F1 can't afford new teams to be terrible

Whether or not the prospect of 24 races appeals, how about more teams? That was the tantalising post-2020 prospect Ross Brawn dropped in casually during an interview with Sky Sports F1 recently - which was followed by news of some actual proposals, which then got short shrift from F1 itself.

We chewed over the notion of new teams with F1 Racing columnist Mark Gallagher in the latest edition of the Flat Chat podcast. His verdict was eminently sensible: given the state of F1's commercial landscape it would make more sense to buy in to an existing team than set one up from scratch, but if you really want to go to all that time and expense, then... knock yourselves out.

Brawn described the number of entities who have expressed an interest in joining F1 as "surprising". Is it really? Last time the FIA threw open the gates to new teams it was overwhelmed with pitches for the three (later four) available slots. But let's not forget mid-2009 was a politically febrile time; I remember doorstepping the late Martin Birrane (on his way out of the toilet in the Le Mans media centre) to gather his thoughts on Lola's exclusion from the final list, and many of them remain unprintable.

None of those new teams still exist, and one of them memorably didn't even make the grid, so what isn't surprising is that Brawn followed up his remarks with a huge caveat: "I think 10 healthy teams in Formula 1 is actually enough, and if we do get any extra teams they've got to really add to the show.

"We must remember the history. So many small teams came and went and didn't really add to Formula 1."

This statement arrives so freighted with obviousness that it almost marches through the twaddle detector without setting off any alarms. After all, who in F1 fandom - or business - laments the non-arrival of USF1, the slow death of Lotus/Caterham and Virgin/Marussia/Manor, the why-did-they-bother tomfoolery of Hispania Racing Technologies, or the sundry other fly-by-nights of times past such as Andrea Moda, Simtek, Life, Kauhsen, Token, etc?

So is Brawn saying that new teams would be sort-of welcome, so long as they're clearly not going to be appalling? Policing that condition is going to be very difficult considering the financial commitment required just to get a foot in the door. Good luck with that, Ross.

Also, there's a weasel phrase luring right at the very beginning: "10 healthy teams in Formula 1 is actually enough".

Can all the current 10 be described as healthy? I'd argue not.

The state of the prize-money distribution, a legacy of Bernie Ecclestone's short-term gaming of the political system to keep himself in charge, has funnelled the prime cuts of money and influence to a small clique of leading teams. Seven of the 10 stand no chance of catching the leading three this year or next, and maybe not even after that, since the top teams have so much more resource to throw at the much-vaunted new rules coming in 2021.

Weighing up the viability of the two 'known' putative entrants is tricky. Panthera Team Asia F1 has been recruiting personnel - including former Renault aerodynamicist Tim Milne - to a (presumably) temporary base near Silverstone for several months now.

Its principals have experience in the World Endurance Championship but it has yet to make its intentions - or indeed its funding or business model - clear.

Another Monaco-based entity with links to Adrian Campos went as far as issuing a press release claiming that it was working its way towards a 2021 entry with Pascal Wehrlein and Alex Palou; the funding, drivers and the names of some of the technical staff seem credible, and Campos Racing is active in F2 and F3, but the last time Campos's name was associated with an F1 entry it didn't end well. Or, rather, barely got going.

It's significant that speculation about these possible entrants moved both FIA president Jean Todt and the commercial rights holder to decant iced water over the whole idea. Liberty's statement was so brief that the words occupied a smaller area of real estate on the page than the company logo, despite being laid out at a should-have-gone-to-Specsavers point size. It said there were "no serious discussions" with new entrants. This just six months after CEO Chase Carey said it was one of his company's "strategic goals" to "make the sport more attractive to potential new entrants".

A lot depends on the post-2020 commercial settlement - which is still in the elongated process of being thrashed out by all the stakeholders. Some of those parties are the teams, few of whom would welcome new pairs of hands dipping into the prize pot.

The financial health of the paddock has improved since the dog days of the Ecclestone regime, when several teams were known to be for sale or about to hit the buffers. But it's still not great.

Racing Point only exists because of the largesse of a private individual - Lawrence Stroll - and his chums. Williams is having to cut its coat according to its (substantially reduced) cloth. Gene Haas is understood to be interested in selling up - and might have been out by now but for the Rich Energy farrago.

Red Bull and Toro Rosso's continued existence is dependent on the whim of Dietrich Mateschitz, and there have been occasional reports of his passion for F1 wavering. The McLaren Group is now 10% owned by a Formula 2 driver's father. Alfa Romeo's ownership can still be traced back to Tetra Pak magnate Hans Rausing despite a restructure of the various holding companies last year.

Following the money is seldom easy in F1. But when the majority of the teams are owned or heavily influenced by corporations (which ultimately answer to shareholders) or high-net-worth individuals (who are generally steered by whim and ego), the situation clearly isn't sustainable. Only when teams can be run as businesses will they be able to thrive in the long term. How about that, Ross?