For years, Michael Andretti has unsuccessfully tried to enter the F1 grid as a team owner. Having talked to various teams about a potential buyout, the American businessman has never seen a positive outcome as he continues to chase his dream of becoming the owner of an F1 team. When all else failed, Andretti decided to introduce an entirely new team in the sport and add to the tally of the pre-existing teams. Facing consistent backlash for the same, Andretti refused to back down and now stands closer than ever to an F1 entry.
Amid the skepticism around the American team’s induction into the sport, FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has shown optimism towards the move and recently claimed there would be no rift between the authorities and the team owners. However, other senior officials have shown concern over ‘crowding’ the grid and feel the sport is not ready for a new team, given some of the older teams are still not mature enough for the sport.
However, the biggest problem at the hands of the FIA and Andretti is the opposition by other teams on the grounds of the American businessman investing $200 million and acquiring an asset worth at least $1,000,000,000, which means money is the primary issue behind the backlash.
Andretti’s inclusion could add to instability on the grid
When looked at objectively, only five or six teams on the current grid are stable in their operations under the cost cap regulations. The lower-ranked teams have struggled with consistency and often end up spending more on repairs rather than developments. As such, veteran F1 Journalist Joe Saward writes in his blog that the need of the hour might not be a new team on the grid but the influx of more money to help stabilize the teams already on the grid.
“A lot of teams are still not fully stable and still need more investment and it would be wiser to wait until they have had time to catch up before introducing any more squads which will reduce the pot of prize money and are very unlikely to be competitive for years to come.”
Saward cited examples from recent history where financial issues led to the dying down of not one but two teams in the recent history of the sport to further assert his point. Manor Racing and Force India stand as the most prominent examples of botched financial operations that saw the teams being bought by owners, who were capable of bringing in more money with more consistency to help smooth functioning.
Andretti resistance not an Anti-American conspiracy
Amidst a whirlwind of conspiracies, one theory by fans suggests that the resistance from F1 authorities is a result of them not wanting an American team to join the grid. However, Saward further clarified that this stance is baseless. Given the commercial ownership of the sport lies with an American company, it makes little sense that they wouldn’t want more American involvement in the sport. Furthermore, with Haas’ continued involvement in the sport, it might not be a bad idea to increase American representation in a sport where most teams have their roots in the UK.
Currently, Haas stands as the sole torch-bearer for the US in F1 despite not seeing much success in eight years in the sport. However, they still are the longest-surviving American F1 team, having competed in over 160 Grands Prix. Shadow (1973-80), Penske (1974-76), Eagle (1966-68), Parnelli (1974-76), FORCE (1985-86), and Scarab (1960) have all come and gone, but none have stayed as long as Haas. As such, Andretti‘s inclusion might also be a good sign for Haas, who will have more American company to enjoy in the paddock.
