GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: John S on May 13, 2014, 07:47:22 PM
-
:o Just when will do gooder socialist politicos let us be adults to enjoy both. ::)
But hey with cost capping on agenda maybe less sponsor money will help
to crystalize minds. ;)
Trouble may be brewing around the issue of sports sponsorship by the alcohol industry. A leaked report last week from the UK's Labour Party revealed plans to ban alcohol sponsorship if they take office after next year's General Election. In a pattern strikingly familiar to the successful effort to ban tobacco sponsorship a broad coalition of European health activists and legislators are gearing up for a battle to toughen anti-alcohol legislation. According to Professor Joe Barry of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland a ban is "inevitable" and "it will be seen as crazy to have allowed alcohol sponsorship of sport, in the same way as tobacco".
In the UK a ban on alcohol sponsorship is already supported by powerful voices such as the British Medical Association and the House of Commons Health Select Committee. The MPs have called for a UK version of France's Loi Évin, which bans alcohol advertising on television, in cinemas, and from sponsoring of sporting events. Next year the European Commission will launch a new 'Alcohol Strategy' and it is possible, even likely, that action to regulate sports sponsorship will be included. This would be in line with the recommendations of the World Health Organisation's 'Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Effects of Alcohol'.
These developments come at a difficult time for F1, facing budget pressures but also a growing profile in alcohol sponsorship. Earlier this month Force India announced a new sponsorship agreement with Smirnoff which now joins Martini and Johnny Walker as major brands in the sport. The sensitivity about alcohol sponsorship in motor racing is especially acute because of the role of drinking in road accidents. In the European Union 25% of all road deaths are attributed to alcohol misuse and it is estimated that 6,500 deaths would be avoided if all drivers obeyed drink driving laws.
No doubt the alcohol and advertising industry will oppose EU proposals for a ban but there is understandable caution about alcohol sponsorship in motor sport. The European Sponsorship Association (ESA) has issued voluntary guidelines for the alcohol industry which warns that; "Particular care should be taken of alcohol sponsorships where motor sport is involved and, in such cases, appropriate messages regarding responsible drinking should be communicated". Arguably the ESA guidelines mean that the likes of Smirnoff or Martini ought to be paying for 'don't drink and drive' warnings alongside their logos on F1 wings and side pods. For the health lobby the weak application of voluntary guidelines like the ESA's are exactly the justification needed for legislative action.
The emergence of the alcohol sponsorship issue will also be a major challenge for the FIA and Jean Todt who has made road safety a major theme of his Presidency. In the 1990s former FIA President Max Mosley tried to broker a compromise deal on tobacco with the EU to gain time for teams to find alternative sponsors. He succeeded but the sport was mired in controversy as a result.
Now Jean Todt faces the awkward tightrope of similarly defending the interests of the sport and maintaining a credible commitment to road safety. This will be no easy task and makes the FIA's relationship with the WHO especially sensitive as it is the United Nation's agency with responsibility not just for alcohol control but also road safety.
Pitpass.com, Mon 12th May.
-
In Canada there are more accidents caused by distracted driving than there is by drunk driving.
If Johny Walker is out because it is dangerous, then surely Vodaphone should be considered monstrous.
-
All this PC and nannying from these hypocrites gets right up my nose. What government refuses the huge income in taxes they get from tobacco and alcohol sales ? If a drunk driver is arrested, just crush the vehicle and everything in it, whatever it's worth, same with mobile phone use when driving. When you are driving you are in charge of a deadly weapon and you should be treated likewise.
-
I was thrilled to see Williams get the Martini sponsorship.
I get a little tired of governments who ban advertising of a product, while not placing any controls on the product they don't want advertised. All a bit hypocritical, isn't it? The tax grab is ok, but don't allow a bad product to sponsor a good sport. |-( |-( |-(
-
We tried that here in the States, back in the 1920's. Didn't work out at all well. Perhaps your governmental prudes should study history.
-
It's all do as I say and not what I do Cos. The House of Commons is all heavily subsidised for booze and food, they can buy a pint for less than we commoners can.
-
Right let's ban sponsorship from all sectors that are dangerous to health. So that will be:-
Tobacco
Alcohol
Chocolate - fattening and high in cholesterol
Sweets (candies) - fattening and bad for our teeth
Fast food - that wipes out a big chunk of racing in the USA
Household detergents - chemicals cause skin problems and damage the environment
Petrol - !!!!!!
Oil - !!!!!!!!
Tyres -
>:( :tease: :fool: :crazy:
-
Right let's ban sponsorship from all sectors that are dangerous to health. So that will be:-
Tobacco
Alcohol
Chocolate - fattening and high in cholesterol
Sweets (candies) - fattening and bad for our teeth
Fast food - that wipes out a big chunk of racing in the USA
Household detergents - chemicals cause skin problems and damage the environment
Petrol - !!!!!!
Oil - !!!!!!!!
Tyres -
>:( :tease: :fool: :crazy:
Don't forget television.It influences our youth and
causes them to do horrendous deeds
-
Carbohydrates. Ban them all. And Airlines...who pollutes more than airlines. Cows produce more CO2 than even the airlines...no more beef!
-
What about energy drinks and caffeine? And electronic cigarettes? :DntKnw:
Surely they should be banned too according to these 'rules'?...
-
Not to mention motor-racing itself... :DD
-
Drawing parallel with Tobacco should not be done, because in terms of health issue, you cannot compare them. Alcohol can be controlled in many ways, and the side-effects can be greatly reduced, while smoking had hardly good thing to say about and effects every bit if body.
-
yas, I drunk lotts of alcohool and they aven't ffected me att ooll :crazy:
-
Drawing parallel with Tobacco should not be done, because in terms of health issue, you cannot compare them. Alcohol can be controlled in many ways, and the side-effects can be greatly reduced, while smoking had hardly good thing to say about and effects every bit if body.
I believe the issue is connecting alcohol with driving. Race cars shouldn't be sponsored by alcohol companies, since you shouldn't drink and drive.
I don't agree with the idea, but I can see the merit in their thinking.
If they're just trying to blanket ban alcohol, then they're nuts.
-
If they're just trying to blanket ban alcohol, then they're nuts.
Forget everything else and just accept that they are indeed 'nuts'!
Did anyone ever see an F1 car and think; oh, I must take up smoking and drinking.
Being a non-smoker and a complete car fanatic, for years I thought John Player Specials were fantastic F1 race cars and was even naive enough that when I finally saw black and gold cigarette packs in a shop I thought they had named the cigarettes after the cars that I loved so much!
For the Brits, do you remember the uproar when Durex were sponsoring cars. I mean Durex are all about safety so why the fuss? :D
-
I'm not too sure about that, Monty. Sometimes, the actions of F1 management is enough to drive one to drink! :confused:
Seriously, I used to be in favor of smoking bans. Now that the same people are going after everything from french fries to soda pop I've had to rethink that idea. Good or ill, they really have no business restricting the lawful use (or advertising) of lawful products.
-
Don't see what all the fuss is about - you can see why they want to ban alcohol advertising even if you don't agree with it, and seeing as the type of advert on a car doesn't have any bearing on how fast it is, why does anyone care?
-
Having the advert has a big effect on how much money the team has. How much money the team has has a huge effect on how fast the car is.
-
The last thing F1 needs right now is to lose more sponsors. Currently we have:
RBR - Singha Beer
Mclaren - Johnny Walker
Williams - Martini
Force India - Kingfisher Beer and Smirnoff
Sauber - Suervo Tequila
Ferrari - Phillip Morris...oh shoot, that's tobacco. I thought tobacco was long banned for advertising. They are actually listed on Ferrari's website as an official 'sponsor'. |-( |-(
If Coke, McDonalds and Apple are waiting in the wings to jump into F1 once alcohol gets the boot, then by all means, but somehow I think if we lose alcohol, there will be little to fill those gaps.
-
Having the advert has a big effect on how much money the team has. How much money the team has has a huge effect on how fast the car is.
Regs have more effect than money - the fastest lap times were in 2004 if I'm not mistaken, and that wasn't because there were more sponsors from the alcohol industry.
Not saying I'm FOR losing alcohol sponsors, just don't think it makes much difference.
Besides, sponsors will follow the fans. Fans will follow the action. Make the action better through sensible regulations decisions and track choices and it doesn't matter what industry the sponsors come from, they'll be knocking at the door.
-
In 2004 it was because of tobacco money. The sport still hasn't completely recovered from loosing that. Loosing another major class of sponsorship will make things even worse.
Between sponsorship prudishness and mini-motors, political correctness will be the death of F1.
-
In 2004 it was because of tobacco money. The sport still hasn't completely recovered from loosing that. Loosing another major class of sponsorship will make things even worse.
Between sponsorship prudishness and mini-motors, political correctness will be the death of F1.
Indeed, all the historical 'Big' teams are that way precisely because of tobacco sponsorhip. The Marlboro McLaren paint job was iconic of racing in the 80s. Without Marlboro, I doubt McLaren would still be on the grid. Same for Williams and Rothman's. Mercedes was FOUNDED as a cigarette ad. British American only sold out to Honda when they weren't allowed to paint their names on the car.
The sport still hasn't recovered from having lost tobacco cash to throw around.
The exception is RBR, which started as Stewart GP, and Stewart's refusal to take the easy money from tobacco. Always leave it to Sir Jackie to be ahead of the curve on what F1 should do.
-
I don't think even with Ferrari's or Fiat's vast resources that they could have justified the salaries of Schumacher and now Alonso without Phillip Morris footing the bill.
-
Ok, ok, you got me.
I assume you're up for bringing back bear-baiting too? ;)
-
Ok, ok, you got me.
I assume you're up for bringing back bear-baiting too? ;)
I thought that's just what the louder noise brigade have been doing to grizzly old Todt. :D
-
I'm undecided as to whether this is a good idea. I see their point, but I also see the point about the fact that so many other things are bad for you too. That said, the don't drink and drive message is an important one, so perhaps the best thing to do is to have that as part of the sponsorship logo, after all Formula 1 drivers don't have alcohol in their drinks bottles ;).
I disagree with this whole 'nanny state' and 'socialist' rhetoric though. So many people are so irresponsible that I don't blame the state for wanting to intervene. Furthermore, Labour is hardly a socialist party any more, so to refer to them as such is incorrect.
-
We DO live in a nanny state, the vast majority of us are sensible drinkers (no laughing Dare and Scott etc) and I am sick and tired of being told not to drink more than 3 or 4 units when you can read about MP's getting drunk on cheap beer and causing grief in the House of Commons bar. They ARE a load of hypocrites.
-
Yes, some of them are hypocrites, I agree, but they're not all like that. By tarnishing them all with the same brush, you're doing to them exactly what you're accusing them of doing to you ;).