Ferrari, Monza, 2018

Does F1 need Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1?

Debates and Polls

Posted on

| Written by

Would the end of the Bernie Ecclestone era also lead to the end of Ferrari’s unique position of power in Formula 1? We now have our answer: No.

As RaceFans has revealed in recent weeks Liberty Media, Ecclestone’s successors in charge of F1, will continue to grace Ferrari with their unique privileges. These include the power to veto changes to the rules they disapprove of – tellingly referred to as Ferrari’s ‘protection right’ in the proposed 2021 regulations – and special payments worth tens of millions of dollars which are not available to rival teams.

This tilts the playing field away from Ferrari’s rivals. But is it a price the sport has no choice but to pay?

Are these essential dispensations to satisfy the one competitor F1 cannot afford to do without? Or a capitulation to a team which considers itself more important than the sport?


Ferrari, uniquely, is the only team which has competed in every season since the world championship began in 1950. Other teams have come, gone, come and gone, or merely arrived later. Giving Ferrari unique treatment is therefore justifiable.

The popularity of Ferrari, which spreads far beyond the borders of its native Italy, is obvious and undeniable. There would be no greater coup for the elite class of the World Endurance Championship, Formula E or another potential F1 rival to attract the participation of such a prestigious team. In a world where Liberty Media’s success is measured by its share price it makes sense to give Ferrari special treatment because they are not just special, but irreplaceable.


The special treatment meted out to Ferrari allows them to shape the rules to suit their preference – either by wielding the veto or merely by threatening to – and gives them a head start in funding their car development. While Liberty may have lessened the degrees of both advantages, they remain fundamentally unfair.

Bluntly, it has this power because F1 is too scared that Ferrari will leave the sport if it is forced to compete on equal terms with its rivals. But recent developments show F1 can thrive without Ferrari. They did not participate in the sport’s acclaimed Netflix series, yet that has helped attract a new generation of fans to the sport. The same is true of F1’s Esports project, which Ferrari is belatedly entering.

I say

It’s easy for passionate, long-term followers of Formula 1, such as myself, to underestimate the power of Ferrari in getting eyeballs pointed at television screens. No other F1 team attracts this kind of tribal following more commonly associated with soccer clubs.

You can dismiss it, but wouldn’t we love F1 to have 10 or more teams that were as popular as Ferrari? And of course Liberty Media cannot abide the though of losing them.

Still, there is no doubt that F1’s special favours to Ferrari are an affront to any notion of sporting integrity. It is deeply disappointing that Liberty Media never made a point of stating that from 2021 the same terms of participation would be offered to all teams, most of which also believe Ferrari should lose their veto powers.

That would have at least left Ferrari with the option of competing in F1 on a level playing field with their rivals for the first time since the seventies, or threatening to walk out because it can’t have its special favours any more.

What would Ferrari do in such a scenario? I suspect the sport they’ve participated in for 70 years is far more important to them than they like to admit: They’ve just announced their latest road car is named after their F1 machine.

Nor is the sport’s history exclusively bound up with this team. Consider the affection Ayrton Senna continues to inspire 25 years after the untimely end of a career which featured not one single start for Ferrari.

You say

Do you agree F1 needs Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

Do you agree F1 needs Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1?

  • No opinion (0%)
  • Strongly disagree (43%)
  • Slightly disagree (22%)
  • Neither agree nor disagree (7%)
  • Slightly agree (13%)
  • Strongly agree (14%)

Total Voters: 261

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

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

81 comments on “Does F1 need Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1?”

  1. I chose ‘slightly disagree’, which I think best captures what you say in your ‘I say’ part @keithcollantine, because both the for and against arguments are well put, and your personal opinion added to that perfectly summarizes the situation to me.

    1. @bosyber

      I chose slightly disagree as well. I think it’s a mutually beneficial relationship.

      Currently, F1 is as a sport is going through a rough patch in terms of viewership, adoption and fan following, which may make it seem like Ferrari is more crucial to them now more than ever. However, if F1 makes improvements to the sport and acquires and engages new viewers, then I see Ferrari being more dependant on them. F1 will more likely remain the pinnacle of motorsport, and Ferrari is the pinnacle of sports cars, so their absence from the sport would hurt Ferrari in the long run.

      Regarding the veto, I’m completely against it from a moral point of view. No team should exercise that kind of power in a sport, or that kind of advantage against its competitors. But, on a more practical note…. I don’t see the difference it makes anyways. Ferrari have had this veto for ages, and they’re still pretty rubbish regardless of the advantage. I now look at it as giving a handicap to a famous amateur to make the sport interesting. Without all the possible advantages, Ferrari wouldn’t stand a chance when they go up against real F1 teams like Mercedes and Red Bull.

  2. What’s next, voting on gravity?

    1. Hope not, @proesterchen, that would be a massive undertaking.

      1. A weighty proposition indeed.

    2. It’s a cynical remark. This is about sporting integrity and nothing else.

  3. After 16 votes, I am surprised by how polarized this vote is. I was suspecting more mix between the two… Not sure Ferrari fan base is as strong as it was at the end of Schumacher era either (which make the argument of F1 need Ferrari weaker). If Ferrari doesn’t won a championship soon, they might continue to loose of their superb.

    1. Ferrari IS Formula 1 … mention F1 to the casual bystander and you’ll get a quizzical look. Say, “Uh, Ferrari” and they will nod in agreement. Like it or not …

      1. Well.. casual bystanders really don’t matter. It’s not like they’d even watch the sport.. or even buy a Ferrari in their lifetime.

        1. @todfod :
          Unfortunately, those casual bystanders dont watch F1. In an era of declining popularity and viewership, F1 will have to do whatever it takes to ensure its existence in the long run. It is already an elitist sport. Not having Ferrari would make it even harder for the casual fan to tune in.
          There are three major attractions that can pull a fan into F1–the driver, the team, the sport itself.
          Another fan-puller could be the race location–but this isnt as strong as the top three. Change any one of the top three, and it is going to affect the fan base. The last thing we need now is a long term competitor leaving the sport.

          1. @webtel
            I do agree with your to a certain extent.. But targeting a mass audience isn’t always the best way to go. Look at Cricket, more than half the globe doesn’t know about the sport or it’s teams or players, but it’s still thriving in its own right. It focused on making the sport more entertaining for people by adding T20 and improving the formula.

            Personally, I just don’t see the point in bending over backwards for Ferrari because they might or might not attract fans to the sport. Liberty should be more focused on improving the sport… And if that comes at the cost of a team who’s self interest is detrimental to the progress of the sport.. Then dump them.

          2. @todfod :

            targeting a mass audience isn’t always the best way to go.

            True. But then there is the issue of (self) sustenance. Golf being a nice example for a niche sport.
            Cricket has a huge audience–i am pretty sure that the number of people who watched yesterday’s match between India and Pakistan is way more than the population of the USA !!
            With such a vast fan base, it can continue to exist and even experiment like The Hundred.
            F1 does not have that privilege of experimentation. One mistake/wrong call is like having a tapered foundation for a skyscraper. As you keep building up, you are destined to fall.


            if that comes at the cost of a team who’s self interest is detrimental to the progress of the sport.. Then dump them.

            I think you will find unanimous agreement for this on our site.
            Ferrari will see the ‘detriment’ part as something subjective. It is fundamentally unfair, but they will push for it nonetheless in a cut-throat environment. There has to be a win-win situation to this where both F1 and its teams get the best and i think it is possible. Waiting isnt fun though. But in this case, it is way better to wait and solve it rather than dump then and face something extraordinary of not having Ferrari in F1.

  4. On F1’s Beyond The Grid podcast, Tom Clarkson asks Luca di Montezemolo “How important is Formula 1 to Ferrari?” Montezemolo’s answer is very clear and straightforward: “Crucial. Ferrari without Formula 1 will be a very nice, a fantastic brand, but not unique. Ferrari is unique thanks to Formula 1 and is unique also – and I hope it will remain unique – thanks to the exclusivity.” You can hear it here:

    Luca himself threatened to pull Ferrari out of F1 a number of times. Hearing him say that clears all possible doubt for me.

  5. …but wouldn’t we love F1 to have 10 or more teams that were as popular as Ferrari?

    No, we would not.
    And it is just impossible. No Sports on Planet Earth has 10 more or less equally-wildly-popular top teams (in a single “division”, i.e. only in Premier League, only in LabLiga, and so on…).

    Answering the poll – I don’t agree F1 needs Ferrari, but Ferrari doesn’t need F1 either. The thing is – without each other both F1 and Ferrari will be something different… and considering how many decision-makers are trying to kill F1 making it into IndyCar 2.0 (LibertyCar), some kind of continuity might be a good thing.
    But the realization is again awful… because of the same decision-makers.

  6. If Liberty Media are serious about running this as a sport then they should try and call Ferrari’s bluff to level out the playing field. As a business however having a prestigious brand (and another manufacturer in a series lacking them) like that they should do their upmost best to keep them without rocking the boat too much. This debate will be interesting to follow.

    Personally, I voted slightly disagree. As much as I love the team, the history, and the passion that the team instils into the sport I want the sport to progress evenly and fairly. Giving Ferrari preferential treatment removes any semblance of fairness. This sport needs a dramatic overhaul if it wants to stop its rot which has set in over the last decade and having a member of this sport that can veto that makes no sense. Ferrari will only veto for Ferrari. F1 can and will go on without Ferrari and Ferrari will go on without F1. Bowing down to one team causes friction with the others and they are the ones putting on a show alongside Ferrari and deserve the same respect given to Ferrari. It may be utopian in thinking but having a fair playing field in which rewards are handed out on merit and performance is how a sport should be ran – not pandering to ‘historical’ reasons. The historical argument is interesting but not valid when viewing things in a sporting context. It would be similar to giving a football team privileges because they won the cup over a decade ago.

    What stops me from fully disagreeing is that Ferrari is another manufacturer, as mentioned, that doesn’t spread its brand into many other series. Having such a well recognisable brand representing your series is always a positive. Without Ferrari and it’s engine program we would have no challengers to the Mercedes dominance. Renault and Honda’s PU may be getting better but only the Ferrari engine/team has come anywhere near. Sporting wise they should be kept but not at the behest of all the other teams.

    1. Need a ballast for the dominant team, mercedes has been the most dominant team ever in recent years, so enough ballast to make a couple of teams competitive with it, should they pull ahead reduce the ballast till it’s removed completely, provided the other teams catch up.

      I understand a few years of dominance, but this has gone on enough, I’m baffled they don’t take any serious action to stop it.

  7. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    16th June 2019, 12:29

    I went for a middle ground as I think F1 would survive comfortably without Ferrari and Ferrari would survive comfortably without F1. I think they certainly are in line for honour given their dedication and success within the sport, but nothing that should equate to a genuine advantage over a competitor which arguably currently they get.

    Without F1, Ferrari would still sell cars. Without Ferrari, F1 would still run championship racing. At the end of the day they’re just a racing team/engine manufacturer and should be treated no different to any other. Though given the reverence Ferrari give to their F1 history and how they have a limited footprint in any other motorsport, I’d argue Ferrari need F1 far more for advertising alone.

  8. As time goes on less and less fans will care about the history of Ferrari or indeed F1; as more and more fans won’t have been around for a large proportion of that history.
    And if its not presented free in 4k HD on youtube in bite sized chunks well whats the point of seeking it out?

    1. I agree. Ferrari cars may well have completed in every F1 season ever, but that doesn’t entitle them to special privileges other teams don’t get.
      I think allowance has to be made for teams that have an engine manufacturing business, as Mercedes, Renault, and Ferrari do, but this isn’t what we’re talking about here.

  9. Ferrari embodies what racing is about and this is what most people miss about this, Enzo built road cars to finance his racing activities “goodwill” or “brand” you cant put a value to it.

    Ferrari is racing and racing is Ferrari!

    1. @rockie, maybe that might have been the case in the past, but Enzo Ferrari has been gone for over 30 years now – and, from what Forghieri has said, it sounds like Enzo had been gradually losing control of the team and the company since at least the early 1980s, if not the late 1970s – and the team as it is now is a very different animal to what it was when he was still at the helm.

      To many of those people who will have grown up in that post-Enzo generation, I don’t think that they will necessarily agree that “Ferrari embodies what racing is about” now. I would not be surprised if, especially amongst younger fans, there are a lot of people who now see Ferrari as having the same corporate face and attitude towards racing that any other major manufacturer has.

      1. Mercedes has been winning since ’14, still most people are interested in Ferrari, let that sink in for a minute!

        1. @rockie, you seem to be misunderstanding the point I am trying to raise – it is not about the numbers, which are in some ways irrelevant here, but to question what a team might be seen to represent to a different generation to that which you come from and why people might be choosing to follow a particular team.

          You state that you began watching the sport in 1981, which was a period when Enzo himself was still around and when the sport itself was rather different. I feel that has given you a particular outlook on the sport and on how you might view Ferrari which doesn’t necessarily reflect how attitudes towards Ferrari have subsequently changed over the 38 year period which you state you have followed the sport for, or indeed take into account the fact that there are a lot of people who follow the sport whilst not being aligned with any team at all.

          In fact, one of the findings of the fan surveys that have been done over the years is that over half of the fan base described itself as having no favourite team. Whilst it is true that, out of those fans who express a preference for a particular team, Ferrari might come out on top, the neutrality of the majority of the fan base means that the most popular outfit is basically “none of the above”, and for them Ferrari does not really embody the idea of “racing spirit”, or whatever you want to call it, any more than any other team is perceived to.

          @panagiotism-papatheodorou, actually, some of the more recent fan surveys have suggested that Mercedes overtook McLaren in terms of global popularity several years ago. McLaren was quite popular for a while as a team, even briefly overtaking Ferrari to become the most popular team in 2008, but over the past decade their support has declined sharply – and part of that seems to be demographic related.

          The popularity of McLaren does seem to be higher amongst older fans, particularly those who might remember the glory years of Senna and Prost, but amongst younger generations the popularity of the team has declined in proportion to their recent decline in success on track.

          At the same time, there is a slight generational difference in Mercedes’s fan base as well, with a slight bias towards younger fans – the number of fans who put them as their favourite is slightly higher amongst those under the age of 24 than it is of those aged 25 or over, reflecting in part their more recent success on track.

        2. Dennis Brown
          17th June 2019, 3:58

          The Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team is one of the greatest, richest,and most historic. They have not won since 1967 I think. Now here comes the Toronto Raptors, who just won it all after only 24 years. There’s a new breed of fans, younger, much wider demographics, much greater appeal, greater excitement. Let that sink in for a couple years. My opinion, the Maple Leafs will now be in the back seat!

        3. F1oSaurus (@)
          17th June 2019, 17:40

          @rockie In 2008 McLaren was more liked than Ferrari.

      2. Panagiotis Papatheodorou (@panagiotism-papatheodorou)
        16th June 2019, 15:03

        Ferrari has the most fans and it’s not even close. I reckon McLaren has more fans than Mercedes and they haven’t won a WCC in 20 years.

        1. Never thought about it, mclaren doesn’t seem good at turning performance into titles, 20 years without WCC is making them look worse than they are, but even if you look at the driver’s titles, you only have 1999 and 2008, while they had performance in 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, across those years.

        2. F1oSaurus (@)
          17th June 2019, 17:45

          @panagiotism-papatheodorou McLaren was bigger than Ferrari in 2008 and they won the WDC that year. Which is really the “C” that counts.

          Last survey Mercedes was bigger than McLaren though. It’s mostly Hamilton who has the biggest fan base by a huge margin.

  10. Chose slightly disagree: no team should be bigger than F1, and while it is nice to have Ferrari in the sport, it does not mean it should get this kind of special privileges.

    Also: “Other teams have come, gone, come and gone, or merely arrived later.” True, but there were times when people could not imagine F1 without Lotus or Brabham, or that Williams and McLaren would be backmarkers. Times change and the sport eventually moves on from whatever changes come.

  11. Is this a sport design for Ferrari? With the extra millions n tremendous helping hand Ferrari enjoyed, The prancing donkey is in a shambles now. What next ? Last man win?

  12. Much rather a healthy, competitive, well regulated sport that encorages many manufacturers to want to get involved than stifling and compromising it in Ferraris favour.

    Build it great and they will come!

  13. One point that wasn’t raised is what is the knock on effect of Ferrari leaving? Would Mercedes leave? Will promoters leave? Will sponsors leave?
    One could easily argue that because Ferrari have remained in F1 through the good times and the bad they’ve earned a little extra gravy with their meal, and it’s not like they go around vetoing everything that comes around even when it doesn’t favor or suit them.
    Without Ferrari, F1 would be lessened, there is no doubt of that. For me the real question is how far will the snowball roll down the hill after their departure.

    1. This is what is never considered!

      1. Isn’t this exactly what is considered when we talk about the relationship between F1 and Ferrari?

        1. @robbie if it’s considered, it’s not done so explicitly.

          1. F1oSaurus (@)
            17th June 2019, 17:47

            @velocityboy What else would be the benefit of Ferrari to F1?

          2. @f1osaurus Mercedes stated quite clearly that the only reason they’re in F1 is to beat Ferrari. So one can assume that if Ferrari left, Mercedes would soon follow. That’s two marquee teams leaving with their supply of engines. Which is why I mentioned that knock on effect of Ferrari leaving. It may be the trigger for Mercedes, Renault and Red Bull leaving.

            In addition, the race promoters may either leave or demand their contracts be renegotiated at a much lower rate. Without the number one marquee name, Ferrari, the product the promoters are selling would be greatly diminished. From a marketing perspective, no one cares about Racing Point, Haas, Toro Rosso etc. The name used to sell an F1 race to the public is Ferrari. I’d imagine you could walk up to anyone on the street and ask them what they know about Ferrari and racing will be a part of their answer. They may not know where or what they race, but they’ll know Ferrari are known for automobile racing and that has value to F1 and promoters. Imagine if you’re putting on a play with George Clooney in the cast and then Clooney decides to leave. Are people going to line up to watch Joe Bloggs in the role that Clooney was playing?

            Also remember that Ferrari can leave F1 by deciding to racing under the Fiat name and the F1 brand will still take a hit. Racing Point have set the precedent that it wouldn’t be a new team, so Ferrari can, for example, decide to focus on Formula-E and still have a presence in F1 by racing under a different brand.

          3. F1oSaurus (@)
            18th June 2019, 19:13

            @velocityboy That wasn’t the point of what Robbie said.

    2. Indeed, I think people are underestimating the effect of losing ferrari, if you lose even just a minor team nowadays considering no one new wants to enter because of how hard it is to make competitive engine etc., it’s bad already, but if you lose a minor team you might also have a backlash effect.

      Think 1-2 teams leaving will be the end of f1.

  14. If the goal is to make F1 a championship that is decided on driver skill, rather than an engineering competition, then all manufacturers, and Ferrari especially, are a problem. Manufacturers will always try to make it an engineering competition, because (1) it allows them to show off their engineering skills, (2) technology transfer to their road car divisions, and (3) because they invest a lot of money as well as their reputation into F1, and betting on having the right driver, as opposed to being able to hire the best engineers and build the best facilities, is a much more risky proposition.

    Let them leave for all I care. I would be more than happy if F1 went back to McLaren vs. Williams rather than Mercedes vs. Ferrari.

    1. @aesto either you weren’t watching F1 in the 90s or you have forgotten the Williams Renault of that decade. Some called it the “all singing all dancing” Williams Renault because the car was a technological marvel to the extent that some wondered if the car could win without a driver.
      Engineering a better car than the competition has been a part of F1 DNA for quite some time, from moving the engine to the rear of the car, cars not exploding on contact, the advent of aero dynamics and it’s continued developments, 6 wheeled cars and fan cars. I think you have put blinders on to make a point the point that you dislike Mercedes and Ferrari.

      1. I was watching, and I remember Schumacher comfortably beating the ’95 Williams which was always nailed to the track, while driving a Benetton, which according to Herbert, handled terribly.

        1. 1995 was a bad year performance wise for williams, their drivers also had their worst combined season, the years people talk about are 1991 (even if they lost title), 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997.

  15. The bonus payment and veto speaks for itself. If F1 didn’t need Ferrari, Ferrari wouldn’t be getting them. Not saying it’s right but it is what it is. Strongly agreed.

    More people seem to be voting based off what they want to be the case, not the reality.

    1. Think your jumping to conclusions here. Liberty might be worried about F leaving but thats doesn’t mean; they would leave if they lost its veto or indeed that if it did calamity would fall. But if all you care about is the share price tomorrow then why rock the boat from Liberties POV.

      Liberty have caved to the teams generally.

  16. I went right down the middle and neither agreed nor disagreed, because I think they need each other equally.

    While I do agree that on the face of it Ferrari getting this special treatment makes no sense from a sporting standpoint, it just doesn’t bother me. Here’s why. The money hasn’t guaranteed them success. Nor has the veto power. If it had, I’m sure there would more uproar from the other teams. But there seems to be an acceptance by the other teams. Even if they accept the money and the veto power begrudgingly, they don’t seem so bent out of shape that they themselves have threatened to leave over it. I think they know Ferrari’s presence and their drawing power to F1 helps them get rich too.

    The concept of a veto power sounds ominous, but it is limited in it’s scope, and I believe it is the simple truth that Ferrari cannot nor will not with good conscience abuse it, nor would they be allowed to abuse it without causing quite a ruckus. They can’t so blatantly set themselves up for victory after victory through a skewing of the rules towards them, without that looking to the world like blatant cheating or winning only because of their abuse of their power. That would backfire on them and they likely don’t want to be seen as only winning because everything is skewed towards them.

    Perhaps if the extra money and the veto power they have already had over the past years had shown itself to be some sort of guarantee for them of Championships then that would be a different story. While I do think that is what happened in the MS/Ferrari era, along with a lot of other skewing that went on for them to achieve those numbers back then, this is now 15 years later and without BE, and other changes are going on in F1 for a healthier future, so I believe, so I’m fine with what is happening right now and going forward.

    1. Ferrari didn’t win the 2000-2004 titles due to the additional money, they did that thanks to schumacher’s development work and ability as a driver, he went to a failing team (ferrari 1996) and made it what it was, which is why some consider schumacher the best of all time, not just cause of the numbers (which hamilton is gonna surpass anyway as there’s more races nowadays and he had a strong car from the start).

      Even cause ferrari is a particularly rich team, so the extra money make no difference at all, as for the veto I’m not sure of the impact but as you can see in 2005 it was the other way around, they forced a rule change to stop ferrari domination and it worked.

      1. @esploratore The additional money was ploughed into R&D and resource for the car – the reason Schumacher did so much testing was because they were effectively building bespoke cars for each track and running new engines every race, because the rules let them and they could afford to.

        Liberty are setting a rule for Ferrari that says their money must be banked as corporate profit, not used for R&D, which is a good thing.

      2. F1oSaurus (@)
        17th June 2019, 17:50


        they did that thanks to schumacher’s development work

        Which they could do while other teams couldn’t afford at the same level it because Ferrari got $100 bonus.

        That was a relatively bigger amount then since budgets were smaller (less huge) back then

  17. Neil (@neilosjames)
    16th June 2019, 15:52

    Strongly disagree.

    F1 doesn’t need Ferrari any more than it needed Ayrton Senna or Michael Schumacher. Ferrari is a very big, popular name that is well supported and inspires emotions, and of course having that name on the grid is a big positive – but at the end of the day Ferrari are just participants. Participants with the power to attract intense devotion in some fans, but still just participants. If Ferrari disappeared tomorrow the sport would continue, just like it did when huge, ‘god-status’ names disappeared in the past.

    As a fan of F1 I’d miss Ferrari, and I’d be very sad that the sport had lost the only team that had been around since 1950, and I do have a little bit of love for Ferrari (not to be confused with support) because they’ve been a big part of it. But I see a participant with special treatment as damaging to the sport I love, and Ferrari’s special treatment is wholly unfair and a big negative for F1. So it’d be sadness mixed with happiness.

  18. Call their bluff. Dump the veto. Ferrari gone would be a huge shame and Formula 1 would take something of a hit, but less than imagined if other teams could compete more evenly. But the damage to Ferrari’s core brand would be huge. Enough already of the attempted blackmail over a demand they have no decent right to expect.

  19. Magnus Rubensson (@)
    16th June 2019, 16:23

    I do not see why any team should have special treatment either.
    F1 has seen other brands that were (at the time) just as strong as Ferrari:

    Lotus, Porsche, Maserati, Brabham, Cooper and Tyrrell … six brands no longer in F1.
    All were very strong in their day (Lotus in particular).

  20. Actually the question I have is, “what difference does it make either way?” Whether they possess the power to veto or not, the last time they won a championship was in 2007.
    Despite the power to veto whatever they don’t like they haven’t managed to stop the competition from winning. At this point, other than history, Ferrari doesn’t really bring anything at the table.

    1. At this point, other than history, Ferrari doesn’t really bring anything at the table.

      Apart From engines to almost a third of the grid!

  21. I neither agree or disagree, as Ferrari hasn’t exactly won anything with their extra power. However maybe it would be better for the sport if it was written that any team that remains competing in the sport for x amount of years gets the same or similar rewards.

  22. Ferrari should not get special treatment, veto power etc… anymore. However if they decide to call it finito on F1, the sport will suffer and possibly finish to exit. Think of all the teams that will not have Ferrari engines anymore. F1 needs to make the rules simpler so that more engine builders can enter the fray… At some point in the near future the combustion engine has died of old age when is F1 going to transition? Or at least look at alternative non polluting fuel.

  23. You like it or not Ferrari is bigger
    than F1 and total of all other teams.

  24. Imola 94 was a big thing in- and outside of F1. Still F1 had Ferrari which at the time wasn’t the fastest team to beat but it had been there for 44 years. Moving to 2021. Ferrari has chosen to leave. Hamilton and Vettel both retire. Where does that leave F1? Is the name of the sport then the only thing it has to ride on.

    I think they both can live without each other but I think F1 needs at least one Maradona, Barcelona, Rossi or George R.R Martin to be the sport it always has been.

    This doesn’t mean that someone (e.g Verstappen) on the current grid could be the talking point from 2021 and beyond.

    1. Ahah, yes, when you mentioned rossi etc. I thought about verstappen!

    2. …but I think F1 needs at least one Maradona, Barcelona, Rossi or George R.R Martin to be the sport it always has been.

      So are we assuming that Mercedes, McLaren, Williams and Renault will all be gone by then, given they also have deep and successful histories with the sport?

  25. I voted for ‘Slightly disagree.’ Yes, It’d, of course, feel weird if Ferrari weren’t in F1 anymore, but I’m positive we’d pretty quickly get used to it, and stop thinking about the absence of Ferrari in the long-term.

  26. If F1 made you choose which team the proceeds would go to when you buy your tickets, the Ferrari cut would be much bigger than it currently is.

    Every Ferrari car is sold before it even built, and I doubt more than 10% of their customers watch even 1 race a season.

    F1 needs Ferrari far more than Ferrari need F1. And if Ferrari leave, then Merc would soon follow, and Alfa, and Aston, and some other major sponsors.

  27. I strongly agree.

    Ferrari is #1 brand or there about in the world. Not everyone knows F1, but everybody knows Ferrari. Kids in my son’s school don’t know Lewis Hamilton, but they know Marc Marquez and Ferrari. (funny enough those two have nothing in common).

    Imagine last 5 years there was no Ferrari, Mercedes only had Red Bull to beat? Would a win be worth as much for them?

    F1 needs manufacturers with serious pedigree. Ferrari has the most pedigree of them all. Porsche would be second, and only then long way down the list comes Mercedes, McLaren, etc.

    Ferrari sells out all their cars, despite lack of championship success. They could probably quit F1 and most people would not even notice or care.

    But for us F1 fans, that competition between Ferrari and whoever is near the top brings about awesome show(sometimes).

  28. If Ferrari leave f1 it will be like LMP1

    1. They are now :)

  29. What I say… let Freire have their cake – but in every state line that features their name or their driver there needs to be an asterix. *team has special benefits that provide a competitive advantage. There, problem solved.

    1. sp Ferrari

    2. sp stat-line. Bloody Siri

  30. I visited Monza in 2007 as my first grand prix and the sea of red was beautiful. The passion of those fans made my first race weekend something truly special.

    In 2009 I visited two further races. This year both great Britain and Singapore became a sea of white and yellow following Brawn’ s shock rise.

    The subsequent races I visited were awash with Red Bull merchandise.

    The fans will support whichever teams succeed. The key is ending the over all downturn in fan numbers. A big part of that is making the playing field even and participation more affordable. Ferrari are harming the sport more than helping it with their current advantages.

  31. I would like to see some survey data on this. These things are meausurable (public opinion). Furthermore the outcome should also be seen over time. Effects of decisions today might look different after say 3 years.

  32. This seems a complex problem. Ferrari helped build formula 1 so it makes sense that when it is time to monetize it they deserve to have their share. The problem is with the current ownership structure they can only get their payment through a share of the prize money.

  33. Does F1 need Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1?

    Actually that is the wrong question, or at least from the perspective of F1 it is the wrong question. The question F1 needs to ask is “Do we want to be a credible racing series?”. If the answer is “No, we don’t care about being a credible racing series” then bonuses and veto rights are just optional extras.
    On the other hand, if the answer is “Yes, we want to be a credible racing series” then bonuses and veto rights should be considered a bigger anathema than a handicap system.
    Does F1 want to be a credible racing series?

  34. F1 needs Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1 is a fact.
    Veto and special payments are the prove.
    We’re just going to live with it. No poll needed.

    I’ll said a lot different things if the poll asking if I agree with Liberty decision that put Ferrari higher than the sport itself…

  35. When I think of Ferrari I think of red supercars that go like stink, Italian flair. When I think of F1 I think pinnacle of motorsport, home of the fastest drivers on the planet.

    Maybe at the end of Michael’s run of dominance I’d have thought that F1 needed Ferrari but right now, I really don’t. Certainly not for the markets that Liberty is moving towards satisfying which are younger, less affluent than F1’s traditional market. Liberty and modern pro sport are all about accessibility and Ferrari are probably the last bastion of exclusivity in the paddock, great to have them there but the product won’t really change without them.

    For me F1 is about the drivers, who makes the cars will always come and go but as soon as the Hamilton/Verstappens go elsewhere or when the young starlets shun it for a “better” series then it’s no longer the pinnacle and over for F1 as we know it.

  36. I chose strongly disagree.

    Ferrari needs F1 and the global, high technology, highly glamorous, highly exclusive platform it provides to market its product. What makes Ferrari different to the average rich punter in his 50’s thinking of buying a supercar? Years of racing heritage, that’s what. Ferrari wouldn’t be thought of that way without its F1 pedigree.

    Think I’m wrong? How many average Joes know Toyota dominated Le Mans on Sunday? How many of those who do know how many times Ferrari has won Le Mans?

  37. F1 and Ferrari need each other, they are a good fit.

    As for the veto, well it certainly isn’t fair in a sporting sense but it can and does serve as a check for ALL teams against the rule makers introducing rules that can have a detrimental effect on the teams.

    The historical payments are just wrong no matter which way you look at it.

  38. RocketTankski
    17th June 2019, 13:59

    perhaps they should let Ferrari run 4 cars, with an enshrined right to always have the top 4 gridslots.

  39. It’s a very tricky question. I went with slightly agree. I am thinking of a situation where Ferrari decided to move to another series e.g. Formula e. It would take a lot of focus off of F1 when it is already struggling. F1 could find itself in a position where one or two teams would be even more dominant. I think it might wither even more quickly.

    I don’t really agree with a veto or extra payments but on balance I think Liberty’s actions are probably understandable. They don’t need yet another difficult situation on their hands.

  40. F1 struggles to get new teams. No surprise when you think about it. Who’d pay millions to join when the lion’s share of the money goes to 3 or 4 teams and you’ve got no chance to getting into that club. Who’d play a game knowing that if you do well by discovering a way of making your cars win, that one of the other teams can wave it’s wand and shut you down?

    Sport is full of long established great teams. Arsenal have always played in the top division of English football, Manchester United have the largest following. Neither of them receive any added benefits from the FA or Premier League.

    I watch and follow F1, I totally refuse to put any money into the pockets of Ferrari or FOM, beyond what is necessary and as time goes on, I’ll be paying even less or none at all. Ferrari could pull their team tomorrow and I’d not give a toss, because I know F1 wouldn’t change or even improve with them gone.

  41. Ecclestone had more importance to F1 than Ferrari, yet he is gone for good. There is no such thing as F1 needs Ferrari. Racing exists long before them; long after they leave.

  42. Not only don’t give them any corruption money and veto rights. Get rid of them. F1 would be better of without the political trash team.

Comments are closed.