I have never understood the finances behind the sport of F1 Motor Racing. The sport started as an international one. Quite an accomplishment really, as the only other enterprise that started out internationally is war. …
If Britain had not been an heavily mechanised country that was totally dependent on the horse in the Victorian era, the sport would never have developed the way it did.
We'd have stayed with horse racing in all its variations.
But we passed a law about legal speed limits.
And added duress and expense to the idea of owning a car that took it out of the hands of the fairly well off and put it into the sole ownership of people who had money and authority to go abroad and race.
Clubs formed from rings of friendships – the British "net"; the first web. And it grew into a club sport and now it is controlled by huge motor companies working with companies whose only reason to get involved is to advertised their wares.
So is it entirely financed by tobacco? Is it chemical dependent?
I don't know.
Earnest Marples, a road building contractor, got into our government and had all our railway systems closed down because they had been neglected by parsimony and warfare. And we now have Motorways where whole families can be killed one at a time, incessantly, instead of once in a while, by the trainload.
And now we have boy-racers.
Which is what our Victorian masters perceived would happen.
Today the finances of motor sport are in a bad way. So things are set to change.
Honda are pulling out. There are very few giants involved these days. Ferrari isn't into mass production.
Renault pulled out once before but at least they have a wheel on each corner. Jaguar re-entered a few years back, with typical British managerial panache but nobody was winning anything following Ferrari.
I wonder why or how. Something Machiavellian perhaps?
Something in that organisation defies the laws of chance.