91 replies to this topic

[shure]

That argument has been put forward for years, decades even, yet the top teams always hire the top drivers and pay the top money,

it was only in reference to Supply & Demand from the previous poster.  To illustrate that driver salaries aren't necessarily governed just by Supply & Demand as on paper it doesn't appear to be the case for eg Mercedes.  They aren't paying top dollar to Hamilton because there is a scarcity of top drivers to fill the seat or because without him they wouldn't be winning.  Clearly there are additional factors at play.

[boomn]

If/when the global economy heads downhill over the next few years and manufacturers are worrying about the cost commitments to be competitive then I can imagine that this could be another piece that helps.  

[Rodaknee]

Drivers are self-employed. They make their own tax arrangements, we know that because of the IoM aircraft dodge that Hamilton, along with dozens of other wealthy people used to save a few quid.  Any contract with a team would be changed to only cover work associated with driving.  Activities outside of driving would be subject to agreements with other persons.  Try as much as they like, the FIA/Liberty will not have access to a drivers accounts outside of those dealing with his team. 

 

I'd like to know how much the top 3 at FOM are earning.  We know Bernie skimmed billions out of F1 when he was holding the purse strings.  Ross Brawn was worth a few bob when he left Mercedes, I wouldn't have thought he's returned to F1 only to pick up peanuts.

[Rodaknee]

Yep, see also Rugby Union in the UK - https://www.rugby.co...andal-explained

 

A team caught breaking the budget cap rules by "helping" players invest in property.

Rugby Union has always treated their players like dirt.  They've only recently stopped paying them nothing and banning former players from getting involved in management, training, etc, for daring to write an article for a local paper.

[paipa]

If it can be circumvented, it's pointless, and I don't see why the FIA or the teams would bother creating this rule. If it can't be, what is it expected to achieve? Prevent top teams from hogging the best drivers, and leave some of them for the smaller teams?

 

I hoped the cost cap would encourage all-star lineups because if rich teams can't spend more money on development, their only remaining avenue to extra performance is hiring not just one, but two top drivers. Is this what it wants to prevent? And even then, why would they propose a two-driver salary cap significantly smaller than the typical salary of a single top driver?

 

Who am I kidding, it's just money grabbing collusion from the teams. They are so pumped about the development cost cap making them more money, they want to extend it further.

[RedRabbit]

To me, it's been obvious for some time that Mercedes have shifted full support to Hamilton as he nears Schumachers headline records. There will be tremendous value in having powered the most successful driver of all time, on a marketing level and in the boardroom. He doesn't get paid the big money for his driving ability alone.

I don't really see the point in the cap. I remember Jenson Button taking a massive pay cut for 2009 because Brawn GP had so little money to run the team for the season. I think he got paid something like $3 million in salary, but still earned over $20 million for the year with personal endorsements and sponsorship. It would be completely impossible to limit that kind of thing. Even Michael Schumacher amassed most of his fortune from endorsements and merchandise sales.

[fed up]

If it can be circumvented, it's pointless, and I don't see why the FIA or the teams would bother creating this rule. If it can't be, what is it expected to achieve? Prevent top teams from hogging the best drivers, and leave some of them for the smaller teams?

 

I hoped the cost cap would encourage all-star lineups because if rich teams can't spend more money on development, their only remaining avenue to extra performance is hiring not just one, but two top drivers. Is this what it wants to prevent? And even then, why would they propose a two-driver salary cap significantly smaller than the typical salary of a single top driver?

 

Who am I kidding, it's just money grabbing collusion from the teams. They are so pumped about the development cost cap making them more money, they want to extend it further.

 

Absolutely.

 

Furthermore, I see this as a stealth plan to introduce spec cars into the sport. If the teams are capped to the same spend, driver salaries are capped, customer/clone cars are allowed and there is a $200m barrier to entry for new teams, complacency will soon start to creep into F1. The Mercs, RBR's and Ferrari will continue to benefit from loyalty payments, so they'll stay at the top of the sport - the rest will be able to compete for a decent profit regardless of where they place in the WCC.

 

The teams and Liberty have a plan, a long term plan to improve the show. F1 as we know it will soon be of a bygone era. Chase Casey has indicated the direction of travel:

 

"I think you have to be careful that you don't gimmick-up the sport, that you're recognising the importance of history and the importance of what has made this sport special, but not let that become a straightjacket that doesn't enable you to consider changes that may truly enhance the sport for fans."

 

All they have to do is to increase the income that comes into the sport. The cost cap is important for sure, but I see the steps being taken as a ruse to make the sport more elitist, not less.

[Sterzo]

I understand the difficulty of implementing a cost cap, the complexity of driver payment arrangements, and agree development spend affects performance more than drivers. None of those arguments changes these basic points:

1. The cost of running an F1 team needs reducing.
2. Driver contracts are part of the overall cost of running a team.

Current costs are unsustainable. They are so high that:

1. Manufacturers are less likely to stay in.
2. Private teams are more likely to go bust.
3. New teams are less likely to replace them.
4. Too much is screwed out of race organisers and TV viewers.

[lustigson]

I would drive for € 22 million...

[Chillimeister]

I would drive for € 22 million...

 

I would do it for €2m. Then you would truly see that Albon and Stroll etc. are really quite good ... 

[Marklar]

Helmut Marko actually mentioned a while ago that he expects the driver salaries to explode if there is no driver salary cap because of the budget cap. If drivers know that the teams have more income and if the rule changes achieve paritiy not only their worth will increase but they can even coordinate their negotiations in a way that the teams will end up to outbit each other no matter what, because in the end they do have the money to pay them and also the need for them, so they will pay.

Just...not sure if caping them both is a wise idea, it just seals the fact that you wont have two top drivers together again.

[Britmax]

Rugby Union has always treated their players like dirt.  They've only recently stopped paying them nothing and banning former players from getting involved in management, training, etc, for daring to write an article for a local paper.

Yes. A lot of people don't know that before the professional era, if you moved from Union to League the PTB's wouldn't ever let you come back: you had been a professional, don'tye know?

[Hakki069]

Just...not sure if caping them both is a wise idea, it just seals the fact that you wont have two top drivers together again.

I agree with Marko for once. Driver salaries will get out of control if they don't limit them. God knows what Hamilton will demand for example once he seals his 7th WDC.

The way things are going now a days team don't seem to want to place two stars next to each other anyway. So not going to lose much.

Hamilton could probably laugh all the way to the bank he will more than likely retire before this cap actually comes into effect in 23.
Verstappen and Leclerc though are probably secretly annoyed at it. Will make there deals more complicated to put together going forward.

[BRG]

I agree with Marko for once. Driver salaries will get out of control if they don't limit them.

 

I have news for Helmut and for you.  That ship has sailed long since.  

[Marklar]

I agree with Marko for once. Driver salaries will get out of control if they don't limit them. God knows what Hamilton will demand for example once he seals his 7th WDC.

The way things are going now a days team don't seem to want to place two stars next to each other anyway. So not going to lose much.

Hamilton could probably laugh all the way to the bank he will more than likely retire before this cap actually comes into effect in 23.
Verstappen and Leclerc though are probably secretly annoyed at it. Will make there deals more complicated to put together going forward.

Not quite. Sainz or Bottas-esque drivers also earn about 10 million. if they will in the future be paired with a top driver they will probably earn nothing. Or they just hire people like Stroll or Kvyat who probably would race for 500k or something.

Edited by Marklar, 29 October 2020 - 16:33.

[shure]

I agree with Marko for once. Driver salaries will get out of control if they don't limit them. God knows what Hamilton will demand for example once he seals his 7th WDC.

The way things are going now a days team don't seem to want to place two stars next to each other anyway. So not going to lose much.

Hamilton could probably laugh all the way to the bank he will more than likely retire before this cap actually comes into effect in 23.
Verstappen and Leclerc though are probably secretly annoyed at it. Will make there deals more complicated to put together going forward.

Red Bull aren't missing out on Hamilton because of his salary demands, though. They can't get him because their car isn't good enough.  Is there evidence in recent times that a top driver has priced himself out of a top car?

[Kalmake]

Red Bull aren't missing out on Hamilton because of his salary demands, though. They can't get him because their car isn't good enough.  Is there evidence in recent times that a top driver has priced himself out of a top car?

There's never going to be evidence but... Ricciardo might have stayed if Red Bull offered more than.

[fitjiffa]

The point I was making was that Mercedes have such a strong car and are so far ahead of everyone else that they don't need to pay astronomical figures to their drivers.  The chances are strong that they would win titles with any driver - not necessarily that it would be weighted to one driver like it is in the case of Hamilton / Bottas, but they don't need a fantastically strong driver in the way that eg Red Bull or Ferrari do, and they do have a pool to choose from. 

 

But its not just about winning, is it? Merc want to sell more cars, trucks etc. If they can say, look, the best drier in the world drives our cars on the track and on the road, then that is worth something. To put £40m into perspective, Merc's US advertising budet in 2019 was $640m, so £40m isn't much when you think of how much coverage on tv and other media a top driver brings, and that coverage is global.

 

And then there's the merchandise. Ferrari made a fortune from that when MSC was driving for them. The only figure I could find was they made £6m from it in 2006.  The higher profile a driver, the higher the sales.

Edited by fitjiffa, 29 October 2020 - 20:42.

[pdac]

There are way around a salary cap, interest free forgivable loans is one example.

 

Sounds a bit like this: I owe £180,000 in tax and I haven’t told my wife

[shure]

But its not just about winning, is it? Merc want to sell more cars, trucks etc. If they can say, look, the best drier in the world drives our cars on the track and on the road, then that is worth something. To put £40m into perspective, Merc's US advertising budet in 2019 was $640m, so £40m isn't much when you think of how much coverage on tv and other media a top driver brings, and that coverage is global.

 

And then there's the merchandise. Ferrari made a fortune from that when MSC was driving for them. The only figure I could find was they made £6m from it in 2006.  The higher profile a driver, the higher the sales.

Not sure what you're contesting here.  The rest of my post made it clear that the salary they pay Hamilton isn't down to the market forces of Supply and Demand, in reply to another post.  I agree there are other factors at play

[Con1]

The NFL operate a salary cap. It is designed to do two things; spread the talent around the league to try and create an equal playing field re stars/talent, and secondly allow the owners to make more money. If you sign your franchise QB for multi-millions it is very hard to fill all of the positions on your team with good players.

 

In theory a salary cap could balance the field in F1. If you pay Hamilton or Verstappen £21.75m, it only leaves you £0.25m to sign your number two. That could impact the constructors performance if the 2nd driver is one of the weaker guys in the field. Whereas another team might go with (say) Alonso and Danny Ric getting paid £11m each.

 

That's the theory. In reality there are very few elite drivers, and a substantial amount who are in the good category. 

 

This is all about capping the costs for the teams and very little else.

[ARTGP]

Helmut Marko actually mentioned a while ago that he expects the driver salaries to explode if there is no driver salary cap because of the budget cap. If drivers know that the teams have more income and if the rule changes achieve paritiy not only their worth will increase but they can even coordinate their negotiations in a way that the teams will end up to outbit each other no matter what, because in the end they do have the money to pay them and also the need for them, so they will pay.

Just...not sure if caping them both is a wise idea, it just seals the fact that you wont have two top drivers together again.

 

I don't get it. How do the drivers have any power in this negotiation?  They need the teams, not the other way around.

 

And as far as well paid drivers go. Hamilton won't leave Merc no matter what he's paid. Verstappen cannot leave Red Bull (yet), and Leclerc has nowhere to go either.

 

This isn't even a drivers market. Not even close. Teams can dictate whatever terms they please.

Edited by ARTGP, 29 October 2020 - 22:41.

[BobbyRicky]

Could the salary have a performance add on - so the driver salary be capped at say £20m but paid another £10m in performance related pay?

If they are following the US major-sports models then no.

[Augurk]

It's a very double-edged sword if you ask me. As long as the prize money and sponsorship opportunities remain equal this entire cost-capping endeavour will ultimately lead to teams making (more) profit. 

Especially for teams linked to a particular brand (most teams are), that is in it more or less for the exposure the sport brings, that gives them ample opportunity for brand exposure for less money, or even a profitable way of marketing the brand.

 

The drivers have brand value of their own - obviously some more than others - which will add to the exposure/marketing value of the team. I don't see why drivers shouldn't get their due for the value they bring, and this system seems to undermine their position in favor of the teams and brands behind them. Perhaps a driver like Hamilton adds around $50 million (wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that) in brand value on top of what he is earning for the team in terms of prize money yet he'll only receive $23 million? Sounds off to me. That is if the system in place works and there are no real workarounds and teams don't decide to allocate the surplus from their capped budget. 

 

Of course it's easy to claim the other thing: drivers are still able to be paid handsomely and do the thing they love for those big amounts of money. Yet I don't think it's necessarily a better thing for the money to end up in the pockets of the big shareholders of a multinational company than to end up at someone that actually creates the value.

 

The counter argument can also be that a budget cap will not work if you don't cap the top functions in salary and will possibly lead to inflation of salary as it will be a more important performance differentiating factor. But I'm not convinced that is an actual and accurate risk. 

[Marklar]

I don't get it. How do the drivers have any power in this negotiation? They need the teams, not the other way around.

And as far as well paid drivers go. Hamilton won't leave Merc no matter what he's paid. Verstappen cannot leave Red Bull (yet), and Leclerc has nowhere to go either.

This isn't even a drivers market. Not even close. Teams can dictate whatever terms they please.

You missed the key bit

if the rule changes achieve paritiy

already in the current formula they are a performance differentiator to some extent: replace Lewis with most other drivers and the title is wide open, Max with most other drivers and the podium every race and P2 in the WCC is wide open, Leclerc with many other drivers and Ferrari is a backmarker.

Now if the rule changes also achieve a more equal field they will be even more important, and then they will also have more options.

[paipa]

Good point that while the biggest losers in absolute terms would be the top drivers, the biggest losers in proportional terms will be their teammates. Anyone outside the top 3 teams are unlikely to be affected as long as they stay there. I guess we'll find out how strong the lure of top seats vs money really is. Do you make your "big" move for whatever peanuts Mercedes or Red Bull has left for their number two?

 

How will negotiations even go? "Our first driver is on 20m for two more years so you get 2, thx, bye!" How well is this taken by drivers' managers? Oh, wait, half the grid is managed by Wolff and Todt Jr.

 

Btw I just learned the often cited American sport leagues' salary cap is absolutely illegal in the US, but the players are unionized and the unions have agreements with the leagues not to litigate it. I don't know what laws apply to F1 but I could see this become a talking point.

[Kalmake]

Btw I just learned the often cited American sport leagues' salary cap is absolutely illegal in the US, but the players are unionized and the unions have agreements with the leagues not to litigate it. I don't know what laws apply to F1 but I could see this become a talking point.

Other team staff are under the cap that has already been regulated. This doesn't add any new legal problem.

[fed up]

It's a very double-edged sword if you ask me. As long as the prize money and sponsorship opportunities remain equal this entire cost-capping endeavour will ultimately lead to teams making (more) profit. 

Especially for teams linked to a particular brand (most teams are), that is in it more or less for the exposure the sport brings, that gives them ample opportunity for brand exposure for less money, or even a profitable way of marketing the brand.

 

The drivers have brand value of their own - obviously some more than others - which will add to the exposure/marketing value of the team. I don't see why drivers shouldn't get their due for the value they bring, and this system seems to undermine their position in favor of the teams and brands behind them. Perhaps a driver like Hamilton adds around $50 million (wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that) in brand value on top of what he is earning for the team in terms of prize money yet he'll only receive $23 million? Sounds off to me. That is if the system in place works and there are no real workarounds and teams don't decide to allocate the surplus from their capped budget. 

 

Of course it's easy to claim the other thing: drivers are still able to be paid handsomely and do the thing they love for those big amounts of money. Yet I don't think it's necessarily a better thing for the money to end up in the pockets of the big shareholders of a multinational company than to end up at someone that actually creates the value.

 

The counter argument can also be that a budget cap will not work if you don't cap the top functions in salary and will possibly lead to inflation of salary as it will be a more important performance differentiating factor. But I'm not convinced that is an actual and accurate risk. 

Good points, well said. Schumacher earned a fortune out of F1 - no one begrudged him - he was worth every penny of it. F1 is a meritocracy; the best drivers get to the top and earn top dollar for what they bring to the team and the sport. Capping salaries will mean that some drivers will be lured to other series.

 

When Max starts winning WDC's and becomes the superstar of F1 how can they cap his pay at $ill22m when is well aware that Lewis (and Vettel) were earning double that back in the day? Of course he'll take that as it is still a mega salary, but I believe caps do not motivate the top performers in any sport.

 

Look at the top earners in sport - even Lewis was down in 13th place. When this kicks in, top F1 drivers will be ranked around 50th - how is that a good thing?

[paipa]

Other team staff are under the cap that has already been regulated. This doesn't add any new legal problem.

It does, because the driver salary cap's wage suppression purpose is infinitely easier to prove. Just because the 175m development cap puts a theoretical limit to workers salaries does not mean it will be interpreted as wage suppression by a court.

[Sterzo]

It's a very double-edged sword if you ask me. As long as the prize money and sponsorship opportunities remain equal this entire cost-capping endeavour will ultimately lead to teams making (more) profit.

Since when has the problem with F1 been that teams make too much profit?

 

Force India went bust, Williams had to be sold at a bargain price, McLaren were bailed out of a crisis, Haas made noises about pulling out because of the cost, Renault were under threat from a cost review, and Sauber had to change their name for money. Only Mercedes claim it doesn't cost anything, based on putting a notional value to their marketing activities.

[Kalmake]

It does, because the driver salary cap's wage suppression purpose is infinitely easier to prove. Just because the 175m development cap puts a theoretical limit to workers salaries does not mean it will be interpreted as wage suppression by a court.

*145m

 

The proposal is a soft cap for drivers + three highest paid non-drivers, who now are excluded from the 145. It would still allow adding from that 145 pool if you want to pay them more.

[Augurk]

Since when has the problem with F1 been that teams make too much profit?

Force India went bust, Williams had to be sold at a bargain price, McLaren were bailed out of a crisis, Haas made noises about pulling out because of the cost, Renault were under threat from a cost review, and Sauber had to change their name for money. Only Mercedes claim it doesn't cost anything, based on putting a notional value to their marketing activities.

You've basically just listed all teams that won't be affected by a salary cap as they weren't paying that kind of money anyway. If prize money remains equal and the budget cap is introduced it will create a global marketing platform for the top 3 teams for a steal. They will create much more brand value than dollars invested. A salary cap will make them able to profit even more from the drivers added value and keep more money in the shareholders pocket.

It doesn't change anything for the sport except shift money from the top 3-5 drivers to the top 3 team owners.

[fed up]

You've basically just listed all teams that won't be affected by a salary cap as they weren't paying that kind of money anyway. If prize money remains equal and the budget cap is introduced it will create a global marketing platform for the top 3 teams for a steal. They will create much more brand value than dollars invested. A salary cap will make them able to profit even more from the drivers added value and keep more money in the shareholders pocket.

It doesn't change anything for the sport except shift money from the top 3-5 drivers to the top 3 team owners.

 

Spot on. The so called minnows also benefit as a result of the $200m loyalty payment - this effectively makes it harder for new entrants and easier for the existing teams to sell when they're ready.

 

The key to success for the smaller teams is to purchase as much as they can off the shelf so to speak. Then invest in drivers that come with finance and let the future take care of itself.

 

This new model is skewed towards the Mercs, Ferrari's and RBR's - the rest will pick up scraps but will also make a decent return on investment.

[Nathan]

 

None of those arguments changes these basic points:

1. The cost of running an F1 team needs reducing.
2. Driver contracts are part of the overall cost of running a team.

Current costs are unsustainable. They are so high that:

1. Manufacturers are less likely to stay in.
2. Private teams are more likely to go bust.
3. New teams are less likely to replace them.
4. Too much is screwed out of race organisers and TV viewers.

 

I would argue the cost of the drivers is much more justified and different to many of the other crazy F1 expenses. They bring their value because much of their value is in marketing.  Pumping extra millions into this tech development and that doesn't carry the same value. They don't really enhance the relationship between the fan and the team like a driver can.  You won't be putting the newest front wing on the Graham Norton Show or in the magazine spreads or commercials for your sponsors for examples.  

[F127]

Yes let's cap them to 1m, then make the drivers prove they are worth their marketing value! 

Mercedes Benz can then release a LH and VB edition of each of their models, whenever it sells, they get a cut.  

Ferrari, Renault, Aston Martin, Alfa can all follow this model.

RB could sell driver themed energy drinks and clothing.

Haas could sell driver themed tools? (No RG jokes please  )

Williams................ looks like you're out of luck GR. 

 

 

On serious note though, maybe there should be a minimum salary or a driver cannot bring budget to the team clause, so that they actually have to pay drivers and get the best available too!

Edited by F127, 30 October 2020 - 16:42.

[paipa]

F1 bosses say other sports show driver salary cap exploits can be prevented

 

Seems like they want to close the sponsorship backdoor. Such a transparent and fair solution in a sport where athletes and sponsors are by no means intertwined with direct familial relations! I totally don't expect Lance Stroll's team to put him on a zero dollar contract and use the cap space to entice a star driver. They would never do that.

 

Jokes aside, we're heading towards pay driver paradise. Top teams will always struggle with cap space, so a passable pay driver whose finances are taken care of by daddy (which no law on earth can prevent) will be a great asset. Until now, rich kids went to bad teams who needed money. Now they'll also be sought after by good teams who need cap space.

[Kalmake]

F1 bosses say other sports show driver salary cap exploits can be prevented

 

Seems like they want to close the sponsorship backdoor. Such a transparent and fair solution in a sport where athletes and sponsors are by no means intertwined with direct familial relations! I totally don't expect Lance Stroll's team to put him on a zero dollar contract and use the cap space to entice a star driver. They would never do that.

 

Jokes aside, we're heading towards pay driver paradise. Top teams will always struggle with cap space, so a passable pay driver whose finances are taken care of by daddy (which no law on earth can prevent) will be a great asset. Until now, rich kids went to bad teams who needed money. Now they'll also be sought after by good teams who need cap space.

Other sports have minimum salary as well to prevent complete abuse.

[fed up]

F1 bosses say other sports show driver salary cap exploits can be prevented

 

Seems like they want to close the sponsorship backdoor. Such a transparent and fair solution in a sport where athletes and sponsors are by no means intertwined with direct familial relations! I totally don't expect Lance Stroll's team to put him on a zero dollar contract and use the cap space to entice a star driver. They would never do that.

 

Jokes aside, we're heading towards pay driver paradise. Top teams will always struggle with cap space, so a passable pay driver whose finances are taken care of by daddy (which no law on earth can prevent) will be a great asset. Until now, rich kids went to bad teams who needed money. Now they'll also be sought after by good teams who need cap space.

 

This is all just BS aimed at a select few drivers, drivers that stand out from the crowd and are therefore worth the coin. How many teams currently pay their drivers $30m combined? Apart from Mercedes, none! Ferrari for this year perhaps, but not from 2022 onwards. So what is all this noise about? Why are they agreeing on an issue that is not a problem now or in the forseable future?

 

My guess is that they're trying to level everything off. Seidl is even suggesting capping salaries of senior personnel in the team. If they agree to all this it'll just mean that the cash will be concentrated at the top. It is stupid ideas like these that have contributed to CEO's earning multiple times the earnings of the average employee within their companies.

 

F1 will agree to it because there appears to be unattainable headroom in salary terms. The problem is however, is that once limits are placed on these things it tends to cascade down to everything. Before you know it, we'll have spec series.

 

If the number of races are increasing and the level of income is increasing where is all the increased income going?

[Marklar]

Other sports have minimum salary as well to prevent complete abuse.

and how much would that be in F1? The lowest earners are about 100 k right now.

 

 

This is all just BS aimed at a select few drivers, drivers that stand out from the crowd and are therefore worth the coin. How many teams currently pay their drivers $30m combined? Apart from Mercedes, none! Ferrari for this year perhaps, but not from 2022 onwards. So what is all this noise about? Why are they agreeing on an issue that is not a problem now or in the forseable future?

 

My guess is that they're trying to level everything off. Seidl is even suggesting capping salaries of senior personnel in the team. If they agree to all this it'll just mean that the cash will be concentrated at the top. It is stupid ideas like these that have contributed to CEO's earning multiple times the earnings of the average employee within their companies.

 

F1 will agree to it because there appears to be unattainable headroom in salary terms. The problem is however, is that once limits are placed on these things it tends to cascade down to everything. Before you know it, we'll have spec series.

 

If the number of races are increasing and the level of income is increasing where is all the increased income going?

it also impacts Red Bull since Max earns well over 30 m apparently. And if they really cut off the sponsorship/bonuses loophole McLaren paying Ricciardo 16 million and Norris a couple is already borderline.

 

Either they expect F1's revenue to massively decrease in the upcoming years so they lower the earning standards already to pepare for it, or indeed they use the momentum of the cost cap to just cash in even more at the top. I dont see any benefit in this rule, if anything it hampers the competitive level of the field (more paydrivers will be hired as #2 in top teams) and potentially helps top teams more than the smaller teams: top drivers wont suddenly join Haas, they will just accept the offer and drive for 10, 15 or 20 million, the top teams (or rather the companies behind them) will get even richer meanwhile. I'm not sure why the smaller teams even want that, are they hoping that drivers will insist on high salaries and thus a top team could lose money from the cap? Are they expecting a driver that otherwise would have joined a top team as a #2 to join them instead?

Edited by Marklar, 10 November 2020 - 17:42.

[Atreiu]

Giannis Antetokounmpo just signed a USD 228 million 5 years extension and F1 has to squabble over driver salaries. Is F1 just poor compared to the NBA or do I massively underestimate operational costs of the teams?

[jcbc3]

Giannis is the star of the stars nowadays. The average salary for NBA is waaaaaaaaaay lower. And I also would guess that NBA's total income from TV, merchandise and ticket sales dwarfs F1's.

[Kalmake]

Giannis Antetokounmpo just signed a USD 228 million 5 years extension and F1 has to squabble over driver salaries. Is F1 just poor compared to the NBA or do I massively underestimate operational costs of the teams?

NBA team average revenue 2018-19 292 and operating income 70.

F1 team average revenue 2019 209 and operating income uhh... McLaren 137 loss, others roughly around 0.

 

Giannis is the star of the stars nowadays. The average salary for NBA is waaaaaaaaaay lower. And I also would guess that NBA's total income from TV, merchandise and ticket sales dwarfs F1's.

Isn't way lower. Arguably F1 teams have lower average as a pay drivers total cost is negative.

 

NBA 7.7: https://www.cnbc.com...-right-now.html

 

F1 9.3: https://www.racefans...fees-be-capped/

Edited by Kalmake, 17 December 2020 - 09:49.