On February 15, 2006, F1 was gearing up for a brand-new season. A variety of changes were being introduced, including the debut of the V8 engine and the three-part qualifying format which has evolved into the outing we enjoy today. In a bid to make further changes for the sport's future, a radical idea was proposed by then-FIA president Max Mosley. The Briton floated the radical idea of introducing a football-style relegation system to F1. Mosley's thinking was that it would keep F1 in a healthy place with competition, with those who underperform being dropped to the GP2 feeder series. He also wanted to eliminate “shortcuts” for drivers and ensure that anyone who raced in F1 was prepared for the pressures that come with the role. “We should do it,” Mosley said at the time. “What ought to happen, and we are nowhere near sorting this out, is that we should have a feeder formula for F1, like a sort of F3000/GP2, but properly regulated for that purpose. “Then we say that whoever wants a super licence must come through that formula - there will be no shortcuts apart from genuine ex-F1 drivers. “And then have some of system where the best from that had an opportunity to go up and the worst of the F1 teams had to consider going down.” However, the biggest concern was immediately raised - the difference in cost to operate a GP2 team compared to F1 squad was monumental. Mosley wished to reduce the cost of running an F1 team to $100 million at a time when F1 teams were free to spend as they wished. This was long before the budget cap that we know today came into existence. Another issue that was pointed out was a team that would be relegated from F1 would likely lose its sponsors, and therefore a key source of funding. Mosley proposed a more balanced share of the end-of-year payouts would help stabilise matters. "One of the things is that the proportion of the 100 million that comes from Bernie [Ecclestone] will be quite high, because he is effectively doubling what he gives the team. "And if we can get him to spread the money evenly or even favour more the teams at the back, because that is what you would do if you were running the system rationally - the smaller teams would actually get more money than the successful teams. “A successful team gets massive television exposure while a team at the back gets five per cent of the TV exposure of the team at the front but they cannot get by on five per cent of the budget.” Rather unsurprisingly, the plan was not met with fondness from the existing F1 teams and the situation never came close to being a reality.
Most read
