Andretti frustrated by teams’ “greedy” objections to his F1 entry plans

2026 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Michael Andretti has spoken about the continued resistance against his bid to bring Andretti Autosport into Formula 1 since he revealed General Motors is now part of the entry plans.

Last week it was announced that GM, one of the world’s largest automotive producers, had joined forces with Andretti to work on joining F1 via its Cadillac brand.

That would mark the first time an American automotive manufacturer has been directly involved in F1 since the Ford-owned Jaguar team of the early 2000s, and Andretti would only be F1’s second American-registered team in almost 50 years.

In an interview with American business magazine Forbes, team founder Andretti talked about the F1 paddock’s negative response to his plans, which could not come into fruition until 2026 at the earliest when new engine regulations are introduced.

“It’s all about money. First, they think they are going to get diluted one-tenth of their prize money, but they also get very greedy thinking we will take all the American sponsors as well,” Andretti said.

“It’s all about greed and looking at themselves and not looking at what is best for the overall growth of the series.”

Andretti already competes outside of America, with a Porsche-powered squad in Formula E and co-ownership of the Walkinshaw Andretti United team in the Australian Supercars championship.

The ‘United’ part of the team name comes from Zak Brown’s United Autosports team, and that partnership has led to Andretti having a useful ally in the F1 paddock in the form of McLaren Racing CEO Brown.

“Zak wants to do whatever he can to help us get there and so has Alpine as well,” Andretti told Forbes. “Zak Brown and Alpine are two very good allies. Zak has been very supportive.”

Andretti previously tried to acquire the Force India (now Aston Martin) and Sauber (which runs Alfa Romeo) teams. Alpine’s engine manufacturer Renault had been tipped as a power unit supplier for Andretti’s team.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2023 F1 season

Browse all 2023 F1 season articles

Author information

Ida Wood
Often found in junior single-seater paddocks around Europe doing journalism and television commentary, or dabbling in teaching Photography back in the UK. Currently based...

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

Posted on Categories 2026 F1 season, F1 newsTags , , ,

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

  • 56 comments on “Andretti frustrated by teams’ “greedy” objections to his F1 entry plans”

    1. It’s somewhat understandable that each team is looking out for its own interests first and foremost.

      The problem here is not so much that, but rather that the teams get a say in this at all.

      1. It makes sense for teams to object to someone getting in if that means they get less money in return.

        What doesn’t makes sense to me at least is that one more team would mean less money. Why can’t F1 itself pay for any dillution? I thought F1 is doing well, or at least that’s what they say, with more viewers and more revenue. Where does that go? they already put a 200 million dollar fee for any new teams… why?

        Can’t F1 go ahead and say to all the teams: “don’t worry, we’re doing well now, we’ll pay for the difference”. If things work well, another team with an american manufacturer will end up bringing more cash so F1 can get their money back easily…

        1. Why can’t F1 itself pay for any dillution?

          Liberty is a publicly listed company with the fiduciary duty to its shareholders to maximize profits.

        2. Yes F1 can do that, and that’s precisely the reason the teams are protesting, etc.

          As with everything in this sport, it’s all theatrics done so everyone can get their way.

        3. Why can’t F1 itself pay for any dillution?

          Because that’s not what’s written in the Concorde Agreement.
          The teams specifically wanted it put in so that any new team that can afford to enter is put at a distinct financial (and therefore, competitive) disadvantage.

          I thought F1 is doing well, or at least that’s what they say, with more viewers and more revenue. Where does that go?

          A lot of it goes to the teams…. The rest of it goes to Liberty to pay off their enormous F1 purchase bill and make their shareholders feel even better about themselves.

          If things work well, another team with an american manufacturer will end up bringing more cash so F1 can get their money back easily…

          Quite likely, yeah. But that isn’t enough for the ultra-greedy and selfish people who run the existing teams.

      2. Yes, he is understandably frustrated. Don’t understand why teams should have a voice on these matters at all. I know that it has grown to this, but that doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t seem like a tenable situation if you want to be a serious governing body or sport event organizer.

        1. I’m very much surprised that you did not manage to make this about Lewis Hamilton…

          Kudos to you…

          However, I agree with you in a way. Since the teams are allowed a say, let them voice out and I hope the team gets expanded at the end of the day…

      3. @sjaakfoo

        The problem here is not so much that, but rather that the teams get a say in this at all.

        You hit the nail on the head. Why should Andretti’s peers have a say at all on whether he enters the sport or not. If the FIA puts them on the grid, they need to just zip it and get on with racing them. It’s obvious the pie might get smaller, but that could always be fixed by lowering the budget cap further.

        1. They are not his peers, Mr Andretti merely aspires to become one.

    2. Mr Andretti is the greedy one, trying to (but failing, so far) secure an F1 entry at cut-rate prices.

      Cause that’s his story. With a beautiful Cadillac sticker on top.

      1. Mr. Andretti is willing and able to pay the $200 million dilution fee, is building a new $200 million race building, has the backing of GM, and is a long term successful race team owner. I don’t get your venom.

        1. Mr Andretti is willing to invest all that money because he has understood that that is significantly cheaper than buying any of the existing teams. All he needs is an F1 entry and boom, billion dollar valuation right there. (followed by a financing round paying everyone involved a tidy little profit)

          It’s literally like printing money, if only he can get that entry sorted.

          1. Well then I guess, by your criteria, no new team should ever get in.

            1. No. But setting up a new team should be more expensive than purchasing a current entry.

            2. No, the purchase price of a team should be negotiated between the buyer and the seller. If a team wants to sell itself for $1.00 it can, as we have seen several times in the recent past.

            3. Tell that to Ross Brawn @progesterone.

            4. SteveR

              How is that contradicting anything I wrote in the comment you replied to?


              Ross Brawn bought an existing entry. At a lower price than it would have been possible to set up a new entry at the time. Which is exactly what I outlined in my post.

            5. So let me get this straight; starting a new team must (by your rule) cost more than purchasing an existing team. So Red Bull puts themselves on the market and sells the business, lock, stock, and barrel for say $800 million. So any new team is now required to spend more than $800 million. Do they ensure this by writing a check to Liberty for $800 million and get a piece of paper that certifies they are now a team? Then the new team still has to spend a very large amount of money building a facility, getting engine supplies, building a wind tunnel, hiring 600 or so engineers, crew, and shop people, etc? Basically, how would you ensure they spend more than the cost of Red Bull? How do you set the ‘price’ of the team sale they have to beat, and how are they to exceed that cost?

              Your ‘requirement’ is ridiculous on its face.

            6. SteveR

              So Red Bull puts themselves on the market and sells the business, lock, stock, and barrel for say $800 million. So any new team is now required to spend more than $800 million.

              I’ve been pretty clear:

              “setting up a new team should be more expensive than purchasing a current entry”

              A current entry, not any current entry.

            7. And if no one wants to sell how is the price set?

            8. @proesterchen

              No. But setting up a new team should be more expensive than purchasing a current entry.

              And how will that increase the number of teams in the sport? Either the FIA caps the number of teams at 10, which makes no sense if they’re looking at growing the sport, or else, incentivise teams to start from scratchm by making sure its also the more economical option.

            9. SteveR

              If no one wants to sell to you, your offer is insufficient.


              If the past is any indication, increasing the number of teams in Formula 1 is not a winning proposition for the sport in and of itself.

              incentivise teams to start from scratch by making sure its also the more economical option

              That would just unnecessarily depress the valuation of the already existing entries.

          2. You can’t buy a team if there are no teams to buy…..

            But if he pays the 200m then there should be no problem to add him.

            1. There are 10 current F1 entries, Mr Andretti just failed, repeatedly, to strike a deal to acquire one of them. (while Lawrence Stroll, Dorilton and Audi succeeded)

              He is now trying to force a new entry because even with the $200 million and the cost of setting up a minimum viable product to put tyres on the grid, the value of an F1 entry is now so high that he and his investors would clear hundreds of millions of dollars the moment they are granted one.

      2. Andretti is the greedy one, despite the existing 10 teams all requesting a $200m fee for any new team to enter F1…?


        1. It’s incredible to think drumming up more than half a billion dollars (and a fancy sticker, let’s not forget that) is done with the goal of putting eight wheels on the grid of a Grand Prix.

          1. Every team has drummed up or set aside loads of cash to put wheels on the grid. Putting wheels on the grid is a somewhat important part of making money as a race team in F1….
            Andretti is no different than the conglomerates that are winning the championships year after year, nor those who finish at the back of the pack.

            The problem you seem to have with them is that they are entering now and not a decade ago.

            1. Putting wheels on the grid is a somewhat important part of making money as a race team in F1….

              The single highest value part of any F1 team is the F1 entry.

              Mr Andretti is making moves to create a new one for himself and his investors because he recognizes that right now, because of the set $200 million dilution payment, this is now the cheapest way to an F1 entry, and their group would net multiple hundreds of millions of dollars the moment they are granted an 11th entry. (and the other groups also vying for an entry show that Mr Andretti is not the only one having identified this opportunity)

            2. their group would net multiple hundreds of millions of dollars the moment they are granted an 11th entry.

              How do you figure that?
              They are spending that much to enter, and additionally again to build up their own resources…. Where are they making any profit from this arrangement in the short term?

              No F1 team has ever entered F1 without the goal of making money, and F1 has not just allowed but encouraged that attitude.
              Over time, Andretti’s entry will only further support this trajectory, such that everyone’s entry is worth more beyond that – should they ever want to sell.
              Which still makes it a positive, even in a purely financial sense.

      3. This has to be a Russian or a bot.

      4. Coventry Climax
        11th January 2023, 16:42

        OK, let’s start the bidding. I offer 5 Euro for Proesterchen to leave here.
        Not that I’m serious, but do you see where this is leading?

        Ik know in dutch you can ‘proesten van het lachen’, more or less meaning laughing uncontrollably, slapping your knees and requiring you to put your hand before your mouth.
        Is that the light into which we need to see your ‘name’ here?

        Don’t persevere, don’t emulate Putin. Just say OK, I was wrong here. Much easier, cleaner and less painful.

    3. Well – at least it gives the Journalists something to talk about :)

    4. Jonathan Parkin
      10th January 2023, 16:56

      The anti-dilution fee used to be $48m in 2001 if anybodies interested

      1. And Delta Topco’s revenues were where in 2001?

      2. Ah, didn’t know there was one even back then, so it simply increased 4x, even so not a good idea I think, as it’s already hard as it is to be competitive in f1.

      3. The old $48m entry fee was not an anti-dilution fee as such – it was intended to deter speculative or fly-by-night entrants by incentivising teams to stick around for multiple seasons. If I remember correctly, the $48m would be refunded (with interest) in stages over the new team’s first five years in F1.

        I believe the last team to have to pay the old entry fee was Super Aguri ahead of the 2006 season.

        1. @red-andy
          Thanks for the info ! I think that certainly must have something to do with Andrea Moda shenanigans.

    5. He’s not wrong but he’s looking to join F1 so he better get used to it. Give him a year or two in the F1 circus and I have no doubt he’ll be saying the same crap when another team wants to join.

    6. This is the problem with F1 – the quality of racing should be number one above all else regardless of the teams, yet the teams thinks its all about them!

      Legacy and nostalgia should not determine who can compete in F1. Teams should only be judged on effort and ability to compete.

      Even if Andretti (and Cadillac) didn’t have any history in racing, their willingness to enter the F1 with a positive mindset (and a big bag of cash) should be the only requirement. And should be welcomed with open arms.

      1. Teams should only be judged on effort and ability to compete.

        Sure, let’s do that.

        Don’t give them a dime unless and until they show their ability to compete.

        I wonder how Mr Andretti’s mood would change if you suggested that to him.

        1. Andretti have certainly proven their ability to be competitive in other categories, but they can’t prove anything in F1 until they are actually on the track.

          Exactly what is your definition of ‘compete’ anyway?
          They are all competing for marketing exposure. That’s what they enter F1 for.

          1. Exactly what is your definition of ‘compete’ anyway?

            That was superman’s wording/idea, so best ask them.

            1. I’m asking you what yours is.

            2. I cannot speak for superman or their preferred definition of a term they used first.

            3. Can’t answer a simple question, either.

            4. Why use a term you either don’t understand or know the meaning in an argument you seem not to understand as well?

              S, I’m with you on this…

    7. I’m totally baffled by today’s teams. I don’t know how bad this was before but teams are killing the growing sport by being scared of new teams. They can talk about money and stabilization e.t.c. Imagine teams voting one team out of the sport because then we can get more money and there is less competition.
      All what has happened in the few past years teams blocking another team wasn’t on my bingo card and they should be ashamed about that.

      1. being scared of new teams

        Of the teams having entered Formula 1 in since 1994 years:

        (1) became a Championship-winning outfit after an ownership change and bringing in the #2 designer of his generation
        (1) became a one-time race winner by copying the previous year’s dominant car
        (1) was good enough to win pole positions in the refuelling era and collected podium finishes

        All 9 others were/are crap.

        1. *having entered Formula 1 since 1994:

        2. All 9 others were/are crap.

          Yes, but this is not unusual. Most current F1 teams are also far from successful. In the last 10 seasons, the team racing as Lotus and then Alpine has won all of 2 races. Meanwhile, Red Bull Jr. has won 1 race, as have Racing Point and McLaren. Haas, Williams, or Sauber? Zero.

          These teams are only “competing” in the sense that they manage to put two cars on the grid. If they’re so convinced there should only be 10 teams in F1, maybe they’ll like a football-style degradation system where the worst two F1 teams are demoted to F2 for five years so other entries can get a chance to race in the Grand Prix without “diluting” the sport.

          1. I don’t think our ultra-resistant friend would really like F1 with only the 3 regular podium-getting teams left participating, though.
            And given the amount of money Ferrari has thrown at F1 over the last 70 years for the amount of success they’ve had in recent years, they could probably be described as crap too. And then Mercedes was pretty crap last year by their standards… Out with them too.
            So, only one team in F1 at a time? The rest are all crap, aren’t they….

          2. My point was to contrast the original commenter’s suggestion of current entrants “being scared of new teams” with the reality of how the last 12 new teams have fared in the sport.

        3. Coventry Climax
          11th January 2023, 16:56

          And your answer is crap too. You want to decide upfront whether a new team is/will be succesful? That’s detemining the outcome up front, and not ‘competition’. Those 3 (or was it the same team on all three categories? You neglected to ‘clarify’ that) happen to prove that it is possible for newcomers to win. And they would never have won anything if they hadn’t been allowed to race in the first place. Like any other team in F1 now.

          There’s ever only one way to find out, and that is to just race against them.
          That’s what motorsports used to be all about.
          These days, F1 is just the pinnacle of money and the legal world.

    8. I suspect that the Andretti problem has been solved ages ago, and that only marketing wonks now decide the timing of when Andretti gets the “Official” go ahead. Liberty are playing this out for their audience, America, with as much Drama as possible.

    9. Spot on, and sadly which ever way you look at this, if or perhaps when they get that entry I have seen nothing to tell me they are not going to anything but a back of the grid team at least for the 1st few years on the grid.

    10. Martin Bradley MORRIS
      12th January 2023, 7:07

      Teams should not have an input into this or other issues for a couple of reasons. They are basically employed by the FIA and F1 as they are there to compete under the rules set by them. Input into issues such as this smack of simple conflicts of interest, and should be ignored, particularly in regards to Toto. I believe that he has financial interests, not only in Mercedes where he is a 1/3 owner, but he also has shares in Williams and Aston Martin. That’s basically one third of the teams. On top of this, he is also involved in the management of some drivers.
      To many fingers in to many pies for my liking.

    Comments are closed.