Marlboro extend Ferrari sponsorship deal to 2015

2011 F1 season

Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro logo

Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro logo

Ferrari have announced an extension of their sponsorship deal with Marlboro.

The deal, which was set to expire at the end of this season, has been extended for a further four years.

Under the arrangement with Philip Morris International, Ferrari race under the official title of Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro, despite tobacco advertising being banned in the sport.

Last year Ferrari changed their livery following accusations that the design was intended to draw attention to their association with Marlboro.

They revealed a new team logo ahead of this year’s season which is now displayed on the cars.

Marlboro has sponsored several different teams since first appearing in the sport in 1971.

Ferrari also announced an extension of their partnership with Puma before the Canadian Grand Prix.

2011 F1 season


Browse all 2011 F1 season articles

Image ?? Ferrari spa/Ercole Colombo

Advert | Go Ad-free

97 comments on Marlboro extend Ferrari sponsorship deal to 2015

  1. AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner) said on 14th June 2011, 13:45

    Right on cue, just after the Canadian GP ;)

  2. Wallbreaker said on 14th June 2011, 13:46

    If you ask me, they should have been allowed to stick with the old livery because the new logo now looks even more like tobacco advertisement.

  3. BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th June 2011, 13:47

    F1′s oldest team still addicted to smoking!

    • bananarama said on 14th June 2011, 14:46

      They are that old, still healthy (relatively)Andi no signs of them dying, just going away maybe but thats unlikely aswell. So maybe there is no need to be against tobacco afterall…..

    • Fixy (@fixy) said on 14th June 2011, 16:16

      I just can’t see the point as Marlboro gets noted just when the contract is renewed and they news spread and reading the official entry list.

      • DavidS (@davids) said on 15th June 2011, 7:15

        …and whenever they are on the podium, the full name is mentioned in the press conference as Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro.

        While Ferrari can’t display Marlboro branding on their car or overalls, it doesn’t mean that the company doesn’t benefit from the deal.

        Marlboro can still use Ferrari in their promotional activities, as well as getting special treatment by Ferrari. That aspect of the deal is for the most part not regulated.

        Whether or not the deal is worth it is for Altria (Philip Morris) to decide. But I’m guessing with a $100bn turnover, it’s not really going to matter much.

    • Sushi Meerkat (@sushi-meerkat) said on 15th June 2011, 8:00

      F1′s oldest team still addicted to smoking!

      In brightest smoke, in blackest lungs,
      No tobacco shall escape my sight.
      Let those who worship FIA’s might,
      Beware my power…
      Red Lantern’s Lighter!

      MAKE IT STOP!!

      I really need to have all my comments moderated before I waste perfectly good bandwith.

  4. Widowfactory said on 14th June 2011, 13:49

    Disgustingly flagrant flouting of the rules. F1 teams should not be receiving money from any tobacco firms full stop.

    • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 14th June 2011, 14:08

      There is no rule against an F1 team being sponsored by a tobacco company. The rules only say that tobacco advertising is banned – so a team can have a tobacco company as its sponsor, but isn’t allowed to display its name or logo anywhere on its livery, overalls, signage etc. Basically Phillip Morris are paying Ferrari huge sums of money for the privilege of not having their product advertised on the car.

      (Actually, it’s a bit more complex than that, since Philip Morris actually rent all of the advertising space on the car and then sub-let it to various other sponsors, which is how the venture is worthwhile for them, but I digress).

      The only real grey area is the continued use of the name “Marlboro” in the team name. But presumably if there was anything the FIA or various legal bodies could do about it, they would do it.

      • Kenny (@kenny) said on 14th June 2011, 15:07

        Red Andy, I would like to learn a bit more about PM’s sposorship deal with Ferrari, in particular how they sublet space to other sponsors. Can you suggest any sites that may have information about this?

      • They mostly use Ferrari for corperate entertainment and hospitality. Thats actually the main point of the deal one would assume

        • DVC said on 15th June 2011, 5:20

          So the same thing the non-advertising sponsors in the Sauber Club do then? Seems we can’t be upset at Ferrari only until we know who is funding Sauber.

          • Matteo Pani said on 8th October 2013, 13:04

            Besides, Ferrari hasn’t been the first in history to have a tobacco company on their car. Look at McLaren and BAR Honda in the 2000′s, they had West and Lucky Strike on their car and it looked so damn awesome.

    • Nirupam said on 14th June 2011, 14:20

      Why? Sounds ridiculous to me at least. Alcohol, tobacco and betting companies should be banned as well then from sponsoring? I believe football viewership is more than F1 currently and am wondering if anything such happens, what will happen to most of the clubs!

      • TheBrav3 said on 14th June 2011, 15:13

        How is that logo anything to do with marlboro? I’m not a smoker but it seems ok to me.

        My real question though is ferrari had special permission to keep being sponsored by marlboro that much i do know. But wasn’t it only for a certain ammount of years? eventually they will have to drop it all together?

      • infy (@infy) said on 14th June 2011, 16:27

        I dont see whats wrong with cigarette companies advertising. Its a democracy and a free country. This aint Bahrain… or is it?

        • TheBrav3 said on 14th June 2011, 21:12

          Well i can see the problem with tv adverts because kids sit n watch tv all day. But when a car’s going 200 mph who on earth is looking at a tiny “Marlboro” sticker on the rear wing?

          • TheBrav3 said on 14th June 2011, 21:17

            It’s worth saying as well that unless you know what marlboro is in which case you’re already aware. The word could mean anything there’s alot of sponsors on the cars i have never heard of. I mean what the heck is a mubadala ;P

        • llama said on 16th June 2011, 6:10

          That’s a very 50′s kind of attitude.

          There is a lot of scientific evidence to support the idea that those who are addicted don’t actually have a choice. They are deficient in executive functions which would enable an ordinary individual to make proper choices for their long term benefit.

          They are no more able to make a choice, as a blind man can choose to see, or a paraplegic can chose to walk.

          • TheBrav3 said on 16th June 2011, 7:56

            Yes you’re talking about someone who is addicted so it doesn’t matter what is on the car because advertising or not they are going to have a smoke.

  5. lachy said on 14th June 2011, 13:50

    you have to really wonder how effective this sponsorship still is..

    • Cacarella said on 14th June 2011, 14:01

      We’re still talking about it aren’t we?
      It comes up every season for some reason or another and the announcers on television always say the word ‘Marlboro’ if one of the drivers reaches the podium.

      • Calum said on 14th June 2011, 22:12

        Add a Few White flashes on the next few ferraris and the news sites will keep Marlboro in the limelight for “subliminal message advertising.”

        I think Marlboro make plenty money back from their renting out of Ferrari body space for other companies to ad on -

    • Wallbreaker said on 14th June 2011, 14:09

      Just look at the Ferrari Logo. It looks like half of the Marlboro Logo. At the same time the drivers are on ads of Marlboro. Even on Twitter they say Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro.

    • Ghost in the Ruins said on 14th June 2011, 15:40

      Quite effective if PM are renewing the deal!

      • Mike (@mike) said on 14th June 2011, 23:29

        Exactly, PM wouldn’t renew it if it didn’t think it would get x amount worth of advertising in the next few years.

        Which shows you why it’s wrong.

    • sato113 (@sato113) said on 14th June 2011, 15:47

      i love f1 yet i gave up smoking recently!

    • Fixy (@fixy) said on 14th June 2011, 17:14

      They should at least return to using the Marlboro logo in races that allow it like in 2007, where during the Chinese, Bahrain and Monacon races the logo featured dominantly on the car.

  6. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 14th June 2011, 13:57

    “Under the arrangement with Philip Morris International, Ferrari race under the official title of Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro, despite tobacco advertising being banned in the sport.”

    I honestly don’t understand how that works or why a blind eye is seemingly turned to this. Tobacco advertsing is banned in F1 yet one team still has a tobacco sponsor as its title sponsor. This isn’t Ferrari bashing, it is just bizarre!

    • Cacarella said on 14th June 2011, 14:05

      C’mon, I’m disappointed in you now – You’re a lawyer!

      Tobacco advertising is banned so there must be some type of legal mumbo jumbo or loophole that indicates a teams official name is not considered advertising.

      I mean, what is advertising, really?
      (trying to get deep there – not sure if I pulled it off)

      • GeeMac (@geemac) said on 14th June 2011, 14:22

        This isn’t my field! ;) That’s why I’m so confused, the “letter of the law is clear”, no tobacco advertising is allowed in F1.

        • infy (@infy) said on 14th June 2011, 16:29

          Its not an advert, its a name.

          • Bernard (@bernard) said on 15th June 2011, 0:54

            They are promoting a tobacco company in public via the team logo and the team name and receiving money for doing so, no two ways about it.

            sponsor

            noun: 1. a person or organization that pays for or contributes to the costs involved in staging a sporting or artistic event in return for advertising.

            advertisement

            noun: a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product [or] service

        • Advertising isn’t allowed but sponsorship is (I assume or it wouldn’t be allowed). Malboro can sponsor Ferrari but Ferrari can’t advertise them I’m guessing.

          • Mike (@mike) said on 14th June 2011, 23:47

            But having Marlboro in their name is most definitely advertising, Not only does it associate Marlboro and Ferrari but every time Ferrari’s name is mention Marlboro gets a mention.

            If anything Brundle and Coulthard are the two in trouble here, because they are advertising tobacco every time they say Marlboro.

            I think people forget that advertising isn’t just “Buy this it’s very nice.” It is also advertising when the name is mentioned. Why do you think those annoying, loud and repetitive ads on TV work?

            If advertising is truly banned then there should be no mention of the name and no images representing those associated with Marlboro. Like the new Ferrari Logo.

            But this is yet another example of the top brass in F1 being greedy. Hell I’d wager they’d bring tobacco sponsorship back if they thought they could get away with it. Just like they thought they could get away with going to Bahrain.

          • DVC said on 15th June 2011, 6:15

            So Mike, you just mentioned Marlboro 4 times. Was your post advertising Marlboro? I don’t think it was. So, there must be more to this advertising thing than just mentioning a name. Surely?

          • Bernard (@bernard) said on 15th June 2011, 10:53

            As far as I’m aware DVC, Mike is not being paid to say the word. :)

          • DVC said on 16th June 2011, 4:38

            Neither are Brundle and Coulthard.

  7. Lachie (@lachie) said on 14th June 2011, 14:53

    Why do Ferrari always seem to err on the side of evil? Any time there’s a team meeting on something it’ll be everyone on one side and Ferrari on the other.

    I mean they’re Ferrari, surely they have just about every company in the world eager to sponsor them, why the need to stick with Phillip Morris?

    • Taib said on 14th June 2011, 16:56

      Because Philip Morris are paying Ferrari much more then anyone else would dare to? One magazine reported that Ferrari would be getting nearly $1 billion over the six season from 2005 t0 2011. You would be mad to turn that much down. Absolutely mad. People might not like it but in fiscal terms it is a no-brainer.

  8. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 14th June 2011, 15:13

    If I needed a reason to intensely dislike Ferrari (not that I ever have, mind you), it’s this.

    • Lee said on 14th June 2011, 15:30

      why?

      There is nothing illegal about this, otherwise they would not be allowed to do it.

      It is clearly a business arrangement that works well for both sides. Ferrari know exactly what they are getting in terms of total sponsorship income as Marlboro, or Phillip Morris, are subletting the space on the car. They must make money from the arrangement as there is no direct commercial advertising benefit from it for them. There Brand is in the teams name (perfectly legal) but that only really appears on the FIA entry list if we are honest. Something only more in depth fans really take a look at.

      I have friends who had no idea the two companies were still associated with eachother until today.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 14th June 2011, 16:26

        why?

        Because it just makes them seem like they don’t care. There is a proven connection between smoking and dozens of horrible diseases that slowly eat the organs and choke the life out of millions of people worldwide. We might have seen the likes of Gaulosies and John Player Special and Lucky Strike and so on at one time or another, but the other teams have steadily given up tobacco sponsorship. Not so with Ferrari. They still accept money from a company whsoe products are directly responsible for killing people. I’m surprised there’s not more outrage over this; dozens, if not hundreds of people have been killed in Bahrin over the past few months, but cigarettes have killed millions of people – probably closer to tens of millions – in the past few decades. Ferrari accepting money from Philip Morris just make it seem like Ferrari don’t care who they deal with, just so long as they get the money out of it.

        • I’m surprised there’s not more outrage over this; dozens, if not hundreds of people have been killed in Bahrin over the past few months, but cigarettes have killed millions of people – probably closer to tens of millions – in the past few decades.

          I honestly don’t think you can compare the situations. One is violent oppression and the other is death or health trouble due to people choosing to smoke.

          • Fixy (@fixy) said on 14th June 2011, 17:18

            death or health trouble due to people choosing to smoke.

            Steph’s right. If someone decides to smoke then they are responsible for their health issues, not a Formula 1 team who had an agreement with a cigarette brand to have its brand in the team name.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th June 2011, 22:30

            I Agree with Steph (and Fixy) here about these two things being not at all comparable, be it, this comparison attracts the F1 crowd due to the events of the past months.

            On the other hand, the biggest issue with smoking is not about people damaging their health (nor companies getting rich over slow death nor health cost for the “victims”).

            The best reason for banning smoking is the effect it has on people around those that choose to smoke. They do not make that choice, but suffer almost the same health risks!

          • Mike (@mike) said on 14th June 2011, 23:52

            I disagree Fixy, just because the very nature of an addicting substance means people’s decisions are influenced by the feeling that they need to have it.

        • Lee said on 14th June 2011, 16:45

          Seriously, that is an incredibly “loose” argument in my opinion. Yes admittedly there are many connections with diseases casued by smoking, and i for one am very anti smoking.

          But

          What about Alcohol? How many teams flaunt drinks companies over their cars? And how many crimes, acts of violence, domestic violence, hospital admission for alcohol abuse are there each year? I would say a damn sight more instances than smoking.

          What about McLaren, they are part owned by the Authorities accused of the crimes you speak of in Bahrain.

          I think you are voicing disapproval for the sake of it, its a business arrangement, there are thousands of business deals done every day which have both positive and negative effects on al our lives which could easily have their “moral” positioning questioned.

          Who do you work for? I bet there is a high chance they are associated with someone that some people would question the ethics of. Its called the real world. Welcome to it.

        • Ads21 (@ads21) said on 14th June 2011, 18:25

          They still accept money from a company whsoe products are directly responsible for killing people

          In the words of Josiah Bartlet “I would find your indignation a lot more interesting if it wasn’t so covered in crap!”

          You’ve just performed a dizzying intellectual backflip from last week when you were arguing that sport should be apolitical to suddenly attacking Ferrari for the morality of its sponsors. There’s no consistency in arguing that when last week you were saying it was acceptable for F1 to accept money from, and provide a platform for, a government directly responsible for the unlawful murder of its own people. Its simply hypocrisy that can only be explained by your hatred of everything Ferrari.

          This is while you’ve been preaching to us all about how sport and politics shouldn’t mix. Yet on both issues you support the most political side. You supported F1 bending over backwards for Bahrain to regain a Grand Prix which was to be used by an oppressive government as a giant international propaganda platform. But now you want judge teams on the morality of their sponsors. Not just have you chosen the most political side on each issue, the two positions are completely contradictory!

        • US_Peter (@us_peter) said on 15th June 2011, 0:27

          Haha! I’d like to see the original comment!

        • Conclusion: the name of the scuderia kills tens of millions of people. It could begin by their haters.

          • TheBrav3 said on 16th June 2011, 8:00

            Ok since it seems it’s fine to say crap prisoner monkeys you have crap for brains.

  9. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 14th June 2011, 15:20

    *sees Ferrari*
    I need a smoke

    *sees Red Bull*
    I need Red Bull

    *sees Mclaren*
    I need a whisky

    • GeeMac (@geemac) said on 14th June 2011, 15:27

      *See’s the Force India*
      Becomes an alcoholic!

      *See’s the Williams*
      Calls alcoholics anonymous!

      *See’s two teams called Lotus*
      Thinks he is still drunk!

      ;)

      • Lee said on 14th June 2011, 15:33

        Isnt alcohol proven to be responsible for more deaths and hospital admissions each year than smoking…..? not to mention the crime and violence related aspects of drinking.

        Surely Alcohol should be looked upon more strictly than Tobacco anyway.

        • Mouse_Nightshirt (@mouse_nightshirt) said on 15th June 2011, 0:14

          Small amounts of alcohol on a regular basis improve cardiovascular health.

          In contrast, there is no beneficial/safe amount of tobacco to smoke.

          • siv said on 15th June 2011, 0:29

            In the original 1964 report from the US Surgeon General that stated cigarette smoking was damaging to health, they also reported that pipe smokers live longer, on average, than non smokers.

            This is suspected to be more to do with the fact that pipe smokers tend to me more relaxed people. Anyway, I’m just pointing out that there are always statistics both for and against many arguments.

            Back to your regularly scheduled rain interrupted viewing…

          • verstappen (@verstappen) said on 15th June 2011, 11:27

            Small amounts of alcohol on a regular basis improve cardiovascular health

            while at the same time buring away those braincells. But the big French Wine lobby makes sure that you only hear about the positives. And hey, a glass of wine is nice!

            Same as with flying: when compared with driving a car it is safer, if you look at the miles you cover. However, if you look at the possibility for an accident for each time you enter a car or a plane, then driving is much safer.

            Now on smoking, I guess there a some benefits, like it does make some people more relaxed or comfortable with themselves. Like alcohol. And there must be a safe amount of smoking, since not every smoker dies.

          • Mouse_Nightshirt (@mouse_nightshirt) said on 15th June 2011, 22:49

            Or alternatively the numerous clinical trials.

            The evidence is that small volumes of alcohol from any source is beneficial. Rather ironically, home wine glass servings have increased to the point where a woman having one “glass” a day, every day in the week, will exceed her recommended limit for that week.

      • Todfod (@todfod) said on 14th June 2011, 15:37

        *See’s the Virgin*

        Almost makes a lewd statement

        f1 should be banned.

      • Lol at you all :)

  10. Nick F said on 14th June 2011, 16:07

    This hurts Ferrari’s brand in my opinion. It’s very 20th century. To promote something you know will shorten peoples lives and bring great suffering for money. How can you be a prestige brand and do that? Particularly galling because I believe the growth in cigarettes these days is in developing countries. It’s preying on the week. We have seen that eventually when countries reach a certain point in their development they will enact laws and campaigns to dissuade their citizens from smoking but that it takes years. It’s very hard to get people off cigarettes once they become addicted.

    ….Disappointing. I guess it’s just human behaviour that we have seen over and over. Money. It’s not quite the root of all evil but it sure leads people to make some terrible and morally troubling decisions.

    • infy (@infy) said on 14th June 2011, 16:50

      Like Jonny Walker, or Redbull.

      • Nick F said on 14th June 2011, 18:03

        If you drink too much water you can kill yourself. with Jonny Walker or Redbull you can consume it and live a healthy life if you do it with moderation. That’s not really true of cigarettes. You can make the decision to only smoke 2 cigarettes a day, but the point is that they are extremely addictive and so really it’s not a choice in the usual way we think of choices. The cigarette is going to have a negative health consequence and there is a fairly strong guarantee of that. Of course there will always be rare cases where that’s not true. I’m sure there is a 1/100000 90 year old out there that has been smoking all their life and is still going, but that doesn’t really prove anything.

        • JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1) said on 14th June 2011, 18:41

          Are you suggesting alcohol isn’t addictive?

          • Nick F said on 14th June 2011, 18:59

            :-) ….no.

          • Todfod (@todfod) said on 14th June 2011, 21:23

            Well.. alcohol isn’t physically addictive… might be psychologically addictive in some cases. Cigarettes on the other hand to contain nicotine, the 2nd most addictive drug in the world.

          • Mouse_Nightshirt (@mouse_nightshirt) said on 15th June 2011, 0:16

            Todford – that is very very untrue.

            Infact, it’s so addictive, heavy drinkers can die from sudden withdrawal. It’s why I spent many a weekend night prescribing chlordiazepoxide.

          • Nick F said on 15th June 2011, 1:29

            “heavy drinkers”. You have to get to that point though. Since it’s less addictive it’s much harder to reach that point. Cigarettes and heroine are dangerous because you try them for fun, but then after brief exposure your brain chemistry has been changed and your screwed because stopping is a terribly difficult thing to do.

          • Mouse_Nightshirt (@mouse_nightshirt) said on 15th June 2011, 22:51

            Very true. However the near omnipresence of alcohol these days means that even though it’s hard to reach that point, there are so many people going for it that it’s causing some very severe strain on services.

        • DVC said on 15th June 2011, 6:06

          The phrase I like to use is “regularly consumable quantities.” IMO anything that is both addictive and poisonous in regularly consumable quantities should be banned.

  11. Klon (@klon) said on 14th June 2011, 16:12

    …despite tobacco advertising being banned in the sport.

    Where is that said anyhow? Have not read anything about that in either rulebook.

    • Lee said on 14th June 2011, 16:52

      Its an EU legislation

      • Lee said on 14th June 2011, 16:59

        a bit more detail, the EU banned tobacco advertising in 2005 (if i remember rightly) although its allowed in other places in the world. However because under the EU law it bans it in “International Sporting Events”. Anything televised in the EU can not feature Tobacco advertising, hence its not allowed in F1 anymore.

  12. Dutch_Alex said on 14th June 2011, 16:15

    Money is money, where ever it comes from. And as much as love underdogs like HRT, we need teams with big bucks that can fight for the championchip.

  13. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 14th June 2011, 19:19

    I think it’s disgraceful and they should be ashamed of themselves. A global brand like Philip Morris should never stoop so low as to sponsor a slow bunch of cheats. Now whenever people buy their cigarettes they will be subconsciously made to buy those awful cars which catch fire all the time.

    (This is a parody by the way, before the Ferrari flames – phrasing deliberate – come in!)

  14. bigbadderboom said on 14th June 2011, 19:55

    Move on Ferrari, surely they can find money and financial partners elsewhere.

  15. wasiF1 (@wasif1) said on 15th June 2011, 3:01

    One thing that doesn’t get in my mind that as you can’t have the name on the car then why pay so much money for sponsorship?

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.