Nico Hulkenberg, Renault, Albert Park, 2019

Analysis: Why F1 is unlikely to attract new teams soon

2019 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

The question of whether Formula 1 could attract new entrants and expand its current 10-team, 20-car grid is back on the agenda.

During the Geneva Motor Show two weeks ago FIA president Jean Todt said “it would be better to have 12 teams” but admitted the current team principals would not “happy about that because of course it would change [the] financial distribution.”

There, in a single sentence, lies the primary conundrum. The governing body and F1’s commercial rights holder Liberty Media say they would welcome more teams, potentially taking the number to 12, while the existing teams are pushing back as expected, unwilling to see their revenues cut by up to 20 per cent, and hence their plea for the regulators to ensure 10 sustainable teams.

Who, though, is calling for sustainability? Predominantly the very teams who have no issues with creaming tens of millions off the top in annual bonuses. Unsaid is that, dependent upon the quality of any newcomers, they realise that two of their number could end up a slot or even two further back, with Red Bull Racing boss Christian Horner going a step further by rather off-handedly suggesting more teams would merely mean “more cars to lap.”

However, let’s be blunt as he is: the teams have zero say over the quality or quantity of the grid. That is an FIA decision, though one taken in discussion with Liberty, both of whom need to protect their ‘product’. The best case for the FIA and Liberty’s need to attract new teams is made by the periodic threats by some of F1’s major teams to exit F1 if they don’t like the direction the sport will take from 2021.

Let us assume that Ferrari, Mercedes and both Red Bull-owned teams walk at the end of 2020; consider the bind Liberty would find itself in with 12-car grids. Given that the contractual minimum grid level is 16 cars, the sport would require at least two additional teams, leaving the F1-exiteers with two choices: commit or walk. It then becomes a matter of put up or shut up – either way F1 is adequately covered.

Esteban Gutierrez, Haas, Melbourne, 2016
F1’s only new entrant of the last nine years is Haas
There are other considerations, too. F1 circuits are licensed for up to 24 cars. And rejecting applications from prospects who meet F1’s criteria for new teams could result in hefty legal action and accusations of monopolistic action. Consider the whopping $1.5bn fine levied this week by the EU Commission against Google over anti-trust matters, and Liberty has over a billion reasons to be very wary.

So how could F1 attract new teams? Presently, prospective team owners wishing to join the F1 grid have three options: to buy an existing team; do a ‘Haas’ by exploiting the (current) listed parts regulations and become a satellite operation of a major team; or start from the ground up.

However, none of the three options tick all FIA/Liberty boxes: the first does address the problem of grid size; the second is predicated upon prospects cutting deals with willing and able mothership as per Ferrari/Haas, but the only teams able to supply the full array of non-listed parts are Ferrari and Mercedes, and their commitment is potentially in doubt; while the final option was last tried by four teams in 2010, and none of them are still on the grid.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

A start-up, whether a Haas facsimile or turn-key, would need to have access to at least $100m to set up the operation, then fund it for two years without the benefit of F1’s column one revenue, in turn requiring self-funding of at least $80m per year for the period, taking the figure to $280m. All this in the face of ongoing uncertainty over F1’s future regulations and revenue distribution.

Heikki Kovalainen, Jarno Trulli, Timo Glock, Singapore, 2010
None of F1’s ‘class of 2010’ are still on the grid
Are there genuine prospects out there? Formula 1 Management CEO Chase Carey claimed during the Australian Grand Prix weekend there is “real interest” from potential new entrants. But even if this is the case they are unlikely to commit until the regulations and revenue structures are in place, and attractive enough to investors to stump up the funding. That means parts standardisation, sustainable cost caps, and equitable revenue and governance structure – all red lines to major teams.

The only option is for FIA/Liberty to go all-out and woo manufacturer teams. But when they last attempted to attract them as engine suppliers it came to naught, with there being no discernible interest due to the start-up costs and lack of regulatory stability.

Manufacturers have become circumspect about F1. Toyota burnt through $3 billion in nine years to score no wins and just 13 podiums. Honda’s more recent struggles on the engine front will have done little to allay fears.

This is to say nothing of rising scepticism over the value of competing in non-electric motorsport. “Motorsport is dead unless it’s electrified,” Peugeot CEO Jean-Philippe Imparato told Autocar this week when asked about the possibility of his brand returning to Le Mans. “Asking €200 million for a future motorsport programme is completely mad.”

Furthermore, any incoming manufacturer would need to supply engines to independents, who may well beat them under any cost cap regulations. As far as adding new teams is concerned, F1 finds itself in a ‘catch 22’ situation.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2019 F1 season

Browse all 2019 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...

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

Posted on Categories 2019 F1 season articlesTags , , , , ,

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

  • 40 comments on “Analysis: Why F1 is unlikely to attract new teams soon”

    1. Great conundrum, @dieterrencken, as expected from the engineered insanity of F1.

      Enlightened self-interest is required in F1, but if it did, would it be considered a weakness to be exploited?

      The health of the sport depends on a balance between a strong field of fairly compensated competitors. Rule makers that promote a stable technical platform to design for and promoters (Liberty) who fairly divide the revenue.

      As their function is to promote F1 and book venues, a fair share of F1 profits to Liberty would be 15-20%. With their Bernie debt load, Liberty can’t afford to be fair. While an ideal budget cap might lower the cost per team, with the current revenue split, it wouldn’t cover even a $150M annual team spend for 10 teams, never mind a dozen.

      Hence, F1 must a marketing platform for the teams. Either by 3rd party sponsorship or as part of a direct manufacturer marketing budget. Or both.

      In its current state, the only way I envision a new team entering F1 is by reason of financial insanity.

      Or by spreading the risk across millions of petrolheads. We (and a couple million of our friends) could fund a RaceFans F1 team. We would follow the Haas model, but to minimize dependence on a single supplier, we purchase the non-listed parts from all of the big 3.

      It would be known as the Ferrcedes Bull model. RaceFans Ferrcedes Bull F1 Crowd Funding Largess Racing would have the largest single fanbase with the best catering and hospitality in the paddock. At least that’s how it would be reported on RaceFans.

      ;-)

      1. @jimmi-cynic

        Or by spreading the risk across millions of petrolheads. We (and a couple million of our friends) could fund a RaceFans F1 team. We would follow the Haas model, but to minimize dependence on a single supplier, we purchase the non-listed parts from all of the big 3.

        Yep I reckon 2-300 bucks each a yr why not I’m in :)

      2. All team decisions to be decided by Internet polls? ;-)

        1. José Lopes da Silva
          22nd March 2019, 18:04

          I vote Ocon and Ericsson as drivers, as far as Ericsson can bring the same money as before.

          1. We’ll have, @zapski, setup a poll.

            Those are good choices, but we may still need Chris Hemsworth and Daniel Brühl as brand ambassadors/test drivers.

    2. I would think the best way of getting a couple of new teams into the sport would be with the change of engine regs so everyone has to start from scratch. That would mean that the new players would have to sign up and be privi to the new regs at the same time as the current players. So as to give them the same amount of development time.
      Two possible ‘new comers’ would be Porsche and VW reviving the Bugatti name. Obviously these two have enough cash and expertise to build a competitive race car. And in conjunction with some other partners to share costs and glory might make a go of it.
      Personally I think that would be fantastic, but is it realistic am I just being fanciful. There are issues that need to be addressed in the car industry as a whole. The future of the ICE is one of them.

        1. @dieterrencken Yes I read that article. I don’t really take much notice of what Horner says. At the time Porsche where undecided, any rumours of them being interested in 2021 F1?

          1. No, which is why the engine regulations were largely retained and not massively changed.

            1. This is the problem. Why did FIA had the say about what F1 should be when FOM were the one that have to deal with manufactures?

              Why did they believed the MGUK need to stay just because a Porsche when they haven’t got a clear commitment from Mercedes & Ferrari? F1 need to grow a beard.

            2. @ruliemaulana Because due to a legal settlement of a turn-of-the-century anti-competition case, commercial and sporting elements of motorsport have to be separated. FOM isn’t allowed to decide regulations, FIA isn’t allowed to woo manufacuturers directly.

    3. Quality over quantity.

      1. @jerejj – Maybe, but there is a lack of quality currently. So where does that leave the sport?

        More generally and not to you specifically:
        If it were a competitive field of 10 teams, or even 8 or 9 competitive teams, it would be amazing race to race. But on any given weekend we have between 1 and 2.5 competitive teams—Merc, usually Ferrari, and sometimes RBR.

        I understand why Merc, Ferrari, and RBR want to keep the status quo and keep unlimited budgets and historical payments and drastically unfair advantages. But how long will billionaires throw away money to be 6th or 9th? To me this smacks of legacy controlling companies holding onto the past for too long just to try to maintain power, and end up far worse off. Example: music industry. Music companies fought the move to digital music (mp3s, etc) because they didn’t want to reduce their revenue stream from physical copies. So Apple moved into the gap left and took even more revenue away.

        Here, the big players could decide to lessen their grip on the sport, maybe some wins will go to someone else. Maybe every title won’t be Merc’s. Maybe every race won’t be the same 3-4 drivers fighting for the win. But it would be more interesting, could bring in more eyes, raise ad revenue, and maybe buoy the sport rather than continuing to let it dwindle. The world is moving faster than F1 is willing to move, and it will bite them if they don’t realize it. Baby steps every 3-5 years is too slow a pace, imo.

    4. It is sad that, with the sport being what it is these days, it is no longer viable for successful teams in the junior formulae to come in to F1. The likes of Prema, ART, Carlin and DAMS (oh if only) would be great additions to the grid. Without them we are pinning our hopes on manufacturers joining the party, when we know that they are all too willing to drop the sport when their accountants say it is no longer worthwhile.

      1. The reason why we have no teams working their way to F1 is mainly down to spec junior series, which means they teams you mentioned don’t build up their infrastructures systematically, as did Minardi, Jordan, Stewart and Sauber. With no development permitted and only standard parts usage, F2/3 teams don’t even need a carbon fibre shop..

        1. With no development permitted and only standard parts usage, F2/3 teams don’t even need a carbon fibre shop

          Very interesting, I never thought of it that way – the absence of a factory manufacturing operation in the lower specs, and the learning and experience that comes with it.

        2. @dieterrencken – Would you also say some of the issue is that the jump from lower formulae to F1 is too big a leap now? Both in terms of budgets and tech, like aero and power units? Or is it more down to what you said, lack of in-house production?

          Great piece, btw.

          1. It’s many factors, but the main one is a lack of infrastructure that costs a fortune to install, and the regs demand that teams build their own cars. There are only so many Dallaras and wind tunnels about.

            Of course the leap from F2 to F1 is massive, but. It so much ito people – C Horner and F Vasseur made the jump. It’s the facilities mainly

            1. * but not so much in terms of people…

            2. Thanks for the insight, Dieter!

          2. That’s certainly a concern. Imagine spending hundreds of millions a year to end up last – without even a whiff of a podium. Teams like Ferrari are so far ahead with so many years experience, that you’ll eternally be playing catch-up unless you spend big money to hire the best minds like Mercedes and Red Bull did (not implying that people working in other teams are less bright).

            Meanwhile, there’s series like IMSA and the WEC which give other, lower rung teams, a fighting chance, even if the organizers need to resort to things like “Balance of Performance” to keep the competition somewhat level. As a marketer, I would consider that to give me a better RoAS, perceptions among motorsport snobs not included. As an engineer, I’d believe that to be a sufficient challenge in engineering, as the authorities would literally Nerf my vehicle if it performs too well – I would either need to figure a way to circumvent the BoP, or figure out a way to avoid BoP altogether, while developing my road-relevant product. Do the people you’re selling your Acura NSX to really care that the GTD/GT3 being raced in the IMSA series and Super GT share only their appearance with the car they drive on the road? As long as they can claim that it raced in Daytona, Sebring, Watkins Glen, Laguna SEca, Fuji, Suzuka and Motegi, they probably don’t give a damn.

            1. @sundark, the problem is that, over time, the “Balance of Performance” system in the WEC has become less effective at keeping costs down.

              In the LMP1 class, the budgets of Audi and Porsche were running over the €100 million mark as both sides effectively sought to find ways to gain performance and get round the “Balance of Performance” system.

              By the time that Porsche and Audi pulled out, the BoP regulations were effectively useless at keeping costs down, which is why the ACO were bringing in increasingly strict development restrictions (locking down aero development by only allowing one sprint and one low drag aero package, forcing teams to homologate a single chassis design, strict engine homologation rules and so forth) in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to try and bring down costs.

              Cost inflation has also become an issue in the GT classes, albeit not quite as extreme as in the LMP1 class – the cost of new GTE and GTAm cars has been progressively rising over the past few years though. There are also concerns that the WEC might start losing some manufacturers from the GT class, as both BMW and Ford are expected to axe their programmes in the next year or so.

              The other issue is that the regulators have routinely had major problems when trying to balance the performance of a new car. When Ford first entered, a lot of people suspected that there was some rather blatant cheating of the BoP regulations to ensure that they would comfortably win at Le Mans, and the balance of their performance against the rest of the grid was a sore point of contention throughout the season.

              At the other extreme, you have the experience BMW have had with the M8 GTE car, where they have often complained about the BoP system being overly harsh on them because they are a new entrant, and therefore there is basically no benchmark against which the measure their car.

              The BoP system does have difficulty in dealing with new cars, because so little is known about their ultimate performance – so, often, it has resulted in new cars being outliers in terms of pace, either being overly dominant or overly slow.

            2. Also, since the adoption of auto-BoP, there seem to have been more complaints about BoP from practically every quarter – and they’ve been getting worse with time, rather than being alleviated as often happened in previous BoP cycles.

      2. @geemac The amount of messing around with junior series of late means that junior teams often have trouble just being junior teams, never mind expanding elsewhere. (Carlin’s Indycar expansion is a welcome exception to this difficulty).

    5. When is this fascination with electric cars going to wane off?! Battery operated cars (or race cars) most definitely are not the future, someone should realize that. People talk about environment, but they need to look at how most electricity is produced. Electricity demands are and will be increasing globally, so why waste it on charging our cars? Even bigger issue is battery disposal, which is an environmental nightmare by any measure. Efficient combustion engines still have a long future.

      1. I love ICE and I won’t be using an electric car anytime soon but electric cars unfortunately are the future.

        They are way more efficient in terms of harnessing energy compared to ICE in terms of how much energy is wasted instead of being turned into kineric energy to move the vehicle. Even if we move all fossil fuel used in cars to powerplants, it would be better due to better effiency.

        The technology isn’t perfect yet, especially in regards to battery degradation but its getting there. There are also a lot of infrastructure investments needed for a more powerful grid.

        1. Electric power is great for general transportation where it makes sense, but so far it doesn’t seem to translate well to mainstream motorsport. Of course I’d say the same thing about F1’s ‘hybrid’ formula, but the big thing Formula E has going for it is that it is sufficiently new and different that it gets some attention outside of the traditional motorsports press (e.g. tech, eco, science media) due to that fact, which is of course good news for Formula E.

          Maybe it’s a generational thing and non-ICE motorsports will appeal to people that don’t have their roots dug deeply into traditional motorsports, but at this point I hold very little hope that Liberty is capable of pulling a rabbit out of the F1 hat in 2021 that builds and renews interest in F1 as we know it. Whether they were lucky or good is irrelevant at this point, but it seems that CVC realized that ‘Peak F1’ had been achieved, saw the writing on the wall and cashed out to Liberty at just the right time.

          Maybe I’ve become an old codger living in the past, but I was left with a rather unpleasant sense of ‘hybrid-era’ deja vu after watching the Australian GP last weekend. And while I hope to be pleasantly surprised as this season progresses, I didn’t bother watching the last two or three races of last season and I expect that my interest will wane even earlier this season. Whatever happens, at least we’ll have our memories!

      2. Battery-operated cars may not seem to be the future, but the future isn’t ICE – the bans of ICE engines in many cities and countries due to start next decade see to that for the rich, and the unaffordability of cars to the young see to that for the working classes (especially in towns).

        Unless someone comes up with a future that involves neither ICE nor battery power and (not or, and) makes it affordable enough to race, electric batteries are where the manufacturers are going to be.

    6. The manufacturers see their future as selling electrified cars, so they are more enthusiastic with electrified motorsport that can promote their upcoming road cars. However F1 as a motorsport needs to entertain fans. No entertainment = no fans. And screaming naturally aspirated V10s provide far more entertainment to fans than hybrid turbo V6s. I say forget about the manufacturers and just have a full grid of independent teams compete with lower cost, lower tech but still very fast F1 cars powered by V10s. I think there will not be a lack of fans. With enough fans watching, the independent teams should be able to get enough sponsorships to fund their operations.

    7. First of all, good article as always! I’m not a usual poster but a usual reader! I started watching F1 very young with a big break in between 2009 and 2017, when Brawn GP was able to beat the top teams, with very limited resources! Sure they had a baseline to start with, but were unable to develop it further… that said I think Liberty, the FIA and the teams are complicating what on my view is simple enough to sort out – if they want to…

      Budget caps, forget about them, it’s easier to limit the size of the teams to, say, 500 people (550 if you make your own engines) than to control how much the teams are spending – and no I don’t and never though that F1 was about saving jobs, it always was about getting the best people to build and drive the fastest car you can put together without crashing or breaking!

      F1 teams could agree on a base line prize coupled with performance bonuses! Historic bonuses could be awarded, but they could be no more than 15% of the total prize of that team! Of the total revenues they should be split 45/45 between teams and Liberty, and the remaining 10% could be use to whatever both of them would agree on – charity, R&D, to keep free to air gp transmitions, whatever. To new teams prizes would be paid at the end of their first year, after all they are also part of the show!

      On the technical side, to me different and efficient concepts are what F1 was and is all about – front vs rear engines, turbo vs atmospheric engines… nowadays F1 is very restrict on the advancement of new concepts, with teams winning on the account of loopholes in the (overwhelming) regulations. FIA would do better to limit the size of the cars to road relevant dimensions in terms of lenght and width, say 4,5 meters by 2 meters, 15 to 18 inch wheels, simplify aero and allow the teams to do whatever they wanted inside their cars. Standart parts, sure: engine and gearbox couplings, to allow teams to have an easy transition should they change their suppliers. Listed parts could be used but not to the extent of keeping one or more teams dependent on their suppliers (Haas, Sauber, RP, STR) – I actually agree with Abiteboul when he said it’s not fair for a team to spend 300 million on R&D and then get beat by someone that with a fraction of that purchases parts that were originally developed for 400 or 500 million by the OEM’s.

      For the PU’s teams would be allowed to use what would work best for their concepts, be it a hybrid V6, inline 6, V4, V6, boxer engine, without limits except on a few things – no more than 6 cilinders for the ICE, the base would have to come from a design already in use with road cars, and the rest would be handled a bit like the limits the ACO put on different LMP classes! No power limits and the teams could decide how to best manage the power during the race. 5 engines per year would be a reasonable number.

      I would also bring back unlimited testing on specific and non-championship tracks (could be former GP tracks, i.e. Imola or Estoril) which would also allow whoever supplies tires to F1 as a whole could test them and develop them further, and limit the use of simulators, wind tunnels (could be with 100% scale models) and CFD programs.

      Tracks well… for another time. Thank you!

      1. @pedro80r, how exactly do you define “the team” in your model when there are often multiple different organisations that are involved in day to day operations?

        Red Bull managed to sidestep the regulations on customer cars for a while by putting their design team into an independent organisation, which continues to this day as Red Bull Technologies. Now, that organisation produces the designs for both Red Bull and Toro Rosso – where exactly do you draw the line between staff at Toro Rosso and staff at Red Bull?

        How would that work with suppliers to teams too, especially if those teams are outsourcing a lot of work to third parties? For example, how does Haas fit into your model? They subcontract work out to Dallara, but then have staff on secondment into Dallara’s design team as well – how exactly would you classify them? How exactly would you classify contract staff? To me, it sounds like it would instead just drive teams into creative ways of reclassifying staff rather than trying to cap staff levels.

    8. There will be no new entrants under the current regulations and model for all the reasons expressed. Formula 1 must first retake a position of relevance to the manufacturers or be relegated to an expensive circus sideshow.

      The FIA controls all forms of motorsport globally so they are insulated. The three main manufacturers with real skin in the game – Mercedes, Ferrari and, arguably, Honda – essentially control the future of Formula 1. Renault would like to be considered in that conversation, but they have a lot to prove. The other teams are all simply customers in one form or another. If Formula 1 chooses to dumb down the sport by creating common components or even a common monocoque it will no longer be the pinnacle of motorsport.

      The current owners and managers of F1 have demonstrated a strong desire to open up the sport and bring it closer to the fans. They have beefed up their internal headcount and followed a generic major league textbook to the letter. All in an attempt to improve the attractiveness of Formula 1 to fans and therefore sponsors. F1 has never been wanting for fans. It has never been wanting for venues or sponsors. Most of the journalists covering F1 (though not you, Dieter) have parroted the marketing speak of F1 management and talk of great things to come. The trouble is we are all left without any clear indication of what that future might look like so, instead, we simply project our own hopes and biases into the vacuum.

      The real difficulty here is the emergence of an entirely new paradigm in the relationship between humans and the automobile. Until that is fully understood, all of the stakeholders in Formula 1 are merely negotiating against themselves. New teams are not the answer. A bold, clear, stepped plan into the emerging future is what’s needed. And now.

      If you build that, they will come…

      1. Renault need to prove?
        They are F1 team , Honda is now just engine suplyer.
        Not to mention 168 wins for Renault, only 72 for Honda.

    9. Most sports are regulated to death. Every one is afraid of something or other.

    10. It would seem sensible to let smaller teams do more testing and development work. That way they could take more design risks and sell parts to the bigger teams – or at least data.

      1. Testing is massively restricted, so are wind tunnel and CFD activities.

    11. Dieters article sums it up pretty well.

      For any team to be considering entering F1, the first thing they’ll need to see is the new regulations. That alone will have a major impact on whether or not there’s any viable path for a new entrant so it’s unlikely we’ll see any movement from anyone in the short term.

      Even after the regulations are known I suspect anyone considering entry will wait a year or so to gauge the true impact of those regulations and then would take probably 2 years (or more) to get their infrastructure together, so I doubt we’ll see any new entrants until at least 2025 if they were to come with a serious entry.

      The big question will be not will there be new teams, but more likely will there still be 10 teams from 2021 onwards.

    12. @dieterrencken I would like to learn more about the actual value of the marketing impact to teams/manufacturers from participating in F1. I thought I had read a few years ago that it was upwards of a billion dollars a year for Mercedes. Not sure if that is the case or not. We know a big part of Haas entrance was to glean global contracts for their CNC machinery that was doing so well but mainly only in North America, and they wanted to spread their wings by marketing via F1.

      Liberty wants to grow the sport and it’s audience, basically improve all aspects of the entity they bought from BE and how he left it. Assuming they do that, and to me all indications are that they will, with more balanced financials, and with cars racing closer amongst each other and teams closer to each other too, it is their hope that that will attract new entrants.

      But beyond the actual costs of fielding two cars, and what they actually get in compensation from F1 for being a part of the show depending on their standing etc, what do they glean from a marketing aspect? I’m going to assume it is no small chunk of change, as I see it as a big component of why they’re there, yet it seems little talked about. Can you enlighten us on the actual value to the teams of being in F1 in terms of how much extra product they sell globally for that brand exposure, an exposure the potency of which Liberty wants to enhance by improving and growing the entity?

      I’m assuming no team, not even Ferrari, gets more money back directly from F1 than they have spent fielding two cars annually, so just looking at those two aspects only, it is a money losing adventure, but of course that can’t be the case or we wouldn’t see teams coming back year after year. I’ll assume new entrants will similarly look at their startup costs, then their averaged out costs over let’s say 5 years once their infrastructure is in place, then what they might expect to get in compensation for their risk of entering F1, and decide if the loss of money is well more than made up by increased sales for their brand(s) globally. We have seen that teams don’t have to win Championships nor even races, to keep coming back year after year.

    13. @robbie Call me cynical, but I don’t believe the sort of numbers that are trotted out by teams and marketing types, simply because they are usually self-serving. I have no doubt that F1 sponsorship works, but only if its correctly targeted and activated.

      I asked Haas recently for some cost-effectiveness numbers, and was told they don’t disclose them…as for the Mercedes ratio you quoted: I am sure that on a global eyeball/cost basis the numbers are impressive, but what percentage of the audience can or wishes to buy a car in the brand’s sectors? That is the overriding question.

      Brands are in F1 for varied reasons: product launch/awareness, image, B2B and B2C opportunities, CEO whims, product development, technology – every brand currently in F1 has a different reason for being there. So there can be no hard and fast rules, or standard returns on investment.

      However, the overall churn rate of sponsors suggests that after a period they realise there are more cost-effective opportunities out there, particularly with F1’s gathering move to pay-wall TV and shifting viewing patterns.

      As our team budget analysis illustrates, teams do not recover more from F1 than they spend, and would be trouble without commercial sponsorship. That has been the case since sponsorship was first allowed in 1968 – and, as the record of many teams shows, many have spent even more than that…

      The analyses are available here:

      https://www.racefans.net/2018/12/19/how-much-f1-teams-spent-race-2018-part-one/

      https://www.racefans.net/2018/12/26/the-cost-of-f1-revealed-how-much-teams-spent-in-2018-part-two/

      These numbers speak for themselves.

      1. @dieterrencken Thank you so much for the informative response.

    Comments are closed.