During discussions, which centred around budget cap reductions as low as $120m, Ferrari was initially seen as the obstacle, effectively refusing to budge.
Mattia Binotto concedes that, “The budget cap reducing to 120 (million), this decision should have been made in a week’s time, [but] it took more than a week because Ferrari insisted on the fact that we need to really go deeper on the numbers, to analyse [them], to basically proactively support the discussion towards the conclusion we [reached].”
There is no doubt, though, that Ferrari could have triggered its veto, which currently permits the company to block any regulatory changes that are not safety related. Yet Binotto did not.
“So, I think [the foregoing] is the first approach we should always have [it],” the Swiss-born engineer continues, “and the veto is only something at the end [of the process] if you are completely against what’s happening.
“The second point, as I said before, it’s a matter of sense of responsibility, that the good of F1 is the good of Ferrari and the good of Ferrari is the good of F1, vice-versa. So I think it’s not a battle. We are not on opposite positions. We need to collaborate on the right solution.”
One thing is sure: Ferrari is paying and will continue to pay a heavy price for this ‘good for Ferrari, good for F1’ philosophy, for it will need to cut around by 350 heads – around a third of its F1 team workforce (excluding engines) – by 2023. Why did Binotto (seemingly) readily agree to this given the heavy human cost?
“Let’s [go] step by step,” he says. “It was a financial regulation which was agreed last year, the $175 million budget cap, which was already a huge, difficult and challenging exercise for the first three top teams, and particularly Ferrari. But that was an agreement from last year for which we were prepared.”
Then came Covid-19, which changed the entire planet and, by extension, F1. This placed massive pressure on teams, with some calling for a cut to $120m. Binotto says Ferrari could clearly not readily agree, adding that the full implications needed to be analysed. Indeed, according to an insider, Ferrari embarked on the most exhaustive cost analysis in its history to establish where savings could be made.
“It’s not simply a decision based on a number,” Binotto continues. “The first implication for us was our work, our employees in term of employment. We feel strongly that’s our social responsibility as Ferrari, and our first objective was to protect our employees.”
After what he refers to as proactive discussions, “the right compromise or solution” was found, namely “$145m with some exclusions, that has been a good compromise.”
“So, it was not an emotional final conclusion, it was a conclusion which suited the teams and certainly ourselves because we took time [to discuss it]. I cannot say that I’m fully happy with the solution because now the exercise is certainly very difficult but I’m happy considering where the discussion started.”
Leave a Reply