Originally Posted by sugarbutch
Bernie uses unequal distribution to destabilize the teams and promote discord. Divide and conquer. By waving a bunch of cash in Ferrari's face, he got them to fuck over the rest of FOTA. So, that is precisely what difference it makes to Bernie.
A more equitable distribution would not lead to "welfare queen" teams who show up to collect their cash but don't try to race. As it is, the midfield and poor teams spend every dollar (and more) that they get to be as competitive as they can be. Ron Dennis just recently criticized the backmarkers for spending more than they have, in fact. Sauber is not siphoning off cash. Vijay Mallya loves F1 so much that Force India is apparently the only solvent business he has left! There are a lot cheaper and easier ways to look like a big shot than fielding a team in F1.
Here are the current payouts:
But what if you instead did something like this:
All the teams would have a decent budget and there would be ample incentive to place as highly as possible. Plus, maybe fewer pay drivers...
Anyway, apropos of this money discussion, here's FOM landing a sponsor that in times gone by would have partnered with a team:
Good points all across and I am not disagreeing with you, but I am just saying it may it not be so simple and the teams may not be as innocent as we think they are (Bernie = bad guy and Teams = innocent seems too easy). I think we can all agree that the Ferrari special payment of $70m is totally unfair. The "others" column is questionable as well as the "CCB" which probably needs to be looked at further. If those columns are sorted out, the current system of distribution is actually pretty fair and resembles your proposal (keep in mind even under the proposal 5th place and below are all only making current midfielder income anyway, so only the bottom few teams would see a difference. It would strengthen midfield racing somewhat but not change F1 drastically from today).
Ron Denis' comments about the backmarkers may be true, but he may be indirectly defending his own team as Mclaren is essentially a backmarker now too and risks being in their shoes soon. What if Mclaren didn't have the "CCB" bonus of $32m anymore? They would have actually only made the exact same as Sauber, so if the Honda stuff doesn't work out Mclaren may be the next Sauber very quickly. It may be in Ron's interest to defend the position of teams like Sauber now that there is a possibility that he may joining their side soon.
Also we have to remember that teams like Virgin who joined F1 with a promise of more equal distribution (probably like your chart), but they basically entered spending pennies. So the theory that new teams might enter spending pennies and getting $77m income in return is not far fetched. Sure there are teams that love the sport so much and will spend everything they have, but there are also businesses that would spend the minimum they can and try to pocket the rest.
I think Red Bull is a good example. They spend everything they could to build a reputable team and now they are included in the top tier payment scheme. Other teams could do the same thing if they spend the money and resources required, but they don't have the money and will to do so, and in a way "choose" to be midfielder, try to spend as little as possible and hope they end up with $10m~20m or so in their pocket at the end of the year.
So what I am trying to say is that maybe midfielder teams are in a way aiming to be good solid midfielders. I am totally guessing, but say a team like Force India might be spending $50m and making $67m with $17m gross profit...not so good, but not bad either. By pushing for more distribution, they might not be aiming for the top positions, but just to increase that $17m profit by as much as they can to make their business stronger. So under the proposal they would make $10m more, which really isn't that much and would not put them any closer to the top even if they spent all of it, so they would aim to pocket the extra $10m or most of it.