'Franchise' F1 teams shouldn't get a say on Andretti entry

I was fortunate enough to be on a table with the incredible Michael Tee (son of former Motor Sport proprietor Wesley J Tee, and father of current F1 photographer Stephen Tee), who was at the first British Grand Prix at Silverstone in 1948 and numerous races since. Other than his son, he has very little direct connection to F1 as it is now, and yet as a photographer, Michael helped tell the story of F1 in the past, making him a clear part of the sport’s history.

And hearing some of his amazing stories got me thinking about where F1 is headed and why some of the recent statements coming out of teams is a little bit worrying in my view, relating to one specific aspect at least.

Because when you think of F1 and its history, it is littered with opportunities for people. Not for everyone – as I mentioned, it’s a ridiculously expensive sport – but the whole point of F1 was there was a set of rules and if you could create a car quick enough to compete under that set of rules then you’d usually get a chance to try.

Now, it’s a very different time, whilst it’s completely unrealistic for anyone to suggest F1 should still be as open as it was back in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s in having pre-qualifying and one-off entries, I also don’t think those who are currently involved get to choose when the music stops.

The word ‘franchise’ has become commonplace in the paddock, with almost all of the teams now describing themselves as franchises when discussing their place on the grid and the growing value of their companies.

But they’re not franchises in the sense that they were offered one by F1, under the pretence that there was a limited number and they had to prove themselves worthy. Many of the teams currently on the grid wanted to be part of the sport because of the marketing and commercial opportunities it offers on top of the sporting aspect, and while some – such as Red Bull or Aston Martin – purchased existing teams when they were up for sale or struggling, others – such as Haas or Alfa Romeo Sauber – created new entities that could come in and compete.

And yet, now there is so much money involved in the sport and it is proving so lucrative, they don’t want anyone else to be able to come and threaten them.

I get that the COVID pandemic was extremely hard, and teams had to respond. But the sweeping changes that saw the budget cap introduced have helped them all enjoy more profitable outlooks. With only ten teams, all ten are guaranteed a good chunk of prize money from the commercial rights holder, so when the likes of Andretti come knocking on the door they aren’t open to accepting anyone new.

Despite the creation of a $200million (£160million) anti-dilution fee in the latest Concorde Agreement that a new team is mandated to pay if it wants a pot on the grid – in turn massively inflating the value of the existing entrants – teams fear their share of the pot being diluted. Essentially, they think they deserve more than that £16million each if anyone else wants to come and race against them.

Not only does such a stance keep a limit on the number of seats available to young talents or jobs to up and coming mechanics and engineers, but it also risks being anti-competitive.

In the past, a team needed to finish in the top ten in the constructors’ championship to be eligible for bigger earnings from the commercial rights holder, ensuring that they only took a decent share of the pot if they were competitive enough. It prevented a team just running around at the back and turning a profit, taking money out of the sport.

If they’re not willing to accept new entrants, what’s to stop a team owner doing the same now, if there’s no threat of finishing any lower than tenth? There’s guaranteed income, without a threat of it ever disappearing through lack of performance.

Would anyone actually do that? I don’t know. And I do admit that you can’t just grant an entry to any team simply because they say they want in and have lots of money behind them. But it also shouldn’t be up to the teams to decide who does or doesn’t race with them.

Signing up to the same rules, any new team will face the same challenge as all the rest on the grid, and a budget cap ensures they can’t enter and massively outspend the existing outfits in a way that would put their futures at risk.

Of course the current teams are going to want more money for themselves, but the anti-dilution fee should have ended any say they have on that topic. If they lose a percentage of the revenues, they all lose a percentage, and in a budget cap era that will affect all relatively equally from a competitive standpoint. Plus, losing a percentage doesn’t mean losing money overall, if the size of the pot you’re getting a percentage of grows as a result.

It should be on F1 and the FIA alone to make a call on new teams, based on their commercial viability and sporting potential. Allowing the sport to become a closed shop because the current teams decide they’re in the right place at the right time would be a significant shift away from F1’s history.

Events like the Grand Prix Trust on Monday serve as a reminder that the money doesn’t always trickle down and people need support. Hopefully F1 isn’t headed for a future where those who do make good money get to make decisions that simply allow them to make even more, whether it’s for the greater good or not.