F1 should stop trying to force itself on America

Ever since it became public knowledge that Liberty Media was intent on acquiring a controlling share - not, crucially, a majority slice - of Formula 1's commercial rights, four hypotheses have ruled F1's media hysteria: franchising; an increased United States presence; the concept of virtual/augmented reality; and gaming.

The pitfalls of franchising were discussed in this column last week, so now the spotlight turns on F1's seeming obsession with making it big in that vast Land of the Free.

The USA is no longer the globe's largest buyer of cars - that accolade belongs to China - and nor did it invent the motor car (look to Germany), but there is no doubting Detroit put the world on wheels, and, as such, the automobile forms part of American culture.

So on the face of it, it is easy to understand F1's desire to make it big in the USA. Here is a seemingly untapped market filled to the brim with petrolheads who would surely love three (or more) annual slices of Lewis Hamilton or Mercedes; would surely love to buy into motorsport's highest-tech cars careering around Central Park even if the knowledgeable soon grasped that the World Endurance Championship's LMP1 class today out-techs F1.

However, as is so often the case with F1, what looks good on paper does not necessarily transfer to the track. It's a fact F1 has obviously not realised since attempting to break into the USA in 1959 at a time when the world championship catered for both Indianapolis roadsters (the Indy 500 held F1 championship status from 1950-60) and Europe's comparatively puny, albeit by then mid-engined, machinery.

Since that first US Grand Prix, won by Bruce McLaren at a bumpy Sebring, the event has visited five more venues to rank highly in the championship's nomadic stakes, with another four American circuits having hosted F1 under slightly different race titles such as US GP West during Long Beach's tenure.

In total, the USA has hosted 55 grands prix (excluding 11 Indy 500s), which compares favourably with France (58) or Germany (62) until one counts the number of years with multiple American races, which reduces the number of seasons with at least one US round to 47 (of 67).

An annual hit rate of 70% since the start of the championship in 1950, then - and substantially more if those the anomalous points-paying Indy 500s are included - but still way off countries such as Great Britain, Italy and even Monaco.

It is not as though any of the grands prix hosted were roaring successes, either: an ostrich race in Phoenix pulled more punters on Sunday than the Arizona street track's US GP did, while the first Indianapolis road-course race in 2000 drew less than half the usual Indy 500 attendance. Even though the crowd was huge by F1 standards, it eventually dropped by half again before venue boss Tony George yanked the plug.

Many blame the infamous 2005 Michelin debacle for the demise of the Indy/F1 partnership, but the writing was writ large on the very same wall Ralf Schumacher was to smack long before Michelin got its numbers so horribly wrong.

Recall those 1992-99 and 2008-11 periods, when a lack of F1 in the USA sandwiched the Indianapolis grand prix era, when the only F1 race on North American soil was in Montreal? Did US fans flock to Canada for their annual fix, given that the venue is closer to eastern major centres than Austin? Not in noticeable numbers - as the Montreal promoter, who ended up in dire straits during those years, can attest...

Numbers at Austin's Circuit of the Americas have dropped steadily since the track's inaugural race in 2012. While the promoters last year blamed the weather and returning Mexican GP for a dearth of fans, the fact is most folk would have made travel arrangements well ahead of Hurricane Patricia being christened - and, if a grand prix relies solely on local fans, it surely serves as a further indictment of F1's lack of traction.

In September 2013, the FIA announced its calendar for the following season, with a race in New Jersey slated for June 1. "The entire Grand Prix of America team is thrilled to join the 2014 calendar, and we look forward to bringing world-class Formula 1 racing to New Jersey," race promoter Leo Hindery Jr said at the time.

Well, four years on F1 is still looking forward to racing against a highline skyline, but it is unlikely to happen anytime soon despite the best willed plans in the world - yet Formula E will soon race on the streets of New York. For the major reasons look no further than FE's 'electric mobility' political appeal and F1's business model, which demands that state and/or local authorities underwrite events - a concept which is, of course, anathema to the US.

It is not as though US brands are falling over themselves to sponsor F1, either. F1's tyre supplier, Pirelli, is Italian. Goodyear last graced the grid almost 20 years ago, although it doggedly labels its premium range 'F1'. Of F1's four major oil brands only Mobil-Esso is American; the rest are European (Shell, Total) or Malaysian (Petronas).

General Motors and Chrysler have never competed in F1. When Chrysler had a brief fling it did so unspectacularly under the Lamborghini brand it then owned, and all but hid its shortlived alliance with Mercedes when it came to matters F1. Ford has traditionally dipped in and out of F1 via European partners such as Cosworth, and its ownership of the Jaguar brand led to the underwhelming five-year stint from 2000 to '04. For the US market, the Blue Oval concentrated its motorsport efforts on NASCAR and, for a while, CART Indycar.

As for commercial partners, a quick run down of F1 team sponsors reflects a distinct lack of US interest - and why should any number of US grands prix make a difference to the situation given that F1 prides itself on being an international marketing platform? Ferrari lists the (conflicting) UPS/TNT and Ray-Ban/Oakley brands, while Alfa Romeo's return to the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards has been delayed yet again.

Red Bull? To sell its cans Stateside the company formed its own NASCAR team (pictured above); when that failed to find followers, Red Bull sponsored its erstwhile competitors before withdrawing entirely. If NASCAR can't sell cans in the US, why would F1 work?

Mercedes F1 reflects Bose, Monster and Starlight (hotels) as US-based partners, while, apart from Mobil/Esso, McLaren lists a handful of secondary US partners (Michael Kors, Hilton). Engine partner Honda competes in IndyCar to promote sales of cars and trucks, while Williams, too, lacks a US following, reflecting only a single major sponsor with US roots.

These teams cover the sharp end of the grid. Further back the situation is no different.

The only US team to enter F1 in three decades, Haas F1, is in not to sell CNC machines in the US - where it uses various motorsport genre, including NASCAR, to promote its parent company's products - but expand its profile internationally.

Which begs the obvious question: why no American drivers in F1? If Venezuelans or Columbians could win recent grands prix, why not Californians or New Yorkers? Again it boils down to allocation of finances for European-style feeder series, for the money is surely there.

In the mid-noughties BMW promoted its eponymous motorcycle-engined formula to bridge the gap between karting and the formula ladder, with the North American series being amongst the most popular of five regional championships.

Despite a variety of drivers eventually making it into motorsport's top echelon - including four-time world champion Sebastian Vettel and Haas driver Esteban Gutierrez - Alexander Rossi, who won the Americas title plus 2008 Formula BMW World Final, has been unable to find support for a top-line F1 seat. He has instead sought an IndyCar career, and earned victory in this year's Indy 500.

Based on the foregoing, there exists not a single compelling reason why Liberty should focus intensively upon the US market, save, possibly, that its owners and executives are primarily American - which, though, hardly provides a business case in itself. Could team interests swing the balance?

Ferrari, now listed on the New York Stock Exchange after being spun off by the Fiat Group, in 2014 sold 30% of its restricted annual production of approximately 7000 cars in the US. But, equally, it sold the same number in its combined European markets. China and Japan absorbed 9% and 6% respectively, while the rest of the world took the balance of 25%.

The company intends increasing annual volumes to 10,000 units, or an additional 900 units into the USA and the same again into its European markets. For the sake of just 80 cars a month, Liberty should focus on the USA? In any event, how often has Ferrari CEO Sergio Marchionne threatened to pull Ferrari out of F1 when the current contracts expire?

Mercedes is a mainstream player in the USA, with its Alabama factory employing 4000 heads to manufacture mainly SUVs and selling a total of 400,000 units per annum, including imports. As already considered, Mercedes could readily exit F1 once its dominant team feels the full brunt of the law of diminishing returns.

As for Renault, it is not represented in the USA, while alliance partner Infiniti sold just over 100,000 units in the USA during 2015. These three paragraphs represent the sum total of motor manufacturer involvement in F1 (for engine supplier Honda see above), and, again, no compelling case exists for a major US offensive - yet all the while the likes of Audi, BMW and Jaguar are competing/will soon be competing in Formula E.

All this points to a heavily overrated market place, one that F1 has systematically failed to break into over a period of 60 years; a market that evidently does not need F1, nor, patently, does F1 need the USA. Liberty Media is, of course, free to focus on whatever markets it senses potential in, but, equally, it should consider why the championship failed to find traction in the US despite trying every which way for six decades.

Essentially it boils down to differences in sports cultures, which ultimately manifest themselves in motorsport cultures on both sides of the Atlantic. Here Liberty is better placed than most to analyse the difference in cultures, for the company's website proclaims:

"The Liberty Braves Group consists of Liberty Media Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary Braves Holdings, LLC, which indirectly owns the Atlanta Braves Major League Baseball club, the Atlanta Braves' stadium and associated real estate projects."

As little as MLB has broken into Europe, so F1 has failed to break into the USA, and as MLB has resigned itself to that fact, so should F1. By all means, Liberty, attempt to grow F1 in your home country, but not at the expense of its already established markets, including Europe. Right now the priority should be on consolidating F1, not fragmenting it.

Indeed, Liberty likely has more chance of staging MLB matches at Twickenham than forcing F1 on America...