Two races and two one-two finishes for Red Bull, led as usually by Max Verstappen. The 2024 Formula 1 championship begins along the lines of the previous one, with Red Bull’s dominant performance, a repetition that counters the viewership numbers especially in the American market. In a Formula 1 with a high predictability rate in terms of fight for victory, the risk is to mistake the world champions’ individual performances for the cause rather than the effect of a poor entertainment system. The partial comebacks of Aston Martin and McLaren in 2023 might divert attention from the underlying problem, which is a category where rewriting the hierarchies remains prohibitive.
The data
The beginning of the 2024 Formula 1 season sees a drop in viewership in the United States, in a market dear to Liberty Media and subject to recurring investments. In particular, during the recent Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, the data shows a 40% loss of the audience compared to the previous edition. The race taking place on Saturday instead of Sunday and the move from the first to the second ESPN channel certainly work against the visibility that the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix enjoyed, but for Liberty Media, it represents an initial alarm bell.
The hope, not too unrealistic, is that with the progress of the season, the situation may improve. However, the comparison with the spectacle offered by other motorsport categories remains, highlighted by NASCAR driver Kyle Busch, contrasting the complex experience and predictability of the current Formula 1 with the simplicity and fun of other categories. It would be right to say that the streak of victories is thanks to Max Verstappen and Red Bull, as well as the fault of their opponents, but it is also the result of an inert system, unable or unwilling to make the necessary changes to curb their sporting dominance.
The handicap of Formula 1
Due to its DNA, Formula 1 is the motorsport category that encounters the greatest obstacles in providing on-track entertainment. Resorting to external variables or alternative formats, such as NASCAR playoffs, remains foreign to the European motorsport culture that permeates the sport. Furthermore, Formula 1 suffers from the handicap of being one of the few disciplines where teams manufacture every component of the cars, from the engine to the aerodynamics, through the chassis, complicating the achievement of balance offered instead by categories with extensive standard components. All this without even resorting to artificial performance balancing, now adopted by the premier class of Endurance racing.
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!
In terms of race and championship dynamics, Formula E also stands out for unpredictability compared to the current Formula 1, with the example of a last-lap victory pass during the recent Sao Paulo E-Prix. However, in the electric championship, the work of the constructors is limited only to what is considered truly relevant to the industry. In developing powertrains, manufacturers still manage to make a difference, as evidenced by Jaguar and Porsche’s numerous victories, but the use of standard chassis and aerodynamics ensures that the best package in the hands of the strongest driver is not a guarantee of success.
Conversely, the development of the car in Formula 1 makes the combination of the best car and driver a guarantee of victory, risking nullifying chance variables and track conditions. Technological complexity is what makes this sport so fascinating when a championship fight ensues, going beyond the on-track challenges and embracing the technical and political war behind the scenes. At the same time, however, it constitutes a significant handicap for achieving a satisfying spectacle in terms of broadcasting and other parts linked to this key aspect.
Redundant calendar
Despite acknowledging the differences between Formula 1 and other categories, the motorsport landscape still offers glimpses of good management practices that favor on-track entertainment. In Formula E, for example, we witness the recovery of Nissan and Stellantis, after Jaguar and Porsche’s dominance in the previous season, despite the frozen hardware development of powertrains. This is thanks to a sporting regulation that grants manufacturers a number of test days on the track, allowing for work and a comeback. The same goes for Endurance racing. Looking beyond the BoP, the kilometers racked up on the track are among the reasons for Porsche’s recovery during the winter, capable of winning overall at Daytona and the opening round of the WEC with car 963.
None of this is possible in Formula 1. The return to free testing appears to be utopian for several reasons, but even proposals to hold more collective sessions or to grant teams a certain number of days on the track are rejected. Among the reasons provided is the expansion of the calendar, now at 24 Grand Prix races plus the Pirelli tests, depriving teams of the time and energy for additional test days. The result is a slow progress of the followers, freezing Max Verstappen and Red Bull’s superiority. The symbolic image is that of Mercedes, planning to conduct experiments during the Australian Grand Prix, hoping to solve some of their problems which otherwise are not analyzable.
Greed problem
Liberty Media continues with its expansionist ambitions, bringing the calendar to a record 24 Grand Prix races with the prospect of expanding further. NASCAR holds over 30 races a year, but with the difference of being able to leverage a technical and sporting formula that delivers excitement, without having to deal with the technological handicap faced by Formula 1. Multiplying races increases short-term revenues for the owners, but with the result of amplifying the sense of monotony of the championship, as well as hindering the work of the teams.
Another essential ingredient for the spectacle is regulatory stability. It is no coincidence that the Lewis Hamilton – Max Verstappen battle in 2021, the best championship of modern Formula 1, came in the 5th year of aerodynamic regulations, the 8th for power unit regulations. The engines themselves will change in 2026, a necessity to reduce costs and attract new manufacturers, reshuffling the cards compared to now, but potentially laying the groundwork for another dominant era. Hence, a similar problem could arise again, this time without the face of Max Verstappen and Red Bull. The complexity of Formula 1, however, means that its history is all a succession of dominance cycles, a realization that does not hide the fact that the FIA and Liberty Media have the tools to improve the situation, without altering or simplifying the nature of Formula 1.
