Explained: why Ferrari's historic F1 bonus does more harm than good for Maranello team

It’s that time of the year when Ferrari gets a reprimand from other teams and also from the British media for its annual “allowance”. And the Formula 1 paddock is up in arms once again. There are strong pressures from rival teams to ask the International Federation to remove or reduce historic bonus that increases as Formula 1 revenues grow and that goes into the pockets of the Maranello team regardless of various sporting results, for being the only team to have participated in the World Championship since its first edition in 1950 without ever missing one. This bonus was established by the Concorde Agreement, that was first signed more than three decades ago, in 1981, which essentially governs almost all the relationships between the teams, the FIA, and the Formula One Management (now under the control of Liberty Media), and which will expire in 2025.

However, let’s be clear, in reality, Mohammed Ben Sulayem and Stefano Domenicali do not “pay” for this nor did those before them. They “pay” because they know that a Formula 1 world championship would never have the charm it does without the Ferrari racing cars. In any case, it’s better not to risk not having Ferrari on the track, don’t you agree? Also, what merit is there in always participating in the F1 world championship? More precisely, is mere continuous presence sufficient merit? We’re not sure.

Therefore, Scuderia Ferrari is recognized with a special status that it has received, and also for this reason, it is the only team that has (and can exercise) the right to veto. However, the matter of the “right to veto” is different. In every human society, since the dawn of time, those who represent continuity (and wisdom) have the ability to have the last word, like the Senate in the ancient Roman Republic and so forth.

F1, Ferrari: the historic bonus does more harm than good.

However, if we were at the top of Ferrari, we would have proposed to remove this anachronistic contribution. For a whole series of reasons: the extra bonus is unsportsmanlike, not meritocratic, and above all, in the long term, not beneficial for the Prancing Horse. We mean, there are more problems than advantages to having such a supplementary emolument, let’s call it that. Let us explain: if Ferrari endorses and will continue to endorse every brainless decision that has been made in the world of Formula 1, it would be easy to think that this is also to keep that extra bonus.

Show your support for Scuderia Ferrari with official merchandise collection! Click here to enter the F1 online Store and shop securely! And also get your F1 tickets for every race with VIP hospitality and unparalleled insider access. Click here for the best offers to support Charles and Carlos from the track!

And this excuse must be removed for two reasons: for the opponents who will therefore know that they can no longer do as they please in political matters, because if the Italian team complains they can always respond: “But who are you to talk?” But above all for Ferrari itself, which could have a wider political maneuvering space in Formula 1. And we’re not going to count how many ‘bitter pills the red team has had to swallow’, from the end of on-track testing onwards, when it comes to regulations and political negotiations.

Furthermore, another factor not to be underestimated, it is well known that revolutions are not made when there is not the appropriate motivation and determination. So only if you are truly motivated will you give everything you have to achieve the most important goal. The technicians from Maranello would in this way know that they couldn’t rely on the “little treasure trove” anymore but that they have to earn everything on the track. It’s a whole different matter instead to know that, whether you win or lose, your “dinner” is still assured. And so, in the end, one might be content, that winning doesn’t matter, just participating is enough.

Yet we are convinced that Enzo Ferrari did not found his Scuderia just to race. But to race and win. And perhaps John Elkann should remember that too. Certainly he is a different kind of man, which does not mean he is necessarily better or worse, just different and probably much more attentive to the financial management of his huge empire. But at the same time, John Elkann is one who has shown that he cares about the Italian Formula 1 team, while for other brands it may be better to draw a merciful veil or not make any judgments. And you, what do you think? What should Ferrari do? Historic bonus “yes”, or historic bonus “no”?