As Formula 1 teams emerge from a period of unprecedented operational shutdowns and the highly anticipated publication of a partial racing calendar signals a cautious return to the track, the sport finds itself at a pivotal crossroads. Beyond the immediate challenge of resuming racing, teams are now grappling with the formidable task of fundamentally re-gearing their entire operations. This imperative arises from a confluence of financial pressures: a significant and expected decrease in sponsorships, reduced F1 earnings due to a curtailed season, and the imminent imposition of a newly revised and substantially lower budget cap set to take effect next year. This multi-faceted challenge demands strategic foresight and adaptability from every team on the grid, each of whom operates under unique business models and financial structures.
Advert | Become a Supporter & go ad-free
The ten teams competing in Formula 1 are not monolithic entities; their diverse business models mean that these financial headwinds will affect each operation in a distinctly different fashion. Counter-intuitively, the independent teams might not always be the hardest hit in the long run. While they are likely to feel the immediate pinch of reduced revenues keenly – primarily because they lack the deep financial pockets of a parent company to fall back on – their lean structures often mean they are already operating closer to or below the upcoming budget cap. In the longer term, therefore, they are arguably the least likely to be drastically affected by the new cost restrictions, requiring fewer systemic changes to their core operations.
A separate category includes five prominent teams – Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull, McLaren, and Williams – all of whom benefit from long-standing contractual bonus schemes with Formula 1. These agreements, though varying vastly in terms and monetary levels, have provided a crucial lifeline by ensuring elements of income even during a period where no revenue-generating events have taken place this year. For the remaining teams, Liberty Media, F1’s commercial rights holder, offered advances to help them navigate the immediate financial crisis. However, these advances are not gifts; they will necessarily need to be repaid out of future earnings, adding another layer of financial obligation to their already complex balance sheets.
As Chase Carey, Liberty Media’s CEO and chairman, famously remarked, there are “no free lunches” in Formula 1. While race contracts typically include stringent penalty clauses for cancellations, Liberty’s public indications suggest they have waived fees for the events impacted by the pandemic. This gesture, while easing the burden on race promoters, has a direct consequence for F1’s own financial health. Indeed, Liberty’s first quarter 2020 financial results offered a stark confirmation of this, reflecting no income whatsoever from race promoters during that period. The ripple effect of these waivers means F1’s central revenue stream has been significantly depleted, exacerbating the overall financial pressure on the sport and its participants.
Navigating Formula 1’s New Financial Landscape: The Impact of Budget Caps and Revenue Shifts
The crucial objective for Formula 1 and its participating teams this year hinges on Liberty Media’s ability to salvage as much 2020 income as possible. This primarily means ensuring that no fewer than 15 Grand Prix events are successfully staged and broadcast. This specific number is not arbitrary; falling below it would trigger various penalty clauses embedded within lucrative broadcast contracts, potentially leading to substantial financial repercussions. Television executives, ever mindful of their investments, would undoubtedly remind Mr. Carey of the proverbial cost of those “lunches” if the minimum race count isn’t met. The successful delivery of these races, even behind closed doors, is paramount to maintaining the sport’s broadcast revenue, which forms a significant pillar of its financial stability.
Under normal operating conditions, Formula 1 meticulously derives its annual revenues from three primary ‘buckets.’ The first, race hosting fees, is estimated to contribute a substantial $700 million. The second, equally vital, is broadcast fees, accounting for another $700 million. The final bucket, categorised as ‘other,’ encompasses income from licensing agreements, prominent ‘bridge and board’ signage at circuits, and high-value hospitality packages, collectively generating approximately $400 million. Within this ‘other’ category, signage alone contributes a significant 75%, translating to around $300 million. For a ‘normal’ 2020 season, F1 had budgeted for an impressive turnover of $1.8 billion, a substantial portion of which – approximately $1 billion – would typically be distributed among the participating teams as prize money and bonuses.
However, the reality of the ‘Covid Calendar,’ announced earlier this week, has fundamentally reshaped this financial landscape. Race hosting fees and hospitality income have largely evaporated, especially during the initial European events. The blueprint, ingeniously devised and proposed by RaceFans and subsequently adopted by F1, involves the commercial rights holder actually paying promoters to stage spectator-free races. This extraordinary measure means that the usual income ‘bucket’ for hosting fees has not only sprung a major leak, but funds are now simultaneously being scooped out of it to cover the costs of these crucial “ghost races.” This dual impact on a foundational revenue stream underscores the immense financial strain currently being absorbed by the sport.
It is unequivocally clear that F1’s overall turnover will take a significant hit this year. The central, pressing question facing all stakeholders is precisely how far this revenue will fall, and consequently, how much of this unprecedented financial burden the teams themselves will ultimately have to shoulder. The answers will dictate not only their immediate operational viability but also their strategic direction for years to come.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter andgo ad-free
Projected Financial Downturn: The $500 Million Impact
Assuming the championship successfully stages at least 15 rounds – a reasonable and increasingly achievable number given the eight European events already confirmed and executed – the ‘broadcast’ portion of revenue, valued at approximately $700 million, should remain largely secure. Similarly, advertising revenues, estimated at $300 million, are also expected to hold steady. This combined $1 billion provides a critical financial foundation, representing a good start to mitigating losses. However, it is still appreciably short of the original $1.8 billion budget. The task now shifts to strategically supplementing this core income.
Once the championship moves beyond its European phase, the financial dynamic changes substantially. International travel costs will undoubtedly kick in, but critically, so too should race hosting fees – if not in full, then at least partially. Liberty has strategically targeted what can be described as ‘propaganda’ races in the Middle East, potentially generating $40 million each, which could include the postponed Bahrain Grand Prix. Other significant contributors are Sochi and the delayed Baku race, each estimated at $50 million, and China, projecting $40 million. Furthermore, rounds in the USA and Mexico, located in Liberty’s North American heartland, are valued at $25 million each. This carefully constructed international schedule aims to secure at least seven races outside of Europe, ensuring the 15-event target is met.
Reinstating street races in challenging locations like Vietnam or Singapore, typically bringing in around $30 million each, will prove difficult due to logistical complexities and government approvals. However, even without these, the strategic planning could still bring race fee income to an estimated $300 million, or $270 million if no other street races are reinstated. This would push the total turnover for the year to approximately $1.3 billion. Against this projected income, any fees payable to promoters for staging the ‘closed events’ – estimated at an average of $2 million per European round, equating to $16 million for the initial eight races – must be offset. This expenditure, however, is a relatively small price to pay given the guaranteed income from television rights and trackside signage, highlighting the critical importance of getting races run, even without spectators.
All these calculations converge to indicate an overall income reduction of roughly $500 million for Formula 1 in 2020, representing approximately a 25% downturn from its original budgeted turnover. This significant shortfall consequently suggests that the eventual prize pot distributed to teams will be worth approximately $750 million, a substantial decrease from previous seasons. Furthermore, the reduction in F1 income will not be applied uniformly or linearly across all teams. Given that five teams are guaranteed various historical bonuses, the financial impact will be differentiated. Projections suggest a reduction in F1 income from Liberty of between 20% for the top three teams (who receive the largest bonuses) through 25% for McLaren and Williams, to a more substantial 30% for the remaining teams. These figures are informed estimates, aligning with projections gathered from team insiders and other industry sources, and importantly, they exclude any direct sponsorship income or parent company financial underwriting, meaning the overall reductions experienced by some teams may be lower depending on their individual commercial agreements and external support.
Team-Specific Financial Adjustments: A Deep Dive
To gain a tangible understanding of the profound effect these financial shifts will have, we can apply these projected reduction factors to our analysis of teams’ 2019 budgets. This exercise offers a clearer picture of how each team’s income from Formula 1 is expected to contract in 2020. It’s important to note that these are estimates, as the exact terms and conditions of individual team sponsorship contracts, especially concerning ‘force majeure’ clauses, are highly confidential and impossible to establish definitively. The unprecedented nature of the pandemic could even lead to legal disputes over contractual obligations.
| Team (% reduced F1 income) | Actual 2019 F1 income | Projected 2020 F1 income | Projected 2020 budget |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mercedes (-20%) | 180 (inc. bonus) | 145 | 385 (-35) |
| Ferrari (-20%) | 205 (inc. bonus) | 165 | 400 (-40) |
| Red Bull (-20%) | 150 (inc. bonus) | 120 | 300 (-30) |
| McLaren (-25%) | 105 (inc. bonus) | 80 | 205 (-35) |
| Renault (-30%) | 70 | 50 | 190 (-20) |
| Alpha Tauri (-30%) | 65 | 46 | 137 (-19) |
| Racing Point (-30%) | 60 | 42 | 137 (-18) |
| Sauber (-30%) | 55 | 38 | 138 (-17) |
| Haas (-30%) | 50 | 35 | 135 (-15) |
| Williams (-25%) | 60 (inc. bonus) | 45 | 110 (-15) |
- 2019 F1 team budgets analysis: Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren and Renault
- 2019 F1 team budgets analysis: Toro Rosso (AlphaTauri), Racing Point, Alfa Romeo, Haas, Williams
In many cases, these reduced income figures highlight that top-ups from team owners or parent companies may well become an unavoidable necessity to sustain operations. It is evident that this significant reduction in F1 income will disproportionately affect the smaller teams more acutely than the major players, despite the percentage differences. The implications extend beyond prize money. There will undoubtedly be much belt-tightening across the paddock, with anecdotal evidence suggesting suppliers are already being advised that expenditure will be cut by as much as 30%. This figure closely corresponds with our internal estimates of the necessary reductions, indicating a widespread shift towards more austere financial management within the sport.
The Looming Specter of Staff Redundancies and Strategic Adjustments
These financial pressures will inevitably affect manpower levels within the teams, a trend that is only expected to intensify once the budget cap officially comes into play. McLaren, a prominent example, recently announced redundancy measures impacting approximately 70 staff members from its Racing division, with significantly more cuts across the wider McLaren Group. This figure, while substantial, is likely to increase over time as the budget cap is progressively lowered. Ultimately, all teams currently operating above the benchmark figure of approximately 600 staff in their race operations will need to implement some degree of payroll reduction to align with the new financial realities and compliance requirements.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter andgo ad-free
Determining precisely when and how many jobs teams may need to cut is a complex question, influenced by three distinctly different yet interconnected issues. The first is the immediate financial implications of the pandemic itself; the sheer number of staff across various teams who were placed on furlough strongly suggests that short-term job losses are regrettably inevitable. The next critical trigger point will arrive at the season’s end, ahead of the implementation of the new, lower $145 million budget cap (with specified exceptions) for the 2021 season. Following this initial cap, a carefully planned glide path will further reduce spending to $140 million in 2022 and then to $135 million in 2023. Each of these thresholds represents a moment where teams will need to reassess and adjust their workforce.
However, the calculation for workforce reduction is not a simple matter of applying a pro-rata cut to budgets exceeding $145 million. This is because a significant number of activities are explicitly excluded from the budget cap. These critical exclusions include marketing costs, hospitality, heritage programmes, driver wages, and certain executive salaries. Furthermore, engine manufacturing and supply activities are also exempt, which holds particular relevance for the factory teams of Mercedes, Ferrari, and Renault. Where teams have modest hospitality and marketing programmes – such as Haas, F1’s youngest team, which strategically aligns its identity with promoting machine tools – such exclusions are relatively negligible. However, for the major teams, these expenses can be appreciable, often exceeding tens of millions of dollars, and are currently factored into their overall F1 expenditure. Thus, while one team might exclude costs valuing less than, say, $10 million, for another, the figure could easily exceed $50 million, creating a disparity in the effective cap for core R&D and operational spending.
Equally, teams with sister motorsport operations possess a crucial advantage: the ability to transfer personnel. For instance, AlphaTauri, effectively Red Bull’s junior team, may be able to absorb some of Red Bull Racing’s excess staff. The energy drink company’s Formula 1 operation is uniquely structured, with a central entity, Red Bull Technologies, supplying hardware to both teams, who then operate their respective racing outfits. This integrated model allows for internal transfers, potentially mitigating the pain of significant redundancies. Ferrari, meanwhile, is known to be actively considering new motorsport programmes, specifically in the World Endurance Championship (WEC) hypercar category and IndyCar. A move into IndyCar makes considerable strategic sense, given that the USA represents Ferrari’s largest single market. As a senior US motorsport figure aptly put it, “IndyCar would snap Ferrari’s hand off were such a programme in the offing,” underscoring the strong appeal and market opportunity.
The prospect of “red battery-powered cars with electrified ponies on the nose” might seem unlikely at first glance. However, one should recall that before his untimely passing in July 2018, then-Ferrari boss Sergio Marchionne famously threatened to go racing with batteries, stating emphatically, “We need to be involved in Formula E because electrification via hybridisation is going to be part of our future.” While this might have been a strategic bluff during negotiations with Liberty Media about F1’s future direction, the underlying fact remains: Scuderia Ferrari will need to significantly reduce its staff levels once the budget cap truly takes hold. With the financial clock ticking from January 1, 2021, the team faces urgent decisions. Even accounting for its high-profile marketing activities and an enviable 90-year heritage, Ferrari will likely need to redeploy approximately 250 F1 personnel into other areas or new projects.
Mercedes, the dominant force in recent F1 seasons, also faces substantial workforce reductions. Yet, the team has been notably quiet regarding its plans, leading some observers to suggest that all major strategic decisions are now being made in Stuttgart, then cascaded down to the F1 base in Brackley. Only Mercedes will know the precise internal dynamics, but regardless of the decision-making process, the scale of its headcount reduction is expected to be comparable to Ferrari’s, given their similar budgets and operational scopes. Unlike the Italian team, however, Mercedes possesses fewer readily available external motorsport options beyond Formula 1. It recently withdrew from DTM in favor of its Formula E campaign, which is now fully staffed and operational, leaving little immediate headroom for staff absorption. While the F1 operation commendably diverted resources to projects such as ventilator production and embraced advanced engineering initiatives in cycling and yachting during the pandemic, it remains to be seen if these are areas where the core F1 team truly wishes to venture long-term. Either way, it appears at least 200 individuals will need to be absorbed elsewhere within the Mercedes-Benz group or into new ventures. Racing Point, which already utilizes Mercedes power units and other hardware and is conveniently located close to Brackley, could potentially serve as a target for some personnel as it ramps up its operations and ambition.
For the remainder of the grid, McLaren is currently undergoing significant restructuring and facing considerable challenges. Renault will need to halt the ambitious recruitment and expansion programmes it had embarked upon prior to the budget cap being substantially reduced. Sauber (operating as Alfa Romeo Racing) finds itself in a holding pattern, particularly given that its current livery and naming deal with Alfa Romeo is set to expire at the end of 2021, creating uncertainty for its future. Haas, by contrast, is already well under the budget cap and is likely to remain so, and therefore secure in the sport, thanks to its ‘listed parts’ model, which sees it efficiently procure components from Ferrari and Dallara. This strategy minimizes its internal manufacturing and R&D overheads.
This brings us to Williams, and the dispiriting news from last week: Formula 1’s third-oldest team and second on the all-time constructors’ championship log – boasting an impressive nine titles, one more than McLaren, though still shy of Ferrari’s 16 – has regrettably been put up for sale. Despite this challenging situation, in response to a direct question from RaceFans, Claire Williams stated that no retrenchments are currently envisaged. This is a hopeful sign, suggesting that the team is, encouragingly, already ‘right-sized’ for the forthcoming $145 million budget cap, which might make it an attractive acquisition target for potential investors.
However, the preceding analysis only covers the initial two scenarios: the immediate effects of race cancellations due to Covid-19 on teams’ F1 revenues (excluding the still-unknown impact on sponsorship income), and the imminent 2021 budget cap. Beyond these, two additional, albeit relatively minor, cuts loom in the future: a $5 million reduction in 2022 and another $5 million in 2023. While seemingly small in isolation, these incremental reductions could necessitate further headcount reductions or redeployments of approximately 20 personnel each year. These estimates collectively indicate that the ‘benchmark number’ for core F1 team staff, focusing solely on race operations, will likely settle at around 560 by 2023, though this will naturally vary depending on each team’s specific business model and strategic choices. It’s important to bear in mind that lower overall headcounts often correlate with higher investments in outsourcing or strategic buy-ins of components and services. On this basis, for a given budget, any savings made in payroll can be balanced by an increased spend on the purchase ledger, thereby providing a measurable indicator of efficiency or ‘bang-for-buck’ within the new cost-constrained environment.
Ultimately, F1’s reduced budget caps will most directly affect headcounts at five major teams: Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren (to a lesser extent), and Renault (similarly). The remaining teams are largely already operating within the forthcoming limits. Any ‘excess’ personnel from the larger teams could potentially be absorbed either by associate teams, through targeted external recruitment drives from other motorsport ventures, or strategically redeployed via associated in-house motorsport programmes or within the wider corporate group. Furthermore, natural attrition, as employees retire or move on, will also serve as a gradual reducing factor. The prospect of incoming teams – with reports suggesting three are exploring entry, though a maximum of two is a more realistic target – also presents a significant opportunity for recruiting ‘excess’ personnel. To make entry truly attractive, it is imperative that the FIA and Liberty Media commence their ‘new team’ process promptly. Crucially, the proposed anti-dilution clause, strongly insisted upon by existing teams to maintain prize monies at current levels, must be waived. If the major teams are genuinely concerned about the welfare of their staff, as they maintain, then agreeing to this important concession for new entrants is a logical and necessary step to create job opportunities and strengthen the sport’s ecosystem.
Conclusion: Short-Term Pain, Long-Term Efficiency
It is an unavoidable reality that there will be short-term heartache and difficult decisions ahead for many within Formula 1. However, as the saying goes, “No pain, no gain.” The critical objective now is to ensure that this pain is minimised as much as possible through thoughtful planning and compassionate implementation. In the long-term, Formula 1 stands to gain immensely by evolving into a more efficient, sustainable, and financially responsible sporting business. While this prospect will offer little consolation to those who may be forced to exit the sport to which they have passionately dedicated their careers, the undeniable bottom line is that F1 has no viable option other than significantly lowering its spending caps. Indeed, a $100 million budget cap, once unthinkable, could very soon become a tangible reality, fundamentally reshaping the pinnacle of motorsport for generations to come.
RacingLines
- The year of sprints, ‘the show’ – and rising stock: A political review of the 2021 F1 season
- The problems of perception the FIA must address after the Abu Dhabi row
- Why the budget cap could be F1’s next battleground between Mercedes and Red Bull
- Todt defied expectations as president – now he plans to “disappear” from FIA
- Sir Frank Williams: A personal appreciation of a true racer
Browse all RacingLines columns