Paddock, Circuit de Catalunya, 2018

F1 warned not to put jobs at risk with cost cap

2018 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by and

Formula One could put “thousands of jobs” at risk if it rushes to introduce a cost cap too quickly, Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has warned.

Commercial rights holder Liberty Media has proposed a budget cap of $150 million to come into force in 2021. This could force F1’s biggest teams to cut staff numbers.

However RaceFans revealed last week teams were offered a compromise which would delay the introduction of a cost cap. Horner said the implications of the plan “need to be looked at quite carefully” because of the potential effect on jobs.

“I think they are gathering feedback at the moment and the more things that they look at the more questions it raises,” he said.

“Of course there has to be an extremely responsible approach from the governing body and the commercial rights holder because, certainly within the UK, you are talking about potentially thousands of jobs.

“If a local car plant or Tesco [supermarket] is shut it makes headline news at the moment. So I think there is a social responsibility that needs to be taken into account when you are talking about restrictions and caps and so on.

“It doesn’t sit well when drivers can earn, in some cases, up to $50 million a year. How many jobs is that worth?”

Mercedes executive director Toto Wolff believes Liberty Media has accepted the idea that a cost cap needs to be introduced gradually.

“This was a very good point where Liberty recognise that a cost cap cannot be an event,” said Wolff. “It needs to be a process, it needs to go over several years and it needs to consider the various structures that are being put in place and then taking our feedback on board.

“It is clear that we will all be protecting our structures in a way and we expressed that.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2018 F1 season

Browse all 2018 F1 season articles

Author information

Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...
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 2018 F1 season

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

  • 47 comments on “F1 warned not to put jobs at risk with cost cap”

    1. That’s a bit of a thin argument, Christian. To be fair, both sides of this debate carry risk to jobs.

      Formula One could put “thousands of jobs” at risk if it rushes to introduce a cost cap too quickly

      Conversely, if a team like Williams or Force India bows out, it will similarly impact hundreds of jobs. Even though Williams have a technology arm, it would not seem like they can absorb all F1 staff in there.

      Which would be easier? Larger companies like Mercedes, FCA and Renault being able to absorb such staff within other parts of their companies (or even their other motorsport teams), or for employees in the struggling teams to be let go when the team winds up, and go through a more grueling process of trying to be hired? (Not to mention the impact to the sport when teams bow out).

      1. Just to add to that, the the cost cap would attract more teams which will create new jobs.

        1. Bingo! @petebaldwin

          Spending more money than others is by far the biggest competitive advantage big teams have over others. Naturally, they don’t want to give that up and so they try all sorts of tactics to prevent or delay such regulations. This argument, in particular, is a pretty dishonest and manipulative cheap tactic IMHO.

          Spending more money than your competitor doesn’t have much to do with sports, to begin with, IMHO. Competing with equal means and then simply doing a better job than your competition, now that’s much more interesting to me! Besides, if you manage to win you will get more sponsors (=money). That should be the reward, whereas the money coming from the sport itself (i.e. FOM) should entirely be divided equally IMHO.

          1. @jeffreyj I completely agree except….The present column 1 and column 2 set up is fine. In column 1, everyone gets the same split just for participating. In column 2, your split is determined by the number of points you have earned, that is, performance. Nothing wrong with that AS LONG AS there’s a limit on spending. I spending is unlimited and a team can essentially buy points by having a massive operating budget, awarding them more money for performance just adds to the disparity between teams. I’m in favor of a spending cap that is much, much lower than what some teams spend, and $150 million should be plenty since so much is not included in the cap, drivers’ salaries in particular. Formula One is not a make work jobs program. People laid off from Mercedes can go to one of the smaller teams who will have larger budgets. Beyond that, they are smart people and can find work elsewhere.

        2. Exactly. It’s all very political. It’s team owners and directors looking after their interest. Nothing more than that. Their staff will go to some of the less funded and newer teams.

          1. Some great points here and indeed Brawn has made the point that if the bigger teams had to let go of some staff, those people could end up on the lesser teams.

            Anyway if does sound like F1 will not exactly suddenly introduce some draconian cuts such that there is a massive firing spree. So I do think it is a bit disingenuous to raise fears of mass job loss.

            At the same time, the big teams have voluntarily blown their staff size out of proportion simply because they have the money, and they can…obviously. To then claim that those employees must be retained, like it is essential to have a bloated staff these days to compete, exactly highlights the problem…some teams have more money than they know what to do with while others can barely get enough. Hence the need for reasonableness and policing on this file and in F1 in general.

          2. All good points. Whilst I believe the big teams when they say they are protecting their work force, they haven’t exactly wept when other teams have faced severe budget problems or gone bust.

            Ultimately this is about protecting a competitive advantage. It will be interesting to see which of the big teams will stick around once the cost cap comes into force.

            1. Yes, I agree. This isn’t just about cutting staff at the largest teams, it is also about the other teams staying financially viable and to improve their competitiveness.

        3. @petebaldwin Will it though. If we lose Mercedes and Red Bull over it but gain let’s say Brabham, the net loss is still very negative.

          1. Who says F1 will lose RedBull and Mercedes? Christian and Toto aren’t saying that in the above quotes.

            They are saying that the big teams would have to size down. Now, let’s say they have to go from say 800 people to 500 people. The remaining 600 people (from both combined) could make up 2 or even 3 new teams. Those new teams will be able to enter because of the budget cap.

            Meanwhile all teams on the grid operate under the same budget cap: let the best team win!

        4. This may be a loaded argument, but it isn’t without basis. Lets say RB cuts it’s staff from 500 people to 400 people. Merc and Ferrari do the same. That is 300 lost jobs just there. But, at the same time, new teams enter and some of the mid field teams get more money and hire new staff. It sounds like a cost neutral exercise, so who cares?

          But… RB cut staff in Milton Keynes. The new jobs are in Sweden or America. Do you want to go there to preserve your career. Some will, but most won’t.

          But most importantly, RB, Merc et all aren’t going to cut their best staff. They will cut staff that they view as dead wood, or from programs that are no longer needed. That means anyone let go by these teams is branded as being useless, regardless of whether they actually were or not.

          People will say “If they were crap then who cares”. But what if your job was made redundant just because the cost cap meant that your program is no longer required. Imagine that you are that new guy who just got his chance at RB. You are new to F1 but working hard and show promise. Now you are branded as “hopeless” and every F1 employer will know that. You are 25 and your career and dreams are over before they even began.

          OK, lets say that you weren’t the best aerodynamic engineer at RB. It’s probably right that you don’t get a job at Sauber as you probably won’t be any good there either. However, F1 is the cutting edge and aerodynamics is a small field. Firstly, your job opportunities are small. Which means that Airbus and whoever else also know that you got cut from RB and won’t give you a chance either.

          There is a human side to this. Horner isn’t wrong about that. I am not advocating that they don’t change the rules. I implore them to actually do it. But it is a complex issue and it does need to be done right.

          1. @mickharrold I disagree that staff let go would be branded as useless or hopeless, their careers and dreams dashed at a young age, Airbus shunning them. You’re overdramatizing. The fact that these people would have been hired to begin with would bode well for them with other potential employers, and their reason for being let go from an F1 team as downsizing, which would be a globally known fact that F1 needs to address, would not be considered the fault of the employees in question, nor put into question their worth. And I’m sure any F1 team with any class at all, would offer up a great letter of recommendation highlighting their worth, especially when the only reason for letting someone go was downsizing…nothing to do with their performance on the job.

            1. @robbie Exactly true. I might add that in “the real world” people lose their jobs or change jobs every day. That’s a part of life in the real world. No one is guaranteed to have a job provided for them at a Formula One team, and these employees chose to work in a field that offers limited job security.

            2. I disagree and have seen this happen first hand. I live in Melbourne which was once a manufacturing hub. Toyota, Ford and Holden (GM) all made cars here. High wage rates have put an end to that and only retain engineering services here.

              The Toyota factory laid off 600 staff at one point a few years ago. At the time, they were still saying that they were going to keep manufacturing here. They were simply downsizing. Our local government along with Toyota set up their own agency to try and find these guys jobs.

              I own a company in the same area and as a result, I was targeted to give some a chance. But here’s the thing. Toyota didn’t randomly select who was going. They actively chose who was going. I knew that and so did everyone else in Australia. As an employer, why would I take a chance on a Toyota reject?

              I am not saying that this shouldn’t happen. It should. All I am saying is that there is a human side to all of this. A lot of people will lose their jobs as a result of a cost cap. Still they must proceed, but they should also try and do it the right way. Toyota set up an agency to help their ex staff find jobs. They still cut them, but they at least tried to make the transition easier. F1 could learn from that.

            3. @mickharrold Absolutely fair comment. Just a few initial thoughts. As a resident of Southern Ontario in Canada I am well familiar with the car manufacturing industry. Many of the jobs you would be referring to are assembly line jobs (not all though if the whole plant shuts down as in your case) and without meaning any disrespect whatsoever, I consider F1 jobs to be of a much more specialist nature requiring higher education and training. That to me connotes a different type of ‘castaway’ from the downsizing. These people would have a higher chance of finding employment elsewhere, if not being head hunted.

              Also, it does sound like a cap in F1 would indeed be gradual…let’s face it many still think it will never be possible…so I think there shouldn’t be too much fear of a mass exodus from an overnight guillotine slam to the finances, not that I think that’s what you’re suggesting.

              I do think they will do it the way you correctly advise they do, if indeed we’ll even notice anything, such might a (vague/unknown/loosely policed) cap not actually affect staffing that much imho.

              Or…perhaps if they know now that this might actually become an issue of concern, they could just stop hiring now, and only allow attrition from people quitting or retiring to do the task of saving money, whenever they can get away with not replacing someone that is.

            4. I appreciate none of you know the Mercedes factory but it is very easy to completely miss the bigger picture that the two team principles are alluding to.

              It is not just the factory employees. Mercedes sit on an industrial estate with many businesses employing tens of thousands most of which are highly specialised out sourced type companies involved in smaller scale contract work for the many larger companies.
              All of these small sometimes one man bands have invested fortunes into specialist equipment and processes that becomes virtually unused overnight.

              For example my Superkart chassis were made and designed by a engineer with around a million or so invested in machinery for rapid and accurate prototype work. His customers included prototype exhausts for Macca (many miles away) specialist work for then BAR next door which has continued for Mercedes (in a secret facility I might add) and he was making the needles and bezels for Bentley. He employed a number of people all of whom would be effected.

              It’s easy to forget this wider factor which is much more specialist than losing say Toyota or Ford. I know as I have been involved in such previously by being a recipient of such engineers.

        5. Also, with cost cap it will be more interesting to invest and work in the smaller teams, since the enormous gap between the midfield and the top teams would be somewhat diminished, there is the potential for those teams to soak up part of the people who are “set free” by the biggest teams @petebaldwin, @jeffreyj, @ecwdanselby.

          When we look at where the teams are @mickharrold, I think your notion that any newcomer would have their people in Sweden or America is pretty far off the reality. There is a reason why most F1 people are in a relatively concentrated area in the UK and a smaller area in Italy.
          STR has people in both. Haas also has people in the UK and partners Dallara in Italy. I actually think that it might play a role in the ideas Ferrari has of turning Sauber into “their” Alfa Romeo team, since it means they can then easily send people there. It could even become a bit of a “junior team” for engineers too. I have heard newer rumous of Mercedes doing that with FI for much the same reasons.
          And if (a huge IF) VW group would enter, I am sure that again they would be looking at establishing a base in the UK (or take over an existing UK team off course) exactly because that makes it easier to build up a team.

          1. @bascb And the Haas CFD operation is in North Carolina. Let’s be honest. If Formula One is a jobs program and is required to hire or retain unneeded employees, it should be receiving massive government funding. Anyone eager to pay more in taxes to make a job for a CFD specialist?

            1. LOL @gwbridge. Good point about the Haas CFD operations in NC. Yeah, while it is fine to mentions how requiring a sudden drop in staff numbers is not good, surely the task of an F1 team is to make fast cars, and win (or achieve the best possible result), not to retain employees.

              I am sure that the highly trained, highly focussed F1 people that will not be neede by the biggest team will have no problems finding a new job either within F1, with other motor(sport) or elsewhere.
              Afterall which company nowadays is not craving well educated people with team spirit, able to focus on the task at hand and a drive to win?

      2. Given how specialised race jobs tend to be these days, and how the trend is for companies to be in fewer series and (outside F1) prefer those requiring fewer staff, the larger companies would have trouble absorbing the job losses. So it’s not as simple as saying “which is easier” – both options are insurmountable for the majority of staff at risk.

        Some companies would be able to hire some of these people, especially the big names that have a reputation. However, the economy is not doing particularly well and most companies are either not hiring at all, or trying to get rid of people. There’s a limit to how much hiring can happen in such an environment, even in companies looking for a scapegoat (sorry @bascb , but if my experience of the working world is anything to go by, good education, focus, ambition and team spirit are considered liabilities rather than assets by the majority of companies. Maybe that’s part of the reason I like motorsports – because it’s one of the few places where most companies realise they are worth something).

        Also, at the level of cap proposed, every team bar Sauber is likely to need to make job cuts (because that is the only team under the cap limit). Unless, that is, a way can be found to cheat. Which would be far easier for the large teams, especially given that different nations have different accountancy rules that don’t mesh fully (meaning some inadvertent exceeding of the regulations will happen) – therefore budget caps wouldn’t result in job losses to the large teams, only the small ones – especially since the increase in budget disparity is likely to tip teams over the edge in their pursuit to avoid the 107% rule and also to try to hold onto their current sponsors (who will sense that the budget cap favours those with options to work outside it).

        There is even less incentive for big teams to keep in budget because the way tax returns work means that true figures wouldn’t be available to check against alleged ones for two years after the end of the season – by which point the FIA’s rules don’t allow the results to be changed and a lot of fans would have forgotten anyway.

        Budget caps don’t solve the problem of whether small teams go bust, at least not in an international sport like F1. They mostly mean everyone suffers more.

      3. Plus, those teams who are most likely to be effected by the budget cut either have – or have the capacity to be – involved in many other forms of motorsport, where staff (& surplus budget) can be easily redeployed instead of made redundant.

        With extra budget Mercedes can easily stay in DTM, RBR can go back to Nascar, or Indy, or get involved in other major motorsports events as a team instead of just as a sponsor, Renault can support feeder classes again – something they cut from their programme in order to have a works F1 team, and Ferrari can get back to endurance sportscar racing which is a part of their heritage they seem to have forgotten.

        Crying about retrenching staff is just posturing again, & shows how current thinking is still “inside the box” from F1.

    2. With Brexit coming up, this amount of jobs being lost would be an ideal opportunity for Britain to use the talent to kickstart an EV industry and rival Tesla. James Dyson is having a go but doubt he’d be tapping into the F1 talent pool in those numbers.

      1. I appreciate the attempt at thinking outside of the box, but I don’t think there’s much merit to this idea. First, most personnel in an F1 team have nothing to do with advanced electrical power systems. You’re talking more about aerodynamicists, mechanical engineers, administrative and support personnel. The people who have the knowing of a great many things to do with advanced hybrid systems work on the engine side – these aren’t the jobs that would be put at risk unless a manufacturer pulls out of developing these systems. And even then the technology isn’t transferrable for the most part – hybrid systems and the specific areas of development in F1, have really very little to do with fully electrical cars.

        Being absolutely pedantic – Tesla isn’t an ‘industry’ it’s a single car brand, and one which (while very high profile) is neither the biggest nor the most advanced player in the EV world. Major high volume car makers across the world are already putting huge amounts – more than Tesla could afford – into developing the battery technology. But more than this, engineering firms in GB are already at the forefront in this area. Yes it’s small volume and experimental, bleeding edge stuff, but it’s creating technology which is pushing boundaries every day.

        Brexit really doesn’t offer any opportunities for the motorpsorts industry. An industry which is, by nature, international, which employs the very best people from all around the world. Brexit not only makes it harder for companies in the UK to work effectively with their partners overseas, it will also (assuming free movement doesn’t remain post-Brexit) massively reduce the talent pool from which British firms can recruit. Progress happens because people work together towards a single purpose – not for the sake of winning in some imaginary global competition – but for the sake of genuinely driving technology forwards. Aything which puts up barriers to collaborative working and knowledge sharing, ultmately harms progress. An isolated Britain will be left behind by nations which are more prepared to work together, because in unity there is diversity, and diversity fuels creativity.

        1. F1 is more than the office boffin guys. Youve got the model makers, mould makers, carbon layup guys, laser sintering operators, CNC programmers and operators. who will lose jobs just with some drastic aero rule changes.

          Tesla took nearly half a million orders for one model shaking the whole industry and waking the German giants.

          Britain will just roll over on its belly and accept China as the king of EVs in the future.
          Jaguar got the ipace developed and built by a well regarded consultancy in Austria because UK doesn’t have the people or facilities.
          The UK goverment did belatedly set up up a composites centre in Wales. Now’s the chance to invest for the EV revolution, several thousand workers out of the F1 industry could get up to speed with the right management and backing.

          Your view on Brexit is yet to be proved.
          If Britain makes something the world wants to buy it doesnt matter.
          China is steam rollering the EU in EVs and commanding investment. More electric buses in one city than USA has any buses in all its cities.

    3. “It doesn’t sit well when drivers can earn, in some cases, up to $50 million a year. How many jobs is that worth?”

      That really has nothing to do with a capped budget. That is about a team’s decision to spend that budget… And capped or not, spending that type of money on a guy that doesn’t get results for you (Max), while not having paid your moneymaker (RIC), which you now risk losing, is a bad decision no matter how you wanna slice it!

      1. @jeffreyj Several things in this. Firstly, while Horner may have a point, he is only making that point to highlight the jobs argument that he is talking about. Otherwise, he knows full well that drivers get paid big bucks because the market bears it, and because you always have to pay the ‘star quarterback’ etc etc the big bucks because they are worth it and because if you don’t, someone else will. The big bucks are going to the proven WDCs. And the cap seemingly won’t involve driver salaries, according to pundits that have written on this topic.

        Secondly, Max does not get ‘that type of money.’ By all accounts it seems Max gets $10 mill, so a fifth of what the proven WDC’s are getting. It would seem DR is getting $6 mill currently. So $4 mill difference. Without knowing when Max’s $10 mill kicked it, which would be mid-season last year at the earliest, Max has barely had time to make that much more than DR.

        Max ‘doesn’t get results’? How about the third place he just got prior to Monaco? How about that on any given day he is every bit as fast as DR? Yes yes he’s been ragged this season, but anyone who thinks that is permanent simply wants to and hopes to see it that way.

        Thirdly, Max approached RBR, not the other way around, and showed his commitment to the team even with great Pu uncertainty. So they extended his contract through 2020 and with that came a big pay hike for him. Who wouldn’t have done the same? And what a bargain.

        Is DR mute? Did he not have the same ability to follow suit and also commit to RBR when he learned that Max had? Or even before? Do you not think it is highly possible RBR have made it clear to DR all along that when he’s ready to sit down and talk, so are they? Chequebook in hand? ie. I highly doubt RBR have risked losing DR. They have most likely extended the olive branch and expressed their desire to keep him, going back to last year, and the rest is up to him. That DR is still unsigned with anyone for 2019 and on, is totally on DR, nobody else. It is his choice that he is where he is at this particular time. It is ridiculous to suggest that they should have just started paying DR more, ignoring his existing contract, without DR committing to anything, and just because Max did go to them and commit. Also, last year Max was the better performer on the track and DR only had more points due to the lottery of the overwhelming unreliability they had. This year Max has made too many mistakes and DR has capitalized exactly when he has needed to…when he’s on the market…but that doesn’t mean Max’s pace hasn’t been there too, and that he won’t heed the advice and calm down a bit and keep it clean and continue to learn.

        The ball is totally in DR’s court (and those teams who he is interested in and they him) and he is the one that expressed excitement at being in this free agent territory for his first time. Don’t blame RBR for that.

        1. @robbie

          Max ‘doesn’t get results’? How about the third place he just got prior to Monaco? How about that on any given day he is every bit as fast as DR?

          What about it?! Max has 0 wins and 35pts, Daniel has 2 wins and 72pts.

          By all accounts it seems Max gets $10 mill, so a fifth of what the proven WDC’s are getting. It would seem DR is getting $6 mill currently. So $4 mill difference.

          That’s excluding bonuses. Dutch media has reported he gets a $1.5m per win plus $50.000 per point. Then there’s bonuses for DWC and CWC. Max can realistically make upwards of $25m this season if he performs well (which he isn’t, so who knows, maybe his bank account is the only factor that will succeed in forcing him to look at his mistakes and learn at some point) Granted, that’s not quite the $50m Horner was talking about, but I never heard of any driver on this grid that makes that so he was exaggerating quite a bit.

          Just consider this: Max makes 180% of what Daniel makes in base salary alone even though Daniel beat Max in 2016 and 2017 and has more than double the points this year. Wheather Max came to them or not, RedBull wishes they had locked up Daniel earlier, instead of potentially losing him now.

          1. @jeffreyj As I said, the lack of results is temporary. And they’re not non-existent. There’s a high chance DR won’t win another race this season. Max has just as narrow odds relatively. They’re in a third place car.

            So if Max’s earnings are that much, then that tells me he is worth it to RBR and it is what it took to keep him from going elsewhere where they would pay him at least that. Doesn’t change the fact that obviously DR has been choosing to bide his time to suss out the best deal for himself, as he should. I think you are way off the mark in that RBR’s door has in my belief been only wide open all along, with a chequebook on the other side. I don’t see how they are risking losing DR. I’m sure the ball is in DR’s court, as I’m sure Horner et al has expressed their eagerness to keep him, so I don’t get where you’re coming from. Do you not think DR understands that Max is under a new contract, and he is not, by his own choosing to play the field (presumably)?

            Perhaps they tried to lock up DR last year too, and he said he’d sit on that thought….not lick that stamp and send it yet. You seem convinced that DR must be miffed or something at Max’s salary, ready to walk, especially given how it has worked out for each driver in a third of this season, and I don’t buy that for a second. I think DR is a grown man excercising his options and has currently raised his share value very nicely, whether he’ll be staying put at RBR or moving on. His next contract should be nice and meaty.

          2. @jeffery

            Max’s value at the point of signing that contract was about keeping key rivals from having him.

      2. Also, it’s not always a team’s choice on how to spend all of its budget. Some of it is sometimes decided by sponsors, for example Alonso’s salary has been covered by specific sponsor request (from what I understand) since the Ferrari days. If someone else is deciding the salary level of some drivers, it not only pins their salaries, it also alters the salaries that have to be paid to other drivers who are using those “sponsor-pinned” salaries as negotiation benchmarks. This applies at both the upper (stratospheric salaries) and lower (pay-driver moneybags) end of the market, and why there’s very little middle ground for a basic salaried driver role any more in F1.

    4. I also realize that an earlier article here mentioned that Liberty had proposed removing the MGU-H for 2021, in exchange for the teams agreeing to a gradual implementation of a cost cap by 2023 (the alternative was for manufacturers to retain the MGU-H, but have a hard cost cap enforced from 2021). Teams naturally preferred giving up the MGU-H.

      So, that line of thinking invalidates Horner’s assertion of “rush[ing] to introduce a cost cap too quickly”.

      1. @phylyp Unless even 2023 is felt to be too quick.

        1. @alianora-la-canta – Horner says: “You’ll have to pry these millions from my cold dead fingers” 🙂

    5. It has to be done properly, if they manage to implement a cost-cap which eventually will reduce the head-count of the teams, they have to do so while creating an atmosphere that enables new entrants into the sport, and effectively balancing those lost jobs with the creation of new positions with new teams.

      They also have to be open to the fact that some people in the UK might lose their job, but with teams popping out in other countries those jobs are being created elsewhere, they either relocate or have to look elsewhere, not ideal, but it is what it is.

      I believe this to be the only solution to tackle both problems, less personnel per team, more teams on the grid

      1. Astute points!
        May I add I that running less races per season could also be advantageous to the overall health of the sport.

    6. ADUB SMALLBLOCK
      5th June 2018, 14:54

      As most here have noted, Horner’s argument is a thin attempt to mask the fact that it is entierly to their benefit to continue to spend huge amounts. The advantage this gives them in season long development and manufacturing is obvious. However, I do think the ONE STEP change to a $150 million budget cap is misguided. I would like to see a plan that went more than one year in the future, with steps to get the budget cap to a sustainable level.

    7. If they simplify the aero and make the front wing custom then aero people will loose jobs.

      If they cap costs it’s a reshuffle within F1- if they get some more teams.

      But teams like Ferrari tend to hire Italians, Sauber not UK based either. F1 people tend to move around but most is based on the UK. It could push some out of the sport, some not looking to relocate their family etc

      There needs to be some action taken but you don’t want families not putting food on the table either – Bernie did create a monster!

      1. @garns

        The aero people lost will mostly be quality manual workers who should be used in a large investment by Britain into develop future transport technology. Most likely starting out high end.

        Jaguar had to go to Austria to get the ipace developed and built. A 60-80 grand car (GBP) with 30,000 orders already, a race series and a pledge for 20,000 self driving.
        Go Austria!

        1. @Bigjoe The new BMW 5 series and many other models are built in Magna facilities, Jaguar is far from alone, not sure what the crux of your point is here Bigjoe, outsourcing is integral to the modern automotive industry.

          1. My point is that any surpless talent from F1 will be lost to the country.
            Germany also supplies Tesla’s spray booths and Japan the production robots. Im well aware of that kind of thing but we hear too often how the UK cant find talent. So why not attempt to invest at home when several thousand of the best suddenly hit the labour market from a single industry.

        2. Who’d do the investing? It wouldn’t be the government – they have no appetite for that sort of thing. It won’t be big British businesses – they’re not generally in that sector of the industry and there seems little appetite to expand there.

    8. Thats just nonsense.

    9. What does the future hold for F1 if it continues down the current path? We’ll see the gradual demise of the less competitive teams, each with a loss of staff, and eventually F1 will concede it needs to merge with another racing series, such as IndyCar, which has its own rules and constraints, and again there’ll be a loss of staff. There’s no reason to expect the total of staff lost along the way will be less than those lost permanently to F1 by a budget cap.
      A budget cap, on the other hand, means more money for the less competitive teams, and since money buys performance, they will become more competitive making F1 more interesting to watch.

    10. Perhaps they can just transfer any displaced team personnel into the massive F1 forensic accounting police force that will be needed.

      1. I guess paying for all that enforced accountancy training will be initially how they make sure nobody cheats!

      2. @bullmello
        They could just have everyone who works in F1 paid from one payroll and all invoices from all suppliers sent to the same office which then pays all the team’s costs with their budgets updated accordingly.
        As budgets get low they get issued with alerts.
        Greedy corporate types would hate it though. This industry milks it.

    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'.