What Lessons Can Formula 1 Learn from MotoGP?

There are few championships which operate on a global scale and even fewer that could argue equivalency to the Formula One World Championship.

While motorsport's pinnacle might not offer the dependable wheel-to-wheel excitement of touring cars, the bumper-bashing thrill of NASCAR or the competitive, level playing field of IndyCar, it trumps all before it in terms of glamour and prestige.

But that's just against its four-wheeled counterparts.

Whisper it quietly: There's a championship that offers half the number of wheels but twice the excitement, thrice the competition and five times the value for money.

MotoGP might be considered taboo among some F1 personnel and fans, but there is a heck of a lot F1 could take from Grand Prix motorcycle racing's upper echelon.

Better prices, down-to-the-wire title battles and a superb, privateer-supporting philosophy means MotoGP boasts factors F1 fans look to in envy.

Fan-Friendliness

Here is a modern-day "change the record" rant: F1 tickets are too expensive.

But while people may be sick of making the same complaint with nothing being done about it, you cannot ignore that tickets are a lot cheaper in MotoGP.

Let's take 2013 F1 ticket prices to start with, per BBC Sport, using the representative British and Spanish Grands Prix:

Race	Cheapest race	Cheapest three-day	Most expensive race	Most expensive three day
Spain	£104	£104	£216	£338
Britain	£145	£165	£320	£430

According to the same website, a single-day ticket for the British MotoGP round was £70. A weekend ticket for the season-ending Valencia race is £37 with the most expensive being a mere £130.

To get into MotoGP's VIP Village at this weekend's finale would set you back £900. Formula 1's Paddock Club is three times that amount.

Don't underestimate the commercial appeal of great racing, either.

That might sound obvious, but F1's universal appeal, despite several dull years in recent seasons, is proof that its raw DNA is mighty intriguing to punters.

But while MotoGP only has three manufacturer entries and two out-and-out potential race-winning teams (on raw pace, for the majority of the season), it more than makes up for with it with the quality of lead battles in each race and a title battle that regularly goes to the final round.

Case in point: the 2013 British Moto Grand Prix. What a spectacular race. Didn't see it? Click here.

There's also an argument to be made for MotoGP's race format. Shorter, 45-minute blasts are a damn sight more entertaining than the near-to-two hour snoozefests F1 is capable of producing.

This combination of cheaper access and more entertaining racing means it is little wonder the majority MotoGP grandstand is packed while F1 increasingly struggles to put bums on seats.

Fairer Championship Finances

Aside from significantly lower hosting rights (as low as £3 million compared to F1's not-unheard of £20 million in fees), MotoGP has a much more manageable financial structure.

But then, as this writer has already written, F1's financial breakdown is appallingly disproportionate.

F1's creative rights holder, CVC Holdings, pockets 47.5 percent of the sport's revenue (50 percent less a 2.5 percent payment to Ferrari, thanks to a special deal negotiated by the famous marque).

The teams then split the remaining 47.5 percent—they, too, have to pay Ferrari 2.5 percent and about 10 percent in total for the expense of freighting cars across the globe—but even that is not even.

The £400 million or so that is left is split into two groups—one based on success, with a fairly standard breakdown from the top team to the team that finishes last, and one based on however best you've negotiated a deal with Bernie Ecclestone.

While Red Bull and Ferrari can theoretically pocket £80 million, Marussia would be advised not to sniff one-tenth of that.

It's not the same in MotoGP.

Dorna, MotoGP's rights holder, individually negotiates slices with the major teams in the International Road Racing Teams Association, negotiating on behalf of the rest, including Moto2 and Moto3.

According to Autosport (subscription required) political writer Dieter Rencken, Dorna trousered less than 10 percent of MotoGP's probable £250 million revenue in 2011, while the teams (minus expenses) pocketed the rest.

Much, much fairer.

If CVC did the equivalent in F1, it would take £125 million. The teams would split nearer £900 million, and even when you filter in its still-disproportional breakdown, that probably amounts to an extra £30 million per team.

In other words, what a major sponsor brings…

Affordable Racing

MotoGP's financial advantages for the teams don't just stop at their slice of the commercial revenue.

It is significantly cheaper to run a factory operation, with Honda (according to Rencken) reputedly spending one-sixth of the top F1 teams, a number likely to have dropped since they reverted back to a two-bike operation.

But arguably MotoGP's greatest facet is the encouragement of privateer entries.

Satellite bikes are common in a sport where only three manufacturers are currently involved (Yamaha, Honda and Ducati—though Suzuki and Aprilia will rejoin the fray soon), but that is absolutely not to its detriment.

Tech 3 Yamaha has fought for poles, podiums and wins this year with Cal Crutchlow, while the Pramac Ducatis and Gresini Hondas are often there or thereabouts.

The factory outfits filter down upgrades at a slower rate (understandably), but the fact that the Tech 3s and Pramacs can go Grand Prix motorcycle racing for a reputed £4 million per season is sensational value-for-money.

Compare that to F1, where customer cars are stringently outlawed per the tripartite Concorde Agreement that governs the sport.

There is talk (as Bleacher Report analysed last month) of F1 loosening the reins when it comes to customer teams, but it is still only a pipe dream at present. Remember the furore over Red Bull and Toro Rosso and the threatened legal action of Williams?

It's a massive shame that F1 does not share MotoGP's attitude in this regard. Anything that boosts numbers, reduces costs and increases competition has to be viewed as a positive step.

But then again, if F1 offered even half the incentive its two-wheeled sibling did, it wouldn't be the expensive, saturated, political mess of a sport we often love to despair.