Skip to content

Ecclestone: F1 teams shouldn’t need a budget cap

May 16, 2014, 11:00 AM EDT

File photo of F1 chief Ecclestone testifying at district court in Munich Reuters

Bernie Ecclestone has weighed in on the cost cap debate currently dominating Formula 1’s political scene, and has questioned why teams cannot work to cut costs themselves without the imposition of budget limits.

Many efforts have been made over the past five years to introduce a cost cap in Formula 1 after spiralling costs have threatened the future of a number of teams, and has claimed a number of high-profile scalps. Honda, Toyota and BMW all left the sport between 2008 and 2009 due to spiralling costs, but little has changed economically since then.

For Ecclestone, it is simply a case of the teams looking in the mirror and finding a way to self-regulate.

“The teams can cut costs so why don’t they spend less? I don’t think they need a budget cap,” he told The Independent. “The people who don’t need a budget cap will find their way round it.”

The teams further down the grid – Caterham, Marussia, Sauber and Force India in particular – have been pushing for a cost cap in order to become more competitive. However, without having a secure future in the sport, Ecclestone believes that it is unreasonable for them to expect to have a say.

“There are four teams that are not in the Strategy Group and why not? Because the people that are have committed to racing in Formula One to 2020 and have put up sensible guarantees if they don’t,” he said.

The 83-year-old also used the cost cap debate to deal yet another blow to the new engines, believing that the price of implementing them was far too great.

“Tell me, what was the idea of the cap? To keep costs down. So we put this engine in and it costs four times more than the other one, and costs the manufacturers a hell of a lot of money,” Ecclestone pointed out.

Although the teams should indeed be able to cut costs and keep an eye on their own finances, the pursuit of race wins and championships is almost entirely dependent on spending power. All of the successful teams in recent history – Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull, Renault and McLaren – have a product backing them (although McLaren is a semi-exception).

The likes of Sauber and Marussia, on the other hand, exist to race, making financial solvency difficult at times. They will not be giving up on the cost cap, even if the likes of Red Bull and Ferrari are happy to spend as much as it takes to win.

Is it really possible for the teams facing financial difficulties to commit to the sport until 2020? And should they really be¬†excluded from the ‘big boy’ strategy group because of this?

Without a cost cap, the teams will continue to spend and spend. They should be able to self regulate, but guidance is required.

This debate will, as it has done for five years now, only continue to rumble on and claim more victims.

  1. indycarseries500 - May 16, 2014 at 11:11 AM

    I’m with Bernie the manufacturers didn’t leave due to costs, they left because they were rubbish.

  2. testover6370 - May 16, 2014 at 1:33 PM

    You can’t talk about costs without talking about revenues. Those teams pressing for a cap cost are also the ones receiving the least from FOM. Success should have a financial reward, but the current system is probably too skewed towards making the rich teams richer.

  3. techmeister1 - May 16, 2014 at 1:39 PM

    No the teams did not leave because they were rubbish, they left because when you run a racing program as a business you need to be able to justify the cost vs. the return. That’s very difficult for most companies who venture into F1 because the cost just to be competitive is a minimum of $400 Million per season IF you already have all of the proper resources at your disposal. If you need to create or acquire those resources then you’re talking another half Billion dollars or more.

    As far as why teams don’t cut spending, it should be obvious – they all want to win/dominate because of the marketing value. I’ve seen owners of Porsches, Mercedes, Ferraris, etc. get really P.O.’ed when they favorite marque is getting beat in Pro motorsports. You can bet that vehicle sales of luxury or exotic sportscar is closely tied to their on-track performance. The car makers all use their Pro racing ventures to promote their engineering capabilities and how the tech transfers to street cars that consumers buy.

  4. crunge4461 - May 17, 2014 at 2:19 AM

    The fact that the powers that be in F1 have to debate the budget cap stuff I personally find tragic. It is so obvious that from a teams and costs standpoint F1 is very unhealthy. In the early 90s there were regularly teams that could not make the 26 car grid and had to pack up and go home, the racing was more reasonable and teams could afford it. Move forward to the current age….last year the second best team in terms of performance could hardly pay their drivers, four teams have never earned points and are a long way from doing so…the big teams block budget caps but it is like a self-inflicted wound that somehow goes unnoticed. I personally would like to see a budget cap in which teams were given a particular budget, but could do just about whatever they wanted within that cap….this would allow reasonable costs and the creativity that all F1 fans thrive for.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Video from NASCAR America

Pressure mounts with 4 races remaining
Top 10 NASCAR Driver Searches
  1. K. Busch (1871)
  2. B. Keselowski (1518)
  3. R. Preece (1401)
  4. W. Pitkat (1257)
  5. R. Newman (1161)