive dent in the money pot. We would then not be discussing who should get what we would be discussing where its coming from in the first place.
Simple fact of the matter is yes its uneven, possibly even unfair, however those in the sport understand that so is business and without the guys in red the sport would be very very different.
JohnBt said on 19th August 2010, 2:57
Definitely No!!! Comments made have all the answers. While supporting
Alonso, countless fans loathe Ferrari.