Andretti F1 - 2025

[veeten]

And now, this...

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/al...emand/10597133

[Richard C]

Articles about the Andretti Silverstone facility

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/a...lity/10597184/

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/a...team/10597215/

It sounds like they are looking to remain flexible as they are using the new facility for F2/F3. I can imagine if they find entry into F1 then either that is an existing team with existing facilities or if they get a new entry they maybe move F1 into this facility and F2/F3 share or are moved elsewhere.

As to them buying Renault/Alpine team, I swear I saw a rumor somewhere just yesterday that was speculating they were in the hunt for RB (Marko saying multiple groups interested in buying RB). Lots of rumors, who knows which are true.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Articles about the Andretti Silverstone facility

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/a...lity/10597184/

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/a...team/10597215/

It sounds like they are looking to remain flexible as they are using the new facility for F2/F3. I can imagine if they find entry into F1 then either that is an existing team with existing facilities or if they get a new entry they maybe move F1 into this facility and F2/F3 share or are moved elsewhere.

As to them buying Renault/Alpine team, I swear I saw a rumor somewhere just yesterday that was speculating they were in the hunt for RB (Marko saying multiple groups interested in buying RB). Lots of rumors, who knows which are true.

Richard

PlanetF1 had this about RB.
https://www.planetf1.com/news/potent...-marko-rb-sale

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

PlanetF1 had this about RB.
https://www.planetf1.com/news/potent...-marko-rb-sale

Yes, that is it. Thanks.

Richard

[chillibowl]

dont want to see RB being snapped up by a manu so if Andretti could somehow take it over and hold on to some of that independent/privateer identity that would be great imo.

also dont want to see Renault/Alpine go the way of space for hire team, offering up a badging opportunity to any manu with a new advertising campaign on the horizon. if sold, i hope their new owners keep the Renault engine connection in a tangible way.

in a way its good that the teams have all become more valuable and F1 is more popular, but i guess this is the ugly side of it.

FOM needs a better plan imo in how they will handle all this new found value and attention. more so because they do actually seem like they want to stay involved with F1 and motorsports for the foreseeable future.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

It sounds like they are looking to remain flexible as they are using the new facility for F2/F3. I can imagine if they find entry into F1 then either that is an existing team with existing facilities or if they get a new entry they maybe move F1 into this facility and F2/F3 share or are moved elsewhere.

Yeah - that's what they're saying but only if they get the F1 entry. I'd have thought that if the bucks are there (which they appear to be) then it would make sense to get going with the F3/F2 straight away - having it all running with the existing FE team under one roof. That would start to build a base of young drivers from the US, getting closer to readiness for F1.

Michael alludes to US drivers supposedly not getting the same treatment in F3 & F2 as euro drivers (personally think that he's talking rubbish on that score) and if he REALLY believes that, then what better way to "fix" that by having Andretti teams in F3 / F2 ASAP and get some US drivers used to the european tracks and the depth of competition from all around the world that comes and races in Europe?

[chunterer]

Surely Amdretti will be up for running the WEC Caddys in place of Ganassi? Out of there?
Good way to keep the F1 aspirations alive between the two parties.

[broadrun96]

Interesting option there

[Richard C]

Andretti is working the anti-trust angle. They have found a bipartisan group of US Congress members to send a letter to Liberty regarding Andretti's exclusion including bringing up the potential that this may not be inline with the US Sherman Antitrust Act. I can imagine the timing of this (lead up to Miami GP) is purposeful.

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/statu...520123277?s=61

Richard

[veeten]

Eventually, this could make it's way right in front of the EU, with the same questions being asked.

Nice move, Stefano... you too, Toto.

[Tourer]

I guess that the statement from the US representatives will either be the start of something bigger or achieve nothing at all. Interesting move.

Much of what is said in the statement refers to US companies (GM specifically) not being able to compete against rivals. The logic fail in that of course is that Ford is able to do so with RBR and GM could do so too - once it has an engine in 2028 of course (whether that engine be in an Andretti car or another team's car).

Also interesting that most, if not all of the questions asked have already been answered in the FOM rejection statement - maybe the Congress members are unaware of that document? Maybe they are also unaware that it indicates the answer would be different for 2028 once Caddy has its own engine?

The Autosport article about this includes an approach to FOM, which referred the reporter to the rejection statement.

What might become of all this with international businesses and US lawmakers I don't know - Liberty is clearly a US company but I believe that the Formula One group companies are registered in Jersey, Luxembourg & the UK.

Maybe the next thing we'll have is one of the existing teams approaching the EU complaining that a new team within the current Concorde Agreement would impact too much on its revenue and put many jobs at risk?

Then we'd have blowhard politicians from both sides of the Atlantic beating their chests.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I guess that the statement from the US representatives will either be the start of something bigger or achieve nothing at all. Interesting move.

It was the anticipated move. Everyone felt there were clear anti-trust issues with this? It's effectively closed off. The response from FOM didn't do them any favors as it was blatantly biased. Based upon their justification a number of the existing teams don't belong in F1.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Much of what is said in the statement refers to US companies (GM specifically) not being able to compete against rivals. The logic fail in that of course is that Ford is able to do so with RBR and GM could do so too - once it has an engine in 2028 of course (whether that engine be in an Andretti car or another team's car).

Of course repeating the FOM position really doesn't address the issues that Andretti and GM bring up in the letter. Of course for FOM it's a closed issue. As we all know the answer was... No to Andretti and GM, we would love to see you... with an existing team. And of course the 2028 aspect is pure fiction and nothing more than a delaying tactic to push the problem far enough into the future that Andretti and GM has moved onto other things. So the FOM logic doesn't make any sense at all. I mean nobody in their right mind would believe the "try again" answer.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Also interesting that most, if not all of the questions asked have already been answered in the FOM rejection statement - maybe the Congress members are unaware of that document? Maybe they are also unaware that it indicates the answer would be different for 2028 once Caddy has its own engine?

You say "would" be different for 2028. There is zero evidence of that (see above). And I assume you are joking that the FOM response is somehow not part of this? It would be at the heart of it (see earlier comments).

Originally Posted by Tourer

Maybe the next thing we'll have is one of the existing teams approaching the EU complaining that a new team within the current Concorde Agreement would impact too much on its revenue and put many jobs at risk?

Then we'd have blowhard politicians from both sides of the Atlantic beating their chests.

It's probably hard to build your arguments on a foundation of monopolistic behavior. It's not a good look and not particularly defensible.

What do I think will happen with this? Probably nothing. Probably just continue to be a thorn in the side of F1. It just seems to depend upon it getting any traction in the US political sphere. It if does, then maybe something might come of it. And I expect the next Concorde Agreement will double down and instead of revising the process to allow new teams, they will remove that all together and just fix the team count at 10. And this is already reported as being the direction. I do think that does create more anti-trust issues for the future however.

Richard

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

What do I think will happen with this? Probably nothing. Probably just continue to be a thorn in the side of F1. It just seems to depend upon it getting any traction in the US political sphere. It if does, then maybe something might come of it. And I expect the next Concorde Agreement will double down and instead of revising the process to allow new teams, they will remove that all together and just fix the team count at 10. And this is already reported as being the direction. I do think that does create more anti-trust issues for the future however.

I suspect (but hope I'm wrong) that you may be correct re capping at 10 teams in the next Concorde Agreement.

Re anti-trust, how does it work in the US with sports such as NFL & NHL? Don't they use a franchise model that restricts the number of teams?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Re anti-trust, how does it work in the US with sports such as NFL & NHL? Don't they use a franchise model that restricts the number of teams?

I really don't follow the big US sports such as American Football, Baseball, Basketball, etc. I do think they occasionally bump up against anti-trust laws. The Sherman Act is quite old (created in 1890). I believe there was an explicit exception created by law for Baseball (There is a saying here... "As American as Baseball, Hot-dogs, Apple Pie and Chevrolet"). So don't mess with Baseball! I think the NFL was given an exception to negotiate broadcast rights for all teams collectively.

NFL has 32 clubs (newest in 1993), NBA has 30 team (newest in 2004), NHL has 32 teams (newest this year?). Someone who follows this stuff can comment. I really don't know the history.

Overall, I expect they don't run into trouble as there is a process for new teams, a large number of teams and while the requirements are probably generally high (probably even financially higher than the F1 anti-dilution fee), they are achievable. The controlling organizations are not actively working to prevent any new entries as F1 is. If someone wanted to create a new team it probably wouldn't be anywhere as difficult as it is within F1. F1's problem is they say they are structured for 12 teams, but are at 10. Define objective requirements (like the anti-dilution fee, etc.) which were met by Andretti/GM, but also have very squishy subjective requirements that feel quite random and arbitrary. So the exclusion (particularly the published reasoning) of someone such as Andretti smells very much like Sherman Antitrust issues. Particularly collusion to prevent competition and the subjective and arbitrary nature of if you allowed in/out. It also doesn't help F1's case that FIA gave Andretti/GM a thumbs up.

As to the political side of this. The FOM reasoning likely will get little or no traction here in the US. They effectively said Andretti had no marketing value (which doesn't fly here because it's clearly wrong) and as Andretti is a partner with GM, GM ended up being painted poorly by association (remember that "Chevrolet" (GM) is right up there with Baseball, Hot-dogs and Apple pie!) . Layer on top of this, that it is a US company with someone like Stefano Domenicali as CEO of F1. Right, wrong, fair, unfair, nationalistic or not messaging from Domenicali as a non-American, falls on deaf ears. He just comes across as a European protecting European interests. Particularly European commercial interests. This is why there is a potential for the anti-trust angle to get traction here. However I don't hold much hope.

Richard

[GTRMagic]

Mr Andretti has been making and starring in political ads for his local candidate from the Andretti Global headquarters for some time now.

Why do they think forcing people to be your friend will make you their friend?

[E.B]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Why do they think forcing people to be your friend will make you their friend?

[P38 in workshop]

There are no friends as such in F1.The teams behave with more animosity to close rivals and less to those far beneath them in the championship and that's about as close as it gets.It is a form of ritualised battle and keeping potential opponents from appearing means one less outfit to beat and more money to share round.


Slighting an American institution like GM won't be well received by politicians whose electors may well have connections with GM and limiting American participation is unlikely to be well received by this group-in spite of the occasional "World Series" on home ground that is named after a newspaper and not as a reflection of it's global status.I have no idea what sanctions are available to those charged with the duty of preventing restraint of trade but it wouldn't be a shock to see indignation stoked up a bit with a view to imposing some kind of penalty on Liberty in their home country.I don't suppose too large a proportion of the American public is aware that GM is quite a bit less significant globally than was once the case,in spite of it's iconic local status,and it remains a big business by most metrics.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Mr Andretti has been making and starring in political ads for his local candidate from the Andretti Global headquarters for some time now.

Why do they think forcing people to be your friend will make you their friend?

Having made so many ill-advised moves to try to get into F1, why would they change habits now?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I suspect (but hope I'm wrong) that you may be correct re capping at 10 teams in the next Concorde Agreement.

Re anti-trust, how does it work in the US with sports such as NFL & NHL? Don't they use a franchise model that restricts the number of teams?

My understanding is, The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1291-95 (1961), gave professional baseball, football, hockey, and basketball statutorily exemption from US antitrust laws, for the purpose of collectively selling the rights to television broadcasters.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

My understanding is, The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1291-95 (1961), gave professional baseball, football, hockey, and basketball statutorily exemption from US antitrust laws, for the purpose of collectively selling the rights to television broadcasters.

Thanks mate - that makes complete sense. If that's the case, I guess that should someone have a crack at F1 on an anti-trust basis, then FOM could argue that precedent exists for treating pro sports differently due to broadcasting rights.

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Slighting an American institution like GM won't be well received by politicians whose electors may well have connections with GM and limiting American participation is unlikely to be well received by this group

Except that of course FOM in it's statement saying "no" to Andretti went out of its way to praise GM and say that in 2028 with a GM power plant, the application would be looked at very differently.

[GTRMagic]

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Thanks mate - that makes complete sense. If that's the case, I guess that should someone have a crack at F1 on an anti-trust basis, then FOM could argue that precedent exists for treating pro sports differently due to broadcasting rights.

I think FOM would have a strong case to continue to negotiate broadcast rights (mirroring the exceptions already allowed for US sports), but not collusive exclusion from F1. I expect Andretti/GM have no objections over the broadcast topic. It's the exclusion from the series that is the issue.

Note that the FOM statement pointed out that they did not take into account the team's views on the topic (or something to that wording). I wonder if that was included explicitly to try to shortcut accusations of collusion (i.e. tickling the dragon on anti trust triggers). I personally find it highly unlikely that the decision was made in a vacuum as communicated. Imagine if this was to move into the realm of an anti trust case, do we think there are absolutely zero communications between FOM and the existing teams on this topic with teams expressing their desire to remain "as is". Especially given teams were saying as much publicly? I think it makes a juicy story, but again i am doubtful anything will come of this.

Semi-related... while Googling on this topic, I found articles that call out that the prior exception that bjohnsonsmith calls out may not actually be broadly written enough to cover distribution via streaming services. Not that I think this impacts any of this F1 topic, but I think it shows that the anti-trust issues seem to never be fully settled and it seems to ready to pop up again if the conditions are right.

Richard

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Having made so many ill-advised moves to try to get into F1, why would they change habits now?

What's ill-advised about this move?

From my highly educated couch in Australia based on absolutely nothing but the internet it seems like they have a good base for an entry...

[Tourer]

The Capitol Hill interest continues as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has written to Liberty & FOM with questions and asking for a meeting.

NBC story and a copy of the letter can be seen at this link.

As I'm not a lawyer and not familiar with either US or International law, I don't quite understand the control that US Congress can have over a decision made by a European company (FOM) even if it is owned by a US company (Liberty). As there ARE Grands Prix in the US, so FOM DOES trade there, that might be the key.

Interesting times ahead.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Tourer

The Capitol Hill interest continues as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has written to Liberty & FOM with questions and asking for a meeting.

NBC story and a copy of the letter can be seen at this link.

As I'm not a lawyer and not familiar with either US or International law, I don't quite understand the control that US Congress can have over a decision made by a European company (FOM) even if it is owned by a US company (Liberty). As there ARE Grands Prix in the US, so FOM DOES trade there, that might be the key.

Interesting times ahead.

It was never going to work. All congress can do is raise the issue. Although Andretti probably have a case, this is the not the place for it