Williams, Sepang, 2014

Threat of F1 alcohol advertising ban looms

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Williams, Sepang, 2014In the round-up: Formula One is coming under pressure to ban alcohol sponsorship.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Todt under fire for failure to ban alcohol sponsorship (The Telegraph)

“Allowing alcohol sponsorship in Formula One seems to contradict many official guidelines for the marketing of alcohol. It runs against the EU Directive which states that marketing for the consumption of alcohol should not be linked to driving.”

‘Super GP2’ plan to boost F1 grid (Autosport)

“Formula One’s small teams say Bernie Ecclestone has floated a plan to boost the F1 grid with ‘Super GP2’ cars.”

Robert Kubica: I could have been F1 world champion – but in one day everything disappeared (The Mirror)

“So I didn’t do [an F1 test last year] because I wanted to protect myself. There was too much risk that I would enjoy it and then… well, it would be like taking a knife and stabbing myself in the chest with it.”

Toto Wolff: “Nobody likes the double points…” (Adam Cooper’s F1 Blog)

“Nobody likes the double points. We are going to discuss that next time around. I don’t think Bernie likes it. So it’s probably something that we should be getting rid of for next season.”

A betrayal of Formula One (ESPN)

“[Double points is] a touch of silliness – and sport needs to avoid silliness at all costs. Once sport starts looking silly, people remember that sport doesn’t actually matter. Sport needs to safeguard its integrity as a competition: once you start messing about sport starts to lose its meaning.”

Let them eat cake (MotorSport)

Bernie Ecclestone in 1995: “People going on about only 19 or 20 cars in the race… OK, so what? The size of the field doesn’t bother me at all. It is much better for us to have a smaller, better quality grid than to have a lot of make-weights.”

Begging-bowl F1 (Darren Heath)

“Why, they inquire [sic], why is Formula One not run akin to a fistful of dollars, begging-bowl hand-outs, welfare state?”

Tweets

Comment of the day

@Dam00r believes something other than engine noise is putting people off Formula One:

This year was I went to see my absolute first Formula One grand prix in Hungary.

When I came to the circuit, I could hear the GP2 cars driving around. but when I sat on the grandstands I just did not like the sound from the GP2, it was just a bit too loud and the sound was not as sophisticated as the F1 engines were. I loved the growling sound from the hybrid V6 engine and the braking squeal made it more dynamic. We could also very clearly hear the commentators of the race from the speakers.

Loved my first Grand Prix, did not need any ear-plugs and was a relaxing experience. Also the graphics were astonishingly greater in real life!

The thing that is ruining Formula 1 is the expensive tickets and merchandise. If I had children, I would imagine that it would get very expensive to take them with me to watch the grand prix.

You do not hear many people talking about going to a F1 grand prix here because it is too damn expensive. More people would come to the grand prix if the ticket prices were more reasonable.

Bernie Ecclestone is just sitting there pocketing money for himself and too blind by the money coming to him that he is not seeing the real issue, blaming the circuits’ marketing for the grand prix. Istanbul for example, the Turkish Grand Prix was actually pretty reasonable (for flight and accommodation).

Formula One, CVC and Bernie needs to re-calculate on a more human level with the pricing.
@Dam00r

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Thenikii, Sid90 and Piotr Zukowski!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

1994 F1 seasonThe 1994 championship was decided in controversial fashion in the Australian Grand Prix on this day 20 years ago.

Michael Schumacher claimed the crown by one point after colliding with Damon Hill.

An article on this race will appear here later today.

Image © Williams/LAT

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 149 comments on “Threat of F1 alcohol advertising ban looms”

    1. Every day I look up Formula 1-related news, I get more pessimistic. MotoGP and Superbikes are increasingly gaining my attention in the meantime.

      1. Four wheels good, two wheels bad!

        1. Two wheels good, four wheels OK, but too many wheels.

          1. I guess you could say they have two many wheels?

      2. It’s the opposite for me. MotoGP has been boring. Only saving grace has been Moto3

        1. I don’t think I’ve ever felt so excited and nervous at the same time from watching a race as I did when watching the Moto3 finale the other day. Was tearing my hair out for the whole race.

          1. kenneth Ntulume
            13th November 2014, 6:27

            Eishhh ma men, that finale was something…………
            was on the edge, my mouth got sour then dry….(funny)…..
            Almost like that feeling when wife is in theatre to deliver twin premature babies…..
            Total madness

          2. +1 That race really was something else! Thankfully Miller didn’t become champion, the way he behaved afterwards was disgraceful.

            1. What a race! Yeah Miller could tone it down a tad but I say good on Miller for just saying how it is, he’s funny to watch and awesome to see on track.

        2. @trublu well he also mentioned superbikes. WSBK and BSB have both been superb this year.

      3. All signs point for a phoenix move on F1. I think all this 360º talk will end up with a much different looking F1 for 2015 and a rejuvenated F1 for 2016. @leggacy Can’t we enjoy 2 and 4 wheels? MotoGp has been extremely dull for the past 6 seasons or so. I agree with these guys saying moto3 is the saving grace. On the other side, in terms of absolute skill MotoGP has been interesting, this generation is out of this world. MotoGP is racking up more factory outfits all using 2015 for the big clampdown of 2016, also Michelin is returning who knows if F1 is next on michelin’s agenda. Things are surely moving on on both 2 and 4 wheels.

      4. Bernie has been great for F1 but he’s out of touch. F1 need a new boss. With all due respect to old fellas, we cannot let the future in hands of a 80-something.

        F1 needs a new direction. What the hell is super GP-2 cars? Are you kidding me? Is a racing series of a freaking marathon?

      5. The GP2 proposition isn’t too bad IMHO. Back in the old days, there were F1 and F2 teams competing against each other.

        1. In the old days we had very rich, middle aged, fat men racing cars while wearing goggles and leather jackets – no seatbelts, no helmets, no fireproof suits, no crash barriers etc…
          Just because something happened in the past is no reason to repeat it in the present.

        2. I may be wrong, but weren’t F2 teams only rarely allowed in championship races (aside from when the championship was exclusively F2)?

      6. Hello Kitty agrees. F1 has become namby pamby tree hugging nonsence. You cannot even push in qualifying as no spare cars allowed…..rubbish.

      7. motoGP was hopeless this year.

      8. MotoGP is an interesting contrast to F1 because it flips the 80% car / 20% driver ratio in F1 on its head. But MotoGP still has its own issues.

    2. That Mark Webber twit has spoiled JB’s mistery cloud. So he’ll be at WEC.

      1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
        13th November 2014, 0:30

        Drivers have twitter banter.
        JB is leaving F1: CONFIRMED!

        lol.

      2. It was already well known that he’s been considering a drive in the WEC. I don’t think Mark knows anything we don’t, I think he’s just trying to “invite a friend over”.

        1. Or we can even take it as something like Mark knowing that JB does have an offer (maybe even from Porsche) and wants to help convince him to take the jump @vmaxmuffin

      3. @omarr-pepper, just need to ask.
        Do you say that Mark is a ‘twit’ or are you talking about his ‘tweet’?

        1. hehehe spelling glitch @coldfly

      4. I’m getting a bit tired of Mark Webber boasting WEC and throwing stones to F1. Despite all the crisis, F1 is still the place to be. We usually talk up other series but fewer people watch WEC than F1. Personally, I have not seen any single WEC race live this year. I did watch some highlights, that’s interesting but not ALL THAT JAZZ.

        1. But that does’nt mean that F1 is more fun to drive than WEC. True, F1 is the place to be regarding popularity, money, status you name it. But I have no illusion that out of all the race classes, the F1 would be the best when it comes to actual driving. The other day Button himself tweeted that in that case nothing beats karting.

        2. More people watch x factor than later with Jools (for example) but, which has the better musical credentials? ;)

    3. If they want to ban 200MPH booze cans, why not drinks like Red Bull and Monster, which kids drink and are often blamed for certain behavioral issues? Odd to me to want to nanny adults, but not be bothered about kids.

      1. I watched a F1 race once, it made me want to get drunk and go for a drive.

        1. Really @hohum? I thought it just happened with me!

        2. Takes me back to 1992 when all I wanted for Christmas was a Camel.

        3. @hohum

          Dude – that was classic!

          Pure gold!

        4. After you had a smoke, no doubt @hohum!

      2. ACx, Anyhow it’s inconceivable that alcohol sponsoring is not on the banned list of F1.
        I don’t understand propaganda rules in general. You are recognized freedom of speech but you can’t express anything, people have freewill but they can’t control themselves. What is EU thinking we’ll do whilst watching Suzie Wolff on a Martini sponsored Williams, go all 007…

      3. If they want to ban 200MPH booze cans, why not drinks like Red Bull and Monster, which kids drink and are often incorrectly blamed for certain behavioral issues?

        FTFY ;)

        Behavioural issues have far more to do with upbringing and discipline than they’ve ever had to do with how much sugar and caffeine is in a drink.

        1. @raceprouk Not always true, my son gets ‘high’ on sugar! He’s 10 now but used to be really noticeable when he was younger. He would be normal and calm then have some sweets or something sugary and be bouncing off the walls within 10-15 minutes. Everyone who looked after him commented on it. Needless to say he now rarely has sweet things and prefers healthy snacks now anyway. I would never ever, ever give him energy drinks! Nasty things they are.

          1. The thing is, no scientific study has ever shown a causal link between sugary drinks/snacks and child hyperactivity. If anything, studies have shown that it’s the parents/guardians that ‘see’ the change, even when there is no change to be seen.

            1. That’s an absolutely ludicrous assertion. Here is one it took me about thirty seconds to find: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/48/6/760/

              If you meant to say that there are meta-studies that conclude that any study such as this is faulty then that would be interesting, and I’d love to see how they would reach that conclusion. Such an idea has the basic chemical properties of sugar and the first law of thermodynamics to contend with though…

            2. @raceprouk – “no scientific study has ever shown a causal link between sugary drinks/snacks and child hyperactivity” – sadly, lots of “scientific research” is carried out (or silenced) by people funded by the sugar lobbyists.
              We are starting to see evidence that fructose may well be categorised as a chronic hepatotoxin soon. Glucose on the other hand is great stuff.
              The great sugar wars are starting now; sugar is the new tobacco. Alcohol is only slightly worse for you liver – but admittedly much worse for driving. See (among many others): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002822310006449 “Fructose: Metabolic, Hedonic, and Societal Parallels with Ethanol”.

      4. Not tometion those new soft drinks are realy bad for you teeth, and I mean REALLY bad.
        Also if you drank a bottle of shampoo you’d be in pretty bad shape too.

        1. The sugar in soft drinks isn’t actually all that bad for your teeth. It doesn’t hang around; it washes over, straight down the throat. What you should really be wary of is the stuff that sticks to teeth, like crisps.

          1. Unless you have had your teeth hydrophobically coated, liquids “stick” to your teeth in no less a meaningful way than crisps. And unless you thoroughly rinse out your mouth after you’ve finished your drink, that liquid coating your teeth is 10% by mass aqueous fructose.

      5. I’m ok with the removal of alcohol advertising if we can have the V8/10/12’s back.

    4. First tobacco and now alcohol sponsorship might be banned too, it seems teams,specially the struggling ones, can’t get a break.

      1. @leonardo-antunes, next is betting, snackfood, financial products (unless you sign PDS), fossil fuels, tourism boards of doubtful democracies, etc. etc.

      2. Just you wait till they ban premium motor spirit, its coming next.

      3. Yes but tobacco ( pardon, nicotine) may be back, UK has made E-Cigs advertising legal.

        1. Was advertising e-cigs ever illegal? There’s no tobacco in them; it’s just a nicotine solution.

        2. E-cig advertising is a good thing. It will encourage people to switch from cigs (proven to be very bad for you and those around you) to e-cigs (which may, possibly have health risks, but are almost certainly better for you than cigs, and almost certainly have no health risks for those around you). A possible, small risk is certainly better than a proven large risk. We should be doing all we can to encourage people to switch.

          1. @drmouse, the advertising for E-cigs will emphasise how adult, cool and glamorous smokeing is not how bad cigarettes are.

            1. @hohum Rubbish! Advertising e cigs will make more people aware that they exist. They are not cigs, and using them is not smoking. Very few people will start vaping who don’t smoke, and noone will start smoking because of them.

            2. Those who forget history are doomed to re-live it.@drmouse.

            3. @hohum Did people start smoking pipes because of cigarette advertising?

              Do people start smoking because of advertising of the Nicorette Inhalator, some of which have been sexualised?

              Unless the government brings in draconian legislation*, even if lots of non-smokers start vaping they will not become smokers. On top of this, there have been lots of surveys done, and non-smokers do not, and do not want to, start vaping. They are used by smokers who want a healthier, cheaper alternative.

              E-cigs benefit society as a whole. They will reduce smoking-related illness, the vast majority of which is not caused by nicotine, but by burning the other rubbish in tobacco. We should be doing all we can to encourage people to make the switch.

              * Unfortunately this is very possible. There are several rules being pushed by lobby groups at the moment, many of which would pretty much destroy the e-cig industry and leave all those who have made the switch with little other choice but to go back to cigarettes.

      4. i’m ok with the banning of tobacco and alcohol, frankly i think it’s the right thing to do. That being said: man, what a beautiful liveries did the tobacco produced! McLaren Marlboro, lotus john player specials. Yes, i do miss those gorgeous colors

        1. People need to be responsible, rather than sponsorship of certain products needing to be banned.

        2. @matiascasali No, no. Just no. The problem isn’t with the product it’s the health risks associated with them. Put the proper warning labels and slide effects and let people make their own decisions. However to say that people drink or smoke because of adverts on an F1 car is a bit much.

          Instead of demonizing how F1 teams acquire money look at the bigger picture of why they need to do so. If the prize money was evenly distributed and the entire system wasn’t so skewed, maybe the sponsors would be different.

          1. i don’t agree: of course people is free to choose their lifestyle, i, for instance, smoke weed in a responsible way (always at home, never ever get even near to a car, and so on) and i even supports various pro-legalization groups. The point is: even when i’m a consumer of something, that i know it may be harmful to me, i’m choosing it because of my free will, and not for advertising preassure. How many kids nowadays drinks liters of red bull in a week, incentivated for the glamour imposed by RedBull in their ads. They’ve taken the place Marlboro used to have, cool life, extreme sports, great athletes… numbers of young smokers are declining, coincidently with the tobacco ad ban. I’m still thinking that it’s the right path to go.

            1. @matiascasali – I support your right to choose and applaud your sensible attitude, even though I don’t smoke and hardly drink. My vice is video gaming, which often attracts as many uninformed negative comments as your preferred lifestyle choices.

      5. @leonardo-antunes Red Bull used to be illegal in France, it’s been legal there since 2008 because the claims of harmful effects couldn’t be proved.

        1. @keithcollantine It’s still illegal in many countries. RB has tried several times to establish a factory here but the government refuses, claiming the caffeine levels on the drink are above the rule and the company won’t change them. Same happens with Monster. Burn, Dark Dog and others adjust their proportions so they are allowed.
          Personally I find that dumb. I buy some cans every time I go to Argentina and drink them while I study (or while I’m gaming, I admit it) and I’ve never went crazy or anything. Neither am I an addict. Just like I’m not a smoker after watching F1 for so many years.

          1. @carlitox
            I was working in a bar back in the 90’s when Red Bull first became popular in the UK. I used to drink a couple of cans each night to help keep me going. After a couple of months I started having problems with my heart, the doctors did a load of tests and found I’d developed an irregular heartbeat and other heart problems and advised I should stop drinking Red Bull. A couple of months without drinking Red Bull and my health problems were gone.
            If drinking a couple of cans of Red Bull 3 or 4 nights a week can cause problems like that for an otherwise fit and healthy guy in his early 20’s I’d hate to imagine the long term effects of drinking it regularly, especially for young people.
            I wouldn’t ban it though, just restrict it to people over 18 and make sure everyone knows the risks associated with drinking it.

            1. I do agree with you, I should’ve specified that I only drink it during exams time and not more than one per day (rarely during two consecutive days). It does have the warnings you say, though like cigarettes in the past, it’s a rather little sign on the side.

      6. Ban sugar as well, it is responsible for diabetes. Oh, ban salt at the same time, it is responsible for high blood pressure.

        1. NYC’s former mayor tried to ban 16oz sodas and trans-fats. Don’t joke. It could happen.

          1. i think it should happen. With obesity related being one of the main dead causes, and taking a big part of medical care budget in more than one country, they should pay attention to that …

        2. No need to ban things – education and appropriate costs should do the job. Tobacco is expensive in the UK because it helps fund cancer care (although the linkage is a bit indirect now) and the cost reduces consumption.
          Also, not all sugars are “bad” – our bodies don’t handle big doses of fructose very well but many other sugars are okay (glucose and xylitol for example).
          Salt is a really bad habit – as a hypertensive sufferer, I can tell you that it’s hard to eat away from home. The overwhelming amount of salt in cafe & restaurant food is astonishing. When you restrict salt in your diet, you can really taste it in processed stuff. Don’t ban salt, it’s essential – but we need to learn not to over-use it.
          I know you were being humorous… too many would just agree or disagree without being informed.

          1. Yes, the individual must accept some responsibility somewhere along the line… Banning things is the best way to promote them. (To oppose something is to lend it your power).

    5. “The clear direction we are getting is that there is a desire to have five constructor teams and five customer teams, which will be the best way that they [the sport’s owners] feel to go.”

      Nope, that’s not my F1 – I’ll quit (as a fan) and pick up something else!

    6. “Formula One’s small teams say Bernie Ecclestone has floated a plan to boost the F1 grid with ‘Super GP2′ cars.”

      Well, I suppose my dream of entering the Tour de France on a motorbike isn’t entirely dead.

      1. Old gnome is at it again. He seems to be spewing rubbish 24/7 these days.

        1. Getting senile for 5 years now

          1. It’s not like he was any different 10 years ago. He’s just extremely toxic for the sport, and I wouldn’t simply attribute this to his senility.

      2. A lot of what Bernie says never really becomes a reality, but just that fact that such things come to his mind really highlights what a lunatic the guy is. It is hard not to cringe at the idea of what is to become of F1 under this guys command. Sure he has been at the helm for god knows how long, but I feel like the worst is still yet to come.

      3. I told you Bernie would remember F2 cars making up the grid and bring in GP2 cars.
        No kneed to genuflect or kiss my ring, a simple acknowledgement will do.

      4. like then peter griffin from family guy wins the boston marathon by running over everyone with his car :D

      5. @neilosjames Good news you can enjoy your dream! Pick up a camera and stand at the back of a scooter facing your favourite crooks after Bernie of course.

      6. LOL!

        I wonder if the man is sober with he comes up with his “solutions”.

      7. While Super-GP2 is an unacceptable solution, as are customer cars (in my opinion), they are close to a solution I suggested which I called F1B. The idea is that you have teams who develop their own cars, but under a stricter set of rules designed to keep costs down. My suggestion was along the lines of a completely homologated car at the start of the season, with maybe 3 downforce configurations, limited pit crew, and whatever else can be reasonably put in to keep costs low. They race with F1 teams, but in their own championship. The winner gets promoted to F1, with a large one-time payment to help them make the transition.

        At the moment, there is no feeder series for teams. They have to jump straight into the cut-throat, enormously expensive F1. It is incredibly difficult. F1B would be a way for teams to build up to F1, just as GP3/GP2/F3.5 etc allow a driver to build up to it.

    7. Banning the alcohol sponsorship… what a great idea! I think next year we should ban the speeds above 60 kph on all the street circuits as higher speeds are against driving rules in most EU countries.

    8. Pretty sure it would be more ethically reasonable to ban sponsorship/advertisements from banks. Oh wait…

        1. @jamiefranklinf1 you need to ask why some banks are unethical?! Which country do you live in? Maybe you don’t have unethical banks there. Here in the UK, all the big name banks are linked to unethical practices, with Barclays and HSBC being the worst in my opinion.

          A couple of examples just from Barclays and HSBC:
          Barclays made £278m from food speculation in 2012, according to the World Development Movement, a practice that drives up the price of foodstuffs and deprives the poor of food, forcing them into deeper poverty.

          Last year Barclays was forced to admit it paid just £113m in corporation tax in 2009, despite profits of £11.6bn. This represented just 1% of its global profits

          In 2008, HSBC bank paid fines of 1.9 billion USD for their part in a Mexican drugs money laundering scandal.

          I could go on and on with more examples of unethical practices by banks, but you get the idea.

        2. Causing repeated recessions
          Fixing the Libor rate
          Fiddling the foriegn exchange markets
          Miss selling financial products and services
          Money laundering for organised crime gangs, terrorists etc
          Corrupting society
          Theft
          This list could go on for quite a while…

    9. I think the boffins (people that TRY to know what they are talking about) should let either recent F1 drivers or former F1 drivers, or even a combination of both to rule the FIA, FOM, and the race stewards. It’s crap how these ‘alcohol’ brands are in jeopardy because of ‘rules’. If there were rules to ban all drinks, Red Bull, Monster, the drink that McLaren drivers drink (something starting with L) would all be gone, there would be no sponsor money, no promotional events, nothing. It’d make a GP weekend next to boring when there wouldn’t be any plain branded cars on the track.

    10. It has been a bumper year for alcohol advertising in Formula One, with the return of Martini to Williams in a deal worth around £10 million

      Wow that has to be the best value for money sponsorship in F1, I seriously thought Martini were paying at least three times that.
      But looking at how bad Williams was last year is a little bit of a miracle that they managed to find a title sponsor at all.

      1. Its not new to me @mantresx, but I agree that its nothing to boast about for Williams that they had to sell their title sponsorship for as little. No wonder Dennis did not agree with anyone for this year, can you imagine Ron putting his signature under getting a measly 25-35 million for it?

      2. Considering that drivers like Ericsson reportedly bring about twice as much money to their teams, 10 million sounds incredibly low for a title sponsorship. Makes you wonder how Williams manage their finances.

        1. Also makes you realise why some teams are so reliant on pay drivers!

        2. Williams is publicly traded, so you can find out how they manage: http://www.williamsf1.com/Investors/Financial-Reports/

    11. Reading that Kubica article breaks my heart :(

      It would have been so nice to have seen him race all these years, and he was truly one of the top drivers around. To see how one defining moment changed all that just puts into perspective how easily things can change.

      1. @dpod agree, Bianchi was believed to be in Ferrari’s plans in 2016. And Maria de Villota was in the path to get her superlicense. It’s so sad how Marussia is linked to the most tragic news related to F1 in recent years. At least Kubica is alive and conscious to fight another day.

        1. We can only hope Bianchi gets better. That impact could have killed him on the spot, but he has lived to fight. There is always hope.

    12. The 2015 FIA Sporting Regulations state:

      13.6 No more than 26 cars will be admitted to the Championship, two being entered by each
      competitor.

      So Unless the FIA changes the regulations teams can’t enter more than 2 cars; Bernie wants three. All the FIA has to do to end this farce is NOT change the rules. If teams drop out next year the grids will be below contract minimums, the FIA can cancel it’s stupid 100 year agreement with Bernie, and we can have a sane Formula 1 again. I believe there has to be a unanimous vote to change the technical regulations for the next year; if the same applies to the sporting regulations it would take only one team voting no and Bernie is out. If it doesn’t, Todt just has to show a backbone (fat chance) and the deal is done.

      Well, I can dream, can’t I !?

      1. Yes, do dream on, with a potential $10Bil. at stake Bernie/CVC will rustle up some back runners from somewhere.

      2. Steve what about costumer cars, the rulebook doesn’t not block that atrocity.

        1. Well, it does say that a cometitor has to enter with its own chassis (needs to own the PI of it) currently, doesn’t it @peartree?

          Or is that “just” to count towards the team (consturctors) championship

      3. They’ll argue whatever they want but in reality, they’ll do what Bernie says because he’ll pay the right people the right amount.

        You only have to look at the corruption scandal breaking with FIFA today. They’ve had an independant review done on the World Cup bidding process, took that report and changed the facts and figures and released a summerised version. These people at the top think they can do whatever they want and are untouchable….

        1. Like Bernie it seems they are.

    13. These are two stupid ideas from Formula 1; adding Super GP2 cars to the grid and banning alcohol sponsorship. This is whats killing F1. All of the small teams are going broke because they have no sponsorship, and to replace them is by adding Super GP2 cars to the grid. This is why people are turning away from Formula 1 and watching other motorsports like MotoGP, WEC, Superbikes, NASCARS, Indy Cars, Formula E & V8 Supercars. Formula 1 is dying by the day by these ideas.

      1. Actually I kind of like the idea of super GP2 cars. It’s not perfect but we would be able to see different kind of times racing together (like it was in the past with so much variety on the grid) and possibly GP@ drivers taking it up to the “big boys”. I would though like it if it wouldn’t happen at the dispense of the smaller teams… I know, dream on.

        1. can you imagine Ham and Rosb passing the same cars every 10laps????

      2. Doesn’t MotoGP has that kind of grid? There are bunch of privateers

        1. MotoGP has an open class that run under different rules than the factory teams but this only came about due to the financial collapse almost killing the sport. In very simplistic terms the open class bikes are less advanced but get to run softer tyres and more fuel.
          This was never intended to be a long term solution, it’s just a short term fix until new regulations governing all teams are introduced in a few years.

          1. WRC has privateer classes though, and the budget cap regulations Mosley had in mind would be quite similar (run under a budget cap and get performance boost from movable wings etc.)

            Heck, even F1 allowed for transitional engines in the past during the V10 -> V8 transition (but teams running V10 have a lower rev limit to compensate). If the cost of engine is the main crisis-inducing factor of 2014 it’s partly due the greed of engine makers insisting that everyone transition at the same time to amortize their costs as soon as possible.

    14. SO force india, williams, maclaren will loose some money,
      oh wait bernie took maca alcohol dudes before !

      Yes is a sistematic plan for reducing grid as much as possible,
      just ban any form of sponsorship and get done with it,
      we may end up with only one team with 10 cars,
      in a way ferrari chance to go back to winning days.

      1. I don’t see how Vijay could justify owning an F1 team if he can’t cover the car in Kingfisher logos. It could be disastrous for Force India.

        1. Oh Yes he can.. Alcohol adverterising is banned in India, so guess what they do? They make Kingfisher branded playing cards or bags or T Shirts or whatever and make ads on those on the telly. Simple

    15. In principle, I agree that alcohol advertising should be banned. But I loathe to support things that’ll further hamper teams’ financial stability.

      Would Williams have been able to challenge for 3rd place without Martini money?

      1. hard to say, but What difference does it make to Williams? they can still receive backing and have the racing colours on the car even if the car doesnt actually say martini. Heck, even Ferrari still receive backing from Philip Morris, only they’re represented on the car through the color red, if you can believe that.

    16. Well, goodbye Force India. Smirnoff will be out. Thanks to our ‘friends’ at the EU.

    17. Can people not think for themselves? Cigarettes, sure, they are undoubtedly harmful to you, but even they are a choice. Alcohol is only harmful if consumed in large quantities, and if you are stupid enough to binge, I don’t think a logo being on an F1 car would be the cause! I hope there isn’t some agenda to please the Sheikhs of Bahrain and Abu Dhabi behind this, but I wouldn’t be surprised!

      This year has been a farce for Formula 1. Never has their been this much controversy behind the scenes. It’s certainly overshadowed the on track stuff and the fight for the championship, that’s for sure. What a disgrace.

    18. While I agree that advertising does have a major impact our habits, wants and desires, I have never gone out of my way to drink myself into a stupor and then climb into my car…. I might be tempted to go out and by a bottle of Johnny Walker, but for governments to say they think that will lead me to drink and drive is actually kind of insulting.

    19. This just shows how selfish some are.
      OK,
      1. EU has some directive of not linking Alcohol to Driving, thats EU. F1 does not race in Europe alone.
      2. It’s not linking Alcohol to driving at all. It’s linking to Racing, and yet we have never seen drivers drink before they race or after…. perhaps, someone should ask EU, shall we band the Champaign on the podium?
      3. At this time, when F1 is struggling to obtain money for the sport and 2 teams just collapse, what did EU do to help? Surely banning Martini and Jonny Walker will help, seriously? Who are these people?
      4. There was never in any circumstances that we F1 promoted that we should mix drinking and driving, in fact we have been promoting the opposite.
      5. I understand why we band the Tobacco sponsors, because its bad for our health, and I support it, but I dont see Alcohol is bad for us, unless you drink excessively… even water could kill you if you drink excessively.
      6. Whats next? how about band the Racing, because it promotes speeding.

      Useless hypocrites.

      1. Don’t give them ideas.

      2. At this time, when F1 is struggling to obtain money for the sport and two teams just collapse, what did EU do to help?

        It’s not the European Union’s job to “help” Formula One.

      3. Point 4: Is exactly to the point. Johnnie Walker had been doing their ‘Join the Pact’ programme with McLaren for some years now. The Bernie says ‘Don’t drink and drive’ slogan has worked very well.

        Alcohol companies do not want to see people wrapping their cars around trees after drinking.

        The EU is just blowing bullrubbish again.

      4. It’s linking to Racing, and yet we have never seen drivers drink before they race or after

        Maybe you switch off as soon as the chequered flag falls but every race weekend I see three drivers drinking champagne after the race (except Bahrain!)

    20. Couldn’t the EU have a “Directive” banning stupidity instead?

      1. Bernie would be the first hopefully.

    21. Stop banning alcohol and tobacco sponsorship you fools! They made the cars look better, teams get a lot of money, and in my view, I don’t think that anyone will be persuaded to smoke or drink alcohol just by a few logos, well I won’t anyway.

      1. Exactly. If I were going to drink whiskey- I would buy Johnnie Walker. The same for Vodka and Smirnoff. But I am not going to get behind the wheel of a car drunk because I saw a logo on the side of a McLaren or Force India.

    22. Once sport starts looking silly, people remember that sport doesn’t actually matter

      Great quote that one. Never seen such a perfect response to double points.

    23. I think some comments got a bit carried away. Formula One is, in essense, a privately owned travelling circus, an entertainment enterprise. Just like the travelling circus that comes to our town every summer: they build a tent city overnight, people flock in to see performers do amazing feats of courage and fitness and a week later only circles of yellow grass show that something has happened.
      European Union is not charged with helping travelling circuses, be they small or big. And it’s not European Union’s fault that something like half of the money that the entertainment show called F1 makes goes to the owner who reinvests zero, zip, nada.

    24. @Keith Collantine, can you also add the following to my comment/comment of the day?

      When a new product gets launched, you get all kinds of offers and discounts to catch the interest of new buyers.
      Some companies go great lengths to promote their product by handing out the product for free. Could be a toy or nappies for a baby or whatever just so that they get a feel for the product. It is unrealistic for a complete stranger to the sport of Formula 1 to sign a TV subscription of £600 / year (or how much it is in the UK) just to watch it on the television.
      The subscription costs must plummet from where it’s at right now if Formula 1 wants to catch the interest of the young audience. A parent will not pay that much for a subscription just so that their child can watch Formula 1. Formula 1 is a sport. Sports should always be avalaible for any young child. Sport is an inspiration to have a active life and not get sat infront of a computer which is the evolution of the children now if sports are not going to get cheaper. All the hosts for a sport (for example: IIHF, FIS and of course >FIA<) have a responsibility to make it as easy as it can be to follow.

      So.. is it now time for F1 to, dear I say it? Re-launch Formula 1?
      Hand out free subscriptions to children in schools? Single TV channel subscriptions? (No package deals)

      1. It is unrealistic for a complete stranger to the sport of Formula 1 to sign a TV subscription of £600 / year

        While I agree with the sentiments, this is misleading.

        You can watch 9 of the races live on F1. This leaves 10 (this season) which you must watch through Sky, somehow.

        NowTV allows day passes. This means that (for the race only, which is what will interest most newcomers) you can watch every race in the UK for £100/yr.

        I still think this is too much, and they should be shown on FTA. But many push the belief that you need to get a Sky subscription with sports to see them all, and it’s not the case. Pushing this view is also off-putting to newcomers.

        1. or you could have it for free with cheap (13 euros monthly) basic cable. It’s good to leave in struggling countrys like Argentina, right?

    25. Wrote this somewhere else yesterday, but anyway

      Regarding the ban on alcohol sponsorship, same opinion as I have with tobacco sponsorship: I really don’t mind. With tobacco, everyone knows that in the long term smoking isn’t good for your health, and there are people who accept that but still choose to smoke – I’m fine with that. With alcoholic beverages, drinking moderately isn’t bad at all, but drinking heavily is bad. It’s better to teach people about that than to deny the existence of alcohol, in my opinion.

      So yeah, rely on people being able to make their own decision, stop moaning and bring back tobacco-sponsorship.

      1. I agree with this… I would prefer people face the realities that these exist and that education is the answer, rather than denial.

        It’s as if seeing a West/Johnnie Walker branded McLaren will cause millions of F1 fans will turn them into drunk-driving chain-smokers. It’s silly to me, but I suppose a lot of this also stems from, ‘won’t somebody please think of the children?’ type policies.

    26. When considering the continued destructive prevalence of drink-driving, permitting the mixed messages presented in alcohol sponsorship of Formula One seems ever more inappropriate given the total viewing audience of 500 million

      Todt just needs to tell Eurocare that FOM are already working hard to bring the viewing audience figure down to a level which might be more acceptable to them.

    27. This is madness..!!
      No, this is EU….!!!!

    28. Jonathan Sarginson
      13th November 2014, 10:45

      What I’ve been wondering recently is how the hell can Bernie Ecclestone have such a hold on F1?..what is the FIA and in particular, Jean Todt doing apart from sitting in a café with some baguettes and bottle of claret whilst letting Mr Ecclestone ruin the sport…I seem to recall days when the FIA was in the driving seat running the whole show..Ballestre (love him or hate him) was completely on top of things, and would never have let F1 fall into this quagmire that exists now…

    29. OK, this isn’t in the round-up, but has anyone read todays Alan McNish article on the BBC website?

      I sometimes wonder what planet McNish inhabits, used to think he was objective, but he’s suggesting that winning the championship in Abu Dhabi might be more difficult for Lewis than Nico because…

      – It’s easier coming from behind, well I’d say not when your team-mate has a similar rocket ship and can cruise around behind you and win the championship
      – He seems to think Lewis has only flat-out as a tactic, well that would be why he saves more fuel than Nico wouldn’t it? Err, no. He’s also cruised to a number of his wins this year to save the car
      – He seems to think the long straights will favour the Williams over the Mercedes and give Lewis a problem. Was he watching at Monza, Spa, Silverstone, or even Austria where Williams were on the front row and competed for awhile? Has a Williams beaten a fully healthy Mercedes this year? [In Germany Lewis was missing parts of his front wing and also came from the back]

      McNish, Perry and Jordan are frankly an annoying waste of licence payers money, the rest of the BBC team are much better, especially McKenzie, Clarkson and Gow who have developed a good rapport with the pit-lane. Also like the contribution from Maurice Hamilton during FP1 too, understated, mildly amusing and knowledgeable, dare I say it McNish, typically in the commentary box for FP2 and 3 grates with an overbearing tone by comparison.

    30. Whoever started smoking e.g. in the 90s just because Rothmans Williams was a dominant force, is a total fool. They banned them, so what? Did people stop smoking? Now alcohol. EU should organize campaigns about informing young students in schools about the harmful effects of alcohol consumption in order to help them become savvy consumers from the roots, instead of banning sponsorships. Sponsorships which resulted into some of the most iconic liveries. Also I remember Mika Hakkinen was an ambassador of Johnnie Walker’s responsible drinking campaign. IMO that’s a more effective way to make consumers more responsible than banning sponsorships.

    31. the headline should read ‘Threat of F1 COLLAPSE looms with the threat of alcohol advertising ban

      1. Because, as we all know, the ban on tobacco advertising killed F1.

        Oh, wait…

    32. Just so they’re consistent. If they ban advertising harmful drinks they should ban ALL harmful drinks ;)

      Also they should sort out the brazen way the Italian government selectively fails to implement the Tobacco Advertising Directive, handing one team a massive unfair advantage.

      1. Ferrari do not put Marlboro logo on their cars anymore.Marlboro today simply resells the advertising space they have on the car.

        1. @subbu PMI do NOT resell it, or only the scraps. What’s on the engine cover? That huge, prime space, probably the most valuable space in F1?

          Answer: the corner of a Marlboro packet, bent just enough to take the heat off.

          In any case the Directive explicitly bans sponsorship. But it relies on national governments to enforce it.

    33. First things first , it isn’t EU which wants to ban alcohol advertising. An NGO by the name of Eurocare has sent letters to EU,Bernie,FIA that F1 may be violating alcohol advertisement rules hence asking for the ban. Maybe it gets passed maybe not , but the teams and FOM should deal with this thing proactively before it becomes reality.

      On the other hand shouldn’t someone really assess F1’s business model. These days most of its money comes from legitimizing petro-dictators and sponsoring products no one else wants to sponsor. FOM must figure out why every other sport in the world has been able to attract the ”socially accepted” kind of sponsors(Telecom,Banks,Information Tech, etc) but F1 cant. Small Teams should not be single handedly blamed for their failure when even Mclaren can’t land sponsorship.Still remember the days when F1 had sponsors of the likes of HP,Dell,Intel,AT&T and Peter Sauber could dump Red Bull for Credit Suisse when they wouldnt allow him to run Raikkonen.

    34. You can’t ban alcohol adverts you dim-wits. F1 would be underwater very quickly and we’d be talking about 3 big teams instead of 5. Speaking as a socially leaning liberal, the nanny state that is the EU is out of control.

      Leave it alone before you destroy the sport. Driving an F1 racer at 300kph has NOTHING to do with drinking alcohol and even a half-wit can see that.

      1. Banning tobacco advertising didn’t kill F1; banning alcohol advertising won’t either.

        1. No. It just broke both its legs, from which it took many years to recover. That’s a terrible argument to make. You might as well just say, banning booze ads is important enough to critically endanger a major sport and the major industry that goes with it. They should just be honest about it, and bring the information showing that the public benefit to banning booze ads in this sport outweigh the costs.

        2. And when they banned tobacco, they still had alcohol to keep them afloat even though the sport has been crippled financially. Take away this major source of revenue as well, and add in the M0RONIC direction Bernie and company have taken pay per view and cutting down on sponsor value….sorry @raceprouk but this could easily be a slow, strangling death we’ll be watching. Pay per view has so reduced the number of eyeballs on the screen that it’s going to be nearly impossible to bring in a new, major industry that will dump money into sponsorship.

          Thanks Bernie.

    35. Re “Formula One’s small teams say Bernie Ecclestone has floated a plan to boost the F1 grid with ‘Super GP2′ cars.”
      This makes F1 a joke! All this will do is perpetuate how farcical F1 has become. We have teams that get paid handsomely for turning up, and others who get a huge bill to pay for turning up, so how will “Super GP2” cars be different? Will they get handsomely paid too? Presumably they are, so why not pay the incumbents who get barely a cent that same amount?
      My suggestion is this: Hand out the money fairly. A sport is supposed to be about competitors competing in a fair competion with a fair outcome at the end of the race.

      1. After some thought, I think the Super GP2 cars idea means Mr Ecclestone wants customer cars in F1 as well, because the GP2 cars are all customer cars, so presumably the Super GP2 cars will also be customer cars.

    36. banning thing in a diying sport just kick the chair away and stop slowley choking it to death a new series will come from the ashes.

    Leave a Reply

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

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.