Start, Red Bull Ring, 2018

Formula 1 teams’ prize money payments for 2018 revealed

2018 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by and

Ferrari will again receive the largest share of Formula 1’s prize money despite finishing behind Mercedes in 2017 world championship, RaceFans can exclusively reveal.

Formula One Management projects £715 million in revenue will be shared between teams from income streams such as race hosting fees, broadcasting rights, track advertising and other areas.

This is distributed between the teams based in part on their finishing position in the previous year’s constructors’ championship, plus the nature of the deals they have with Formula 1 management. The table below, obtained by RaceFans, shows how this year’s revenues will be distributed.

Haas stands to gain the most compared to its rivals as having finished in the top 10 for the second time it now qualifies for a ‘column 1′ payment. Its earnings are set to increase by 176%.

McLaren’s favourable commercial terms with F1 mean it will receive the fourth-largest share of F1’s income despite finishing ninth out of the 10 teams last year.

Force India, which equalled its best-ever finish of fourth place in the constructors’ championship last year, is among the teams which stands to receive less money than McLaren. However the team went into administration last week, which jeopardises its claim to that income.

The current payment structure was agreed under Bernie Ecclestone and CVC’s control of the sport and will run until the end of 2020. As RaceFans revealed in April, Liberty Media, who has since replaced CVC as F1’s commercial rights holders, has proposed a new payment structure to teams to come into force in 2021.

Projected 2018 payments to F1 teams

All values in £m.

TeamColumn 1Column 2TotalLSTCCBOtherTotal2017 +/-2017 position
Red Bull24.932.457.326.826.6110.7-11.73
Force India24.927.452.452.4-2.44
Toro Rosso24.917.542.442.4-2.47

The income is distributed as follows: Column 1 is divided equally among all teams which have finished in the top 10 places of the constructors’ championship in two of the past three seasons. Column 2 is shared between the top 10 finishers in last year’s championship, with the champions receiving 19% of the pot and the last-placed team taking 4%.

On top of that, Ferrari receives a unique ‘Long Standing Team’ payment, four teams receive additions ‘Constructors Championship Bonus’ payments, and Red Bull, Mercedes and Williams receive further bonus payments.

The teams receive their payments in a series of 10 instalments. The final balance payment will be received in March next year.

For the full story of why Force India has gone into administration and what the future may hold for the team read @DieterRencken’s new column later today on RaceFans. Find all previous RacingLines columns here

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.

97 comments on “Formula 1 teams’ prize money payments for 2018 revealed”

  1. I’m very pleased that Haas are being paid for competing. It’s disgraceful that a team can compete a whole year and not receive any income for it. Maybe there’s an argument for not paying a team a “Column 2” amount if they don’t score any points, but if they score points and compete at every Grand Prix then they should be paid.

    1. The sport is a farce that Ferrari can earn more then the winning team, utter joke.

      1. Actually it only shows, a good show needs a red Ferrari .

        1. @drycrust

          I’m very pleased that Haas are being paid for competing. It’s disgraceful that a team can compete a whole year and not receive any income for it

          Which unfortunately is why we probably won’t see any new teams before 2021.

          1. @keithcollantine

            Not many of those knocking on the door either….

      2. Ferrari has earned its share by winning.

        1. Actually they earned that particular share by just existing in F1.

          1. jamesluke2488
            1st August 2018, 13:30

            Ferrari don’t win much though, other than Schumacher 2000 – 2004 and the lucky Raikkonen title in 07, they haven’t won anything since 1979. So only 6 Driver titles.

            In fact since 1979

            Williams 7 drivers titles (spent the last 10 years with no money)
            Mclaren 10 Drivers titles
            Red bull – 4 Drivers titles and they were only set up in 2005
            Mercedes – 4 Driver titles and they only came in to existence in 2010

          2. Keep in mind these payments are based on constructors’ championships, where Ferrari’s last success is slightly more recent (2008). They’ve had 10 constructors’ titles since 1979.

            But even so I think to suggest, as some are doing, that this has all been arranged in a fair way to remunerate the teams whose historical associations benefits the sport most is wildly wrong. Compare what Red Bull get to what McLaren get, for example.

            It really is a waste of time to take it at face value. The prize money structure is the way it is because Ecclestone bought off some of the teams to wreck FOTA.

          3. @keithcollantine

            Ecclestone was the disease of F1, and finally gotten rid off… He is still showing up and trying to voice if any at all influence and bragging… He wanted to run the show alone, and feeding of off the newcomer’s income and majority of commercial/broadcast rights… He hated FOTA because he didnt want any more voice then his heard anywhere… It was good riddance for the fate of the sport but hopefully it wasnt too late…

            Everytime i see his face around, i almost vomit! He destroyed many teams all through silly payment structures, and always did controversial races in questionable countries, and countries hosting races were suffering rather than gaining, because of the fees/costs he was pushing to those countries in the name of “advertising your country, making more tourists come etc” in reality, not many races are profitable for the track owners due to fees/costs associated… and Ecclestone made sure he only receive money and not pay a penny!

      3. Not their fault they’ve been there so much longer. Had Mercedes as a team been present since 1955 or whenever it was when they quit, and 2009, they would have gotten the same. That’s 55 years more that Ferrari has been in the sport.

        This is the 11th year in total that Mercedes have been in F1, yet it’s Ferrari’s 69th.

        I’d say Williams and McLaren definitely deserve a bonus for being in F1 so long continuously as well, albeit not as long as Ferrari.

        1. No one deserves payments for the length of time they have been in the sport. Payments should be based on success only plus a base payment that all teams get in order to operate.

          If we went down that road in Football then Notts County would be rolling in money!

          The Prize money in F1 needs a complete overhaul. If Ferrari do not like it then they can bugger off. Everyone should get a reasonable amount and then some smaller bonus payments should be made for success over the previous season.

      4. 100% agree. It’s not a sport it is a show. Sports are fair, F1 is not. How can teams spend money to compete and not get paid? How can a team that loses get paid more than the champions? Money enables a team to go faster so paying Ferrari cash for just showing up is the ultimate cheat. But seeing as its not a sport… Good show.

  2. So Ferrari will receive the same amount as the fourth placed team for just turning up.

    It would be good value if it stopped their constant whining and threats to quit…………..

    In the meantime the afore mentioned fourth placed team as just entered administration.

  3. Imagine the extra £200m which could be spread amongst teams if the extra payments (bar the $40m Ferrari sweetener) could be shared between participants.

    I’d spread the money as follows: £45m for each participant; plus £45, 35, 20, 15, 12, 9, 6, 3, 0 based on final position. Thus the WCC will double it’s earnings; top 3 play for big chunks of prize money, and the lower teams still have something to fight for (£3m per place) without it being life or death.
    The Ferrari payment should be a one of share options! Not part of the annual prize split.

    1. Pedro Andrade
      1st August 2018, 9:58

      This is a sensible and fair solution

    2. @coldfly Trouble is that this article is incorrect. Most of the bonuses are paid from outside the prize money budget. Only the CCB payments and half of the Ferrari bonus are paid from the actual prize money.

      Then Dieter guesses the CCB bonuses completely wrong to paint an all together false picture (too much bonuses and to low column 1/2 payout). Although seeing how the article on the 2021 prize money is also utterly incorrect it makes sense his take is still wrong now.

      When Liberty’s plan goes in effect, they will simply pocket the “other” bonuses themselves. So only a small part of the bonus money will actually be divided among the teams. Plus Ferrari still get $40 million and each of the engine manufacturer will also each receive $10 million (another $80 million which will not be divided).

      1. Turns out not even the CCB is paid from the prize money budget.

      2. @patrickl All of it is paid from the same source in the end – the income from F1.

    3. Fair enough solution. Mine’s a little more complicated:

      Get rid of all bonuses. Define a pot of money for distribution to the teams.

      Half of this pot gets split equally between the teams. The rest is prize money, divided as follows:
      Each team gets one share per place they finish above last. Tot up the total shares, divide the pot by that, then distribute the money. This accounts for a variable-sized grid fairly.
      To account for new teams (those who joined the sport with a new entry, not buying out an existing team, for their first 3 years), make the top performing teams help them out. Give each new team a bonus share. The first entry would have their bonus share taken from the top team, the second from the second-to-top, and so on. They loose this bonus after year 3, or if they manage to beat at least 1 non-new team in the previous season’s WCC (they’ve obviously got their feet under the table if they’ve managed that, and it wouldn’t be fair to continue giving them a bonus over a more established team who is probably struggling).

  4. @DieterRencken I understood that Williams used to receive an additional bonus payment, of about £10,000,000 does that no longer apply? Also, how could Bernie and CV justify giving McLaren the CCB when their last WCC was won a single year after Williams last WCC?

    Thanks very much for breaking all this down for us.

    1. You’re right (and wrong): They receive a bonus, but its $10m not GBP. It fell off during the conversion from $ to £. Thanks for pointing it out – it’s corrected.

      The bigger question is not how could Bernie (and CVC) justify the McLaren CCB for 1998 but not for Williams for 1997, but how could they justify the CCBs for ANY team?

      1. @dieterrencken That’s because you got the concept of CCB wrong and McLaren wouldn’t have gotten a CCB payment for 2018.

      2. Many thanks @dieterrencken, easy to forget that Bernie’s obsession with doing deals in USD made it the official currency of F1.

        The CCB situation is indeed difficult to justify, here’s hoping that the teams who receive them see the greater good in dropping them. I’ll believe it when I see it though. I am sure it was once said of Ken Tyrrell that he’d rather own 100% of 10 than 10% of 200, I get the sense that many in the paddock hold that view.

        1. @geemac CCB is ranked by number of race wins over the previous four seasons

          Mercedes 63
          Ferrari 8
          Red Bull 8

          The CCB budget is 7.5% of the prize money with a minumum of $100 million and this gets divided among the three top ranked teams. Divided as follows: 37% for the top team, 33% for P2 and 30% for P3.

          Since 7.% of the prize money is less than $100, the pot will be $100 millon. Mercedes will get 37% of that which is $37 million. The remaining $63 million will be divided among Ferrari and Red Bull. Seeing how Ferrari and Red Bull ended up on the same number of wins they perhaps divide the money equally or perhaps one gets the P2 spot on some other criterium.

          Either way:
          – The CCB is a $100 million pot and not something like $145 as Dieter pretend.
          – Only 3 teams get paid from this pot
          – It’s based on number of race wins and has nothing to do with WCC classification as Dieter seems to keep implying

          1. @patrickl I’m curious, have you got a link to the source of your information?

          2. It’s from a prospectus when they were trying to float F1 on the Singapore stock exchange. ESPN reported some details in 2013:

            The CCB bit is explained half way through.

      3. It is claimed, and no way to verify right or wrong, but events that took place in Germany a few years ago involving BE may be a pointer, that BE negotiated with FERRARI to have that extra payment, and that some of it would find its way to ” you know who”. FERRARI of course being an Italian outfit where what may not be so kosher in other places is regarded as normal. It is claimed that the initial approach was made to MACLAREN (Ron Dennis) and he would not play ball, for legal reasons, partly the reason relations between RD and BE were not very warm.

  5. Quite a clear distinction between the F1 A and B teams in that last graph. Look forward to Liberty implementing their 2021 proposal

  6. Thomas Bennett (@felipemassadobrasil)
    1st August 2018, 9:18

    Apparently this FI thing has just got more controversial, with Andretti or the ex West Ham owners looking to buy it

  7. Wait, so column 2 means that teams don’t actually receive money for where they finished in 2018, but where they finished in 2017? What happens when a team dissolves, did Manor get the money for the 2016 season at the end of 2017?

    1. That was one of the smarts that Bernie built in. @hugh11
      To collect your hard earned prize money you have to compete the next year. And if you go into bankruptcy you cannot collect money at all.
      I’m sure Bernie would have preferred even to make it a pyramid scheme ;-)

  8. Yes, the money is paid according to current year projections, but per a sliding scale based on 2017 constructors’ championship classification. A team in administration (or wound-up) forfeits its benefits unless all other teams agree – the big bunfight over Force India at present.

  9. Unfortunately these are wrong:
    – As I already explained before, McLaren is not getting a CCB payout for 2018.
    – Mercedes was miles ahead of Ferrari and Red Bull in CCB ranking, so Mercedes will be the only team with the top payout and not something equal to Ferrari. Ferrari and Red Bull did rank equal over 2014-2017 so their payout would probably be the same, but obviously a lower step than Mercedes.
    – Mercedes get an extra performance bonus. They get a “domination” bonus for having two consecutive championships (with a very high number of race wins). This gets quoted as $25 or $30 million. Documents also indicate that this bonus has increased over the years.
    – Williams and McLaren would probably still be getting a heritage bonus and Red Bull get their bonus for killing off FOTA. I understand that it’s pretty much guesswork what these bonuses amount to, but the figures quoted here very much deviate from figures uncovered by other sites (for instance Ferrari getting $90 million instead of whatever it is here and Williams $10 million instead of 0).

    BTW Why on earth convert these dollar amounts to pounds?

    1. Interesting info @patrickl. Can you tell us where you got these numbers?

      @dieterrencken @keithcollantine Can you speak to why the above wasn’t included or why your figures are different?

      My impression is that the Ferrari LST was a thumbsuck anyway.

      1. @rpiian The CCB bit and 5% of prize money (or minimum of $ 62.2 million) Ferrari bonus you can find explained in a prospectus from when they were trying to float F1 on the Singapore stock exchange. ESPN (Christian Sylt) reported some details from this in 2013:

        The “domination” bonus is explained in several other Christan Sylt articles. For instance this one:

        In fairness I quoted the highest figure I could find for this bonus and since the article already claims it increased from $22 million to $25 million. I went with $30 million as is reportedly the current figure.

        Christian Sylt (Formula Money) is the only reporter who actually does seem know F1 finances and seems to be trustworthy on the figures he posts.

        Dieter unfortunately has a clear agenda to exaggerate the bonus amounts and no desire to get to the bottom of this. He simply keeps rehashing some old figures without understanding what CCB (among others) means. Therefore he just posts the same wrong numbers every year confusing old CCB payouts for historical payments which would in his mind still be paid today. Also every year repeating the same astonishment how McLaren get such a huge CCB bonus and how unfair that is. When in reality they haven’t gotten that bonus since 2015.

        He did fix the $10 million Williams omission though.

      2. @rpiian Here some more details. Where Christian Sylt was already correcting Dieters incorrect 2014 numbers:

        1. @Patrickl journos, like Sylt who write in their article: “My colleague Caroline Reid and I are the only journalists worldwide who specialise in covering the business …” and about someone with a different view “had an ulterior motive” don’t make me feel confident. They sound a bit like “the banker who has the only good investment opportunity“.
          So what if the figures are of with a margin of a few percents. I’m sure the figures are well hidden, and even the auditors won’t agree.
          What is a sure thing, is: B.E. got his wealth somewhere, and a lot of teams are like Dieter: bald in places where you don’t want to be bald. Teams like McLaren should be having trouble finding a spot to add a sponsor on their car, instead of having trouble to pay the paint in between…

      3. @rpiian The simple answer is that this is comparing information we have obtained to assumptions other person/s have made.

        To put it another way, we are not saying ‘our calculations lead us to believe the totals will be X’, we are saying, ‘information we have received tells us the totals will be X’.

  10. I’m sure Mercedes are not stuck for the odd million or two, but it would be interesting to know why they stand to receive less than last year. (2017 +/- column shows a 1.1m reduction on last year.)

    1. probably because the prize money pot is smaller, primarily due to higher expenses by Liberty.

  11. However unfair people might find Ferraris payment, after witnessing the torrent of red shirts descend on Budapest last weekend you have to appreciate Ferrari being in F1 brings in the fans, the money, and that benefits the other teams. An “unfair” slice of a big pie is still larger than a “fair” slice of a small pie for the other teams.

    I’m no Ferrari fan, but being pragmatic F1 needs Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1.

    1. I doubt it is more than the torrent of orange shirts in Budapest (or Austria, Germany or Spa). So maybe they should pay Max Verstappen bonus money as well for the fans he brings to the track :)

      1. The orange grand stand in Budapest made it look like there was more there than there actually was. Trust me there were more Ferrari fans.

      2. About the orange shirts: The Dutch are a bit “special”. They even went to Russia in their Orange shirts to support their absent team in the WM soccer… Some countries could learn from them. Donald French Smurfs probably thought they were his fans :)

      3. A lot were also in Red Bull colours which could explain the looks..

        1. And I’m sure some were walking around topless given the 33 degree weather.

          I guarantee there are more Ferrari fans than fans of Verstappen/Red Bull.

  12. Disgusting to look at, as it has been for many years.

    Little wonder we have multi-tier F1 and can’t even sustain 10 healthy teams. If Liberty fail on fixing this, they’ve failed on everything.

    1. If Liberty fail on fixing this, they’ve failed on everything.


      Couldn’t have said it any better

  13. I did some checking and Dieters figures are even more wrong than I first thought.

    If there is a $900 million pot of prize money, the column 1 payments would amount to $42.8 million per team (47.5% of the prize money divided over 10 teams equally). Column 2 would be the other $428 million divided over the teams based on WCC standings in 2017. This is an amount of between $81.2 million (19% of $428 million) for Mercedes and $17.1 million (4%) for Sauber. Lastly the $45 million bonus for Ferrari paid from the prize money.

    So that would give these payouts from the prize money:
    Mercedes 124,0
    Ferrari 111,2
    Red Bull 98,3
    Force India 89,8
    Williams 85,5
    Renault 81,2
    Toro Rosso 72,7
    Haas 68,4
    McLaren 64,1
    Sauber 59,9

    For a total of $900 million.

    Then there are bonuses paid outside of the prize money. Ferrari gets another $45 million from there. Mercedes gets $30 million (or $25 million) “domination” bonus for winning two championships back to back. Then there are the CCB payments ($37 million for Mercedes and probably $31.5 million for Ferrari and Red Bull) based on race wins over the previous four seasons.

    No one has an exact idea what the other bonuses are which McLaren, Williams and Red Bull have negotiated and these are not paid from the prize money budget anyway. So I will leave these out.

    So for actual prize money paid out from known structures we get (in millions of USD):
    Mercedes 191,0
    Ferrari 187,7
    Red Bull 129,8
    Force India 89,8
    Williams 85,5
    Renault 81,2
    Toro Rosso 72,7
    Haas 68,4
    McLaren 64,1
    Sauber 59,9

    Probably Red Bull, McLaren and Williams will receive some more bonus, but we won’t know exactly how much.

    So, I’d say this prize money isn’t that badly distributed compared to the performance. Of course Ferrari is disproportionally awarded, but it’s been like that for ages.

    Then the 2021 prize money structure which is supposed to “change everything” will not change a thing really. The CCB and domination bonuses will probably be dropped, but instead other bonuses will be paid out.

    From the Liberty announcenement:

    – The new revenue distribution criteria must be more balanced, based on meritocracy of the current performance and reward success for the teams and the Commercial Rights Holder.
    – F1s unique, historical franchise and value must and will still be recognised.
    – Revenue support to both cars and engine suppliers.

    ie They propose it will be “more balanced”, but historical team bonusses will remain and engine menufactures will start to receive a payout.

    From projected figures it looks like basically only the column 2 percentages will be adjusted slightly. Other than that, bonuses will still be paid outside of the prize money structure to the top teams and barely a thing will change.

    So the “more balanced” bit comes out as that the top performing team will get 14% instead of 19% for actually doing their best to win the championship. While the bottom feeders get 6% instead of the 4% they receive now for coming in dead last.

    1. @patrickl: I am not usually given to rudeness to readers, but I ask you not to display your utter ignorance so publicly. For reasons best known to you, you have taken to criticising virtually everything that is published under my name, and while I have no issue with informed debate, I object to having our readers so wilfully misled.

      For starters, since 2009 I have had in my possession the formula used to calculate team payouts, and this breakdown complies in every respect with that, save where currency factors influence the numbers. IF the numbers are wrong, THEN FOM has misled the teams about the level of income – which is HIGHLY unlikely given they have access to the audited statements.

      Second, the breakdown of these numbers are, down to the closest decimal, as per the document circulated to teams by FOM in March – save for currency factors – and were checked with two sources, both of whom received the original document directly from FOM.

      I am not even going to bother commenting on McLaren’s 2018 CCB payment, save to say that it provides further proof of your obvious ignorance when it comes to F1’s revenue structures. For your info, the values in the table are quoted in GBP, not US$.

      I don’t know, or care, where you get your supposed information from – although I glean from some of your comments that you applied provisions from the 1998-2007 Concorde Agreement that have since been superseded (twice over) – but request that you mislead readers elsewhere, and not on RaceFans. Thank you.

    2. @dieterrencken Indeed you don’t care where I got my information from. It’s very clear you have an agenda and to that end you’d rather keep on misleading the readers on how (unfair) the money is distributed rather than post truthfully.

      So if anyone is rude here then it’s you for keeping on rehashing the same incorrect numbers and misinterpreted rules when more objective journalists do get it right. You probably just don’t want to follow their numbers because it puts a much more fair and balanced number on what the teams get.

      For instance people like Christian Sylt (Formula Money) and even Joe Saward (but others too) do produce numbers in line with what is known about the current contracts. Instead of the numbers which you keep pushing out based on incorrect figures which you have available since 2009 (and which are indeed clearly outdated).

      The details on the CCB structure are well know for years (From the prospectus which ESPN reported in 2013):
      amount: “the greater of 7.5% of our Prize Fund EBITDA, and US$100 million (the ‘CCB Fund’).”
      ranking: “determined primarily on Events won in the four seasons prior to 2012.”
      steps: “the Team ranked first receiving 37% of the CCB Fund, the second Team receiving 33% of the CCB Fund and the third Team receiving 30% of the CCB Fund.”

      It’s crystal clear that McLaren are not eligible for a CCB payout.

      For your info, I already lamented the fact that your figures were posted in such a marginal currency.

      So get of your high horse and educate yourself. It’s already embarrassing enough that I have to correct such a huge list of errors in your figures.

      Even worse, that even after you have been exposed for being so wrong you still not can’t be bothered to look up what is correct and what not just shows that it’s you who purposefully misleads the readers here.

        1. @robbie Seriously? They guy is posting nothing but nonsense and you attack me?

          1. @patrickl Yup. I know who Dieter is. Who are you and where do you get off…? 🤦‍♂️

          2. Indeed you don’t care where I got my information from.

            Can you provide links to recently published up-to-date sources then, to enlighten the rest of us?

            Seriously? They guy is posting nothing but nonsense and you attack me?

            Dieter has been an respected accredited reporter on F1 for many years, publishing articles for many Motorsport magazines and websites. Therefore I suspect many of us are far more inclined to believe him than yourself.

            For your info, I already lamented the fact that your figures were posted in such a marginal currency.

            Comments like this undercut any credibility you were trying to garner.

          3. @ Dan Vary

            Already posted the ESPN link above, but here it is again and another link.

            The CCB bit and 5% of prize money (or minimum of $ 62.2 million) Ferrari bonus you can find explained in a prospectus from when they were trying to float F1 on the Singapore stock exchange. ESPN (Christian Sylt) reported some details from this in 2013:

            The “domination” bonus is explained in several other Christan Sylt articles. For instance this one:

            In fairness I quoted the highest figure I could find for this bonus and since the article already claims it increased from $22 million to $25 million. I went with $30 million as is reportedly the current figure.

            Christian Sylt (Formula Money) is the only reporter who actually does seem know F1 finances and seems to be trustworthy on the figures he posts.

            Dieter has been an respected accredited reporter on F1 for many years, publishing articles for many Motorsport magazines and websites. Therefore I suspect many of us are far more inclined to believe him than yourself.

            Anyone could Google what how the CCB bonus is calculated. I’m telling people not to take someones word for it, but look it up yourself.

            It’s not my word against Dieters’, it’s Christian Sylt’s. Christian is not constantly pushing an agenda and his numbers actually makes sense

            Comments like this undercut any credibility you were trying to garner.

            True, but I’m fed up being called “ignorant” and “misleading the readers” by someone who is so clearly and utterly wrong for the last few weeks.

          4. @ Dan Vary Here some more details. Where Christian Sylt was already correcting Dieters incorrect 2014 numbers:


          5. @robbie @ dan vary
            I have to say I’m disappointed at your attitude. @patrickl is stirring up a – potentially interesting – controversy, yet all you can think of is discrediting him based on his being a no-name, while Dieter is a well-known and reputable F1 journo?
            I know this way of thinking is rather comfortable and, in this case, aided by the fact that @patrickl isn’t one of the most personable commenters to grace this site’s comment sections. Sorry mate, your manners are terrible. But I strongly feel this is a symptom of a gigantic societal problem. Too many debates are useless because 80% of the participants choose the easy way by picking a side based on little more than their impression of a prominent participant’s standing, allowing that participant to think for them and shape their opinion. In this tribalist debate structure, who comes before what, i.e. facts become secondary and increasingly irrelevant.
            My position in this is that looking at a participant’s reputation can be useful as a first heuristic to determine whether an opinion is worthy of being taken into cosideration or not. I would never ignore anything @dieterrencken says on any topic that belongs to his area of expertise, even if I instinctively take issue with it, whereas I tend to spare myself the headache of trying to make sense of an unknown or notoriously incoherent commenter’s interjections.
            But we mustn’t stop there. The next step has to be epistemological. We need to ask ourselves what we can know, and then apply that same question to others as well. What can Dieter know, what can Patrickl know? Is it plausible that Dieter has insight into publicly unavailable documents, or is he basing his calculations on information everyone could theoretically access, and this article consists, in other words, in him connecting the dots for us? If so, this would level the playing field between him and Patrickl, and the argument to authority, in addition to being a highly problematic concept in and of itself, would lose its justification. For all we know, Patrickl might be just as competent at gathering the available information, deducting the relevant calculation steps and doing the math.
            Transparency is what we need. Sources are what we need. What we don’t need, are ad hominem attacks (from either side) or arguments to authority.
            It would be great if both sides could reveal how exactly they’ve reached their conclusions, and the sources they’ve consulted. In Dieter’s case, this might be a bit complicated due to the ‘off the record’ nature of many a background talk that offers valuable information nevertheless. But I do think introducing a short ‘Sources’ section to these factual articles would be a valuable addition and instrumental in countering the trend towards tribalism. Even if one of the sources remains unspecific, such as ‘background talks with members of several teams’, this would be a valuable piece of epistemological information. What members, what teams, in what context, what reasons could they have to misrepresent or omit some facts – those would be the most interesting aspects by far, but sadly also the ones we’ll only get to know in the case of prominent figures who directly address the public.

            Long story short: Sources would be a great addition to articles such as this one and might help guide the comments sections from personal to factual disagreements.

          6. Heh nase , thanks I guess.

            I know I have little patience with people who don’t listen to facts/reason. I give people two tries before I turn sour on them though. Dieter so far has had more than a dozen chance to show he’s worth his mettle.

            Either way, if Dieter claims the CCB is based on other criteria that what was outlined in the F1 prospectus, then he should at least explain what his take on it is. Instead of simply repeating the same CCB bonus which McLaren rightfully got for 2014 as a CCB bonus for 2018. When by all accounts they would not have gotten a CCB bonus since 2015 at all.

          7. @nase I have no reason to think @dieterrencken has some agenda, nor that there is some big controversy going on here, and if @patrickl wants to carry that paranoia with him then so be it. That just makes me even more suspicious of his agenda. I don’t know why one journalist named Sylt would have any more accurate info than Dieter, and certainly referencing a 2015 article is less current than this article posted today by Dieter. That @patrickl has chosen that only Sylt’s take on things is the accurate one is something he’ll have to speak on. Why he would hang around here on a blog that allegedly has an agenda is beyond me. To be the truth police? Because only he knows the truth or who speaks it? And he must educate us? Please.

            @patrickl Professional googler does not make you accredited at anything, so when you have some accreditation and a F1 blog of your own, perhaps you’ll garner a following and have some people believe you. Until then…🤦‍♂️

          8. So furthermore, I thought I would check out Sylt and landed on his Formula Money Twitter account. Three entries down here’s what I found, not regarding today’s article by Dieter but regarding his article from July 26 on Force India and Perez.

            “Just doing some research for my up and coming Force India feature and this gem of a headline from @racefansdotnet caught my eye. You can always bank on Dieter to be on the money…”

            Ya I think I’m good trusting @dieterrencken too.

          9. @robbie Well I’m trying to do something about this agenda yes.

            Keith is writing great articles. Especially when he’s writing on his own. His race analysis of Hungary was a prime example of how something like should be written. I like reading those. Plus the lap time/pit stop data article.

            And yes I couldn’t care less for the articles Dieter is in on. I don’t need to know what some guy had for breakfast or how long it took to drive somewhere. That article on how the 2019 front wing was going to be an epic fail was itself mostly a fail. The article with a list of repetitive quotes from Perez basically saying the same three things over and over was simply embarrassing.

            Still I can just skip those, but when I see someone base an argument on incorrect and/or falsified “facts” then I have the urge to correct that yes. Just like I always do fact check whatever I post myself. Unlike most people here unfortunately and now even some of the writer don’t seem to care about writing factually correct articles. That’s just poor form.

            This is also not just about Sylt, but he does seems to be the one who always comes up with these numbers first and mostly correct. Plus he actually explains how he arrives at his numbers and he does not add a ton of opinion to a simple article about a table with numbers.

            That article from 2015 shows where Dieter got corrected on his amounts. Yet he still uses the exact same (performance based) bonus amounts for some teams today!

            For instance McLaren indeed would have received a $33 million CCB bonus for 2014. Yet somehow Dieter keeps insisting McLaren still get this bonus and then cries out that it’s so ridiculous that they still get this bonus. When it’s really just him copy pasting the wrong bonus amounts over and over.

          10. YellowSubmarine
            2nd August 2018, 3:33

            It’s you posting nonsense.
            Why don’t you grow up and find somewhere else to occupy your idle time?
            You’re stalking @dieterrencken all over and writing BS on his every article.
            Whatever axe you’ve got to grind, you shouldn’t grind it on here.
            Move on.

          11. Someone should, You write like you have a grudge. What is it?

      1. @patrickl, whilst it is the case that some of the other sources that you cite, such as Joe Saward, have provided their own projections of revenues to the teams, in some instances their projections are rather different to yours and would seem to suggest an even more top heavy distribution.

        For example, in his projections for 2017, Joe Saward suggested that the teams had a prize fund then of $900 million, but suggested that Ferrari received over $218 million – figures which would seem to suggest that Ferrari were earning around $30 million more than your projections would suggest. Similarly, the breakdown he produced also suggested that Red Bull were earning significantly more than your projections would suggest (over $15 million more).

        That does therefore create a discrepancy between the sources that you cite and the figures which you have produced, and in particular the claims with regards to Ferrari’s payments (whilst your figures would suggest that Mercedes is paid slightly more, those of some of your sources would put Ferrari as being paid quite significantly more).

        As an aside, I would have thought that there was indeed a logic in Dieter presenting figures in GBP given that the majority of the teams, being domiciled in the UK and filing their financial accounts in the UK, would therefore be booking any revenue received from FOM in GBP rather than USD. In fact, I think that the only team which would book their accounts in USD might be Haas – teams such as Williams, Red Bull or McLaren register their turnover in GBP, whilst outfits like Ferrari register their turnover in EUR instead.

        Speaking of which, I am a little surprised that you have not taken the initiative of trying to compare the figures which you are projecting for revenues with the turnover figures which the teams file in their financial accounts for the year, and then comparing it with the known value of sponsorship deals to check whether the values you are suggesting are consistent with the reported financial results.

        I would also have to say that Christian Sylt has also faced accusations that he in turn has also been biased in his reporting. In particular, some other reporters – including some of those that you cite – as well as a great number of fans have suggested that Sylt has been too friendly towards FOM in the past, and in particular being a bit too close to Bernie.

        As a result, there have been some who have suggested that Sylt may have been a bit selective with exactly what facts he presented in order to present FOM in a more favourable light – not necessarily that he was lying, but a more subtle case of not presenting all of the facts in his reports. Whilst, therefore, you raise the accusation against Dieter that he is being biased in his reporting, at the same time some of the sources that you cite have also faced criticism of their reporting and have been accused of being biased in the other direction.

        I do not wish to be seen as overly critical – rather, it is a case of saying that, whilst I am not inclined to dismiss your argument out of hand entirely, at the same time I feel that there are areas where there are enough inconsistencies with some of your sources that I’m also not fully convinced either.

  14. For all whiners about F1 being unfair; the fact is half of revenue and tickets are generated by Ferrari through their fans and merchandising. Whether you’re a fan or not doesn’t matter.
    The truth is if Ferrari pull out, you’ll see the difference in attendance from the first year itself.
    No sport in their right mind would pay someone unless they know this fact.
    You can go ahead and complain all you want. Makes no difference.
    Ferrari is F1

  15. My understanding is that Renault also gets a heritage bonus when they entered the sport as a constructor in 2015. In exchange they agreed to stay in F1 beyond the current Concorde Agreement and supply Red Bull Racing with engines until the end of the Agreement, if necessary.

    1. @silfen, Renault qualify for bonuses should they win constructors championship(s). As per my note above to @patrickl, these numbers were taken straight from FOM’s calculations save for currency adjustments, and there is no special provision for Renault. In any event, the Renault engine issue was resolved by the FIA’s regulations that engine suppliers can be called upon to supply team in need. That was introduced because of the original split between them, which potentially left Red Bull without engines.

      Had that clause existed as you suggest, there would have been no reason for the regulation.

      1. @dieterrencken, Thank you for the clarification. These were stories I read when Renault was negotiating to come back as a constructor.

    2. @silfen You are correct. Christian Sylt reported that Renault was lured in with a performance bonus. Other teams have a similar provision though.

      Ecclestone agreed to this thinking no one would ever achieve this bonus, but then Mercedes did.

      one further team has the right to receive double world champion bonus payment, should they qualify by winning back-to-back constructors’ world championships, and in the course of doing so, win 22 races or more.

      (for Mercedes the article claims 25 race wins were required)

      1. Performane bonuses are not the historical payments, like other teams have, I am talking about.

        And to be honest, I stopped a long time ago trusting everything Sylt writes.

  16. Dieter can you do an article on the NAscar or Indycar payments?

    1. I could, but it would be too time-consuming given that I would need to find trustworthy sources willing to confide in me, and NASCAR and Indycar are not my areas of expertise.

  17. That 52.4m million payment to Ferrari is a disgrace, also, how comes ferrari got more than Mercedes in column 2? which is based on team standings. The whole process is corrupt.

  18. Not sure how close to reality this numbers are, I’m sure you believe they are as close as they could be.

    Ferrari certainly adds more value to F1 than these 26m extra they get, compared to Mercedes and Red Bull. Some people will only be happy when Ferrari leaves, but it might be a little hard to understand why there is a lot less money to split too.

  19. The problem isn’t only how the pot is divided, it is also when the teams are paid.

    OK, it will take time to calculate all the income, so the big money would need to come later. However, there should be some money to be shared whole time, which would help the cash flow of the teams. Let’s say each team would recieve 100 000 dollars for each championship point. A race win would therefore be 2.5 million and 1-2 4.3 million.

    I use Force India as an example as they are in deep financial difficulties right now. They would have recieved 18.7 million throughout last year, which would help them with instant expenses. And even with this current and bad prize money system, the sum already been paid would be then reduced from the total payments when they are paid.

    At best, imagine getting prize money on Monday a week after the race. So teams would have got Hockenheim prize money two days ago and Hungaroring money would be paid to the teams on August 6th.

    1. @bleu Teams get the money in nine monthly payments and a final correction/payment when the actual revenue for the season is known in March of the following year. What is wrong with that?

      1. @patrickl How teams have been asking early payments just gave me wrong impression on how the situation is .

        1. @bleu Ah yeah, sometimes they run out of money and want it sooner. Hmm not sure what is fair there though. I can imagine other teams wouldn’t want to pay a party that might go under money upfront.

  20. This is why I cannot stand, and refuse to support, Ferrari.

    Let’s face it, these bonus payments for ‘long standing teams’ etc came about as sweeteners to keep a small man with a big head at the top of a corrupt system.

  21. Liberty are being weak. They should prop the smaller teams up until 2020… If it all goes belly up before then with Williams, FI dropping out and McLaren going to Indy/FE, they will have no one to blame really…

    3-4 years is a long time and it’s been said time and time again how unsustainable this model is and they all know it. Resting on their laurels will get them no where. To say that they can’t do anything at all until 2020 is a joke.

    1. So Liberty should support overspending teams? If you give 5 dollars to a addicted gambler, you can bet he’ll consume six to beat the system, and another two to recover the loss… What Liberty should do, is make sure teams get from and to each GP, and provide the needed “catering and housing”. And make sure the global coverage is 100% free to air on every medium available. Teams wouldn’t be in trouble to find sponsorship, if the F1-circus can’t be ignored wherever and wherever it hits the soil. At this moment you need to be wealthy or a real fan to see an F1 race live.
      Try to get your mid-level team some sponsors today, they’ll all tell you the ROI is too damned low, better to invest in Soccer/football or cycling (if you’re Belgian)

  22. @dieterrencken Thanks for this analysis. It’s always very interesting to read about how the sport is structured.

    Also please remember: Don’t feed the trolls.


    1. Sometimes you gotta watch the birds fly for the breadcrumbs, it can be quite mesmerising…

  23. Everyone is attacking Ferrari but how about McLaren? They are almost at the bottom of the field since 2015 and they still get the 4th biggest amount.

    1. I agree 100%. Liberty needs Ferrari participation, they’re worth every penny. McLaren could go away tomorrow (Williams, too) and what would it matter?

      1. Liberty needs Ferrari participation, they’re worth every penny.

        Maybe they do, but Ferrari also needs F1. I doubt that they would ever walk away from it, given the prestige it brings their cars (whether they are doing well or not). I would certainly not say that they are “worth every penny”, given that Liberty could probably get the same result (Ferrari participation in F1 and all the associate fans and revenue) without paying them an extra £80m just for competing (more than any but the top 3 teams get in total).

        Consider this. You can buy a car for £30k, or you can buy the exact same car for £50k. Would you say that paying £50k for it is “worth every penny”?

      2. Oh, I also disagree with all of the other teams getting those ridiculous bonus payments, but still think Ferrari’s is beyond outrageous!

  24. Regardless of anyone’s support for a given team this income structure is clearly unfair, outdated and needs reform.

    I am all for teams receiving some sort of recompense for their time taking part in the sport, their historic performances or their number of constructors titles, etc. This current distribution though is clearly totally skewed towards the big teams and in particular Ferrari. I am not a Ferrari hater but that $52.4 payment definitely needs to be reduced. Maybe Liberty could agree to it being removed over a period if time e.g. 5 years, which might be offset by additional performance/achievement benefits.

    I think Ferrari have played such a major part in F1 over the years that it impossible to imagine them not being part of it. I think F1 would suffer without them, in the short/medium term. However, their inclusion should not be at any price. The current price looks a bit high to me.

    It is no wonder that it is so difficult to encourage new teams into the sport when the purely financial rewards seem so perversely distributed. I really hope Liberty have the stomach to reform this despite the obvious opposition they will encounter from the vested interests.

    1. I realise now it is £52.4 for Ferrari. Even worse!

      1. @phil-f1-21, Bonus’ for backstabbing FOTA aside, we should all be wishing for a greater share of revenue for every team, not less.

    2. @phil-f1-21 Indeed paying Ferrari $90 million just because they are Ferrari is a bit much, but apparently Ferrari has a budget of $570 million as reported in their yearly figures. Mercedes and Red Bull also have budgets like that (Red Bull without the engine part of the budget absorbing about $130 million annually, but still)

      So in that light it also makes sense they get a bigger share of the money in return. Face it, people go to see an F1 race mostly to see teams like Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull compete for the wins. Not many will go through all that trouble to root for say Sauber or Williams to come home 2 laps down.

      In that light I also think the CCB bonuses make sense. The CCB bonus makes sure these big teams still get some extra money if they have a bit of an off season in between. Yet they still have to perform for it, because to be eligible they need to win races preferably in every season.


      The problem with this whole discussion is that most of the bonuses are not part of the prize money. The bonus payments have never been made to the detriment of the regular prize money distribution. Half of the F1 revenue gets divided over all the teams (only Ferrari gets 5% extra out of this fund).

      The CCB bonus, backstabbing bonuses, historical whatever bonuses, back to back “domination” bonuses have all been paid outside of the prize money. The smaller teams haven’t received a penny less because of those.

      So if these bonuses are abandoned then it’s more likely that Liberty will keep that money rather than that they will pay it out to all the teams.

      Besides, according to Liberty media’s plans they will still be paying out historical bonuses and will start paying engine manufacturers $10 million each.

      In the end I’m sure the net difference for the smaller teams will not be as big as people like to assume.

  25. BlackJackFan
    2nd August 2018, 2:47

    I bet I’m not the only one who felt obliged to spin through the ‘troll’ comments on this particular thread. My apologies to those of you who probably subsequently posted more interesting and far less long-winded comments – I was simply unable to wade through the dross to find them.
    More moderation needed, maybe…?

  26. I read in another article that some teams are blocking the rescue of Force India so they could benefit from the prize money. While this seems to be in line with the ruthless nature of F1, I find it very disturbing, inhumane and unsporting that something like this should happen. While I support and enjoy the teams pushing each other on the development and finding grey areas to stretch the rules, I feel that deliberately torpedoing another team into the ground so you can loot the cash is anarchy.

  27. Red Bull, Mercedes and Williams receive further bonus payments. The sport is a farce, utter joke. Hahaha

Comments are closed.