42 replies to this topic

[anthony says]

Most people thought the Singapore GP was a great success, but I thought it was a farce. I know I’m addressing a biased community, because everybody on here is serious about F1 (perhaps too serious in some cases!), but I would guess that we can all agree on a few things:

1. the night racing experiment was a success (although the jury is out on whether it would have been a success had it rained)

2. the safety car rules are a joke and turn the ‘racing’ into a lottery

3. most neutrals like to see some different people on the podium from time to time, but preferably on merit (e.g. Vettell) rather than by winning a lottery

4. street circuits make overtaking excessively difficult and safety car periods excessively likely

But the point I am raising is whether F1 should be aimed at people like us or at the mass TV audience. We know that NASCAR is popular and that can be just as much of a lottery as Singapore was. Would F1 be more popular and bigger business if it was actually even more of a joke than the race we’ve just seen?

I wonder whether this is at the heart of what is Bernie Ecclestone’s apparently illogical strategy. He seems to favour circuits like Monaco, Valencia and Singapore which have been designed to eliminate overtaking as much as possible and to encourage safety cars. This makes the racing either boring or comical as far as we are concerned, but is it good for the F1 business? Of course, serious sport can be very entertaining, but is Bernie right to put entertainment first and sport second?

[Matti Poika]

Neither, it a business first and foremost, the sport and entertainment aspects are way down the list of priorities

[BMW_F1]

Originally posted by Matti Poika
Neither, it a business first and foremost, the sport and entertainment aspects are way down the list of priorities

+1..
F1 could never be compared to football, tennis, or any other major sport in the world.. It is an organization which follows the traditional business model of operations where profits are the #1 priority.

[Lifew12]

Why can't it be both?

[Clatter]

Originally posted by Matti Poika
Neither, it a business first and foremost, the sport and entertainment aspects are way down the list of priorities

+2

[MikeTekRacing]

but in which order do they come down? sport first then entertainment? or the other way around?

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by MikeTekRacing
but in which order do they come down? sport first then entertainment? or the other way around?

Why do you watch it?

[postajegenye]

Originally posted by MikeTekRacing
but in which order do they come down? sport first then entertainment? or the other way around?

For the drivers, sport.

For everyone else, something else.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by MikeTekRacing
but in which order do they come down? sport first then entertainment? or the other way around?

Look at some of the major changes that have happened over the years and the answer is fairly obvious. Re-fueling for instance wasnt re-introduced for any sporting reasons, but purely to spice up the show, basically the VIP's who have their corporate boxes overlooking the pits were getting bored and needed something to watch.

[Bloggsworth]

Yes

[Perigee]

Entertainment and Serious sport are not mutually exclusive.

Is a Premiership football match any less of a sport than a match played on Hackney Marshes, simply because the Premiership is very big business?

Is a kart race more of a serious sport than F1 simply because it is not big business?

Not everyone is going to agree with whatever balance there is, but if it wasn't, to some degree, big business, it wouldn't be on our TVs in the first place, and without that business element, while we might all lose some of the aspects of F1 we don't like, I think we'd lose a lot more of what we do like.

I know it can be a bit tiring when people like JYS cannot get through a sentence without mentioning "corporate" and "investment", but if somebody from the perceived "golden age" of racing thinks F1 should be money-money-money, then perhaps we should accept it as something of an inevitability.

[Deepak]

When I started watching F1 in 1993, it was because of the serious nature. It never felt like entertainment.

But after watching the Singapore GP I could not help but feel that I was watching an event just meant for people to gather around & spend a weekend drinking beer focusing on everything around them except the racing.

It is like Test match Vs a One-day cricket game.

[Lifew12]

I'm not sure I get this - surely any sport that you watch, rather than participate in, is entertainment? If it's not, why watch it?

[bugmenot]

F1 should be a serious sport but some forces want to make into a spectacle and an entertainment on prime time. Just like Big Brother, American Idol, Dancing With The Stars etc.

Ferrari is in one corner along with the likes of Williams and usually Renault. And then we have the rest...

[Matti Poika]

Now for a more serious answer (although my previous reply still stands)

As far as single seater racing is concerned, it’s a very fine balancing act between entertainment and serious sport.

The purist in me wants the teams to be left alone to build the perfect racing car. Unfortunately while this may have worked in the past, we are at a technological stage were perfection combined with reliability is so close as makes no difference. (within the current regulations) This on it’s own makes for very boring viewing

The sports fan in me wants there to be a level of unpredictability in the races, the last thing I want is to know the result of the race before it’s even started, but with the champion at the end of the year winning on skill and not luck.

GP2 have managed to get the right balance, in my opinion, but it’s a single manufacturer category and that has no place in F1.
The cars need to change, I think we call all agree on that. The fact that they can’t run close together means you can forget ‘racing’ but so do some aspects of the race weekend, Qualifying is the main one. There is something inherently stupid about putting the fastest car at the front and expecting there to be overtaking, but then the purist in me would say you can’t change how it’s always been and yet the sports fan in me knows that if the grids were reversed we’d get brilliant races every race.

As I said in my first post, F1 is a business first and foremost and as long as it is successful, nothing big is going to change

[lukywill]

Originally posted by Matti Poika
Neither, it a business first and foremost, the sport and entertainment aspects are way down the list of priorities

-1...

it's a sport. not a serious one. there's no such thing as a serious sport - the word sport in it self is far from serious approach - unless by serious we mean the millions drivers and capo's make each year.

a good sport should be entertaining. if not what's the use of it?

maybe it's a business for auto makers (but in the strict window of good advertising). but for for sure it's not a business for me. nor i think for some old people that still get around, like frank williams for instance. for sure he could make a lot more money if he tried some other activity.

[27GV]

All major sports are a business nowadays.

This is not the gentlemanly sport of the 60's when death was common and only the courageous would take to the wheel. There was a time when catering to the sponsors and audience (only because they mean sponsors) became paramount over the sporting aspect for those running the show, I don't know exactly when but the sport of F1 died a bit that day.

[Hacklerf]

Originally posted by Matti Poika
Neither, it a business first and foremost, the sport and entertainment aspects are way down the list of priorities

Indeed, but it is only recently they have realised that they must provide a show for the business to succeed

[bob sacramento]

Its business, entertainment then sport.
For me, a sport is for the participants rather than the spectators. I think a reasonable test is 'if no one turned up to watch, would the sport be unchanged?'
A game of football, yes. A kart race, yes. A game of table tennis, yes, a formula one race . I think not.

[BMW_F1]

Originally posted by Lifew12
I'm not sure I get this - surely any sport that you watch, rather than participate in, is entertainment? If it's not, why watch it?

of course it is, what is think is being debated here is the the prioritization of entertainment over other aspects of the sport. Fox, example if at any given country the attendance of football matches drops you will never see FIFA changing the rules of the sport to compensate for that..

[kismet]

It's a gazillion-dollar ad campaign on wheels.

[pgj]

@anthony says,

you make some interesting points.

Bernie's liking for street circuits has not much to do with motor racing and everything to do with local government being prepared to stump up money to have F1 cars racing around their streets. I believe that there are lower running costs in putting on a street race than there are for a circuit race which means that there is more money left after running costs are removed. We all know how Bernie feels about money, he has worn his legs out "following the money"! lol.

[potmotr]

It is a entertainment business, providing a sporting activity people want to watch.

[bob sacramento]

example if at any given country the attendance of football matches drops you will never see FIFA changing the rules of the sport to compensate for that..

The ironic thing is that most of the FIA rule changes have had the effect of making it more boring.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by BMW_F1


example if at any given country the attendance of football matches drops you will never see FIFA changing the rules of the sport to compensate for that..

I wouldn't be too sure about that at all.

[postajegenye]

Not strictly related to the topic, but what I hate is when people (who nothing about F1) keep saying that it's not a sport at all because the drivers do nothing except sitting there and turning the wheel.

Well, they should try it, driving at those speeds for nearly two hours, keeping the concentration all the way (there are no breaks after every half an hour, the longest they can stop is the 10 seconds of pit stops..), often in more than 30 degrees wearing that overall...

[wewantourdarbyback]

It's a sport, nothing more to say, all forms of sport are also entertainment for both those participating and any spectators who watch the event.

[bob sacramento]

We're not saying is not a sport 'cos the drivers just sit there and turn a wheel, or even that there is no sport element. Its just that first and foremost its an entertainment/marketing business and then a sport.

[anthony says]

Can I give an example then, say tennis, which I would say is both a serious sport and entertaining. But some people feel it's boring that there are only two players who can win. And they don't normally play in the same tournaments, so if Federer is playing and Nadal isn't, then Federer will almost certainly win the tournament. Because he's the best. And that's a bit predictable.

Whereas in F1 at Singapore, almost anybody could have won on Sunday. OK, Alonso was going really well, but if he hadn't pitted early, he wouldn't have won. If Heidfeld or Glock or even poor old Heikki had been the one who pitted early, they would have won instead. Whereas Massa was the best, the Federer person, but once Piquet crashed, Massa's chance of winning was gone, pit problems or no pit problems.

I say that's a joke. But my question is - is it good?

I guess though the other difference with tennis is that tennis is inherently entertaining, whereas Bernie has to take into account that F1 is inherently boring (unless you're an enthusiast), so he has to turn it into a joke as that's the only way to make it entertaining for the TV masses (unless it rains).

[uffen]

F1 is a business and a sport, as are most upper level "sports" these days.

Bernie's approach is to bring the racing to the people, rather than asking the people to go to the racing. So, now we have city-based circuits coming on-board, rather than new venues out in the wide open spaces, as was the tradition.

Singapore was a success by most measurements. It was also a step closer to the "circus" aspect that is growing alongside F1. Set up a temporary accommodation, bring in the circus, put up the lights, seperate the fans from the performers with fences and then disappear.
Some will become attached to the "circus" and some will find it a one-time diversion.

When the circus went to places away from the population centres (Monaco excepted) the vast majority of those attending were fans who were already drawn to the spectacle.

[parkiw]

Originally posted by bob sacramento
Its business, entertainment then sport.
For me, a sport is for the participants rather than the spectators. I think a reasonable test is 'if no one turned up to watch, would the sport be unchanged?'
A game of football, yes. A kart race, yes. A game of table tennis, yes, a formula one race . I think not.

Hi Bob,

I think you're on to something here - that seems like a reasonable test. But what do you feel would be different about F1 if no-one turned up to watch?

People would still race cars; and there'd still be a top category of motor racing; and it would probably still be a worldwide championship. The cars would look very different, certainly, and safety levels would be much much lower just because there'd be less cash flowing around - but I can't really imagine a significant difference to actual racing?

[Gareth]

I find it entertaining because it is a sport

[Ocelot]

I find it entertaining because it is a sport

Indeed. The FIA lies and open rigging of it are some of F1's most intriguing aspects!

[stevewf1]

F1 is more of a business and engineering exercise than anything.

[Ocelot]

F1 is more of a business and engineering exercise than anything.

Business, engineering, marketing, sport, entertainment and a good bit of fiddling from the powers that be!

To answer the thread question, why don't they call it 'sports entertainment'

;)

[anthony says]

In tennis if Federer was grinding his way to an inevitable win, they could maybe spice things up by introducing a tube of balls all of different weights, so they all went all over the place. That would be quite a laugh and it would give the other guy a chance, who knows who would win the match? And it would be more entertaining, especially for people who generally find tennis a bit boring.

My point is that, although that would be far too stupid for it to ever happen in tennis, that is exactly the way F1 races are run under Bernie. The safety car rules and the way the winner was decided on Sunday turn it from a serious sport into a lottery, a joke. And a joke is entertainment folks.

[Ocelot]

And a joke is entertainment folks.

I agree. Motorsport is undoubtedly a sport but F1, as a subsection of it, is not.

One of the most sensible rules that F1 could introduce to stop alienating fans would be to say that the result at the end of the race remains come what may. There is good reason that this will never happen though and that is that it prevents the FIA from altering the result after the race is over.

[4MEN]

It's NBA a sport or a show-business? or BOTH?

[marcus123]

basketball is definately a sport. ( I assume NBA is basketball ).

[pippin]

I think F1 is entertainment first. In fact I'd go so far as to say its better than any Soap Opera (why watch Eastenders or Coronation Street when you can have F1!!). Its a sport too, no doubt and sometimes we get really lucky and get to enjoy both the entertainment and the sport.

We are always going to ask this kind of question when it seems the balance of sport versus entertainment/drama/politics seems to swing too far away from 'sport' though. It has got really really silly in the last couple of seasons it has to be said. So I really hope next season will bring a bit more of the sport back. I'm not holding my breath on that one though.

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by Ocelot
Business, engineering, marketing, sport, entertainment and a good bit of fiddling from the powers that be!

To answer the thread question, why don't they call it 'sports entertainment'

;)

ESPN called itself just that what, way back in 1980?

[the9th]

Its a business. Period. Ask Bernie, the owner...

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by stevewf1
ESPN called itself just that what, way back in 1980?

The Entertainment and Sports Programming Network was launched in the Fall of 1979.