Martin Brundle: how to get Formula 1 back on track

Much of Brundle’s appeal as a pundit has always been his optimism; the sport is not perfect, but it’s better than any alternative and, whatever the faults, he loves it anyway. He doesn’t believe there will be any enduring damage (“F1 has a rich, 70-year history to trade on”); in fact, he reckons the current turmoil might bring benefits. “We’ve been heading in the wrong direction for a while,” Brundle declares, “by having rules that allow teams of 1500 people that only produce two identical cars a year. It’s not sustainable. “Besides, there are other priorities. As [legendary F1 commentator] Murray Walker said to me the first time we ever worked together: ‘Just remember, Martin, we’re only here to inform and entertain.’”

Brundle took that advice to heart and believes it more fervently now. “If we don’t entertain and make the sport sustainable,” he says, “we won’t continue to have the manufacturer and sponsor support we need. Maybe this pause will encourage us to stop squabbling over details and face the big questions. What’s F1’s purpose? How do we meet the electric-petrol-diesel challenge? How do we stay relevant?

“On sponsorship, we’ve got to give decision-makers every reason to stick with us. At the moment, there’s very little downside to a sponsor pulling out – not the way there used to be. In some quarters, it’s almost viewed as a pragmatic decision. We’ve got to make it easy for people to stay in, to help them understand that we still have a mighty business, bigger than anything but the Olympics and the [football] World Cup, that in normal times runs for most of the year.” Another benefit of this unplanned pause, says Brundle, is that the rules freezes and cost caps hastily adopted for 2020 might level the playing field and allow lesser teams to do better.

But you can’t expect top teams to police themselves. “These are successful people, greedy for success,” Brundle observes. “Most of them can’t see beyond their own unfair advantage. But currently, if a race is dry and there isn’t a series of safety cars or yellow flags, the top three cars will lap the rest. If that control can be broken, maybe in 2020 the fans will be the winners…”

We talk Ferrari: people are criticising the Italian team for its reluctance in agreeing cost cuts. But for Brundle, it’s not black and white. “It’s true that the leading teams, Ferrari and Mercedes, spend £300 million on the same season’s racing that costs Williams and Racing Point £100 million,” he says. “And you couldn’t honestly say that what Ferrari does is three times better than Williams.

“But before you condemn Ferrari, you’ve got to walk a mile in their shoes. They supply Haas and Alfa Romeo [with powertrains and other components]. They construct a lot of stuff others don’t, so they have higher costs. They’re also fighting against the pain of releasing 400 or 500 people [due to the planned budget cap], which is understandable.

“But maybe it’s not as painful as having three fewer teams on the grid. If we don’t find a way to curb these huge team structures, the whole thing could go bang.”

Question: would Bernie Ecclestone have been more effective at handling the problems F1 is facing today? Brundle notes that Ecclestone has enjoyed taking potshots from the sidelines while the new management has taken time to decide the way forward, but he doubts Ecclestone would have been anywhere near as considered in his actions.

Ecclestone and CVC Capital (F1’s previous owners) were brilliant at making money, he explains, but they did very little to embrace the digital age, as Chase Carey and Liberty Media (via its spin-off Formula One Group) are now doing. In any case, the “dictatorial and slightly scary” approach taken by Ecclestone and Max Mosley to build F1 could never work in today’s environment of transparency and correct corporate governance.