Formula 1 team payments for 2016 revealed

[sgth0mas]

Money makes cars go fast.

F1 gives the most money to the fastest cars.

F1 complains that the top teams are too much faster than the bottom teams meaning the whole thing is so predictable.

It would be nice if it were that simple. The fans wants are not the same as f1s business objectives.

Maybe money makes cars faster,but ferrari makes F1 more money regardless of their speed. They are protecting their interests.

Think of the teams as salesmen, and the bonus payments as commission. If the salesman named Mr Ferrari sells more tickets than any other salesman...why shouldnt he get more?

[mrluke]

Rubbish.

If 3 teams dropped out F1 would still be better off than without Ferrari? Seriously? If its all about tickets and Ferrari are the biggest seller than why is there talk of F1 leaving Monza?

Nobody cares about ticket sales, I think thats pretty clear from the venue attendances, prices charged, viewing experience and general facilities available.

I would place a very large wager on a faster and more competitive motorsport that didnt include Ferrari proving more popular than F1.

[sgth0mas]

The fact that you even had to overexaggerate and compare ferraris value to 3 teams answers your own questions.

[mrluke]

The fact that you even had to overexaggerate and compare ferraris value to 3 teams answers your own questions.

Ferrari total 192m
Manor + Sauber + Torro Rosso = 158m

....?

[Just_a_fan]

Money makes cars go fast.

Ferrari have most money. Ferrari is not the fastest.

Money alone is not enough. However, getting the most money and still not doing the job should be an embarrassment to Ferrari.

[Just_a_fan]

those who say its unfair should imagine F1 without ferrari and then imagine F1 without force india.

thank you.

Twenty years ago maybe. Today? Not so sure. F1 without Ferrari would still run - perhaps it would be even better without Ferrari's veto over the years.

[SectorOne]

The crazy thing is that´s not even all the money in F1.

[bhall II]

I think some of you might be missing the forest for the trees here.


(Based on the 35/65 split of $1.4 billion in revenue for 2015)

The injustice is not that top teams are given preferential terms compared to the others; it's that the entity least responsible for the sport's value nonetheless collects anywhere from 154% to 940% more of the sport's money than any team.

If the teams' share was disbursed equally, each outfit would earn roughly $96.5 million. If FOM's share was disbursed to teams that don't currently earn $96.5 million, their income would be up to $70 million more than what they receive today.

So, ask yourself a question: is Manor better off with more of the teams' money ($96.5 million) or with a helping of FOM's piece of the pie (up to $117 million)?

[Just_a_fan]

We all know that FOM takes a huge chunk of the money. That's why Bernie is there - to ensure that CVC makes money from its "investment". FOM's cut will never be reduced until CVC decide that they're happy to do so / or decide they need to.

[SiLo]

Need to find investors that also love racing. Plenty of them out there, just clearly none of them want to talk to Bernie.

[FLuidd]

I think some of you might be missing the forest for the trees here.

http://i.imgur.com/t7eGAlq.jpg
(Based on the 35/65 split of $1.4 billion in revenue for 2015)

The injustice is not that top teams are given preferential terms compared to the others; it's that the entity least responsible for the sport's value nonetheless collects anywhere from 154% to 940% more of the sport's money than any team.

If the teams' share was disbursed equally, each outfit would earn roughly $96.5 million. If FOM's share was disbursed to teams that don't currently earn $96.5 million, their income would be up to $70 million more than what they receive today.

So, ask yourself a question: is Manor better off with more of the teams' money ($96.5 million) or with a helping of FOM's piece of the pie (up to $117 million)?

Ferrari is an engine manufacturer , the oldest active team in F1 and the most popular team.

Now having said that I find disturbing the fact that you still advocate for equal distribution of money.

Manor is a competitor , a new team , would it be fair for someone new to come in F1 and pretend the same ammount of money as Ferrari?

The answer is simply no and last but not least let's not forget that from that money, part of it comes from publicity.

[bhall II]

Typical left wing nonsense.

It seems the crux of my statement traveled so far over your head that it could have employed a flight attendant.

Read it again.

We all know that FOM takes a huge chunk of the money. That's why Bernie is there - to ensure that CVC makes money from its "investment". FOM's cut will never be reduced until CVC decide that they're happy to do so / or decide they need to.

I guess I just don't understand why that's easier to accept as gospel than other payouts that pale in comparison.

None of the teams are responsible for the egregiousness of the sport's income disparity, and certainly none of them can redress it.

[Cold Fussion]

I think some of you might be missing the forest for the trees here.

http://i.imgur.com/t7eGAlq.jpg
(Based on the 35/65 split of $1.4 billion in revenue for 2015)

The injustice is not that top teams are given preferential terms compared to the others; it's that the entity least responsible for the sport's value nonetheless collects anywhere from 154% to 940% more of the sport's money than any team.

If the teams' share was disbursed equally, each outfit would earn roughly $96.5 million. If FOM's share was disbursed to teams that don't currently earn $96.5 million, their income would be up to $70 million more than what they receive today.

So, ask yourself a question: is Manor better off with more of the teams' money ($96.5 million) or with a helping of FOM's piece of the pie (up to $117 million)?

How does FOM share compare to something like the EPL (whoever runs it) share?

[bhall II]

I don't know anything about the Premier League. But, I do know that the four major North American leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL) are all non-profit and use various revenue-sharing models to disburse monies to their constituent teams. Though the systems are different, the gist of each tends to result in an even distribution of league-wide revenues, like national broadcast fees, licensing deals, sponsorships, etc., and a proportional distribution of local revenues, like ticket sales, regional broadcast fees, sponsorships, etc.

The arrangements seem to work pretty well.

[SectorOne]

Premier League is wholly owned by the teams that make up the league.

Here´s how they split the cash:

50% of UK broadcast revenue split equally between the 20 clubs
25% of UK broadcast revenue paid in Merit Payments ("Prize Money" per place in the table)
25% of UK broadcast revenue paid in Facility Fees each time a club's matches are broadcast in the UK.
All international broadcast revenue, and central commercial revenue, is split equally among the 20 clubs.

Worst performing team earned 64,8 million pounds while the best performing team earned 98,9 million pounds.

Everybody can eat basically.