Why F1 should scrap the Brazilian GP

In many ways the Brazilian Grand Prix marked a watershed in Liberty Media's management of Formula 1: not only were headlines dominated by the absolutely unacceptable security risks Formula 1 personnel were exposed to, but for the first time team bosses have heavily criticised Liberty's guardianship.

Attacks on F1 personnel have, over the years, become custumal in Sao Paulo, with various instances having been reported over the years - including that infamous attack on Jenson Button in 2010. What have local administrators done about this horrific situation? How has the promoter responded?

The attacks received widespread coverage and there is little need for amplification here. Suffice to say, Pirelli has cancelled its two-day tyre test for this week, while F1 folk could barely wait to exit Sao Paulo. How long before their families demand they resign their jobs to escape Brazil's inherent dangers? More's the pity should it come to that, but who could blame them?

Forget not that just over two years ago the mother-in-law of then F1-tsar (and now chairman emeritus of F1) Bernie Ecclestone was abducted - and fortunately freed unharmed - so security issues are hardly news to promoter Tamas Rohonyi, whose marketing director Fabiana is now Bernie's third wife. As with most circuit issues, there were constant promises made to improve the situation, but zero discernible action.

Rohonyi and Ecclestone have been friends for many years - harking back to days when Bernie employed Brazilian drivers - and when he wished to take F1 behind the Iron Curtain in the eighties it was to the Hungarian migrant to whom he turned.

The rest is history, and further cemented the relationship between the two men - so much so that the word on the streets is that the two have undertaken various joint business ventures, including ownership of a coffee ranch or two.

It has oft been said that Interlagos gets away lightly due to the relationship between the two, but times have changed, and Liberty should surely consider scrapping the event before folk are placed in mortal danger. After, all Liberty continuously boasts about the number of potential race venues it has on its books - now is acid test time...

That F1 personnel are exposed to such attacks and dangers while commuting to/from the circuit in the course of their duties, usually at inhospitable hours, is detestable beyond description, but that Liberty has not even issued a single official comment condemning the attacks - though has pledged to discuss event security with the FIA at the next World Motor Sport Council meeting - is an indication of the listed company's priorities in placing customer considerations ahead of personnel safety.

Consider a post-race media release issued by Liberty's PR: it spoke glowingly about Ferrari rediscovering its winning formula, of Lewis Hamilton powering through, of Felipe Massa bowing out, of Red Bull's late season charge faltering, but of the attacks there not a word. It was left to Hamilton to condemn the criminality.

That said, a company executive informally expressed concern, reportedly telling a media source that Liberty is 'merely the commercial rights holder, and that responsibility for safety and security lies with the local promoter'. Maybe so, but ultimately Liberty subsidiary Formula One Management signed the agreements that permit events to take place in the first place.

Accountability, responsibility, culpability...

As for the FIA, the only reaction from the governing body was that clothing logos be covered during commutes and that parking passes only be affixed near the circuit and be removed immediately afterwards. Well, F1 folk have done that for years to no avail (note that parking passes are designed to discourage removal and reapplication) - and don't have the privilege of being chauffeured about in armoured limousines, as were FIA staff.

A few strong words of condemnation from the body that ratified FOM's staging of events would have been preferable. It seems perverse that the FIA devotes (laudably) large amounts of effort and funding to driver/marshal safety (plus Action for Road Safety campaigns), yet seemingly can do little about the dangers faced by F1 staff.

Sao Paulo's mayor promised immediate action, yet team personnel leaving the circuit after dark saw no increased police presence - some reported seeing none at all - while various tweets suggest that post-race policing was equally lax.

Local thugs have surely provided every reason for Brazil to be canned. Which venue should replace it?

No surprise: over the years lip service has been paid to the situation, yet it has escalated unacceptably. Seemingly there is just one alternative remaining to guarantee safety: scrap the race.

The latest word is that the planned privatisation of the circuit will result in better security all round, with Sao mayor Joao Doria saying: "The privatisation of the racetrack will contribute to [public safety]. We will have security systems not only in the internal area, but also in the external area of the racetrack."

Really? Mr Mayor, please explain why/how a private company could offer greater levels of safety than your own police force. The situation is hardly likely to be improved by a private company with its eye firmly on the bottom line that has historically lost vast amounts of money. To remind you, such losses lie at the root of all related issues, or so it has been said.

The circuit's previous media centre, situated above the pit lane, was for many years the worst on the trail, despite offering some wonderful views of the track. Leaking roofs, sub-standard (and F1's most expensive) internet service, a media conference situated almost a kilometre away and shocking toilet facilities had no place in a world championship event.

For last year, though, a 'new' media centre was unveiled. Guess what? It had no windows, unfinished toilets, equally unreliable yet more expensive internet - US$150 for intermittent single connections, where most venues offer free high-speed, unlimited connections - and a sewage stench that was, bluntly, sickening.

An email of complaint addressed by this writer to Rohonyi was (predictably) dismissed: he blamed outside contractors for the internet issues, and suggested that media members had requested that windows be blacked out! After the complaint the internet was opened to provide multiple connections, but the toilet facilities remained terrible.

Thus, I decided to boycott Brazil this year, and given the deteriorating security situation and scant improvements in media facilities it seems to have been an eminently sensible decision, particularly as it provided an opportunity of attending Cape Town's action-packed WRX round. At least FIA staff visiting the tip of Africa felt no need to cruise about in armoured cars, while there was not a single reported attack on WRX folk...

A colleague who attended the grand prix, though, advised that the media centre was covered in cement dust when he arrived - an indication that work recommenced at the last minute - while the only discernible enhancements over last year were the installation of windows, and free (albeit still intermittent) internet service. It is still some way from the rest.

Indeed, the standard and facilities offered by media centres at "traditional" venues fall well short of those at super-stadiums, and herein lays Liberty's conundrum. Does the company forego tradition in centres that ooze passion despite but offer sub-standard facilities (and inability/unwillingness to pay top dollar) in favour of state-of-art venues, who pay eye-watering hosting fees?

Where does a happy medium lie? Fifty-fifty? Forty-sixty, either way? In the event of Liberty canning Sao Paulo - although the actual race was a cracker, local thugs have surely provided every reason - which venue should replace it? A Rio de Janeiro street race would be little safer, if at all, but the fact is Europe is saturated and South Africa rather unwilling, Argentina seems unable, Asia is flooded and the US is ambivalent.

What has Liberty actually achieved apart from opening up social media channels, tickling broadcast content around the edges and rolling out a red carpet for a boxing announcer?

Already Liberty's revenues are under pressure, with the latest team distribution 'pot' for the last quarter reduced by 13% over 2016, primarily due a swathe of (high level) recruitments, plus reductions in income. That is just for starters, for already circuits are pushing for discounts on hosting fees while independent teams are demanding more equitable revenue streams.

Mercedes motorsport chairman Niki Lauda has been publicly outspoken, but his words reflect prevailing paddock sentiment. The question being increasingly asked is: what has Liberty actually achieved apart from opening up social media channels, tickling broadcast content around the edges and rolling out a red carpet for a boxing announcer. For the rest, it is promises, promises and more promises.

When I recently wrote an opinion piece about precisely this topic for F1 Racing, Autosport's sister magazine, I was immediately called in to explain my words - a situation never previously experienced in 17 years of writing for the publishing group.

Such behaviour indicates how nervous Liberty is about its performance, and of how it is perceived by stock market analysts, their opinions in turn reflected in a (FWONK) share price that dropped 10% following two recent meetings - the first called to discuss post-2020 engine regulations; the second a Strategy Group meeting. Any wonder there are jitters in F1's palatial new St James Market, London HQ?

Acquiring F1's commercial rights was never going to be a cakewalk, but after a year the indications are that Liberty has flunked and needs to re-examine its priorities if it is to grow its investment in the sport.

That means respecting tradition but knowing when and where to pull the plug if warranted - and Brazil's latest event surely provided justification aplenty.