Liberty turn down $20+ billion for F1

[Andy B]

With Liberty turning down such an offer remembering they bought it for just $4.4 billion there must be a fair amount of profit in there for them which raises a point!
With so much profit being made is the F1 cost cap to do with racing or raising more money for Liberty as we the fans still pay the same if not more to attend a race and the circuits have high fees to pay.
It does make me wonder
https://www.planetf1.com/news/liberty-media-saudi-arabia-formula-1-bid/

[Dare]

If the Saudi's had bought it I wonder how many
fans they would have lost? I'd have to give that
 one a hard thought

[Jericoke]

Just a quick perusal of their website, it looks like running F1 is the company's raison d'etre.  Yes, a corporation is out to make money, but still, if they sell F1 all they're left with is the Atlanta Braves which is... okay, Sirius XM which, I've used and do not like and don't see it as a growth property, and... Ticketmaster.

While owning Ticketmaster is as close to printing money as possible without actually printing money, they're one of the most hated brands on Earth.  Selling of F1 would make Liberty the most hated company in the world.  Who wants that?

And I had no idea that Liberty owned Ticketmaster... suddenly I'm not sure if I want them owning F1 or the Suadis.

[lkjohnson1950]

Don't know if it will amount to anything, but after the Taylor Swift ticket debacle, a number of people are trying to organize a class action lawsuit against Ticketmaster saying it's a monopoly.   

[Andy B]

So Jeri that creates the question to who would you like to see owning F1?

[Jericoke]

So Jeri that creates the question to who would you like to see owning F1?

As a North American sportsfan, I'm used to the idea that the 'sport' is owned by the individual team members collectively, who all have a 'franchise' in the sport, and an equal say in how the sport is run.  Each league then has a 'commissioner' who has as much, or little, power as the owners give them.

The idea that the FIA and FOM are two separate entities continues to feel weird to me.  I understand that FOM is, to a degree, controlled by the teams via the Concorde agreement, but Bernie being Bernie really gave FOM power over the teams instead of the other way.

I don't see why 'F1' can't be owned by the teams collectively, with each team getting an equal portion.  (The team that wins the Super Bowl, for example, doesn't really get a huge bonus, just bragging rights.)  Even tough NFL teams are legally equal, different teams do have different values based on many factors, so that model would work just fine in F1. The one issue I see is the the multi national aspect of it.  (The USA has laws/governmental agreements that allow major league sports to operate on monopolistic ways.)

The FIA can continue to operate as supra organization that is contracted to ensure F1 events are held safely, but beyond that any rules regarding car construction, shipping logistics, team budgets would be controlled by the 'FOM' that is owned by the teams.  And if F1 wants, it could handle its own safety.  Considering that the FIA just hires locals for most of the onsite work anyway, it doesn't really matter if they're contracted to the FIA or 'FOM'.

I know that FIA holds the trademark for 'F1' racing, but presumably that's for sale, or even if FOM operates under another brand name, people will eventually catch on, just like 'Indy Racing League' was really IndyCar

[lkjohnson1950]

Then the ten existing teams would vote not to allow new entries. They would keep all the money and fresh blood would have no chance to get in.

[Jericoke]

Then the ten existing teams would vote not to allow new entries. They would keep all the money and fresh blood would have no chance to get in.

I thought about an addendum to my proposal: have the sport owned by the teams AND the tracks, making Silverstone an equal partner to Ferrari.  The tracks would outnumber the teams, so if more teams is good for business, the teams wouldn't be able to stop the tracks from inviting new teams, and if more teams isn't good for business (as much as I want to see Andretti join the grid, maybe 20 cars really is what makes F1 special?  Most sports vary the number of participants over time before settling on an ideal number.) then it's a much more considered position.

This would have the added bonus of more careful consideration of where to race.  Yes, it's nice to take the money from country X, but if you suddenly have to treat the voice of country X's regressive ruler as an equal, maybe you don't want them joining the party after all.

Of course you'd start to get scenarios where teams who own tracks gain more power, Red Bull owns two teams and a track, so as a company they'd get three shares and three votes.  Ferrari owns a track.  Stroll owns a track (sure, it's been 50 years since Mont Tremblant hosted an F1 race, but I'd be for having a second Canadian race).  I'm sure that Andretti could find a way to tie up with an American circuit (although Andretti has owned/operated tracks in the past which didn't end well).  Indy is owned by Roger Penske, and while his name doesn't seem to be coming up in modern F1 context, I could imagine his organization bringing Indy back into F1 and backing an F1 team if the ownership opportunity existed.

[cosworth151]

I've often joked that the reason Bernie sold out to Liberty is because he's seem much better in retrospect. About the only thing I can think of that would be worse than Liberty would be Penske. The word is that the reason that Mid Ohio had it's IMSA weekend taken away this year is that Penske didn't give IMSA a date at IMS unless no other IMSA races were anywhere close.

[lkjohnson1950]

I've disliked Penske for decades. He lost his love of racing around the time Donohue died and has been only in it for the money ever since. Plus he has the loyalty of a flea. As for 20 cars being special, IMSA has 61 cars spread over 5 classes for the Daytona 24 next weekend, and I find that fascinating. F1 should be open to as many teams as possible. How can you claim to be the World Champion if you exclude people who just might be competitive? You're not a true WDC or WCC if you only beat the others in your little club.

[Jericoke]

I've disliked Penske for decades. He lost his love of racing around the time Donohue died and has been only in it for the money ever since. Plus he has the loyalty of a flea. As for 20 cars being special, IMSA has 61 cars spread over 5 classes for the Daytona 24 next weekend, and I find that fascinating. F1 should be open to as many teams as possible. How can you claim to be the World Champion if you exclude people who just might be competitive? You're not a true WDC or WCC if you only beat the others in your little club.

I did say Penske's 'organization'.  I certainly don't wish ill on any human being, but at some point Indy won't be under his thumb.

I'm not suggesting 20 is the ideal number... but I'm also suggesting maybe it is.  I have no idea how football ended up with the number of players on the field, but I do know that Association Football, Canadian Football, American Football  and Aussie Rules Football have all landed on a different 'right' number of players.  I agree that F1 should be as open as possible, but it's always bothered me that there are F1 teams that are just 'happy to be there'.

[cosworth151]

One of the limiting factors might be pit & paddock facilities. F1's traveling pit set-ups are designed to fit a very specific space in a building.

For example, F1's standard electrical requirement is Euro standard 220/400 volt 50 Hz. Since The U.S standard is 120/240V, 60 Hz, the venues here have to use semi trailer sized generator sets to provide power. More pits mean more power and more required generating capacity. 

[Willy]

I would give my continued watching of F1 a hard look if it was owned by the Saudis. Or any regime such as they appear to be.
And yes, Bernie does seem to be better in hindsight. Hard to believe.
I can understand Liberty wanting to continue to squeeze this fatted calf for all it's worth as they sanction more and more dodgy locations to place races as long as they pony up the $$. Damn the human rights issues!
I know some drivers are not looking forward to another spin around Saudia Arabia and the threat they were placed under last season.
I wonder if the teams would be able to drop out of FOM F1 and start another series under the FIA umbrella?

[lkjohnson1950]

The contract between the FIA and the Rights Holder has language forbidding the FIA from doing anything to "devalue" Formula 1. I would think starting a rival series would qualify. Liberty is currently pressuring Mohammed Ben Sulayem to resign because he said 20 million made F! overvalued. Liberty says this hurts their investment and is in breach of contract.

[John S]

I'm pretty sure the FIA has a so called 'Don King' clause in the rental agreement of F1 commercial rights, granted to Bernie way back when, they have final say on any purchaser put forward by Liberty.

Whilst President or others in FIA shouldn't interfere with running or share price of FOM the series still belongs to them and as such they have reserved certain rights. This should be regarded in the same way as a very long lease on land holdings or buildings, original title deed holders (owners) retain veto rights when someone wishes to assign their lease to other parties.