[Alex Ritchie]

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo, who is also Chairman of the Formula One Teams' Association, has led calls for a bigger share for the teams of the revenue that Bernie Ecclestone rakes in from the marketing of F1. Here's part of Bernie's open reply to Luca:


But Ecclestone has been angered by those comments - and thinks it especially wrong for di Montezemolo to criticise him because of the special financial arrangements that Ferrari have enjoyed within F1 due to their historical importance.

"The only thing he has not mentioned is the extra money Ferrari get above all the other teams and all the extra things Ferrari have had for years - the 'general help' they are considered to have had in Formula One," Ecclestone told The Times.

"Ferrari get so much more money than everyone else. They know exactly what they get; they are not that stupid, although they are not that bright, either. They get about $80 million (£54 million) more. When they win the constructors' championship, which they did this year, they got $80 million more than if McLaren had won it."
[emphasis added]

It's so sad when your pet dog turns around and barks at you...but at least all pretense that F1 is a sport has been thrown out of the paddock. I'm sure Bernie feels a lot better now with that off his chest.

[Mikko Nassi]

but at least all pretense that F1 is a sport has been thrown out of the paddock.

In certain karting events high profile drivers/teams are given "starting money" and more attention from the organisers, same goes for Motocross, MotoGP/500cc(at least a decade or two ago), athletics events, tennis etc. etc.. I'm not sure that disqualifies these events as sporting events.

Ferrari are in a position to demand more money because they are more important to F1 than the other teams - can't really blame them for taking advantage of the position they're in.

[yenchen23]

Well this is what you get if you're running an organization or company without any transparency. Personally I deject whatever rule that favors certain teams. Once the playing field is not level, we will show our human nature at its worst. We have to honestly ask ourselves 'why do we need to favor a certain team or individual'? Do we really need to see him/her win that bad? Even if s/he wins, wouldn't it be a hollow victory?

We can argue all day long, but the fact is favoritism is never good in a long period of time. It will make that person complacent and instead of working harder, s/he will ask for more rule-tipping in his/her favor.

On the other hand, if we can beat the sh*t out of them at their own turf, it feels reaaaally good! Just like beating the top team favored by the stewards. If you've played R/C or Tamiya Mini Yonku (4WD) you know there's always the organizer's own kids competing with you. They never got inspected, their machinery & equipments never got checked, and most of the time their cars can overlap yours just in 2 laps! And when they lost, oh boy, they cried and screamed to high heaven saying everyone else cheated!

Yes, a high profile drivers/teams will get more attention and most probably sponsorship money. I have no qualm about it. As long as they're competing on equal basis and rules, it's perfectly okay. For example, for every point a team get, they will have $1000. But when you start treating them differently: For every point a team get, they will have $1000, but for every point Ferrari get, they will have $2000. That's not fair! It's like saying their win is worth more than your win.

[Alex Ritchie]

The additional money Ferrari get is not the issue. Over the years Bernie has made no secret of the fact that he believes Ferrari are the most important team to the image and commercial success of F1 i.e. they have the most fans by a long shot. Bernie has been consistent about this ever since he took over the commercial rights to F1. In the early years he would discuss rule changes with Enzo Ferrari first. Once Enzo agreed he would then bring them to the other teams for their consideration and agreement.

The only surprise here is that Bernie chose to make the amount public this time. The current arrangements were made during a time [2005 -2006] when the F1 teams of Renault, Honda, Toyota, BMW and Mercedes were negotiating for a higher share of revenue with Bernie and they threatened to start their own "F1" series if Bernie did not agree. Bernie signed on Ferrari and a few independent teams like Jordan and Williams and the idea of a breakaway series died away completely. So the non-Ferrari teams have known all along that Ferrari got more and it has not been an issue at all.

The real surprise is Bernie's mention of "all the extra things Ferrari have had for years - the 'general help' they are considered to have had in Formula One". What does he mean by that?

Could he have been referring to, for example, Malaysia 1999? Malaysia was the last but one race that year and Ferrari came to Sepang leading the constructors championship but Eddie Irvine was two points behind Mika Hakkinen in the drivers. Michael Schumacher drove a fantastic race, blocking Mika all the way before moving aside late in the race for Eddie to win it. However the Ferraris failed post-race scrutineering when their barge boards were found to be 1 cm wider than permitted and they were disqualified from their 1 - 2 finish. McLaren had won both championships before the last race in Japan!

Ferrari appealed on the grounds that the wider barge boards did not give them an advantage, which is a nonsense reason. [In karting the rear track has to be 140 cm or less. If you run your kart at 141 cm you will be disqualified even though in all probability the wider rear track is a disadvantage...]

Bernie said this before the appeal was heard:

F1 Supremo, Bernie Ecclestone, criticised the FIA's decision to disqualify Ferrari from the Malaysian Grand Prix, tagging it as "nonesense," and called for a loosening of the regulations. "What happened in Malaysia is bad for the sport," said Ecclestone. "I would like what the public want - to see a great finish in Japan."

"I have campaigned for years that the Formula One rules and regulations are too tight," Ecclestone said...


Subsequently at the appeal the FIA ruled, among other things, that the measuring equipment available in Malaysia was inadquate to measure a 1 cm difference! The DSQ was over-ruled and Ferrari were leading both championships going into Japan.

To a simple mind like mine it seems to be a fairly simple matter to measure the dimensions of the barge boards of a Ferrari at a dead stop. It would be something like measuring the rear track of a kart, wouldn't it? I guess what the FIA was saying is that the tape measures available in Malaysia are so inaccurate that they cannot even measure a 1 cm difference...

Or maybe Bernie was referring to 2003 when Michelin front tyres were ruled illegal after Michelin users had won five races in a row. Ferrari won the next three races (the final three) and both championships.

Or perhaps the "general help" referred to Ferrai's flexi-wings in 2006 or their flexi-floor in 2007.

Or maybe Brazil 2007 or Spa 2008?

[JohnKing6]

Or maybe Brazil 2007 or Spa 2008?

Ahhh but you forget the consistency the FIA showed at Nurburgring 2008 when Hamilton and Massa got the same penalties - one for being a bit aggressive at the start and running wide (and taking a few people with him) and one for completely cutting a corner with all four wheels over the curbs and hitting his main competitor. Was it also the same race Bordias got the same penalty for coming out of the pit lane inconveniently (but legally) in front of one of the red cars?

Still, Bernie does say it's a circus and you do have to look after your clowns

Go Lewis - really stick it to them this year!!!!!!!!!!