Stop press: strike looming

Ooh ahh...the multi-millionaires are thinking of going on strike. Whatever next? Crumbs this is going to take some good PR spin I would have thought. It emerges in the feverish(not) atmosphere of the paddock at Magny-Cours that some of the best paid sportsmen in the world are thinking of taking industrial action - withdrawing their labour.

The reason? The huge and sudden and retrospective increases in the cost of the superlicences which have gone from £1,350 per year to £7,858 per year. At the same time the levy on drivers for every point they score in the championship has increased from £350 per point to £1,570 per point. This means that the licence and levy for Lewis and Kimi for last year was of the order of £180,000 each. (It was a lot less for Anthony Davidson and will be a lot less for Fernando this year, for example).

Now that sounds like a lot of money to you and me. But when you are earning a minimum of £15 million a year(Lewis is on a basic salary of £75 million over five years; Kimi earns at least £20 million and most likely a lot more), it is not that much, especially when the money raised is going towards safety improvements at the various circuits.

Anyway Fernando was the first to talk about it in his pre-race press briefing in the Renault motorhome. He said the drivers were all agreed they would consider some form of strike action - he wasn't sure what - at Silverstone. This could be anything from not taking part in a practice session one imagines, to something really serious like failing to turn up for the drivers' parade. It is impossible to imagine them not racing in the Grand Prix - imagine how that would go down with the paying public?

"It is a very serious matter," said Fernando. "It is a ridiculous price. We are all agreed that it is not fair that it has increased so much. It is something we need to look at. I don't know what the solution will be or what we will do but a strike at Silverstone, that it is one possibility. Why not? We have approached the FIA two or three times about this but we have not had positive answers. Nothing has been agreed with them."

At the pre-race press conference, Lewis, Felipe and Robert all endorsed Fernando's comments and backed him, even if Felipe admitted this was the first he had heard of it. Kimi, however, expressed sympathy with the militants but said he did not think strike action was the right way to go.

It conjurs up some great images doesn't it? A group of tax-exiled multi-millionaires huddled round an old oil drum keeping warm in sponsored great coats while taking time to whistle and cat-call at their colleagues who had the gall to "cross the start line" in one of the fastest and most expensive racing cars on the planet.

They could go to arbitration I suppose - that would be ACAS. But they would be up against one of the most formidable legal minds in public life - one Max Mosley. He imposed the price hikes and explained why earlier this year. "A lot of people who have otherwise been meeting the bill said 'hang on a minute, these drivers are all earning megabucks and we are spending a fortune to try and make sure they are safe.' So hence the increase," said Mosley.

Are the drivers right? Or should they take their medicine and shut up about it?

Comments

[IDR]

Somebody has to pay the bill (>1Million GBP) of those bureaucrats giving their support to S&M Mosely!

Well, for them that amount should be considered a tip, but one likes to decide to whom and when give it.

[Aaron James]

I find it hard to feel sorry for some of these guys, particularly the top four all on double figures per year, and living in tax exile. Even the example being bandied about Robert Kubica, pays less than 10% of his salary for his licence.

We in the United Kingdom pay 11% alone on our national insurance!

It's also somewhat curious that they are complaining about the method of licences being calculated (per point) when it is the same mechanism the GPDA itself uses to calculate members' subs.

All this stems from 2006-2007 when the test safety facilities were woeful there was inadequate medical coverage and too few marshals on hand. The GPDA (rightfully) moaned and eventually stuck their hands into their own pockets to fund medical staff at tests. In January 07 the FIA stepped up to the plate and took an active roll in ensuring safety at tests (as well as footing the bill).

They then passed back some of that bill back onto the drivers by way of these licence fee hikes.

It's fair that the drivers contribute at least something to safety initiatives. Particularly when they threatened not to test unless safety services were made for 07. But I do sympathise that there is some inequity here. Why should Robert Kubica pay nearly 10% of his salary while Alonso, Raikkonen, Massa and Hamilton pay less than 1%?

That's the basic problem. They, as a group, all ought to pay more towards safety. But the distribution needs to be fairer since points scored does not always equate to dollars in the bank. Then there's test and 3rd drivers who do not race (and do not get massive salaries) but need to still stump up the €10,000 for a super licence.

Perhaps there's more to this though, Webber is telling all and sundry Max wouldn't meet with them, and as you report Max sent a letter on the 6th of June saying name a time and place.

Anyway, the drivers ought to pay up, but maybe they and the FIA can come to some sort of agreement to fix it to a percentage of their salaries?

[IDR]

At the end, someone has to pay the Travel & Entretaining bill of those bureaucrats supporting S&M Max.

Despite that amount could be considered as a Tip, the question is that one likes to decide to whom and when one gives it.

[F1-Insider]

The principle is right isn't it regardless as to much anyone is paid?

Typical Mosley, no discussion just an invoice saying you vill pay etc

Mosley will now talk to the drivers and come to an agreement showing the world he can still do his job whilst at the same time forgetting to tell everyone why he has to sort it in the first place.

[Richard]

The drivers need to consider their PR in this matter. A lot of people are struggling financially at the moment, and these guys are moaning about a sum they wouldn't miss if it fell down the back of their sofa. They could experience a great deal of negative feedback from their fans if they're not careful, and I think the fans would be justified. Clearly, the rarefied atmosphere within F1 affects the drivers more than I thought.

[Gary M]

I agree with Aaron in that it probably is not fair to charge the lower paid drivers a much higher percentage of their salary for these licenses.

But I am not going to be losing too much sleep over this issue. Am afraid it is the way of the world at the moment but seems much more prevalent in sport. Of course what I am referring to is the rise of the Greedy Bastards.

I have over the last few years been turned away from football, a sport which has been ruined by money. I was always grateful for F1, a sport I have been an avid watcher of since a small boy in the 70's. It always had class and drivers with some dignity and respect for the sport. It is no surprise it is headed down the same vulgar sewer as most sports have done.

If they really do strike over a few thousand Euros then they will have all lost some respect from me.

[josh j]

Ed - I really do agree with you on almost all of this, I mean, it's almost as if it's George W Bush running the formula one show at the moment the degree to which they seem determined to destroy the sport in every which way they can.

It is also laughable how they can suddenly come together about something to do with money - is Alonso even a member of the GPDA - I would personally find it very interesting to have a list of the members and those that are not. I mean - you have to hand it to Schumi, at least he lead that organisation like the champion he was (that's not to say that there weren;t good reasons for him to spend his time doing that, but still!...........)

Anyway - this has really made me think, and initially it just seems completely and utterly ridiculous, but having said that - what other sports expect their competitors to PAY for the right to play???? does Matthew Vaughn pay for the right to be acredditted and english batsman?
David Beckham a footballer???

The more I think about it, the more it yet again seems like a Max Mosley thing - and he's said as much. It's a disgrace - it's about MAx personally thinking that these guys need to pay their dues, and their money pays for his expense account - and yet he always cloaks it in the coat of safety. the drivers deserve a union (of sorts) used to lobby on safety issues - should they be obliged to pay some token gesture towards those results. Absolutely not.

Just because some plonker decides Kimi deserves to be paid so much money - doesn;t mean that he shpould suddenly be made to pay for certain things that he didn;t have to before.

It's ridiculous - it's yet again just max giving an A-type handshake - trying to show then who's bos. he's just jealous coz they're earning more money than him, so they deserve to get taken down a peg or two.

And at the ed of the day. Jesus. Who CARES!!!!!!!!!!!

[Weasel]

Sounds like a deflection technique from Maxiavelli, to divert focus from his odd sexual proclivities.

I guess he is trying to assert himself again and feed his fragile ego. What a Wayne Kerr he is turning out to be.

As for a 'formidable legal mind', I trust you jest of course - how could such a 'formidable legal mind' be so naive as to get caught in the act of some bizarre prison camp perversion and be constantly manipulated and got outwitted by street smart Bernie E.? Maxiavelli is a blowhard - all B.S. and bravado

Cynical - moi???

[D]

^
The FIA needs the money.

It recently had to fork out £1m. to fly in delegates from all over the world and put them up in luxury hotels in order to hold a vote on whether to retain a prostitute-flogger as its president.

Because the said international pariah who had incurred this cost to the FIA, by his personal behaviour and his refusal to resign when it was exposed, has neglected to pay for it himself, the FIA needs to get the money from somewhere.

And since Kimi Räikkönen thought that this was heroic conduct, I'm sure he will be happy to pick up the bill for it.

^
Ed >

You're spending too much time with Garside. When combined with understandably indulgent sampling of the local viticulture in Burgundy this is producing the type of prose more usually to be found in his own childish blog. Imbibe with Tremayne instead (or at least as well). His views are sounder and his writing is greatly better. :-)

[Javier]

Almost every top sportsmen in almost every discipline make nig money, but they do not pay a proportional amount to the governing bodies of their sports.

Does Tiger Woods pays 500.000 dollars to the golf federation? Does Beckham pay any significant amount to the FIFA? So why F1 drivers should?

They have every right to protest, as the FIA are charging them only because they are rich. They are rich, so everyone has to have a share of this earnings. It seems OK, but it is not. If you make a lot of money with your work, either you deserve it or you get fired.

Is it true that the FIA invest big amounts of money in F1 without return? It is true that they spent big dollars in security at their own expense? If it is, then it is OK to ask for incomes to pay these expenditures, but I doubt that the FIA is at a loss with F1. If it is, then the pilots, and Ecclestone should pay. If is not, then there is no reason to ask for money but envy. Hey, they are rich, I want it too!!!!

And for those who say that as they are rich, they should sut up and run, think it twice. First, they earn a lot of money for sure for only a few years, and they have to make the most of it while they can. It is true that probably they will live without economic presure for the rest of their lives, but who knows ...
Second, the fact that they are rich does not mean they are stupid, or that they should eat whatever the FIA want to impose.
Third, why should they stand a condition not seen in other sports?

[Ray]

Oh My God! What is the matter with this Mosley bloke? Poor old logic just doesn't prevail. Can he not do anything properly, besides satisfy himself?

It's a shameless way to syphon money off the drivers. Is there nothing honest and fair about anything anymore in this sport? It will cost x amount of money to provide safety facilities for testing and races. What is so wrong with splitting this figure between the drivers and the teams? Why should it be a percentage of anything? Does the FIA begin to hire better medical staff when driver salaries go up? Hardly. No one will know what the surplus funds will be used for. Which is probably the whole point of the 'scheme'.

The fairest way to approach this is to increase the fees for teams who enter into the championship. "You enter the F1 Championship. It's our responsibility to provide safety facilities for your team members whilst you participate in the championship, and we will use your fees to cover these losses." That's how it should be done. If the teams decide to take some of this money from their drivers, then that's up to them.

But leave it to Mosley to introduce a cack-handed way of running something. Just like the Quali 1 rule that had to be changed earlier in the year because they didn't give it more than 2 minutes thought before implementing it.

[Kohque]

Almost right, but not quite for me.

First, ask Mosley to please go back to Britain to pay taxes instead of staying in Monaco to evade them. Otherwise, he lacks the moral authority to make judgements about other's people money... They may be rich, but he is no bun.

Second, let's have a look at the earnings of all the parties concerned in Formula 1. How much each one gets and how much they pay for F1. I think the drivers should pay a relatively smaller fee than them, since they probably earn relatively less than some (we call it progressive taxation), and they are the only ones there by their own merits (risking their lives).

Third: Why should they be paying to renew the Formula One driving license? Is the FIA thinking to replace them with donkeys? They could make them a test to see if they are fit to keep driving, but in my home town it doesn't cost more than 50 euros. I see Martin Brundle driving racing cars every weekend. How old is he? Wasn't Fangio 47 when he won his last championship?

Fourth: Why aren't we discussing about Ecclestone and Mosley when it comes to money? Aren't they the ones taking the most out of motor racing? Shouldn't they be paying some 'taxes' as well? If they do, what percentage?

Sorry, but I just feel that it is a bit unfair to portrait drivers as 'greedy' when their incomes don't get even close the ones of Mosley et al.

As some people say, I 'wholeheartly' hate businesses and how they ruin everything they put a finger on. Wouldn't have been funny to ask Fangio to risk his life and pay an annual levy for it?: "You see, Fangio, it is for your own safety. It is not because we are so greedy that we need to take some of your money away... No, trust a guy that makes a killing letting you risk your life to promote his cars, get paid by sponsors and sell tv rights."

Let's strike :)! No more GP until Mosley, Bernie et al return 90% of the few billions they have sucked out of Formula 1 and distribute them among all the proffesional drivers that truly love the sport!

[LUCAS]

A Theory for the Second Driver

Is it a good idea to have two fast drivers in the same team? Since the feud between Alonso, Hamilton and Ron Dennis past year, many would say no. Two fast teammates would take points off each other, giving away the championship to someone else. That is a fair point.

However, if one of the drivers in a team is so 'slower' than his teammate to be considered the second driver, he might not give up points only to his teammate, but to all of his teammate's rivals as well. The theoretical situation in which the second driver finishes every race just behind his teammate is... theoretical.

To check this idea for 2007's championship, I have made a simulation that, for every race, inverts the position that a driver finished with whoever finished behind him. For instance, if Felipe is the driver being 'sandbagged', he would arrive in third in last year's Brazilian GP, and Alonso in second. Let's start with Felipe giving up one position in every race in 2007:

1st Lewis Hamilton 115 Pts
2nd-3rd Kimi Haikkonen or Fernando Alonso 113 Pts
(Sorry, the simulation hasn't checked the criteria for the same number of points)

It seems that it would not be a good idea for Ferrari to have a second driver! Felipe was out for reliability problems plus his disqualification in Canada, slowing down Kimi would not help him, but Alonso:

1st Fernando Alonso 117 pts
2nd Lewis Hamilton 109 pts
3rd Felipe Massa 100 pts

Ok, what about McLaren's drivers? Yes, a 'slower' Alonso would give the title to Lewis:

1st Lewis Hamilton 120 pts
2nd Kimi Raikonnen 110 pts
3rd Felipe Massa 100 pts

Surprisingly, a 'slower' Hamilton would not help Alonso:

1st Kimi Raikonnen 118 pts
2nd Fernando Alonso 113 pts
3rd Felipe Massa 96 pts

This result is quite unfair as Alonso has got an unnecessary 5-positions penalty in Hungary, last year. So, he could have still won the championship with a 'slow' and 'non-rioting' Hamilton...

My conclusion is that it is Ron's fault! In Ferrari works and in McLaren does not!

Funny or not, slowing down Nick Heidfeld, both Alonso and Hamilton would have finished with 111 points ahead of Raikonnen with 110 (Sorry again, no idea about deciding who wins in case of the same points). Therefore, as it is happening this year, a third team changes completely the equation...

Regards!

[Kormak]

My God, you really need a Alonso's translator Ed.

______________________________________

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68415

Q. What form would the strike take?

FA: I have no idea. In fact, I was not hearing anything (about this) from any of us (drivers). I have just answered two questions about this now, but it seems you know more than me. Probably tomorrow in the meeting with all of us, we will have some clearer things.

Q. Is part of the anger that this is something that has been done without consultation with the drivers?

FA: Yeah, probably because of that and also because we asked also where the money was going. The increase they have for this year is massive - so all this extra money, we asked where it was going. We have had no answer. If that extra money was going for safety or to improve the circuits and things like that, then we are still happy to pay because it will make it safe. But we have had no answer on that.

Q. People might say it is a lot of money, but for what drivers earn - ten to 15 million pounds - it isn't much really?

FA: No, it depends on which drivers. If I had to pay this amount of money three or four years ago, when my salary was not too big, it would have been a big percentage of my salary. Now I am lucky to improve in the last two or three years, but I am sure there are drivers scoring many points for whom it is not easy.

_____________________________________

Kubica would pay near 10% of his salary (and this is for actual points).

[AJR]

Well, I am not going to make friends with what I have to say: I am with the drivers, the increase is way too much (10 times at once) and if I were in their position, yes, I would complain as well. I guess that money is going from their rich pockets to another rich people's pockets (FIA), so I don't see why it should matter to us. It is their fight (FIA vs drivers). And yes, everything is about money, in what world you guys have been living?. I like my job but I wouldn't do it for free, and if there is an increase in electricity, mortgage, etc, I complain.

Let me put this way, let's say a person in Sudan that can barely eat once a day and here we are (the rich europeans), moaning and striking because of the price of oil. That sudanese would say, what are those burgeoise europeans complaining about? They eat three times a day and even dump lots of food. They moan because oil went from 1 to almost 2 euros, that looks like too much money for me, but they still make 3,000 euros a month. Well make this change and we will have our comparison: ourselves=sudanese guy, F1 drivers=europeans.

[nicki, california,usa]

Safety? Can't you see it? It's Mostley's idea to pay for his "naughty" defense.

[IDR]

Someone has to pay the bill of those bureaucrats voting to support Max.

[Felipe]

Thanks Kormark, that really shed a lot of light into the issue. Changes the story completly, makes it sound a lot more reasonable.

Though I really enjoyed the image in my head of the drivers having a picket line outside Silverstone.

[Igor]

This is stupid. Why should drivers pay 8x more for a point just to retain their super-licence? It would be the same if we, ordinary people, started paying, according to the distance we covered while driving, just to retain our driving licences. If you are a professional driver, you would probably quit your job. Why should you be punished for something you do for a living? And remember, this has to do with taxing drivers, not luxury vehicles.

[javiervivaespania]

It is most remarkable how Fernando Alonso has stood up to become a leader again, this time in the realm of sport politics. I feel very proud of how, while others obey the "law of gravity" dictated by FIA, he has decided to risk his position just to support the other drivers, especially those who do not earn so much money and those who are starting their careers. They all will be very grateful to our Champion in the future.

Fernando has proven again to be a maverick, a Don Quixote, a Robin Hood, fighting for the weak and risking a lot. I am so happy he is becomin a role model inside and outside the tracks.

[DJ Rodrigues]

I'm with the drivers. These licenses are TAXES.

Why the hell should they be paying for risking their lives and their safety for the entertainment of millions of people worldwide?

And why the hell should those who risk the most and win the most get taxed on success?

The system is stupid as it is, and these increases are simply ridiculous. The fact that it's small relative to the drivers' earnings is, as I see it, completely missing the point - is an unjust tax on anyone else justified just because the taxees can afford to pay it? In the everyday world, I'd the latter is a definitive NO, and the former follows accordingly.

Hopefully they'll bunk off the drivers' parade... or even better just form a new series completely independent of Moseley and his ridiculous organisation.

[Tim]

To my mind, an important question about the superlicence issue is why now?

The new charges for superlicences were introduced before the start of the season (well before the Mosley scandal broke). There was a bit of muttering from the drivers at that point, but nothing significant and no serious discussion of strike action. So what's changed?

As far as it goes, I don't think the drivers have much of a case. F1 drivers are generally not short of a few quid and those that pay the most for their superlicence generally earn the most (with some exceptions). As far as I'm concerned, any F1 driver worth a damn would drive for nothing if there was no alternative. There's nothing stopping a team from compensating its drivers if it feels they've been demotivated by taking the extra hit from their salary.

If the drivers seriously feel that they'd benefit from strike action then I think they're being somewhat foolish. No one would benefit from a strike, least of all the paying public, and I suspect many fans would find multi-millionaires complaining about licence fees they can easily afford rather difficult to fathom.

That said, a strike would not be without precedent. Nika Lauda objected to the new superlicence before the South African GP in 1982 and the drivers mostly holed up in a hotel before the race. In fact, if I remember rightly, 1982 also saw talk of a breakaway series lead by the FOCA teams, which came to nothing in the end - just as well really, given that the ringleaders later admitted that the breakaway series was just a negotiating tactic and would have been disasterous in practice.

[Zoe]

I think the sudden increase combined with lack of proper explanation is what's causing the problem here.

If the increase had been implemented slowly, say over two or three (even four) years then they might have gotten away with not giving a reason because it had already been happening.

Maybe even if they had increased licence but left the points pay as it was (increasing it slowly over a few years if they must) and told of the reason there wouldn't be any big complaints.

Poorly executed, very poorly executed.

[Anon (the real one)]

I agree that for the richer drivers it s a bit ridiculous, but some of the lower drivers lek Nakajima and Piquet would suffer quite a lot. (That is, if Piquet scores a point).

[17 points in two races]

@ Weasel
Unless, I wasn´t me who begun to talk about fxxx weasel... after disobeing my boss..

This is the last time I say anything about.

[Verbal]

I think most people are missing the point here, this here is not about the $200K (or how much ever) that a driver might have to pay, its a mater of principal in that how can a licence or anything else for that mater increase by 600% ? 2ndly if its a subscription fee to a club you would at least want to know what it would be used for however industrial action might be taking it a bit far, perhaps they should all just pay the equivalent of last years fee in protest.
The other point I feel like clarifying is drivers salaries, in 99% of cases these are just wild speculation by the media for example hamiltons wage reports range from £20m - £50 over 5 years (£4m-£10m/year) (£75m is highest I've heard from Ed above) Raikkonen's is less varied reports range from £22m-£25m/year. Some reporters take the salary in US and simply stick a "£" in place of it theres also confusion in that some salaries are over the contrat e.g Lewises salarie you often find it expressed over five years where as others like Kimi is usually expressed yearly or weekly ($1m/week). so you can see there's a lot of speculation and genuine confusion, I also suspect the drivers and the teams prefer to keep this a secret to such an extent i wouldnt be surpprised if in a team like Mclaren most people dont know how much each driver is paid.
I think the drivers and their managers might also attempt to inflate their salaries in the media for obvious while the teams go in the other direction...all for obvious reasons

[Verbal]

P.S - Alonso is apparently now on $28m/year at renault and last year was on $35m/year at McLaren ...all guess work, juist becaus its in a newspaper or on a website doesnt make it true

[marie]

I think the GPDA should use this increase as leverage for pressuring the FIA for fixing tracks i.e. Montreal etc., for updating their safety rules, that if they do not do so then they would not drive.