Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari, Spa-Francorchamps, 2015

Should Ferrari have a veto on F1’s rules?

Debates and Polls

Posted on

| Written by

Ferrari’s unique power to veto changes to the Formula One rules was in the headlines last month when the FIA revealed it had been used to stop a change to the engine regulations.

The sport’s governing body was infuriated when Ferrari blocked a price limit on customer engines which had been intended to ease the financial pressure on F1’s smallest teams.

There was considerable surprise when it was first revealed in 2009 that Ferrari has the power to stop rules it does not want. But is it right that a single team has this much power over the entire sport?

For

Ferrari is F1’s longest-running team – the only outfit to have been competing since the first year of the world championship – and also its most popular outfit.

They therefore both deserve a special role in the shaping of F1’s rules and it is in F1’s interest for them to have it, as it will make them more likely to stay and their supporters more likely to watch.

Allowing Ferrari to have a veto has not prevented their rivals from beating them for the last seven years, so it doesn’t follow that it is unhealthy for the competition.

Against

Allowing Ferrari to wield a veto over the rules not only gives them unchecked power over the direction of Formula One, it gives them a clear advantage over the other teams.

Ferrari should be prepared to compete in F1 on the same terms as everyone else. Because they alone has the power to get rid of rules it believes will put it at a disadvantage, they can achieve success more easily than their rivals.

FIA president Jean Todt, previously the head of Ferrari’s F1 team, likened the veto to having a loaded gun. One team should not be allowed to hold the sport hostage merely because it is more popular than the others.

I say

Ferrari on Wall Street, 2015
Stockholders will own 10% of Ferrari

Ferrari has threatened to leave F1 several times – not just in the recent past. In 1986, frustrated with F1’s engine rules, they even went so far as to build an IndyCar chassis. Grievances over money and testing rules have been behind its more recent threats to pull out.

The existence of Ferrari’s veto power only come to light a few years ago. Jean Todt’s recent revelation that it dates back as far as the eighties gives the lie to the idea that granting Ferrari veto powers has reduced the chances of them walking away.

Instead, by granting Ferrari a veto over F1’s rules, Bernie Ecclestone increased the amount of power they held over the sport and led them to make ever greater demands. In 2013 then-Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo boasted it was “impossible” for them to be any more powerful.

How will Ferrari wield that power in the future? Following their listing on the New York Stock Exchange last month, the pressure on the team to treat Formula One as a revenue-generation exercise will increase. Vetoing a rules change which was intended to help keep their competitors in business may just be the beginning, and that cannot be healthy for F1. Nor is giving one team this kind of political advantage over the rivals.



You say

Should Ferrari have a veto on F1’s rules? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

Do you agree Ferrari should have a veto on F1's rules?

  • Strongly agree (11%)
  • Slightly agree (9%)
  • Neither agree nor disagree (5%)
  • Slightly disagree (11%)
  • Strongly disagree (64%)
  • No opinion (1%)

Total Voters: 389

Loading ... Loading ...

An F1 Fanatic account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed in stead of the voting form.

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

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.

139 comments on “Should Ferrari have a veto on F1’s rules?”

  1. I’m absolutely with you here, Keith. The last paragraph is important. In times where F1 is desperately needing to reduce costs, how can F1 allow a team, that is listed on the Stock Exchange, having a weapon like this? It’s like Ferrari can pronounce death sentences over any team in financial struggles. It is so called “rights” like these that hinder F1 from overcoming it’s problems in a quick and easy way. If it stays like this, it’ll take years at least to solve them all.

    1. @wallbreaker Yes you and Keith but it actually was the right decision for F1. Had it been approved Merc, Fer, Ren and Honda would not sell their engines, meaning 10 cars on the grid. The veto makes no sense but it has been used for good this time around.

      1. I’m not talking engine cost cap in particular, but nearly all measures to reduce costs have been vetoed by Ferrari one way or another. Why? Because they can, because they have so much power within the sport. This is wrong. The power to influence regulations should belong to the sporting government only, FIA in this case. Not to a single team, not to the Strategy Group, but to the FIA alone.

        1. So if they have so much power, why didn’t the V8’s stay? Which is what Ferrari wanted, when Mercedes threatened to pull out of F1 if the engine rules didn’t change to 4 or 6 cylinder turbos. Renault also wanted the new engine formula.
          I believe all the teams should run F1, they should have broken away from Bernie’s control when they had the chance.

          1. @ivz and then CART happens all over again
            While Bernie is not getting some things right teams can’t do that either

          2. Where to you people get this things or to you just like spreading lies in the hope they become truth? I read lots of F1 articles from many sources and not a single one mentioned Mercedes threatening to leave unless they get a V6.
            All it was mentioned at the time was that Renault wanted a new direction with hybrids V4 etc and VW at the time was also involved and wanted pretty much the same with promises that that may make them come to F1 and Ferrari hated the idea of a V4 because it was too small engine for what it offers and the tech will be hard to apply to it’s bigger engines and so the FIA compromised on this V6 to give everyone a little of what they wanted.
            During the whole thing Merc’s opinion was relatively quiet and it seemed that Merc was probably fine ether way.

  2. I strongly disagree. Ferrari should not have this veto, because it is extremely unfair. I don’t care that they are a historic team, it is simply wrong to give a power to only one team in the whole field. F1 and every sport should have a level playing field.

  3. A bit unfortunate that Todt’s latest statement regarding Ferrari’s veto right hasn’t been included in this article.

    “We simply changed the wording of it, to make it more precise. So it not a veto right, you need to have a strong rational to be able to exercise it.”

    Source: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-reveals-conditions-of-ferraris-engine-veto/

    So it’s not as black and white as Ferrari has full control over the regulations. They still do need a rational argument backing up their vote.

    1. It’s still a right no other team has, and for that reason alone, it’s unfair.

    2. Yes they should have it. They are the single most important part of F1. It does not give them an on track advantage as more often than not they do not win, although they win more than any other team. Other teams are only there to make up the numbers fir me and offering different liveries to look at they are nothing more. Long may Ferrari have this power.

      1. Why are they the “single most important part of F1”? It is intrinsically unfair to all the other teams that one of their number should be afforded preferential treatment. F1 should – as far as is possible – be a level playing field. What was Ferrari contributing from the early 1980s up until Michael Schumacher joined them in 1996? They were just making up the numbers back then, whilst teams like McLaren and Williams (which have themselves been in the sport for decades) were at the front of the sport.

        If Ferrari vetoed a rule change and that veto resulted in one or more teams leaving the sport because of it, would you accept it?

        I wonder what the appeal of a sport in it with only Ferrari would be? I can’t imagine it would be very interesting.

        1. The simple fact is if Ferrari left the sport it would lose more fans than if any other team left the sport. And if they left the sport while it would hurt them as racing is supposedly in their blood, people would still lust after their cars and follow them in whatever racing series they chose to pursue.

          I’m a pragmatic person so I don’t buy into the whole soul and passion nonsense of Ferrari being special. But a large enough contingent of fans do and that elevate Ferrari above other teams.

          1. it would lose more fans

            I wouldn’t give Bolt a veto regarding 100m sprint; neither FC Barcelona regarding football, and never even considered giving Woods a veto on any golf rule!

      2. Obviously a Ferrari fan would say something like this markp. This veto power might be good for Ferrari, but it is not good for Formula 1. I don’t think that Ferrari is the single most important part of the sport. Would you still watch Formula 1 if Ferrari were the only team in the sport? I wouldn’t, and I think many other people wouldn’t too.

        1. @ultimateuzair Would we have begun watching F1 without Ferrari? Ferrari is a word that´s pretty common within the first 100 words a boy can speak, synonymous with “fast cars” and “racing”. It´s only later (at about 5 years age) that one finds out the races Ferrari is racing in are called “Formula 1”, and thus the interest for F1 begins.

          But yes, with Ferrari now being listed at the Stock exchange, it is very much doubtful whether they should still have the veto, and the latest (known) time they used it wasn´t exactly an occasion where the veto was used to protect the sport or the “DNA of F1”. So I have to admit Ferrari probably shouldn´t have the veto-right.

          1. If Ferrari wasn’t synonymous with F1, another team would be.

          2. When i started watching F1 Ferrari was more of a comical footnote – being slow as well as blowing their engines as much as the Renaults did last year, while they kept saying that they deserved to win. Then they had a few years of impressive uphill fights until they established a destructive dominance supported by FIA rulings that kept them there. At that moment I stopped watching most races until I started watching regularly again mid 2005.

            So, no @crammond. Far from all of us are watching because of Ferrari, some stopped because of Ferrari.

        2. That would be fine for me. I love motorsport but more so when Ferrari are involved. For me they mean more than all the others put together. I don’t care about drivers I like whoever is in a Ferrari. If Ferrari left F1 and went to WEC then WEC would become my favourite series and worldwide WEC would become far larger than F1 due to Ferrari. Sometimes people should just realise things are never equal someone or something is bigger and more important than the rest.

          1. @markp, I am right there with you. My dad bought our first Ferrari when I was 6 years old. It was a 69 330GT 2+2 with a V-12. We have been Ferrari fans. It has always been about the car/team, not the driver. Very few (if any) teams in F1 have that kind of loyalty. At least IMHO most people follow a driver. Ferrari is a unique animal. Even though them having a veto is polarizing, I don’t think it is a bad thing for the sport. Think of some of the crazy ideas Bernie and company have had over the last 30 years. If it wasn’t for Ferrari’s power, F1 would be more of a circus than it is now. People that are against Ferrari say what if the veto causes other teams to leave the sport, I say any team can leave without ruining the sport, but if Ferrari left F1 would never be the same…..

      3. They are the single most important part of F1.

        Utter garbage.

        It does not give them an on track advantage

        So?

        although they win more than any other team

        Ferrari’s strike rate is they win roughly one in every five races; McLaren’s is closer to one in four.

        Other teams are only there to make up the numbers fir me and offering different liveries to look at they are nothing more.

        Way to devalue the contributions of McLaren, Red Bull, Williams, Sauber, Jordan, Mercedes, Lotus, Brabham, Hesketh, Tyrell, Minardi, etc.

        1. McLaren finish 1 in 4 races not win. Ferrari have a higher strike rate. The British don’t like the fact the greatest most powerful team is Italian. Ferrari hold all the major records, most drivers want to be in a Ferrari…world wide they are just more important and they have a VETO and they will keep it and I am very happy for that.

          1. The British don’t like the fact the greatest most powerful team is Italian.

            Couldn’t care less, Ferrari fan for life.

        2. The last sentence you wrote (when you named ten british teams and one Italian) is the real reason why they let Ferrari had the veto back in the mid ’80s pointed out by Mr. Ecclestone himself. To stop the britsh mafia that ruled F1 since the late ’50s. If you need the majority of votes to decide on something and you have 10 british teams and 1 Italian what would you think they decide? British teams are basically a cartel (just like the seven sisters oil majors) that needs something to contrast them, hence the veto and I’m quite surprised the post didn’t mention what I just wrote. I see some bias here, british bias…

          1. britsh mafia

            And with that you’ve lost any respect I may have had for you, and you’ve lost the right to argue.

          2. when you named ten british teams and one Italian

            Sauber is Swiss, Red Bull is Austrian, and Mercedes is German.

      4. Ian Laidler (@)
        23rd November 2015, 0:21

        That is total BS, no team, and I mean NO team is bigger than the sport. Why is everybody frightened to upset Ferrari, regardless of their history at the end of the day they are just one of 10 teams that make up the current grid.

        1. Ferrari leaving F1 would be like Chevy& Ford pulling out of NASCAR. The series would instantly loose its credibility.

      5. Mark P, Thank heaven your opinion is massively in the minority. As other have accurately pointed out,
        Ferrari is now only the flagship brand of the massive Fiat/Chrysler Corporation. Such a powerful trading organisation having a veto in any other sport would be against that sports whole purpose and structure,
        but not, clearly, in the murky world of F1. You, Mark P, and those who think like you and actually believe that ‘some animals are more equal than others’ , are the main cause of F1’s current decline.

        1. My opinion is shared by the owners of the sport and all the teams.

  4. While I think that teams who have been in F1 for more than 5 years should have a greater say over how the sport is run no single team should have that much power.

    Ferrari already have a reward for being in F1 since the beginning – they are the team most associated with the sport and millions of loyal fans. Having a behind the scenes power won’t change that.

  5. Do you agree Ferrari should have a veto on F1’s rules?

    I voted stronly agree. However, not only Ferrari but every single team should have one. If a team can properly fact a veto that it would seriously harm their team/personell or operation than that is a good veto. If they cannot the ruling body overrules the veto. So in essence one team should be able to stop a rule that might see them out of the sport, but every team should have this right and not only Ferrari.

    1. @xtwl, I strongly disagree to your view. No new rule would every make it – it would constantly be shot down by teams wanting to protect any advantage they have. It is actually already the case that a group of teams have too much to say in the sport. I would much rather see the FIA and FOM have total control, with a small independent group of experts drawing up the rules.

      1. I would much rather see the FIA and FOM have total control, with a small independent group of experts drawing up the rules.

        @me4me So do I, but that was no the question. I perhaps wasn’t very clear in my first comment but I think teams should have a veto right in case it damages the team to a certain extent it means racing is no longer viable. Not to veto a width of the front wing for example…

    2. If every team had one nothing would ever get done. You’d just have political manoeuvring of blocking any changes that help another team more than you.

  6. Can’t remember the exact figure but aren’t Ferrari paid well over 100m or something just for turning up? Meanwhile, teams at the bottom are struggling to find the money just so they can turn up.

    1. Don’t forget about Mercedes, RB, McLaren & possibly Renault next year.
      They all get a silly amount of money just for staying in F1! So it’s not just Ferrari.

      Of course this is wrong and unfair.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        23rd November 2015, 0:02

        Plus Williams.
        But Ferrari gets an extra lick of the lollie.

  7. F1 with just Ferrari is not F1.
    F1 without Ferrari is still F1.
    I say it’s totally unfair that they have Veto power, and I don’t care if they quit. F1 has way bigger problems than worrying over Ferrari leaving, problems that apparently can’t be fixed because Ferrari doesn’t want the fixed.

    1. Sorry. Strongly disagree. Ferrari don’t need F1, but F1 definitely need Ferrari.

      1. Strongly disagree. Ferrari needs F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari. Ferrari aren’t nearly as significant when you take F1 out. Their only real form of advertising is F1.

    2. Colonel RPG
      You are so wrong! Ferrari = 95% of F1!
      Maybe you don’t care about them leaving, but millions of fans would and F1 can’t afford to lose them all!

      F1 would be completely dead without Ferrari!

      I agree that it’s unfair that Ferrari or any other team has the power to “veto” decisions.
      No team should have such political power!

      I’d rather have somebody to veto Bernie’s/CVC’s (or whoever will be the new owner) decisions.

      1. You are wrong. F1 would recover in time and with a more reasonable costing model.

        1. And you think that would happen with teams like Mercedes, RB & McLaren still around?!
          No chance. The only thing that would happen if Ferrari leave the sport is that the big players would get more money, there will be no benefit for the small teams.
          Nothing would change because the big factory teams wouldn’t want to change anything around the costing model.

          You’re acting like Ferrari were the only ones who benefit from the current business model of F1.
          What about the other members of the Big-4? They are responsible for the current situation as well. But why bother to mention them, if it’s much easier to blame it all on Ferrari, right?

          You can say what you want but F1 = FERRARI no FERRARI = no F1
          They are still the most successful and most popular team in F1.

          1. If Ferrari left, then what would remain? Oh, right, a soft drinks company and seven teams who exist to race.

            Ferrari could leave F1 today, and in five years, no-one would be able to tell the difference.

  8. Maybe Ferrari would get better results if they didn’t have a veto. It hasn’t done them much good in the last 10 years!

    1. Still by far the most successful team.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        23rd November 2015, 0:13

        During the past 10 years?
        Yeah probably as successful as Ultravox’s ‘Vienna’ in the charts.

        1. Most succesful in history..fact. Mclaren and Williams last 10 years?

  9. I strongly disagree. I understand why Ferrari should earn more money from TV revenue, but vetoing what they dpm¡t agree in terms of regulations, and specially, the future of the sport, conspires massively to F1’s health.

    More to the point, look what happened to WTCC: Citroen are leaving just 3 years into their commitment to it. Manufacturers come and go if they agree or not on the direction of the sport, and if it’s not profitable for them they just slam the door on their way out, leaving a series with a massive hole to fill. If one team has the power to decide which way to go (or actually to block the paths they don’t want to follow), they are guiding those other manufacturers and privateers out by not agreeing with their demands.

    Just like one driver sitting on his car during a race doesn’t have the whole picture in terms of strategic decisions, one team, with their interests and demands, will never have the whole picture of F1’s bussiness. That’s why a governing body exists, which is rendered useless this days: teams manage F1 at will, much more than Todt.

  10. I would handle the customer engines cost and the veto questions separately, however, the article focuses on the latter.

    I have no idea how Ferrari creates the price for their engines, how much does it cost to produce it, how much does it cost to equip another team with their engines, and finally, how much that particular other team has to pay for the Ferrari engines. There must be a margin between the production cost and the purchase cost, and if we draw a line at 12 million, they might lose on the business, rather than capitalize. The other possibility is, considering that they are working with the highest budget in F1, the costs they pump into engine manufacturing is simply higher (and not that efficient) than other manufacturers, but as long as they can win back the cost by selling those engines for whatever prices they want, they can cover the cost, and this way they are not forced to rationalize their production.
    Another aspect, that there are 4 engine manufacturers, 2 of them runs their own factory team, the other 8 teams buy the engines (Renault and Honda are treated this way), so 2 of the voters wants to sell for higher, 8 of them wants to buy for lower prices. Fair enough?

    About the veto. It’s a bit similar to the prize money, where Ferrari also have a granted amount every year, over the amount they receive according to their constructors championship result. Why? Because the agreement is created this way. They push the most money into F1, they might feel that the current situation with the prize money and the veto right is deserved, and from their point of view it might just be the case.
    However, they are only one, even if one of the most important of the teams, and business is business not only for them, but for the rest of the teams as well. Their euro millions are also at stake when decisions are made. We should remember Caterham, Marussia, Hispania and USF1, because those teams applied for F1 hoping for the cost cap, the only thing they could rely on. The cost cap was never introduced, and only Marussia remained, scoring only once in their 6 years history. It wasn’t only Ferraris decision, but this pretty much sentenced these teams to death, losing an incredible amount of money and personnel.

    Instead of the veto, I can imagine a system, where instead of all of them havng 1 vote and Ferrari a veto, they would have some voting power according their historical and financial commitment to the sport (with values from 1 to 3 for example, maybe with 3 for Ferrari). This way Ferrari would still have the power they think they deserve, but could not block anything they just want, if the other teams are surprisingly and accidentally agree on something.

  11. Nick (@theawesomefish)
    22nd November 2015, 14:35

    Absolutely not. No one team should have it written into the regulations, contracts or whatever, that they are granted by the governing body more power to shape the sport than any other team, no matter how many supporters they have, no matter how much revenue they bring in, no matter how much heritage and history they have.

    In a somewhat roundabout way, this is more proof that Formula One has become much more of a business and much less of a sport. Keith hit the nail on the head when he said Ferrari have an incentive to gain as much revenue from F1 as possible, including the 2.5% or so they take off the top just for being Ferrari, along with however many millions of euros they get just for turning up every season. Arrivabene said it himself, the veto was due to financial reasons, but why would they need to do that when they get just as much money for turning up as they do for supplying engines?

    It cannot possibly be either fair or right when several team are struggling financially and the powers that be are finally making movements towards the sustainability of the sport, only for one rich team to shoot down an attempt at progress with as frivolous an argument as “but money”.

  12. I’m a Ferrari man trough and trough, but they should not yield shuch power. It’s unfair and a blatant spat in the face of other long serving teams like McLaren and Williams, for which I have the utmost respect.

    Unlike the fact I voted strongly disagree, I found myself agreeing with them using it a couple of weeks ago when Jean Todt (him of all people!) launched his idea of a cost cap for engines. A manufacturer should never be forced to sell its engines with a loss. That still doesn’t mean they should have such kind of power.

  13. Of course they shouldn’t have this power, but then this is a big boys club so it is not entirely comparable to other sports.

    This is not news, and one side of the coin for me is that I will always have less respect for the MS/Ferrari run not only because I despised his on track behaviour, but combined with his contracted subservient teammate and Ferrari’s veto power, it is no wonder he compiled the numbers he did, and many drivers would have been able to achieve the same under the same circumstances.

    So for me Ferrari’s veto power means I honour their achievements less.

  14. Purely from an objective viewpoint, no, they shouldn’t.

    But without their veto, theoretically the most powerful team in F1 so far as rule-making is concerned would be Red Bull (as they have two teams). And that would be even worse.

    Voted slightly agree for the lesser of two evils. But ideally, I’d like the teams and Bernie to have almost no role at all in running the sport – it should be controlled by a strong, well-led FIA (lol).

  15. In a normal sport no team should have been granted such power as Ferrari have on its governing, but F1 is far from being a normal sport, it’s a complex model where the sporting and the commercial rights are managed separately with Ecclestone is only interested in extracting every single penny out of the sport on the short term without realizing or simply ignoring the amount of damage he’s causing on the medium and long term and with the FIA president Jean Todt simply pushing on his own agenda, he shocked with his last comments about the French terrorist attacks which were not that far away from the FIA local in Place De la Concorde BTW when he said that the number of road car incident is more than the numbers of the French victims in the Paris attacks.
    This is just ridiculous and no one have anything to do about this situation, incompetent people are running and at the same time ruining the sport, Ferrari veto for me as long as it is used wisely like the last time is a guarantee rather than a problem for the sport.
    The FIA made complex PU regulations that even manufacturers with experience like Renault and Honda failed to master, these regulations were only mastered by Mercedes and Ferrari who invested hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D with the help of both mother companies and then the FIA want these PU’s to be sold with a reasonable price !!!
    As long as F1 is governed by these ridiculous people, i have no problem with Ferrari’s veto. I just wish they would have had a veto on the commercial rights, that would have been great, they would have vetoed : Pirelli, Tilkedromes in the middle of nowhere…..

  16. I remember back when F1 commentator Martin Brundle used to joke FIA was short for Ferrari International assistance
    even back then the cosy relationships with the FIA and Ferrari was well known by all. I don’t agree with the power of the Ferrari Veto but its nice to see them struggle and even more satisfying with the knowledge that they get inside help and they’re still rubbish.

    1. They always have eras and come back to win that is why they are the best. If Red Bull can be forced out then great, but McLaren suffering the way they are now is the best and losing another major sponsor TAG. The Brits have their little teams that come and go, remember BRM? Williams had some success but never will again and apart from 7 years from the mid 80’s McLaren have had only a title here and there but Ferrari win in every decade. McLaren have not won a Constructors title since 1998.

      Proof Ferrari are so important is they have got a VETO and get more money for being in F1 the reason is they are simply more important.

      1. Proof Ferrari are so important is they have got a VETO and get more money for being in F1 the reason is they are simply more important.

        It’s only proof that Ferrari were petulant whiners, and Bernie gave in to them.

        1. No it’s not the people with the power give them this because they are more important. Red Bull, McLaren whine just as much but are simply not as important. All entitled to an opinion but the anti Ferrari opinions on here do not matter, they have a veto and always will any other opinions are whisperings from the peanut gallery.

          1. McLaren whine

            When?

            All entitled to an opinion but the anti Ferrari opinions on here do not matter

            And with that you have ruined any chance of anyone taking you even remotely seriously.

          2. Doesn’t matter Ferrari still get more money and have a veto whether you take me seriously does not matter my opinion is aligned with the people that count and they give Ferrari more money and a veto you will never change that.

          3. my opinion is aligned with the people that count

            What a truly disgusting attitude; it’s sickening.

      2. LOL! at this whole question. There is so much irony in the current situation that hipsters everywhere are looking for a new persona.

        Todt, who is now exposing the ‘unfairness’ of the veto, is the same Todt, as Ferrari team principal, negotiated this little extra veto power grab for Ferrari in 2009 when Bernie was keen to destroy FOTA. By all means possible.

        Bernie got his wish, Todt and Ferrari got theirs and a large payment off the top from FOM. As did Red Bull and McLaren with the bonus ‘legacy’ payments. Later Mercedes got their extra piece of silver from Bernie as well.

        In 2013, Todt sold away the FIA’s power to set the technical regulations for 200 million to Bernie/FOM, so he could fund his pet FIA road safety program. That left the barn door open for the big team foxes to run the hen house. And the EU to investigate F1. Again.

        While we F1 fans are keen for fair racing, Bernie is always racing for more money and power. This is Bernie’s Machiavellian race run full circle. As ever, the best show in F1 is off the track, behind closed doors, deep in the piranha tank.

        Can’t help but giggle at Todt changing up the wording/interpretation for a clause that he helped write!

        Thanks, Keith, for the chuckle and opening the floodgates of fan indignation! Fairness is F1? Hilarious!

  17. I Strongly Agree That Ferrari Should Have A Veto Over F1 Rules!

    The point is Formula 1 would probably die without Ferrari, so basically whatever Ferrari says needs to be done say that they don’t leave Formula One.
    e.g. If Ferrari say Increase Max No. of Engines allowed, if you Don’t we will quit, F1 Officials will have to do so in order to prevent Formula 1 from crashing.

    However other teams are not so import to the image of the Sport, so if another was to say the samething i mentioned above, F1 Officials would probably do nothing and keep the regulations as they are and tell the team who asked for an increase in egnines to leave the sport if they can’t comply with the rules.

    1. @fish123 Have you forgotten about McLaren and Williams? They are just as historic, respected and popular as Ferrari, and much more likeable too. Formula 1 would not die without Ferrari, in fact it would become better. Whenever Ferrari lose, they cry just like Red Bull. McLaren and Williams do not do that. Ferrari is a stubborn and selfish team and I could not care less if they decided to leave the sport.

      1. thats your opinion and i respect that.
        However just for my knowledge, could you kindly tell one instance in the last 5 years where Ferrari have so-called “cried” after loosing

        1. @fish123

          …could you kindly tell one instance in the last 5 years where Ferrari have so-called “cried” after loosing…

          http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/04/montezemolo-takes-early-leave-as-bahrain-thriller-exposes-ferrari-weaknesses/

          From the article…

          Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo left the circuit with 12 laps of the Bahrain Grand Prix still to go, missing the final sprint finish after the safety car, but having taken in enough to know that his team is once again in trouble.

          The new hybrid turbo era has not dawned well for Ferrari, with Montezemolo forced to admit that, “To see this Ferrari is painful.”

          Earlier the president had called F1 “Formula Boredom” and complained that the fuel regulations were incomprehensible and made for dull racing, where the drivers were forced to trundle around like taxi drivers.

          Yes, this is an example of LdM, not Ferrari as a whole, but last year happened to his team, on his watch.

          1. only LdM, not ferrari as a whole

      2. Williams came into F1 in the 70’s Mclaren the 60’s so no you are wrong they are not as historic. Worldwide the little Brit teams cannot be mentioned in the same breath. Ferrari get more money and a VETO as they are more important.

    2. ColdFly F1 (@)
      23rd November 2015, 0:20

      Formula 1 would probably die without Ferrari

      The way it’s run today Formula 1 will probably die with Ferrari as well.

  18. Absolutely Agree with Ferrari having a Veto.
    F1 Organization already messed up F1.
    If Ferrari didn’t have it Mr😈E. And the rest of the Gang will do anything they want.
    And anytime they used it it was for good of the sport.
    I bet the pole would be in different order if it was McLaren having it.
    And lets be real. If Ferrari leaves F1.
    F1 would be as popular as GP2.
    And Mr😈E. Would NOT get 30mil per race.

    1. i totally agree

    2. And lets be real. If Ferrari leaves F1.
      F1 would be as popular as GP2.

      And the fanbase would consist mostly of fans that care for the sport instead of a bunch of glory-hounds.

      1. No just square people who follow little Brit teams.

        1. Ignorant statement.

          1. Same as calling Ferrari fans glory hounds. Fighting ignorance with ignorance.

          2. Fighting ignorance with ignorance.

            This coming from someone who’s trying to paint the Brits as the root of all F1’s evil.

        2. So for you, F1 is just Ferrari against the British? Did you forget about the Swiss Sauber? Mercedes is German, Red Bull Austrian, Toro Rosso Italian, and next year the Americans arrive in the form of Haas.

          1. Brits are more than happy to class RedBull and Merc as British when it suits there argument anyway the veto will stay.

          2. Name one team that doesn’t have any Brits in it. You can’t, can you?

            Even Ferrari has Brits. Doesn’t stop them being Italian.

          3. True all teams have Brits in them nothing wrong with that the same as all the great Brit fans at Silverstone that have Ferrari flags, t-shirts, on the whole Ferrari is most likely the most popular team even in Britain which contains all the Brit pack teams.

          4. So the Brits are the enemy that must be vanquished, and also the lifeblood of the sport?

            How about you come back when you’ve figured out what you actually want to say?

          5. Not what I said, what are you trying to say?

            I agreed British fans are great.

          6. But the British teams are evil because they want to win. And don’t deny you said that; it’s plain to see above.

          7. No different than you painting Ferrari as whiners because they are trying to win. We are arguing similar points from different perspectives. Admit it you are enjoying this debate. I will never change your opinion and you will not change mine but it’s great to hear peoples thoughts.

          8. No different than you painting Ferrari as whiners because they are trying to win.

            They were whiners because they couldn’t stand others being better than them, so Enzo kicked up a stink and somehow managed to get the veto. Which, by the way, is unfair because it gives Ferrari more say over the regulations than any other team.

            We are arguing similar points from different perspectives.

            You’re saying Ferrari should have the veto, they’re the only team that matters, and the British teams are evil.
            I’m saying the veto is by definition unfair, and Ferrari is no more ‘special’ than the other 9-10 teams.
            In what world are those two points even remotely similar?

            Admit it you are enjoying this debate.

            I am taking no pleasure in reading the bilious tripe you’re spewing.

          9. I have to hold Ferrari up as they had to fight politically against Brits like you with a jealous attitude towards them. You do not realise it it is in you nature but you Brits try to colonise things it’s good when people stand up to you people and put you in your place and beat you.

  19. From Autosport, 31 Oct 2015:

    Todt has confirmed, when a new Concorde was debated but not implemented, all the teams in F1 agreed Ferrari could retain its right of veto.

    “In 2013, the first time as FIA president I was facing consideration of the veto right, I must say I was very cautious because as I’ve said it’s like having a gun,” said Todt.

    “I was surprised because the commercial rights holder was in favour of the veto right, and all the teams were in favour.

    “So I agreed to implement the veto right in the Concorde from 2013 to 2020.

    “We simply changed the wording to make it more precise.”

  20. I would rather have a historic team like Ferrari have veto then a team like mercedes

    1. @kpcart

      Mercedes, as an F1 works team, existed back in the 1950’s. The current team, based out of Brackley, can trace its routes right the way back to the 60’s to Tyrell, via Brawn, Honda & BAR.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#Legacy

    2. That is so true @kpcart.

      1. Mercedes have been Grand Prix racers since 1923, six years before the founding of the Scuderia.

        1. Mercedes have not been Grand Prix racers since 1923 because they have spent most of the time since off of the grid. A team off of the grid is not a team competing in the sport.

          1. I guess all that sports car success means nothing then. Nice to know the bulk of motorsport doesn’t matter.

          2. Wow what an assumption. Merc were out of motorsport altogether from the mid 50’s to the 80’s.

          3. Really? Let’s see, shall we?

            In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Mercedes returned to competition through the tuning company AMG (later to become a Mercedes-Benz subsidiary), which entered the big Mercedes-Benz 300SEL 6.3 V8 sedan in the Spa 24 Hours and the European Touring Car Championship.

            Well well well, look at that. Mercedes racing right in the middle of the period you said they weren’t in motorsport.

          4. AMG was not Mercedes owned at this point and so were only using Mercedes car, Mercedes as a manufacturer were not in as a factory team.

  21. Count me in the long past caring group, but that Indycar mentioned in the article was gorgeous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_637

  22. This reminded me of the Suzuka 2011 GP, where Glock had betted Vettel to win the WDC there, and F1F had a poll to decided if drivers should or shouldn’t bet. And the result was basically, that no competitor should bet somewhere he himself competes. With the very same logic, no competitor (driver or team) should have the power to manupilate and decide for the sport’s future. No one. Even Ferrari.

  23. While FIA can be best described as incompetent and shortsighted having someone with a veto is probably not a bad thing. Ferrari’s veto gives F1 a chance to avoid a mistake or two. If the veto is used sensibly.
    In any other scenario a participant should not have that kind of power.

  24. So I see this a little differently. My understanding is that Ferrari can’t make new rules, but can just oppose proposed rules. So they can’t tweak the rules in their favor. In addition any rules Bernie and FIA want can be proposed.. Now the advantage with one team having the veto rights is that it keeps Bernie and Todt in check.. So somebody needs to hold that right, otherwise the sport becomes like wrestling. Whether it is Ferrari, or the current constructors champion, can be debated. If Bernie really felt threatened by the smaller teams leaving, he can change the money distribution tomorrow and solve the problem. It is not for the veto rights holder to look after commercial interest.. The veto rights holder has to look after the rules for the good of the racing..

  25. Ferrari had the veto anyway in that they can always threaten to throw their toys out of the pram and leave the sport. Giving them an actual veto power just streamlines the process so that they don’t have to make the threat then wait for the FIA to back down because the sport needs them.

    If any other teams were as vital to the sport and had done as much for it, for as long and with as strong a commitment to it’s future they could also have veto powers.

    And I say this as a none Ferrari fan, I just pragmatically see their value.

    1. And I say this as a none Ferrari fan, I just pragmatically see their value.

      A value that is grossly overestimated. And I say that as a pure-blooded Ferrari fan.

    2. This is what RedBull have done and are getting 2.2l v8’s in 2017 even though according to Cosworth RedBull are the only team who will use them. Begs the question why Red Bull don’t pay Cosworth to make a V6 hybrid. Anyway the customer cheap engine would be loss making so Cosworth said no, now imagine the losses to Ferrari of being forced to sell v6 hybrids on the cheap. Why should they be forced to sell at a loss? The veto was well used and all these arguments are all down to RedBull.

      Ferrari veto was granted due to the Brit teams ganging up and getting everything their way. Ferrari needed this and still do to protect them against the Brits.

      1. Ferrari veto was granted due to the Brit teams ganging up and getting everything their way. Ferrari needed this and still do to protect them against the Brits.

        And it’s statements like these that give Ferrari fans a bad name. What you’re doing here is basically racism against the British, and it’s not acceptable.

        1. Not at all it is the actual reason they were given the veto. No need to throw round those kind of accusations….if only I could veto you.

          1. If there’s even the tiniest shred of truth to anything you say, you’d be able to back it up.

            I won’t hold my breath.

          2. Please hold your breath.

            It was detailed on another site I think it was James Allen F1.

          3. And yet you still refuse to link to it.

          4. Find it yourself. Google the history of the Ferrari veto.

            Anyway even if they had no official veto all big teams have the power to change things look what RedBull has done they have got a customer engine on the agenda. Merc would quit if they all moved back to V8’s etc. This is the 1st time Ferrari have used this veto for as long as I can remember. It was used on a cost basis not to change technical rules they did not use it to block v6 hybrids. I doubt they will use it for quite some time and probably never on the actual technical rules unless inline 4 diesels are proposed. Speaking of Veto did Ron Dennis not veto Honda supplying RedBull even though Honda agreed to supply 2 teams in their 2nd year?

          5. Thanks for providing the link that proves Ferrari got the veto because Enzo threw his toys out the pram.

          6. Maybe but you could also take the view he felt he needed protection against the Brit pack. They were all in it together against Ferrari….true or not it is what he felt so it is the reason they have the veto. They have as far as I know never really used it and this time they have was for sound business reasons. The thing is those that count all agree Ferrari should have this and that includes all the teams. With that in mind although it is an interesting debate no one in F1 is against them having this.

          7. So the fans don’t count? The people that spend hundreds on GP tickets and merchandise? The people the sport would die without? They don’t count?
            And of course you’re continuing with this asinine drivel about how it was Ferrari against the British. I’ve seen less rubbish at recycling centres.

          8. Some fans agree as do all the teams and other decision makers. The fans that do not agree will not change this therefore in this instance they have opinions but it does not matter as it will not change anything. 10 percent on this site agreeing to the veto is quite impressive as I thought it would be closer to 1 percent.

          9. Glad to know that you’re more than willing to ignore two-thirds of the fanbase because, to paraphrase your own words, ‘they don’t matter’.

          10. Thats two third of the fan base on F1 Fanatic who have decided to vote and is not confirmation of all F1 fans across the world. It is an opinion poll from a small sample but interesting none the less.

          11. And according to you, it doesn’t matter, because it’s not going the way you like.

          12. If it does not align with my opinion it is not that I do not like it I accept it but don’t care about it. As I said it is a very small sample and F1 Fanatic poles do not align with the world wide F1 community. In December 2014 Hamilton was voted the 3rd most popular driver and McLaren the most popular team but the recent F1 Fans survey had Hamilton outside the top 4 and Ferrari easily the most popular team.

            Plus as you seem to be very passionate about this I would not put it past you to vote a number of times.

  26. everyone saying its bad for the sport.. but forget that to be in the sport you have to spent money… I cannot comprehend how is bad to oppose to the idea of selling your engines cheaper that the production cost.. even Mercedes agreed with Ferrari in that sense.. so what if nobody could oppose to Bernie’s craziest ideas?? where f1 would.be?? the top teams would.have left already..IMO..

    1. And I hoped 6 years ago that FOTA would create a breakaway series. Too bad it didn’t happen (

    2. I don’t think anyone is saying cheaper than production cost.

  27. No team should be treated differently to others. Though with the idiotic decisions proposed and those accepted in the last decades I would like someone to block eventual damage-making rules. There should be a board made up of all teams that should give their opinion, though of course that would need some thinking as it would be far too easy for everyone to promote changes when they’re losing. On that matter, Ferrari’s veto hasn’t meant they have had it easy, as after the eighties they endured their longest dark period, though that was followed by their brightest one. In the board of teams in an ideal world the “oldest” teams would have more respect and their decisions would be representative and encourage others to respond the same, but there should not be a written agreement giving preferential treatment to one competitor over another.

  28. Voted completely disagree and like everyone else have a view on how power in F1 should be distributed.

    Firstly the teams are fundamentals of F1, not FIA, not FOM, not tracks or even viewers. FIA can’t have full control over rules that teams may not want. Teams should hire FIA to run the sport, listen and implement collective ideas of the teams. When it comes to 1 team above others, we can’t have that when we consider F1 to be a sport and therefore expect fair competition. The way to keep it fair is to give every team equal voting right and majority vote then gets a decision.

    The latest exercise of veto power by Ferrari was fair however. I’m surprised they even had to use it. My expectation was that new engine conditions were agreed when decision to introduce them was made. I’m sure engine manufacturers had business plans set out stretching to at least 3 years to estimate how much they’d spend on developing the engines, building them and selling. You can’t possibly force them to change their business plan after they’d spend most of the budget on development. It’s a bit like starting 5k run race and being told half way through that race is now a marathon distance.

  29. If in football it was announced that one team could change the rules when others will just have to sit by and watch there would be outrage so how come something like this is allowed to happen in F1?

  30. It is unfortunate that the incident that sparked this debate is one I actually agree with Ferrari on: there shouldn’t be a price cap on engines. It isn’t that I don’t agree with the complaints by Sauber and Lotus and such like, I think there is a lot of validity in their complaints, but having a price cap isn’t the way to resolve this, the way to resolve it is to fix the rules so they have more income or the engine system used is less expensive.
    If you instituted a price cap then the non-manufacturer supported teams would still pay for price increases, only the amount paid for some components would remain the same on the invoice sent to a team, other components and services would increase in price. There are a thousand ways a manufacturer could recoup the loss if there was a price cap, so it was silly to even suggest it.
    Regarding Ferrari’s right of veto, it isn’t unusual for a sport to have highly regarded players or long standing officials be appointed to top positions, and those people will have favourite teams and countries, and they will also have an influence upon the rules, fees, and payments that are made.
    If Ferrari hadn’t vetoed this proposal then I don’t see how the non-manufacturer teams were not going to be paying more at the end of the 2016 for parts and services than at the start of the season.
    I think a manufacturer should be required to invoice their own team at the same rate as their customer teams.

  31. Today I visited Maranello. Had a panoramic factory tour, drove on the Fiorano test track and saw all the winning Ferraris in the museum. Seeing all that and then reading this leaves me in two minds. One, the scale of the facilities at Maranello are humongous. They should be easily able to develop a car that complies to any regulations (as can be demonstrated by the bargaining tool car 637 kept in the museum) in short time. So, do they really need the veto, absolutely no.

    But then, has any team ever done so much for Formula 1? The whole city breathes Formula 1 all the time. In the description of every car, they have mentioned how Michael Schumacher or F1 development has played a role in making the said road car. Enzo’s passion for the sport is so beautifully captured at every point. And mind you, at no point does any sort of pride or a belief that they are bigger than F1 set in. So, if any team was ever deserving of a veto, it is indeed Ferrari.

    But does that mean they should still have it? Given that if they don’t, then the teams are left at the mercy of Bernie and Jean Todt and also considering the fact that Ferrari have used their veto very sparingly, I think it makes sense for them to have a veto. If nothing, it at least keeps Bernie and FIA in check.

  32. This is a very delicate topic. On the one hand no team should have so much political power to influence decisions in F1 and lead them towards their way. On the other hand Ferrari have brought so much to the sport, together with McLaren and Williams, they should have a special role in F1.

    All in all I would say that Ferrari should lose their Veto. But they should still have some influence in F1 (ideally together with McLaren & Williams), because they have been in the sport for 65 years, they’ve seen literally everything and can judge the situation the best.

  33. Ferrari, along with other long-termers such as McLaren, Williams and Sauber, should be part of an official ‘historic teams’ working group whose job is to apply their influence to further the sport. They should have veto on sporting and technical changes, but such a veto should be used in multilateral agreement where conclusive proof can be issued that it is for the benefit of the sport.

    It should also be codified into the regulations and limited to participants who have competed in the sport for a sufficient length of time (say, 20 years?). Such a number will also be reset when a team fails or legal ownership is transferred (i.e. a management buyout – Red Bull, Mercedes, Renault/Lotus & Force India are thus currently excluded, despite ). This group should also exist in a vacuum from commercial considerations (basically forbidding Bernie from getting involved)

    For Ferrari to torpedo cost-saving on the grounds that they must effectively return value to their shareholders is neither sporting nor fair.

  34. Strongly disagree.

  35. I would have voted Strongly Disagree my Heart said so. But then I voted Neither Agree or Disagree because in current scenario where there is a huge monopoly by Bernie and Co, i believe someone is required to counterbalance although there is a risk that Bernie & Company and Ferrari would join hands.

    Honestly I don’t know and Honestly I don’t like the kind of Power Corners existing in F1 today. It is just ruining the sport putting it in a bad shape as it is today.

  36. I’m not a Ferrari fan boy, I would like to make that clear first. I am McLaren-Honda fan boy.
    First of all, we need to think, why was Ferrari even given a power to over the rules made by FIA?
    Because Ferrari threatened to quit, and hence Formula 1 would lose a historic team. That’s
    one reason, but people need to think deeper.
    Formula 1 is constantly evolving, changing. Everything within it is. Every year we see new set of rules, minor or major. And this is not like any other sport like football or cricket or tennis of some sort. This has a history, its known for something, it has a character. Now in this constant evolution, the rate of which is pretty fast, Formula 1 needs something that ensures that the direction of sport doesn’t change. It may go anywhere it wants. But there needs to be someone or something that keeps reminding of what this sport represents. Nothing could be better at this than a historic team, with an experience none other has, with a great fan base as well. Again, this is not like other sports, every year or so a team comes into Formula 1 and other disappears, or is bought out. So the only thing that has stayed here since decades, is Ferrari. And undoubtedly it will stay here until the judgment day. It is the obvious candidate then. Ferrari is not being given any special powers that affects their performance, Ferrari doesn’t get to make the rules, it only and only gets to veto them if they thought that they aren’t the right direction for Formula 1. Ferrari also performs on the same terms as their rivals. People aren’t seeing this side of the whole issue. Ferrari is not gaining anything on performance terms relative to their rivals. So everyone has an equal chance of winning. People think they might veto anything that they unlike. Well, think of it this way, if they veto anything, it would be for their good, and if it is something for their good, it would also be good for their rivals, because what they veto applies to them as well. So the situation here is different. Formula 1 is unlike other sports. Power to veto means whole other thing than gaining unfair advantage, about which many people are in misconception.

  37. Ferrari, and its veto, is terrible for F1, and this is an example of why.

    Without this latest veto the two leading engine suppliers would have less income, which as they freely admit they spend on development. It makes it even harder for Renault and Honda, who don’t have this customer income, to catch up. It ensures F1 will stay a two horse race.

    Motor racing is supposed to be a sport where you win with excellence. It’s crazy to give one of them advantages to help them win with less excellence. It makes the whole thing pointless.

  38. For sure, I disagree that any team should have a veto on F1’s rules. However, I can see how the sport as a whole could benefit from such a veto in certain cases. At least in theory. That is why I disagree slightly, not strongly.

    Ferrari is the oldest F1 team and one of just two teams that fans expect to see in F1 in 2022 or even after that. F1 and Ferrari have extremely strong ties, the sport needs Ferrari and Ferrari needs F1 even more. Despite all the threats during di Montezemolo’s era, Ferrari are not going anywhere. You cannot be so sure about Mercedes, Red Bull (obviously!) or the small teams.

    Of course, all of that still does not give Ferrari any rights to reign over other teams but you would expect that they would care more about the future of F1 and would also be able to appreciate its history. When most teams care either about short-term success or survival, FIA cares more about road safety and FOM would turn F1 into a giant marshmallow if it meant more money for them, then it is probably good if someone, who is clever and acts responsibly, can hit the brakes to prevent things that might otherwise damage or even destroy the sport.

    That said, such a veto is still wrong. The rules should be written by the FIA that should be the independent governing body. Unfortunately, this has often not been the case. The FIA has often failed to be independent in the past and it has not been governing much lately. I believe that Ferrari’s veto is rather a side effect of F1’s past and current “illnesses”, not the cure.

  39. Before we go on about arguing fairness, we should first establish whether F1 is a sport or a business. Except for FIA and independent competitors, I don’t think anyone is really considering it a sport – FOM considers it a entertainment business, manufacturers consider it as a marketing platform for their road cars (except Ferrari, because, Ferrari considers they define F1 and without them it won’t be the same).

    Unless they all start considering and treating F1 as a sport, everyone will look for some sort of advantage over the others. Ferrari has it in the form of veto, that isn’t to say it is a right thing for F1. The fundamental problems of F1 make this one of many many things that aren’t fair in the “so-called” sport.

    1. BTW, in this particular instance, Ferrari exercising the veto was a right thing to happen for F1. At least, it exposed one fundamental flaw (among many) in F1, the rule makers of F1 aren’t capable of predicting the possibilities, thus, are incapable of coming up with fool-proof regulations.

      Why introduce a complicated engine layout while struggling to control the spending. Teams will spend (especially with new technologies to explore) as much as they can without compromising their profits – either F1 should have taken one step at a time (start with a basic layout and improve it over time gradually with one new technology at a time) or cap the new engine with a cost or performance. They did neither. Simple fact is, they encouraged all the spending and then came up a MSRP for the customer engines when things ran out of control. Very typical of F1.

      Manufacturers see the engine deals as a business, so, why would FIA/FOM think they’ll agree to sell their engines at a lower price than what it had cost them. So, to reiterate, morally, it isn’t the right thing for Ferrari to exercise its veto. But, it is the right thing for the sport in the current situation, because, it exposed few of the biggest problems of F1, including the ability of one team to block a regulation revision.

  40. I am betting that every time Bernie hears something about the FIFA scandal finally coming to lite that he shudders knowing that his turn will come soon …. not soon enough for me a 75 year old fan that has long been amazed how unfair F1 has been run since the earliest races with Ferrari always running things from the shadows … plus Ferrari being paid millions of dollars under the table for whatever unsavory deal they made with Bernie… Thanks, Norris PS In case my view was not clear, yes the lawsuit should of been filed long ago and I am very hopeful that the distribution of funds will be on a more equal footing.

  41. If the argument about Ferrari’s veto were to hold water would only if there was evidence they used it. And If in the golden days their director say they didn’t use it and after his reign they stopped winning tells me that it had zero effect in the championships outcome. I think it should be Ferrari that resigns from that privilege the only effect it has is to make any success they have questionable.

  42. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
    18th October 2016, 18:40

    Are you for injustice or against it? Simple

Comments are closed.