As you can read in this article (Formula 1 teams' 2014 payouts revealed) the changed division in achievement (read: Mercedes kicks everyone's but) has changed NOTHING in de division of price-money. I hope Autosport allows, for the sake of discussion, a post of just the graphic demonstration.
As you can see Ferrari gets more money from FOM than Mercedes. Red Bull gets more than Mercedes. Williams gets less money than McLaren. For chrissake!
I find it quite staggering that this travesty keeps going on and on and on. There's 885 million dollars in the hat which could be used for a much more sustainable F1. What could be done to break through this ongoing sham?
Discuss.
Some perhaps unconventional thoughts I have are:
1. In the Column 1/2 - for Sauber to receive $44m for coming last, I don't actually think that represents an unfair prize or poor return for sporting failure.
2. To me it illustrates that the real problem is you should be able to go racing for $44m in prize money plus whatever income you can generate through sponsorship and diversification (surely a minimum total of $50m - that would ask the last placed team to find $6m). If anyone thinks it is reasonable that you cannot sustainably compete in F1 for $50m per year, they must surely think that money grows on trees. This isn't about what the top teams want to spend - that is up to them. This is about the minimum budget required to compete without going bust.
3. I don't actually have a huge problem with any of the values in Column 1/2 - $92 for winning down to $44m for losing sounds like a reasonably placed incentive steps.
4. The problem on the distribution side is the Premium Column. For Ferrari to receive more ($97m) for being Ferrari, than the winning team will get for winning ($92m) is absolutely, completely nuts. There must be a line in the sand at which point financial inequality renders a sport not actually a sport at all, and this payment surely surpasses it. Even if it is a point of (provable) value that Ferrari brings a proportionately large share of wealth (interest, awareness, fans) to F1 through its participation, then the counter argument must be, that this is only realised if Ferrari has competitors to race against. It could be argued that a direct consequence of the "Ferrari payment" is that F1's value is being lowered through its unsustainable model leading to less competitors, pay drivers, far flug GP's... In other words an argument that Ferrari are being disproportionately incentivized to not only F1's detriment, but THEIR OWN, is probably valid. Get some researchers onto this now!
5. So the Premiums add up to $250m. With 10 teams on track and 4 manufacturers, 6 need a customer PU which costs approx $30m at the moment. What I would do, is use the premium pot to subsidise the customer to the tune of $25m - so $150 would be shared between the manufacturers. If a 5th manufacturer arrived, that subsidy would fall to $125m as it would be one less customer to subsidise.
That would leave $100m at present which I would then share in a far more socialist manner than is currently the case. If fail to see how Mercedes or McLarens participation hinges on their $34m - Redbull are threatening to leave anyway so clearly their $74m doesn't come with any rope, and I think its about time someone called Ferrari's bluff on their stance that without them F1 is nothing.
Edited by Rinehart, 13 May 2015 - 14:28.
How is that even possible they have more championships then the Brackley based team which is now of course Mercedes. 
