Do Ferrari deserve more money? (Poll)

Posted on

| Written by

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?

  • Don't know (3%)
  • No (75%)
  • Yes (22%)

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

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

53 comments on “Do Ferrari deserve more money? (Poll)”

  1. Jonesracing82
    23rd December 2008, 7:07

    absolutely not!
    yer give x amount to them if they win, or the team that wins!

  2. It’s not just a matter of ‘deserve’. There’s no doubt that Ferrari is crucial to Formula One. Just as much is Formula One crucial to Ferrari, though. The team just succesfully negotiated a bigger cut.

  3. The share of money is not calculated by influence, so whether they are crucial to F1 or not shouldn’t make a difference. However, if F1 would lose a significant chunk of fans if they left then perhaps they are worth the extra.

    I do wonder how much prestige Ferrari bring to F1 though. Ferrari has a much better ring to it than Toyota and perhaps that alone is worth something commercially.

  4. that is *********,
    just because of being ferrari they can get more money?
    split those $80m so every team gets the same. and the worst thing is: ferrari don’t only get $80m extra for a constructors championship… but for a drivers championship as well. totally unfair

  5. Ferrari has done more to F1 than any other team.Schumi ferrai combination made F1 to reach corners of the world where people doesn’t know about motorsport.I say this because in my part of the world when we discuss about F1 only people remember two names FERRAI and SCHUMACHER.Just to add a bit Even my granma who live in a remote village in south india knows about schumacher.
    Think of it guys F1 without FERRAI ????
    Keith may be u shud conduct a poll “how many people will watch F1 without FERRARI”.

  6. Yes, they deserve!!
    Listen to BBC Chequered Flag podcast on “THE FUTURE OF F1”
    Experts have discussed why Ferrari deseve extra money.
    And that all team bosses knew and had agreed (in 2003) to the fact that Ferrari would get extra money. This is revealed by Eddie Jordan who was running JORDAN GP team in 2003….

    Go here-


  7. they should give a large cut of the revenue to fans for having to put up with this crap!

  8. Ofcourse; they deserve the extra money.

  9. Formula 1 will do just fine without Ferrari. It’s the same as people who claimed that F1 would be dead after Schumacher retired.

    The majority of viewers are simply fans of the teams and drivers who win and there are always at least 2 in contention for the championship.

    I was in both Imola and Monza in 2005 and I had “roaming” tickets (so I sat on almost all the stands over the weekends). Even in Italy, there was hardly a red shirt to be seen. Most people were wearing blue and some silver. In only a few races people had gone from Schumi worshipping (who utterly dominated 2004) to Alonso/Raikkonen and Renault/McLaren fans.

    1. without Ferrari F1 is gone m8.

  10. No they bloody well shouldn’t! I don’t see why thy deserve any extra money. So they’ve been there the longest? so what? F1 wouldn’t go under if Ferrari wern’t racing in it, and Ferrari wouldn’t go under if they left F1. You’d just have a few less tifosi lying around.

  11. Probably not. But as with many other areas of life F1 is about what you can get, not what you deserve.

    Ferrari doesn’t get more money than the rest because Bernie thinks it deserves more money. It gets more because Bernie offered it more a few years ago as he sought to neutralise the GPMA’s efforts to use a breakaway series as a negotiating ploy to get more money for the manufacturers.

    Ferrari has the USP of being the only team in F1 to have been there since the start. For many people, F1 without Ferrari isn’t F1 at all. It was able to exploit this to get a bigger share of the pot. Had McLaren, Williams or any other team been in the same position it is difficult to imagine them turning it down on the basis that they didn’t deserve it.

    Bernie’s comments are a bit rich. Ferrari gets more than the rest because Bernie offered them more than the rest. It suited his purposes at the time to stuff their mouths with gold. It suits his purposes now to highlight it. If, at some point in the future, it suits Bernie to do something similar he won’t hestitate.

    Welcome to the piranha club…

  12. Bernie Ecclestone doesn’t give people money because they ‘deserve’ it. He gives it to them because it makes good business sense. Ferrari’s current deal is payment for being the first to sign up to the Concorde agreement, preventing a breakaway series.

    Many historic teams have gone to the wall without any tears. If Fiat decided to pull Ferrari out, F1 would carry on regardless. But if Ferrari sought to participate in (or establish) a competing formula, Bernie would be more concerned and reach for his wallet.

    He maybe a featherweight in physical terms but in this fight with Montezemolo, my money’s on the little guy.

  13. what’s the extra money based on?

    do they get it just for being around the longest? what are they doing for the money? how are they being awarded it?

  14. I think in the interests of pure fairness on the playing field, Ferrari should get what everyone else gets. What I do wonder is why Montezemelo agreed to this role in FOTA? He must have known that this would be the first attack from Bernie.

    I don’t blame the scuderia for playing the game, though, to get more money.

  15. I have read some of comment above, and some people really surprise me when they said yes.

    Shame on them giving more money to Ferrari than anybody else, Customer teams needs every penny, and yet Ferrari gets more, this is total injustice.

    I am sick of Ferrari winning every race and every championship. We all remember when Vettel won in Monza it was all joy for motor sport. STR was and still is the underdog that everybody loves… I think Shumi’s years are the dullest years in F1 where he won every thing.

    Ferrari is the tumour of F1. In top of that they get more money and “Special Treatment” as per Bernie.

    So what if they quit. hell with them. F1 will as exciting as ever…

    if Historical status that your are after Willams and Mclaren and not what you call new.. are they?

    Angry McLaren Fan

  16. Ferrari ‘deserves’ the extra money NOT for being the oldest team in the sport’ NOT for dominating the sport so well that rules were changed; NOT for being the most popular team among fans.

    Ferrari ‘deserves’ the extra money for being smart back in 2003. Instead of Ferrari, had Mclaren backtracked from GPMA first; they would have got the extra buck.. Would Mclaren have deserved the extra money then? Sure, they would have.

  17. I’d be quite happy to watch F1 without Ferrari…

    I think to an extent teams with a long history in the sport should get a little bit extra. Just enough to point out that hanging around for a while has its benefits and that the sport recongises their contribution. Not to the extent of $80m, however, that’s just crazy.

    Yes F1 without Ferrari wouldn’t be the same, but likewise F1 with ONLY Ferrari would be pretty mince as well.

  18. Wrong Question and wrong Poll. Its not question of what they deserve or not. While I am not a Ferrari Fan, Its just what they could bargain with Bernie/FOM.

    If McLaren/Renault/BMW would have been given similar offer by Bernie to divide the Constructors, would they have denied the answer is NO. FOM/Bernie, shrewdly Bought Ferrari and made them sign the Concorde agreement with this carrot.

    If You look in the recent history of Sport, The teams were so very engrossed in stepping on each others toes that Privateers like Williams and Stoddardt were not supported by Constructor backed teams. Stoddardt left frustrated and that left Sir Williams, he followed Ferrari.

    So its just like candidate getting a job, its upto him/her how much they can bargain on Salary when they join. Do they deserve that Salary? Well its open to debate. Its just matter of Demand and Supply.

    Point to be noted, is the timing of Bernie stirring this point. I get a feeling that this is just another attempt by Bernie to to create split in FOTA. But the point he has missed is, the FOTA member would be very much aware of the situation from the word go. If they had not known/liked it they would have left the sport by now

  19. Of course Ferrari don’t deserve extra money just for being Ferrari. My understanding is that the amount teams receive is determined by where they finish in championship, and so it should be the same for every team regardless of history.

    However like some previous comments stated Ferrari were hardly going to turn the offer of extra money down when Bernie made it. Does anyone think that any of the teams put the good of F1 as whole above of their own interests?

    Can you imagine the tabloid uproar in the UK if Man Utd got significantly more money from the Premiership just for being Man Utd.

  20. I say this again – Rules may be right or wrong, all the parties know what they are.

    PJA – if MANU are able to convince Premiership organizers that EPL will not be same without MANU participation and the organizers are convinced, then why not ???

    Its for the other teams to prove to fans and sponsors that Sports will be same without MANU. If they cannot and resign to fate that Premiership needs MANU ( thats what is happening in F1 currently). Why should Fans be cribbing on MANU making more monies in that case :-?

  21. @ Ninad – Thanks for the BBC F1 program podcast

  22. Do Ferrari deserve more money?

    Let’s think about this.

    The last time the teams tried to break the Ecclestone Moseley stranglehold they threatened to form a rival series, doing pretty much what Fota are trying for now- a put up or shut up- share the money and let us have more say, or we will leave type scenario.

    Only Ferrari were bought. This broke the back of the movement, exactly as Bernie anticipated. Williams followed (just cause they were quicker than many others).

    This, along with Ferrari’s continued pursuance of points and championships through the courtroom, make me think, no, they don’t deserve the extra cash.

    Doesn’t anyone see the irony in Monte asking for the extra money? He was the one who stopped everyone getting a larger share of it earlier, because he got more!

    I look forward to watching them make the same race winning decisions in 2009.

  23. folks, this is like a corruption, just instead of the government the governing body is involved! consider this – “either give us some money or your business is a no-go”. heh :-) this is ridiculous :-) yes, Ferrari is important for F1, but it seems it has become FIA’s spoiled child …

  24. The important aspect here is not how many more millions get spent on keeping Ferrari happy, but on how much should be spent in order to encourage and to sustain existing teams.
    The principle of the championship is that we have ten teams that are competing, rather than just one potential winner and nine allsorans.
    The reason F1 viewing figures slumped several years ago were not to do with Michael Schumacher’s and Ferrari’s dominance, but because the other teams could not sustain a championship challenge like Ferrari’s.
    The more teams that can compete against Ferrari and McLaren, and can compete for championships not just race wins, then the brighter the future for all concerned in F1, including Ferrari.
    That is why it is vital that we keep teams like Williams, Renault, Toyota, and Force India in this championship, and the only way is to level the playing field financially.
    This, I am confident, will happen.

  25. Business will always have a huge scenario of “digging up the dirt” when tough negotiations comes into play. The current crisis will bring out the worst in the human race but it could be exciting too. If not Ferrari, it could be others. That’s the way of the world!

  26. Formula 1 is about independent teams ,no car-manufactures and no energydrinks. Williams, McLaren , Jordan, Arrows, Minardi, Sauber, BAR, Lotus are the spirit of F1 . Ferrari would be nothing without the ‘extra help’ as bernie said that they get in the races. They don’t deserve not even one $ more. I demand from them, though, some money for the Spa-fiasko I spent 8hrs watching that racing weekend, these houres were valuable for me and I wasted them…Ferrari are corrupt

    (good point Rob)

  27. Ferrari did a deal & good on them. Maybe the other teams should learn how to negotiate

  28. Question: Will Ferrari end up with more money than they are currently getting with Bernie’s bribe?

    If not, then why are they making these demands?

    As for who “deserves” what, it depends on who you support, doesn’t it?

  29. The biggest problem here is that bernie runs F1 as a business which is what it shouldn’t be – it’s a sport. Yeah the money has to come from somewhere because it’s so expensive to run these cars but at the heart of the problem I would like to see a return to the days of true sport in F1. No more races in countries that don;t care about them and no more rediculous deals for high profile teams. What bernie’s interest in making money has done is sour the sport away from its true orgins, and its only going to get worse until the FIA fixes the commercial mess.

  30. If not, then why are they making these demands?

    Di Montezemolo is asking for more money for all the teams on behalf of FOTA, not on behalf of Ferrari. Bernie is hoping to split FOTA by highlighting that Ferrari currently get more than anyone else – but we knew that years ago.

  31. Well, if you want a feudal system, a simple system of privilege, where capital flows unconditionally to an arbitrarily favoured and protected overlord regardless of his ongoing actions or merit, then yes, Ferrari completely “deserves” (if that word has any meaning here) more “prize” money than everyone else (prize for what?). But let’s not then pretend that the other teams and players are there to do anything other than pick up the scraps, or steal the occasional moment of glory until normal service is resumed and the balance of absolute power restored. This is the totalitarian approach and I think we’ve seen it in all walks of life, and rejected it fairly completely.

    If, however, you believe in results as the basis for rewards, or you think that actual competition should be the basis of motor sports (a quaint notion, I know), then no, how can you possibly support a system in which one team is unconditionally rewarded with an advantage of many tens of millions of dollars annually, for doing exactly nothing? The wonder is that Ferrari has not managed to translate the extra $400M it has been paid over everyone else since 2003 into an overwhelming, systematic and near-unbreakable technical advantage. How did they manage to lose? One WDC lost to McLaren and two to Renault in five years – how on earth have they managed to squander it all?

    I think in the world of commerce, you can always argue that anything goes and people should grab what they can (this ignores that there are things like anti-trust and other laws to prevent unchecked power running amock, even in simple business). But in something that calls itself SPORT, and amazingly F1 still does, there is a basic, intrinsic requirement – from the most casual TV follower to the most dedicated fanatic – that the on-track competition is at some level standing on a level playing field – otherwise it has no meaning. There is a simple assumption of fairness when we, usually as kids, watch any sport for the first time. We’re all invested in this charade at some level, from the moment we switch on the TV. It’s the most gross violation of that basic principle that we now all know, all of us, that F1 has not been even close to a level playing field all these years and will not be in 2009 either.

    Just a simple system in which teams are paid on points or otherwise on the basis of results should be enough to allow those teams to carve out an advantage, as reward for their sins. This, for example, is the world I competed in for many years as a kart racer – if you win you take home extra prize money and then use it to try to extend your advantage. If you don’t do that, tough luck. Anything beyond that runs the risk of turning the thing into a stranglehold, and $80M every year is an abomination.

    Naked commerce is fine, but I don’t watch it on TV or find myself rooting for one financial services or engineering company over another, and there’s a reason for that. I stopped going to F1 races and consciously stopped buying F1-related products for THIS EXACT REASON the better part of a decade ago, and I’m certain I’m not alone in my sentiments.

  32. Of course ferrari don’t deserve more money, F1 is rigged in their favour anyway before they even take home the money!!!

  33. The article is wrong when it says that Ferrari get 80m more just for being Ferrari. They get this because they stabbed the other teams in the back when they were looking at starting up a break away championship.
    As Bernie said – it was the price that bought ferrari.

  34. No they shouldn’t.

    This has nothing to do with the team you support, I’m a Ferrari fan, it’s about the sport being fair.
    The teams with the most money are the only ones who can compete for the championship so be giving Ferrari extra money they’re giving them an advantage.
    $80million pays a lot of salaries so they are literally giving them an extra man (to use a football cliché).

    Sorry about the advertising Keith but Shell have got a new game on their website:

    It’s only a simple reaction time game but I thought it was fun.

  35. It seems completely counter-intuitive to me to give more money to the sport’s most successful team. Saying that Ferrari ‘deserve’ the money because they cut a deal with Ecclestone a few years ago is an interesting take on the discussion but it misses the point. F1 shouldn’t have to bribe its competitors to take part. That fact that Ecclestone found it necessary to enter into such a deal points to a weakness in how the sport is run.

  36. So what about the periods of time in f1 when Ferrari didn’t figure (eg. 1991 – 1996) that was a classic period of f1 history which makes say that I could live without ferrari in f1, the same way we live without Schumacher

  37. HounslowBusGarage
    23rd December 2008, 20:32

    More money for Ferrari, just because they are Ferrari is a bit like allowing Manchester United to field a side of twelve players, just because they are Manchester United.

  38. Ferrari definitely brings value to F1, but it’s a difficult one to argue in monetary terms when McLaren have just topped the ING poll as most popular team in F1. Williams are still not far behind Ferrari in terms of popularity! This is a team who finished 8th in the constructors this year and whose popularity stems from back from 1980-97. Now these are die hard fans!!!

    The biggest talking / arguing point of the year was the “unfair advantage” thing!! It’s very hypocritical to get $80m more and argue.

    I do think that both Ferrari and Bernie should wind it in!!! If Bernie puts in more cash, (which he should), then Ferrari should give up their pot too.

  39. Just one more small thing…. Wasn’t Schumacher responsible for turning more fans off by being so dominant?

  40. yes and no. but there is nothing to argue. it’s a contract. ferrari used the opportunity. and wise move from bernie as well – to buy only 1 team.

  41. Absolutely not. It’s feudal, as Sean says. It’s also unfair.

    No wonder they do so well – they’ve got more money for research! Didn’t Mosley mutter something about a level playing field (so to speak)?

    Just a nitpick, too: “Does Ferrari deserve more money” :-)

    Carolyn Ann

  42. I am quite happy to watch F1 without Ferrari and while we are at it lets get rid of Bernie and Moseley as well, then we will really be MOTORING

  43. As a Ferrari fan, I’d say yes it’s unfair for Ferrari to receive more money than others.

    However, the degree of how I’d follow F1, and perhaps many others too, had Ferrari joined/created a breakaway series thereafter is questionable. And I’m sure those who are disgusted at Ferrari, and/or their followers, would be more than glad to see the back of our heads.

    I certainly maintain that the prime, and perhaps, utmost reason why I support Ferrari is their long standing history, and persistance in the late 80s/all 90s (when I was more aware of F1). One of the first words I could utter as a kid was “Fellaly” (pronounciation wrong, but I would’ve meant Ferrari because anything else wouldn’t have made sense). One of the first words my youngest cousin could say was the same as well.

    Ferrari ARE synonomous with F1 over the period it has existed, whether people like it or not – I’ve met plenty of people who couldn’t name a single team in F1 apart from “the red ones”. Had they broken away from F1, F1 would not just lose Ferrari, but de-associate itself with one of the biggest name in motorsport, and along with that, one of the biggest followings. Sure, I’d still watch F1 (albeit with more apathy unless a smaller team won….regularly) – I can’t say the same for a lot of tifosi, who ingrain the Ferrari emblem into themselves much more than I do.

    So when it was Bernies decision to give them more money, to retain them, it’s not really Ferrari’s fault. Going back to LDM’s comment about Lewis Hamilton not wanting to join Ferrari, he said it’s usually for Ferrari to decide such things, it is a little bit of the truth. Ferrari can call the shots in many respects (and I suppose many people will say they call it in unfair circumstances), but they know fine well that they could break away and they would still maintain the support they have from F1.

    But there’s no reason why it should. After over 50 years of not missing an F1 season, I don’t see why they themselves would want to break that tradition (not competing is worse than seeing them do badly imo), and in this case, the threat was real enough to warrant the extra money.

    So no, I don’t agree with it, but I see why it’s been done. Should they share this money out……well, it doesn’t matter what I, or Bernie, or anyone else for that matter, thinks.

  44. Lets do some simple maths.
    All the teams get to share $450. Does that include the $80 million extra Ferrari is given? I think it probably does.
    Mclaren was fined $100m last season, and they only paid $50m while the other $50m was deducted from their 2nd place finish in the constructors championship. If you finish 2nd in the constructors championship and only get $50m, then 3rd, 4th and downwards, will get progressively less money. It follows then that Ferrari can finish last and still get more money than a team that finishes in second place.

  45. Oliver,
    That my friend is the price for ‘loyalty’.
    Others might try to undermine this loyalty of Ferrari’s by typing the word ‘bought’ in bold; but it is nothing but a grudging acceptance that Ferrari were smarter in 2003. Period!!

  46. Oliver, McLaren was constructor champion in 2007 not second. Well they were neither because their points were taken away, but still.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. Definitely No!!! Comments made have all the answers. While supporting
    Alonso, countless fans loathe Ferrari.

Comments are closed.