F1 teams should have less money to squander on "absurd" driver salaries. That is the view of former FIA president Max Mosley, speaking to the men's magazine GQ not long after Lewis Hamilton's lucrative new deal was signed. It is believed Hamilton's Mercedes deal brings him in line with the dozens of millions also earned by top champions like Fernando Alonso and Sebastian Vettel.
"It is absurd," Mosley said. "If I was a dictator in the sport, each team would have the same money and you could spend more on the driver and less on the car or vice versa. All the driver worries about is what he earns compared with the other guy," he added.
The idea of a 'dictator' has been gaining pace in recent days and weeks, as Mosley's old sparring partner Bernie Ecclestone rues the modern predominance of 'democracy'. The latest to back the idea is Force India supremo Vijay Mallya. He tells F1's official website: "F1 is overly democratic."
"We (Force India) have our views and we clearly express them, but we are steamrollered by the big four (teams) and that is the rule-making process. In all other sports you have a promoter - which is FOM - and you have a regulator - which is the FIA," Mallya insisted. (GMM)
Replies (1)
Login to replyscf1fan
Posts: 58
Although I would generally agree with the comment "absurd," I would like to point out that all the drivers are being paid (or paying in some cases) pretty much what the market will bear! (And many in the past have paid a much higher price!) Does what they are paid by the "team" really matter? The bigger problem in funding is at the back of the pack, yet all MM and BE gripe about is controlling the front. If the maximum were limited to some of the numbers I've heard discussed, would it even cost Ferrari anything to race with what ever they are collecting from the powers that be? And how again would MM think he could enforce any real spending limit? (Are they going to try to regulate personal appearance contracts between drivers and specific sponsors? How????)