F1 Budgets: If the Cap Doesn't Fit...

We see the FIA pushing forward with the budget cap scheme, and we are given sensible-sounding reasons why teams must spend less money. Should we believe anything we are being told?

Politicians and business leaders like to set out a narrative with which they try to dictate the terms of a debate. The politician's narrative will never include his true objectives, which are always to gain or retain power. In business the CEO's narrative will never touch upon his true motive, the expansion of his personal wealth.

I submit to you that in the context of the budget cap debate, we should see Mosley as a politician, and Ecclestone as a business leader.

Max wants to preserve the power of the FIA, Bernie needs to keep the TV rights money flowing into FOM. A united and effective and effective FOTA (Formula One Teams Association) would defeat those aims with consummate ease; thus FOTA must be crippled.

In truth, the teams don't need the FIA. If all were to break away they could form their own regulatory body, or affiliate to one of the FIA's smaller rivals. Similarly, they could negotiate TV rights without the burden of FOM's debts to soak up most of the money. The family who run NASCAR would laugh at the idea of being governed by bureaucrats in Paris, and certainly would not countenance surrendering their TV income.

The budget cap is proving a very effective lever to prise FOTA members apart, and keep them locked into the present structure of F1.

Ferrari President Luca di Montezemolo has accused the FIA of undermining the image of F1 and doing serious damage to the sport with the budget proposals. Yet di Montezemolo is also President of FOTA, and he knows that some of his members are very much in favour of the caps.

Neither the FIA nor Bernie Ecclestone's FOM would want to lose Ferrari, that is a certainty. In addition to being the only F1 team that has been in the sport since the very beginning, they are the easily the most successful, the most famous, and probably the biggest draw.

The commercial worth of F1 can be measured in audience figures. Max and Bernie know that names such as Lola and USGP will not attract viewing numbers on a scale to replace those who would turn away if Ferrari were to quit, but they have to play this gamble to preserve their own positions.

Note how while offending Ferrari, Mosley has engaged in a love-fest with McLaren. He is a clever man, and does not want two powerful enemies at the same time.

Let me turn to the budget cap issue itself, and perhaps present you with a different way to look at it.

The wounded fish of F1, like Frank Williams, are all in favour of spending limits. They are struggling because they have not been successful for a long time. Sinking, thrashing around in desperation, they are eager to grab the budget cap lifebelt.

Is there a good reason to keep the no-hopers in F1? Should it be cheaper for V.J. Mallya to pursue his noisy hobby? Why?

Brawn GP have recently been obliged to cut their costs to match their means. If they continue to win races they will attract sufficient sponsorship to survive, if not they will vanish.

Thus we see there are natural limits to team expenditure, a form of motorsport Darwinism.

The only way I could be convinced in favour of budget regulation would be if money could buy success in the sport. Toyota and BMW are among those to prove that throwing cash at F1 does not buy wins, so I remain firmly opposed.

In the world of engine-powered sport, there are a great many racing series that are tightly specified and cost controlled. None of them are remotely as popular as F1. So why, my friends, should our sport scramble down the ladder to join them?

The cap doesn't fit, so let's not wear it.