Force India boss hits back at Haas over Formula 1 payment system
Force India boss Vijay Mallya is "disappointed" that fellow team owner Gene Haas has expressed support for Formula 1's current income distribution system
Haas and Force India are among the few teams that have no special deal on top of the regular performance-based prize fund, and Mallya has long campaigned for a fairer split of income.
F1 CEO Chase Carey has also made it clear Liberty Media wants the system to change, in part to help to close up the grid.
But Haas recently argued that the current method of long-established teams receiving a greater percentage of commercial income was fair, arguing F1 should not follow a "socialistic-type structure".
Those comments have angered Mallya.
"I find it actually disappointing that such a new entrant in F1, who has no previous experience of owning an F1 team, makes such a profound statement," the Force India team principal told Autosport.
"Anybody looking at the income distribution pattern of F1 will immediately, without even being prompted, realise how lopsided it all is.
"Clearly the DNA of F1 must include independent teams, not just manufacturer teams.
"And independent teams need to be able to be financially viable and able to compete.
"So I was particularly happy when Liberty Media and Chase Carey effectively said what Force India has been pleading for a while now: that the income distribution needs to be revisited, and adjusted to be fair to the smaller teams as well.
"For Haas to make such a profound statement, I obviously found that to be disappointing."
Mallya believes Haas's comments were prompted by his team's affiliation with Ferrari, for which the current payment arrangements are particularly beneficial.
"It's pretty obvious from the Haas car that they are more than just associated with Ferrari," he said.
Though the existing F1 payment system is generally considered set in stone until the current Concorde Agreement expires in 2020, Mallya has not given up on earlier changes.
"I see no reason why it won't happen before 2020," he said.
"I've read that Chase doesn't like the so-called Concorde Agreement, which in his view should never have existed.
"I think he's made it clear that the independent arrangements that various teams made with Bernie were not good for the sport, and actually prevented a level and competitive field.
"I was encouraged to hear FOM, for the very first time, speak my language.
"It's all a question of how quickly they get the act together."
Mallya is also encouraged by Ferrari and Red Bull indicating for the first time that they would prefer to spend less, especially on R&D.
"I think that a whole bunch of factors have come together to cause this change in thinking," he said.
"Ferrari is a listed company, and if they spend less, they make more, and that has an impact on their market capitalisation.
"I've often wondered why people would not support a cost cap in the past, but now it's becoming clearer that there's a shift in mindset."
Previous article
How a rare third chance has led to a popular revival
Next article
Better quality of sound 'essential' for next F1 engine, says Wolff
The ‘backwards step’ that is the right move for Formula 1
OPINION: With its days apparently numbered, the MGU-H looks set to be dropped from Formula 1’s future engine rules in order to entice new manufacturers in. While it may appear a change of direction, the benefits for teams and fans could make the decision a worthwhile call
The floundering fortunes of F1’s many Lotus reboots
Team Lotus ceased to exist in 1994 - and yet various parties have been trying to resurrect the hallowed name, in increasingly unrecognisable forms, ever since. DAMIEN SMITH brings GP Racing’s history of the legendary team to an end with a look at those who sought to keep the flame alive in Formula 1
Why the 2021 title fight is far from F1's worst, despite its toxic background
OPINION: Formula 1 reconvenes for the Russian Grand Prix two weeks after the latest blow in ‘Max Verstappen vs Lewis Hamilton’. While the Silverstone and Monza incidents were controversial, they thankfully lacked one element that so far separates the 2021 title fight from the worst examples of ugly championship battles
How F1’s other champion to emerge from 1991 thrived at Lotus
Mika Hakkinen became Michael Schumacher’s biggest rival in Formula 1 in the late-90s and early 2000s, having also made his F1 debut in 1991. But as MARK GALLAGHER recalls, while Schumacher wowed the world with a car that was eminently capable, Hakkinen was fighting to make his mark with a famous team in terminal decline
The forgotten F1 comeback that began Jordan’s odyssey
Before Michael Schumacher – or anyone else – had driven the 191 (or 911 as it was initially called), Eddie Jordan turned to a fellow Irishman to test his new Formula 1 car. JOHN WATSON, a grand prix winner for Penske and McLaren, recalls his role in the birth of a legend…
The squandered potential of a 70s F1 underdog
A podium finisher in its first outing but then never again, the BRM P201 was a classic case of an opportunity squandered by disorganisation and complacency, says STUART CODLING
The other notable Monza escape that F1 should learn from
OPINION: The headlines were dominated by the Italian Grand Prix crash between Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton, who had the halo to thank for avoiding potentially serious injury. But two days earlier, Formula 1 had a lucky escape with a Monza pitlane incident that could also have had grave consequences
How Monza only added more questions to F1's sprint race conundrum
With two sprint races under its belt, Formula 1 must now consider its options for them going forward. While they've helped deliver exciting racing on Sundays, the sprints themselves have been somewhat lacking - creating yet another conundrum for F1 to solve...
