Lopez: “We are the worst managers in the world”

When we went to the Barcelona paddock, we had already extensively discussed the deep disagreements among team leaders regarding the issue of costs in F1. Since then, the situation has not improved, far from it, as two teams have now left the paddock.

During the press conference reserved for them on Friday, the question was central since it was simply the sole topic of conversation for the entire press conference! To the point that Toto Wolff, the director of Mercedes, ended up declaring: “We haven’t heard the names of Hamilton, Ricciardo, Vettel, Rosberg. None of the drivers today. We haven’t talked about McLaren’s performance today. What we’re talking about… We’re using this conference as a panel to express our frustration, to show how everything is bad and we’re all denigrating. It’s like a vicious circle.”

Gérard Lopez, the owner of Lotus, once again led the charge. He made a striking comparison between F1 and GP2: “Since people in F1 are really interested in racing, some forget certain economic realities. There is something called the Law of Diminishing Returns. If I take a GP2 car and race it here, it won’t be ridiculous. It will be two, four, five, six, maybe seven seconds slower. The entire GP2 team for the whole season will cost four million euros. Do we really need to spend so much? Are we really so much better that a team needs to spend 300 million euros to be six seconds faster? No, we are not. I won’t accept that argument from anyone. We are not 300 million euros better, if you take the big teams, than a GP2 team. So it’s a bit ridiculous to say that you need to spend that money to be competitive because it makes us the worst managers in the world. If I look at the financial aspects of the sport, comparing GP2 and F1, and the law of diminishing returns, we are probably the worst managers. And we are proud of it! If we’re not, we really need to think about it.”

However, even the leaders of the small teams no longer seem to believe in the implementation of budget caps, as shown by the statements of Vijay Mallya, the owner of Sahara Force India: « We have talked about budget caps a number of times and, in the end, I think the big teams or manufacturers were opposed to it. But I think it was a good initiative that did not come to fruition to make a real difference. »

But what now seems to be questioned is the distribution of income, which largely favors the big teams. So if Ferrari were to finish last in the championship, they would still earn more money than if Sauber or Marussia became world champions.

This is exactly what Vijay Mallya said: « If you look at the share of revenues, I think we are a unique sport where the participating teams receive the smallest share of the revenues compared to the total turnover. When you compare it to any other sport in the world, we are unfortunately the lowest ranked. I am very sad that two teams are no longer with us on the grid here in Austin and I don’t think something like this should happen. »

Gérard Lopez is entirely aligned with the ideas put forward by the owner of Sahara Force India: « The revenue distribution model is completely wrong. We can discuss whether the level of what is distributed is good or bad, and Vijay has already mentioned part of this issue. But we have teams that receive more money simply for being present than teams that participate throughout the season. So something is fundamentally wrong with the system and it should not be allowed. It is no longer the time to just talk about it but to act. So we will see what happens in the coming weeks. »

Above all, the simple fact that these major discussions are taking place is a bad thing for the sport and for the participants. Indeed, it conveys the image of a sport that is in financial crisis, which would imply that it interests spectators and therefore sponsors less, which is not the case since F1 managed to generate a turnover of 1.7 billion dollars in 2013, a record level for the sport.

Monisha Kaltenborn, the director of Sauber, regrets that people talk more about the economic aspects of F1 than the sport itself: « We really need to ask ourselves what’s being done to the sport? We’re sending messages to our fans that are not really what they want to hear. They should be talking about the great races we have, the wonderful experience they’ve had coming here, but instead they’re talking about finances, costs, and teams going into administration. We’re creating a very bad image outward, where new partners will think: “Do we really want to get into a sport with all these issues, which normally don’t concern a sport but other sectors?” We really need to react, study the situation, and look at how to achieve a fair distribution of the income we receive. This is how we will manage to keep other teams beyond just the big ones. »

However, when reading the statement from Eric Boullier, McLaren’s racing director, one can realize that the rift is clearly deep between the two categories of teams: « The real problem is that to be competitive, you must spend a minimum level of money and today that level is too high. You can blame the distribution model, you can blame the revenues, you can blame everyone, but the reality is that to be competitive, you must spend a minimum. Since we are all competitors, we all want to spend that money. In the end, there are a lot of emotions this weekend because of the absence of two teams. It’s true that if revenues for the smaller teams were higher, the first thing they would do is hire more people, they would spend more because they want to be competitive. You don’t solve the problem by doing that. So yes, you save jobs but nothing more. »

With the participation of www.Racingbusiness.fr