Site logo

Mosley urges 'rule freedom' move to limit spending

NEWS STORY
28/04/2015

Max Mosley believes that allowing a technical 'free for all' would encourage teams to keep to a budget cap.

The 75-year-old, whose previous attempts to limit spending led to the teams forming their own association (FOTA) and threatening to leave F1 to set-up their own championship, earlier this month warned that the sport faces implosion unless current spending trends are curbed.

FIA president from 1993 to 2009, Mosley admitted that he fears for the future of F1 if it continues on its current course and the teams fails to work together.

"The only way to deal with it is to get everybody to agree," he told DPA News. "You can sit all the teams down and say look collectively we've got a massive problem because some of you have got enough money but most of you haven't and if we go on like this Formula One is going to collapse, so I am inviting you all to agree to a change.

"But they would have to all agree," he admitted. "You can't do it without unanimity unfortunately. I think that could be done but it needs people to make very clear to them that there is a real problem."

The Briton has now suggested that one way of limiting spending would be to give teams almost total freedom in terms of the rules providing they agree to spend no more than, for example, one hundred million dollars a year.

The agreement would be voluntary, but Mosley believes those teams that opted not to sign-up would eventually cave in and be obliged to comply.

"I could imagine that very soon all the teams would be in the budget cap camp," he told Auto Motor und Sport. "They would realise that for 100 million, you could have great motorsport and build technically advanced cars."

Of the three teams that came into F1 in 2010, the year after his presidency ended, only one survives, albeit with a different name and having almost gone under at the end of last year. Three of the other current teams, Force India, Sauber and Lotus, have made no secret of their financial difficulties.

LATEST NEWS

more news >

RELATED ARTICLES

LATEST IMAGES

galleries >

  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images

POST A COMMENT

or Register for a Pitpass ID to have your say

Please note that all posts are reactively moderated and must adhere to the site's posting rules and etiquette.

Post your comment

READERS COMMENTS

 

1. Posted by scf1fan, 03/05/2015 2:49

"Although I don't want to bash Max, an important issue here would be how he would propose to police this? I don't think it can be done effectively since accounting can be a very creative art.

The only thing the FIA and Mr.E. have control of, in regards to team budgets, is the distribution of the prize money. They should assume that the teams will spend any and every pound, euro, dollar and franc that they can get their hands on!! The only thing that will keep teams from going under is if they have a reasonable chance of producing a capable car (chassis, tires, PUs, etc.) for a reasonable amount of money that they can expect to recover. The difference between the front and back markers is that the (current) leaders will always get more from their sponsors. ALWAYS!! So part of any long term solution has to address why the back markers, who can produce a car capable of 90% of the performance of the frontrunners, typically get near 0% of the prize money.

If the back markers were insured a "livable" wage in terms of participation, the actual money spent would be meaningless. I don't care whether a team spends $40mil or $400mil. What I care about is the ability to innovate and compete to a stable set of rules. Whether they stay or go, is strictly up to their profitability. As I have suggested in previous posts, even the losing teams in the NFL are worth and make (!) sizable amounts of money. A spot to compete in F1 should carry a similar capability."

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

2. Posted by Paul C, 01/05/2015 4:32

"Max makes some sense in this suggestion."

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

Share this page

X

Copyright © Pitpass 2002 - 2020. All rights reserved.

about us  |  advertise  |  contact  |  privacy & security  |  rss  |  terms