Superlicense Fee Hike

[cosworth151]

The FIA has announced a huge hike in the cost of a Formula 1 superlicense.

A superlicense is mandatory for an F1 driver, and last season it cost only 1,690 euros (£1,257.40, $ 2,482.61), plus an additional 447 euros (£332.58, $656.64) per point scored in the previous year's championship.

The World Motor Sport Council recently approved an increase in the license price, to 10,000 euros (£7,440.23, $14,690.00) plus 2,000 euros (£1,488.04, $2,938.00) per point.

Kimi Raikkonen's superlicense will cost him 230,000 euros (£171,125, $337,870) - an increase of 199,255 euros (£148,250 $292,705) compared to 2007.

[Dare]

The FIA has announced a huge hike in the cost of a Formula 1 superlicense.

A superlicense is mandatory for an F1 driver, and last season it cost only 1,690 euros (£1,257.40, $ 2,482.61), plus an additional 447 euros (£332.58, $656.64) per point scored in the previous year's championship.

The World Motor Sport Council recently approved an increase in the license price, to 10,000 euros (£7,440.23, $14,690.00) plus 2,000 euros (£1,488.04, $2,938.00) per point.

Kimi Raikkonen's superlicense will cost him 230,000 euros (£171,125, $337,870) - an increase of 199,255 euros (£148,250 $292,705) compared to 2007.

That's outrageous,a new driver with a small salary
could have to go take a loan if he was unlucky
enough to win the WDC

[Wizzo]

Approximate cost for each driver's F1 superlicense in 2008:

K.Raikkonen - $333,000 USD
L. Hamilton - $330,000
F. Alonso - $330,000
F. Massa - $286,000
N. Heidfeld - $190,000
R. Kubica - $127,000
H. Kovalainen - $101,000
G. Fisichella - $74,000
N. Rosberg - $72,000
D. Coulthard - $54,000
A. Wurz - $51,000
M. Webber - $43,000
J. Trulli - $37,000
S. Vettel - $31,000
J. Button - $31,000
T. Sato - $25,000
V. Liuzzi - $22,000
A. Sutil - $16.000
R. Barrichello - $14,000
A. Davidson - $14,000
K. Nakajima - $14,000
N. Piquet Jr. - $14,000
T. Glock - $14,000
S. Bourdais - $14,000

[Steven Roy]

The whole thing is ludicrous.  There can be no justification for a license to cost more than $1000.  Why should the price vary from driver to driver and why do points matter?

It reminds me of the young driver testing that was disccussed on another thread.  If Schumacher had decided to race this year he would have had to pay about a tenth of the cost of Kubica's license.

Where is the logic in Kubica and Rosberg having to pay more than DC and Webber?

Another example of Max's muddled thinking and of the FIA having its nose in the trough.

[Alianora La Canta]

Autosport reckoned the reason was to put off spurious superlicense applications from people who weren't even close to ready for F1. However, that doesn't explain the points effect.

[Steven Roy]

It does seem odd logic that Kimi and Fernando paying so much will stop spurious applications.  Besides anyone considering F1 is hardly going to baulk at $14000.  Have there been hundreds of spurious applications?

On implication I hadn't thought of.  Lewis Hamilton's new contract has only just been announced so when this plan was drawn up he was going to have to fork out an enormous percentage of his salary just to get a license.  You can imagine some young driver having to take a year out if he gets one season in a good car and for whatever reason has to move down the grid the following season. 

[Ian]

A superlicense fee should be a flat fee

[John S]

I could understand the hike in fees if the money was used as a sort of fund for a scholarship scheme for the stuggling drivers, financialy speaking, in lower open wheel formula's. But to just line the already bulging coffers of the FIA with widely varying fees seems both unfair and immoral. So much for the FIA preaching about morality in the Mclaren/Ferrari affair.

[Dare]

the Fia make Enron look like choir boys

[romephius]

How does something like this help with 'team budgets', because the more a licence costs the more the driver is going to want to be paid.... therefore the team needs more money, ergo, budget goes up...... not down........ good forward thinking there by Max 'Moron' Mosely.

Rom 

[Chameleon]

And now you know why Alex Wurz retired - he couldn't afford to pay the license fee on what Frank was paying him.

Joking aside, it seems to me that the reference to points scored has the opposite effect to that intended.  If a driver has scored heavily in the previous season, surely he has demonstrated his fitness to have a superlicense?  So why should he pay more for being one of the more successful drivers?  We all know that those who score the most points are not necessarily the ones who get paid the most - witness Wurz and Ralf, at opposite ends of the scale.  So it cannot be a sort of "wealth tax".

Clearly, it's just a way for the FIA to screw a bit more money out of the sport.  A license is an official recognition of an individual's ability to perform competently in a given discipline.  There should be a flat rate to be paid (and it should not be very much - usually the official body is just recognising what is patently obvious to everyone).  How did we get into the situation where the FIA is composed of people who are only interested in making a fast buck?

[Alianora La Canta]

If the FIA really must have a staggered licence fee system (and there's no good reason why it should), it should be staggered according to the driver's ability to pay, as it is in many other professional organisations. That said, CILIP (the British professional library organisation of which I am a member) has recently scrapped its staggered licence fee because it was considered unfair and over-complex...

[Scott]

Clearly, it's just a way for the FIA to screw a bit more money out of the sport.

I don't agree with it as well, but in perspective, this fee will not be any sort of hardship on any of the drivers.  First of all it is likely tax deductable, and I expect that the teams may well pay for the license.  Plenty of small businesses have to pay fees much larger than this, proportionately, in order to operate.

I'm surprised the FIA has to raise money with user fees after they just won the lottery with McLaren's fine.

[cosworth151]

Autosport reckoned the reason was to put off spurious superlicense applications from people who weren't even close to ready for F1. However, that doesn't explain the points effect.

Have they ever heard of a driving test? I even had to pass licnecing tests for dirt ovals and drag racing. This is just a money grab combined with FIA apparatchiki trying to justify their jobs.

[Steven Roy]

You can't apply for a superlicense unless you have the one below it.  It's not like a random member of the public can get a form at the post office.  There are (supposed to be) set criteria which the driver has to have achieved before he can apply.  The FIA are the governing body covering all the championships where drivers can gain the results which would qualify them for a superlicense.  How difficult is it to track the results of a dozen or so championships on a spreadsheet so that you know in real time who all the qualifying drivers are?  Sorry FIA and computers.