How to stop pay drivers taking over

Complaints about so-called pay drivers have reached a cacophonous level bordering on hysteria. Against a backdrop of Formula 1's financial troubles, many teams have quite legitimately had to ensure that one or both of their drivers guarantees a chunk of sponsorship to make up a budget shortfall, or in some cases keeps them going altogether.

While pay drivers have been a fact of life throughout the history of the sport, their prevalence can become corrosive. Fortunately, while there are some drivers not on the grid who unquestionably should be ahead of a few of those who are, the overall standard is still high.

But there's no guarantee that F1's money troubles have bottomed out, and steps need to be taken to ensure that the level doesn't deteriorate dramatically. This can be achieved through a transformation in the attitude both the FIA and F1 have towards the Superlicence that any driver running in an official session must hold.

As the name suggests, the Superlicence should be more than just a certification of basic competence and safety. In recent years there have been a few examples of drivers being awarded the licence that simply did not satisfy the criteria laid out in the FIA's own International Sporting Code (appendix L).

Marussia reserve Rodolfo Gonzalez and Ma Qing Hua, who ran during Friday sessions several times for HRT in 2011, both fall short of the levels defined by my reading of the rules. They earned their licences through the catch-all regulation permitting a driver to apply based on 300km of running in a 'current' F1 car, combined with an 'outstanding' single-seater record.

Glance at their CVs and it's clear that to argue they fit the definition of that word is stretching a point.

Ma Qing Hua had several outings with HRT © LAT

Both achieved the first criterion, but by my standards neither can claim to have an outstanding single-seater record. Both drove an F1 car safely enough, with Ma particularly worthy of credit considering his lack of experience during a patchwork single-seater career, but they're not the kinds of drivers that should be competing at the elite level. At least not until their results in lower formulas improve.

The FIA's position is that it's not there to be an arbiter of whether a driver has proven himself worthy of F1, simply to process the paperwork to guarantee a baseline competence.

But that's not good enough. In most sports there are quite rightly entry barriers to the elite level, and this should be the case in F1.

With the economic situation meaning that teams are feeling the pinch, there will be ever-greater temptations to bring on board drivers with questionable track records.

Currently, among the 'pay drivers' targeted for criticism are Pastor Maldonado (a GP2 champion), Max Chilton (a two-time GP2 race winner), Esteban Gutierrez (third in GP2 in 2012) and Giedo van der Garde (a GP2 race winner and Formula Renault 3.5 champion). Hardly no-hopers. But they're not the problem.

The concern is those on the periphery of F1 who just might sneak into a race seat that they have in no way done enough to earn. If three or four of 22 seats are occupied by such drivers, that's when grand prix racing will be devalued dramatically.

While you could argue that the 107 per cent qualifying rule keeps out disastrously bad drivers, it's not an acceptable excuse for lax Superlicence rules.

It's clear to me that the regulations as they stand are not fit for purpose. They have the air of a patchwork, updated and modified over the years to create a Frankenstein's monster of a set of rules.

After all, several of the categories referred to are defunct (F2, International F3 Trophy, GP2 Asia), two are misnamed (Formula Nippon and Formula Renault V6) and others are bafflingly overlooked.

It should be pointed out that there is a two-year shelf-life for champions of certain categories to be given Superlicences, which explains a few, but not all, of the defunct championships' presence.

For example, several F3 championships, some of which even exist, automatically grant a Superlicence to their title-winners. This includes the weak Italian series. Yet GP3 is not even mentioned, which is why Daniil Kvyat had to qualify on mileage. Given the level of that category, a Superlicence should surely be a given for the champion, and probably other top performers in GP3.

Drivers like Maldonado are not the problem © LAT

Red Bull has tried to tackle this problem, raising it last November as a topic for discussion for F1's Strategy Group on the basis that the GP3 champion was not deemed worthy of a Superlicence.

It was argued, compellingly, that this made GP3 a less attractive championship to competitors than it should be.

Red Bull also, sensibly, suggested that the valid period for a Superlicence application based on mileage be extended from 90 to 180 days after running is completed.

But Superlicence regulations need a wider update. They must be simultaneously broader and more stringent. By not simply granting a Superlicence to anybody, regardless of track record, based on completing 300km and having raced a single-seater somewhere a number of times (which the evidence suggests is the definition of 'outstanding'), it will automatically increase the value of those who do.

It will also make it impossible for a megabucks no-hoper to buy their way in. If the financial situation continues to deteriorate, it's only a matter of time before something like this happens and the sport takes a serious hit.

So how should the Superlicence regulations be tweaked? For a start, the championships that allow automatic qualification should be broadened to include GP3.

Likewise, series like GP2 Asia should be removed to show that somebody is actually paying attention to the changing landscape in motorsport (more than two years have now passed since the series was staged in early 2011, so it falls beyond the stated timescale for achievements in that category to guarantee a Superlicence).

Exactly where you place the cut-offs is a moot point. Currently, the top three in GP2 and 'Formula Renault V6' - a championship last staged in Europe in 2004, then replaced by the more powerful Formula Renault 3.5 - are guaranteed a licence.

You could argue that extending that to the top four or top six is worthwhile, or perhaps give it to the top four plus any driver winning two or more races (stipulating that in the case of any series with reversed grids, this should only apply to feature races).

This should ensure that drivers either completing successful part-seasons, or who have patchy campaigns with strong runs of form that show their potential, are able to get the licence.

On a year-by-year basis, the categories that allow qualifying for a Superlicence should also be reassessed.

Currently, the F3 European Championship is extremely strong and you can legitimately argue automatic Superlicence qualification for a number of drivers, whereas in the poorly-supported years at the start of the decade, what was then called the F3 Euroseries should perhaps guarantee only one or two places.

Things change, and quickly, in motorsport and the Superlicence rules must reflect that.

There's no way to write a regulation that catches every worthy driver. Kimi Raikkonen famously stepped straight from Formula Renault 2.0 in the UK to F1 and excelled thanks to his prodigious ability. It's difficult to argue that this level should guarantee a Superlicence to the champion, but perhaps a tighter definition of an 'outstanding' single-seater record should allow such cases to qualify on mileage.

Raikkonen jumped into F1 straight from Formula Renault 2.0 © LAT

Whatever the exact form of the rewritten Superlicence criteria, they would create a very clear elite from which F1 drivers must be selected. It would remove the temptation for a team to take a driver who was either never good enough or not ready.

For example, Sergey Sirotkin was at one stage destined to race for Sauber this year. At 18, he's a driver with potential but would be desperately undercooked.

His solid, but winless, campaign that netted ninth in Formula Renault 3.5 last year would not allow him to qualify for a licence. But with a good campaign this year, he could prove himself ready for 2015.

It's down to F1 and the FIA to tackle this problem. While there are legal dangers in restricting drivers' ability to do their jobs, in many industries there are well established professional qualifications that both ensure the qualities of an individual and protect the value of those who have proved they are able to do the job.

Modifying the Superlicence rules could also be a force for good in tidying up the junior single-seater ladder. Series with poor grids or poor standards would be easily identifiable by their place in the Superlicence pecking order.

Provided the FIA's regulations react to the standard of the categories rather than using it as a political tool to tackle those they don't like (which is a real risk), this could be a real positive that both guarantees the standard of drivers on the F1 grid and rewards the strong, well-run championships that genuinely prepare drivers for the top level.

Executed properly, the Superlicence regulations can be a powerful force for good in protecting F1's position at the top of the motorsport ladder and ensuring the best junior categories are supported.